The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 01/16/2014 RLET 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 40 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2014, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 19, 2013 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. PL20120002382 /CPSS- 2013 -1: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89 -05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict to allow up to a maximum of 108 market rate, multi - family dwelling units through the use of 79 dwelling units from the existing density pool provided for within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay for property located at the northeast corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 9.92± acres; and furthermore recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. [Companion to Petition PUDZA- PL20120002357] [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, Principal Planner] Page 1 of 3 B. PUDZA- PL20120002357: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2005 -63, as amended, the Cirrus Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) which allows a maximum number of 108 residential dwelling units; by changing the name of the RPUD to Solstice RPUD; by revising the Master Plan; by deleting Exhibit B, the Water Management/Utility Plan; by deleting Exhibit C, the Location Map; by removing Statement of Compliance and Project Development Requirements; by adding a parking deviation; and by deleting and terminating the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. The subject property is located northeast of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 9.92 + /- acres; and by providing an effective date. [Companion to Petition PL20120002357 /CPSS- 2013 -1] [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, Principal Planner] C. PUDZ- PL20130001352: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Residential Multi- Family -12 District (RMF -12) within the Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay District to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district within the Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay District to allow up to 10,000 square feet of commercial uses for a project to be known as 7- Foodmart CPUD on property located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, north of Golden Gate Parkway in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDZ- PL20130000827: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to allow up to 75 residential dwelling units and a clubhouse for a project to be known as The Lord's Way 30 Acre RPUD. The subject property is located on The Lord's Way on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 30± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] B. PUDA- PL20120002855: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 02 -35, as amended, the Winding Cypress Planned Unit Development (PUD), by increasing the number of residential dwelling units from 2,300 to 2,854; by increasing the residential development area by 44 acres to 492 acres; by increasing the Village Center acreage by 2 acres for a total of 17 acres; by increasing the gross floor area of the Village Center District by 20,000 square feet for a total of 50,000 square feet; by increasing the acreage of lakes from 235 acres to 272 acres; by removing the 164 acres of golf area and eliminating the 18 -hole golf course; by increasing the preserve area by 44 acres to 840 acres; by increasing buffers, waterways, canal and FP &L easements from 180 acres to 219 acres; providing for addition of Winding Cypress Master Plan, Tract B to Exhibit A; providing for addition of Exhibit C, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; providing for List of Deviations; and providing an Effective Date. The subject property is located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and Collier Boulevard (CR -951) in Sections 26, 34 and 35, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 2 and 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 1,928 acres. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, Principal Planner] Page 2 of 3 C. DOA- PL20120002856: A Resolution amending Resolution No. 99 -467, as amended, (Development Order 99 -4) for the Winding Cypress Development of Regional Impact by providing for Section One, Amendments to Development Order by increasing the number of residential dwelling units from 2,300 to 2,854; by increasing the residential development area by 44 acres to 492 acres; by increasing the village center acreage by 2 acres for a total of 17 acres; by increasing the gross floor area of the Village Center District by 20,000 square feet for a total of 50,000 square feet; by increasing the acreage of lakes from 235 acres to 272 acres; by removing the 164 acres of golf area and eliminating the 18 -hole golf course; by increasing the preserve area by 44 acres to 840 acres; by increasing buffers, waterways, canal and FP &L easements from 180 acres to 219 acres; by extending the build - out date to December 31, 2020 and expiration date to December 31, 2025; and by amending the Master Plan; by providing for Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Conclusions of Law; and Section Four, Effect of Previously Issued Development Orders, Transmittal to Department of Economic Opportunity and Effective Date. The subject property is located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (US -41) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 26, 34 and 35, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 2 and 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 1,928± acres. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp Page 3 of 3 January 16, 2014 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, January 16th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. And if you think it's cold today, wait until tonight. If everybody would please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Rosen? COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Doyle? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any changes to the agenda? Anybody have? Ray, everything okay with your end? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, no changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here for our next meeting, which is February 6th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. We'll have a quorum. Approval of minutes. We had one set sent to us by -- electronically, so it's December 19th, 2013. Anybody have any changes to those minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Move to approve. Oops. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Charlette. Was that you? Okay. Seconded by Karen. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7 -0. BCC report and recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The Board of County Commissioners met last Tuesday, but there were no Page 2 of 40 land-use items outhat CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the cbubnnannreport. Tdo have one thing to discuss. First ofall, l see some ofyouhavou7-or8-boch stack of paper jnfron1ofyou. I just have this (budioadino). lvvuonodynu. That's uJ|Ioansay. Soif you ever feel like you want togopuped000,T still think that idea can beresurrected. Sozd some point, you may want to consider it, because these packages are going to get bigger, not smaller. The other thing Ivvan1edto mention io there was u project tubonxoba|ee that came through the county uoProject X, but it's commonly known amWal-Mart` although I'm told that may not beuWal-Mart, but that's what we all know bas. And it's had uNDM,u neighborhood bufbonadon meeting, ouMonday night. And l understand from staff there was between 375 and 4O0 people u1 the meeting. And usuresult, they had to move the meeting once. And it was suggested that vve look utu larger facility for the Planning Commission's meeting because, un you know, that particular meeting will bo held bnbnmokalee. I've also suggested to staff we do it as a special meeting so we're not tied to the first and third Thursday. The reason for that iave need some flexibility to get these rooms and to make sure that everybody can get out there. And the third thing I've suggested ia that *o do du1night. 7but'a when the NDM was held is at night, and the turnout was tremendous, and there was u lot of good input. Sol would like this Planning Commission to also dobotnight, os long us there's no large concern over that. The county will arrange transportation, and there will be a room -- they'll find a facility out there that's adequate for that number ofpeople. l imagine thotumout for thatmeeting — ommoetiugvmn|dho pretty large us well. lt will beu good meeting. Stan? C0MMSSl{D`ERCBORZANOWSQI: What do you mean hv arranging ionnopodudou? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the last time we've gone out there for meetings that are for special issues in humokalee, they've gotten a van or something like that. I don't remember the -- yeah, I think it was u van p/o rode in last time, wasn't it, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The county has, inthe fleet, a van that could he reserved, and vvocan coordinate that with comprehensive planning who will be, l think, presenting first with their Comp Plan amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the County Attorney's Office rode in the van with uato make sure there was nu violations of Sunshine Law. C[MMlDSIONBRC}{DZANUWSKI: That's where i was going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 know where you were going, yeah. Wo tried &»heu step ahead last time so that no one would suspect something like that, and we made sure it was as guarded as possible. So— well, anyway, it's going tobe down the road u ways, probably closer to the April, May, June, sometime in that neighborhood. But it would be good to hold the meeting out there in the evening when people could attend. And, since there is no objections, Ray, let's try to set it up that way, and we'll work out a mutual date that everybody can bethere for. ***Okay. With that, we'll move into our hearings today. Wo have three items on consent. The first oueio9l.20120002382. It's also C9SS-20l3. bvvaaUhoSolstice project down ooBaymhoro. [tbuoibo companion item with uPDDamendment. We'll do the Growth Management Plan amendment first, assuming everybody read the consent. If they have and there's no changes, ia there umotion? COMNISQTON8RH(}Mb\K: /\ motion ioapprove. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made 6v— Ms. Homiuk made u motion toapprove. |a there usecond? COMyVDSSI0NBDCIOlZANOWSBJ: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded bvStan. All in favor, signify 6v saying aye. C0MMI8S|ONERCf1RZAN[)VV8KI: Aye. Page 3 of 40 January 16, 2014 COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Abstains.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Motion -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was not present for that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Six -0 with one abstention because she wasn't present. Next one is PUDA- PL20120002357, and it's the PUD section of the Solstice project, which used to be called Cirrus Pointe Bayshore. Is there a motion on that particular one? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak made the motion. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan seconded it. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Abstains.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one abstention. So it would be 6 -0 with one abstaining. Is that correct, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last consent item is the 7 -Food Mart CPUD. It's on PUDZ- PL20130001352. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I would have to abstain because I wasn't here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you weren't here. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I would have to abstain as well. I wasn't here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. So I will make a motion that we approve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. You were here for this one. I'm glad. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was here for this one. I've been through it, and everything seems fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Abstains.) Page 4 of 40 January 16, 2014 CO@NMlS8[ONBRI]OYIE: COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4-O" with three abstentions because they were not here, amdwas January 2nd, and some u[rm weren't around. So with that we have two advertised public hearings today. Actually, we have three; one is a companion item, and they both are together, which would be the second one, Winding Cypress. ***The first one upia The Lords Way. IfsPDl]Z'9L20l300OO827. All those wiohiug1oparticipate iu this item, please rise tohe sworn iu|m the court reporter. (The speakers were duly anmm and indicated hmthe affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures by the Planning Commission? Anybody? l had discussion —8pahead. COMMISSIONER f{QM|Al{: I spoke toMr. Yuvuuovich. COMMISSDONERDOyL0: I spoke with Bob MuUeru. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I spoke with both, Bob Mulhere and Rich Yovanovich, so -- COMMISSIONER ROSEN: And l had u conversation with Mr. Yovunovich. CUMM%SSl0\ERCHRZANOWSK]: And lopoke with Bob and with staff. C[lADlyNAN STRAIN: (lkuv. Okay. Bob, it's all yours. MR.MK}LHOERJB: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Bob MoUbore with Hole Mon1euboce this morning uo behalf of the applicant. With noe shortly will he the applicant, David Torres. Here with noc physically at the moment is Rich Yovuuovich` who's the attorney for the project, and Chris Hagan, who's the civil engineer. I've put ou the visualizer the staff-prepared location map and zoning map. The property ia currently zooedug. It's on the east side of Collier Boulevard; will be accessed by The Lords or through The Lords way. This im really u relatively simple request. It's uuf{PUI}, single-use residential. This property is located -- is designated on the Future Land Use Map as urban residential fringe. /\o such, the base density io limited tol. 5 units per acre. That density can be increased through the transfer of development rights from sending lands, rural fringe mixed-use district sending lands, up to a maximum of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Soif you transfer bo the necessary number of transferable development rights, you can achieve a maximum density of 2.5 units per acre. That's what nn propose 0udohere. We have the transferable development rights in hand and, therefore, we would be requesting on the 3O acres u total density of75units. You know, that's aauounnur/. We have our district pennb. We've got u preserve on there that complies with the district's pen-nits and requirements, huning gone through that process. Again, a relatively si |e,ldhbnk`andmbaiubtforwmduppUuuton.ynu—Ikoovvdbereareoomc questions. Obviously, we've met with some of you and talked to others of you, and I know there are some questions, uo I'll defer to those questions u1 this point intime. And ifl can't answer them, Rich cuuooneop, or Chris Hagan, if it's civil engineering related. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oueadcmu? 8bm? C0MMlSS[ONBKCH}ZAN[)WDB3: I'djust like to add tong/ disclosures I did have Chris send oeu copy o[ the Water Munu8ementl}iebio1PonndLhcd|baxeuooUhorqueodona. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Goahead. COMMISSIONER BOMD\K: ldo. On the deviation for the drainage easement width, the otoxn/ drainage pipes less than 24 inches bmdiameter. MA. MULlIERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER |I[)MLAK: 'What would ho the diameter? MD{. MULHERE: It's not -- well, maybe I will let Chris answer. I'll try to answer it first, though. The request ia for areduced width for thom— those easements. Asuresult of asking for a reduced width, the diameter ia also reduced. So thafs, you know -- and we've confinned that with staff, and they've granted that deviation before. Page 5 of 40 January 16, 2014 I know that there's other questions on it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind putting the master plan on the overhead since -- we'll be able to look at that while we're talking about it. MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally what happens, those easements run between lots and that's -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and then the pipes are -- as long as they're not large, they can still use a narrower easement to get the pipes in and out if they have to go in and maintain them or replace them. COMIVIISSIONER HOMIAK: But will they be 12 inches, or is it what's on this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they won't exceed 24 inches. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- drainage master plan? MR. MULHERE: So anything that would be in a 10 -foot easement will be 24 inches or less. Anything that would be in a larger easement could be a larger drainage pipe. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And that is what is on the drainage master plan? MR. MUL14ERE: I'm going to let -- MR. HAGAN: Good morning. For the record, Chris Hagan. The drainage plan, the side -yard drainage easements that we're referring to, we do have some yard drains, et cetera, that are going to go down lot lines. The proposal is that the -- all the side -yard pipes that are 24 inches or less would be accommodated in a 10 -foot drainage easement. When we have, or if we have -- as we get into the final detailed construction drawings, if we have -- let's say a 30 -inch pipe is required down one of these, then we would go to a larger easement, and that would all be handled during the PPL process. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh. So will there be any that would be 12 inches, or they're all going to be greater than? MR. HAGAN: Right now the drawings are preliminary, and they haven't been reviewed by staff, and we haven't got all of our district permits for the proposed zoning. But, generally, they're going to be 12- to 18 -inch, but there will be some that will exceed the 24 -inch at this time. I'm looking to see if I can redesign that so they won't. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Isn't the county minimum 15 -inch? MR. HAGAN: Not for side -yard drainage. It's 15 -inch for pipes under the right -of -way that are RCP. We're looking at using some HDPE for yard drains. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Okay. Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I forgot to also mention as part of my brief presentation, which was too brief since I forgot to mention it, there was one staff stipulation that I did want to let you know up front we don't concur with, and that is the pedestrian interconnection, but we can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't forget that. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chrzanowski; you had a question? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, it was answered. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If anybody else doesn't have one, then I'll ask a few. Bob, that commitment you just brought up was one of my first questions. It's on Page 15 of the staff report. What is the conditions in the surrounding property line? On the east side you're going to have a berm and wall, and on the west side you're going to have a landscape buffer with a wall? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the south, you're going to have a wetland preserve or a preserve? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And on the north you're probably going to have some decorative gate or wall along the roadway and then opening on your driveway. MR. MULHERE: And that would be where a pedestrian would exit. Page 6 of 40 January 16, 2014 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. 8o] don't really see the need for that staff commitment, because if anybody's going to want 0ugoiu and out of this project, they're not going to hike through the berms and walls. to want tngu out the front road, uudit'snotthutkxnrora — deenofu project. So from that perspective, K don't really see the need for that Plus, you're going to be up alongside the swamp buggy grounds, which means your security — I'dhc concerned ifl was the developer of that property. So, anyway, I imagine you — like you said, you weren't in favor ofit. l don't think it's necessary iu this particular project, aoI would make u000mmendudon` when veget to it, that that recommendation not be— not ho kept in the fDI>. Page lo[ the document, 9Ul)document. &0}. MlDLf8ERJB: Yes, sir. C14AIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit A. There's noreason toberedundant with B3 and 4 and 7. Those are all requirements that are part ofthe code. They're going tobo allowed un part of the uses on the property, uo let's just remove that redundant language. MR. MULBEB]B: Yep, remove them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (]u the next page, which io Page 2, under the preserve tract, you have some language there that you and l spoke about. You were just basically going to strike 2A and Q;ia that — MR. MOJLBUB}OE: Correct, just leaving the introductory paragraph iuplace. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the Development Standards Table, which is Exhibit B, we talked -- when I talked to you about an external property line setback, because you didn't have one -- and, of course, this will dovetail into the discussion on how you laid your lots out utilizing the maintenance easement and the landscape buffer easement, which I think we agreed d wasn't a good practice, and you've come with u resolution to that — but what — you were going 0n add u property line setback, u perimeter line —aperimeter boundary setback. I mean — MR. MLLBUBlQE: Yes. Wo would propose to add n statement Lo Exhibit B which sets out the development standards that would read, "A perimeter PUD setback shall be, at a minimum, equal to the width oF the required perimeter landscape buffer. And then, ua you indicated, p/ would remove or not include the perimeter landscape buffer octhe lake maintenance easement within the individual platted lots. Those would bc separate tracts. And then, iu order not (o lose the necessary development area for each lot, vvo would add ufootnoto tu the table that would read —& would be Footnote 6or whatever — the number we can work k out. But d would read, "Rear yards adjacent to the lake's maintenance easement or tract madjacent touperimeter landscape buffer shall not be subject to the accessory structure audbuck." That allows umto also use that five feet that we've lost by moving the landscape -- perimeter landscape buffers or setbacks and also the lake nouin\enouoe euyecnoni out of individual lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then what that does for the buyer iad keeps them and their title clear in regards to easements overriding their property that aren't in their control. Like maintenance easement, for example, can't be used for anything. 8oto put don someone's property iskbidofulittle misleading. Landscape buffer easement's not supposed 0obc used for anything. Then put donsomeone's property, d might end op being their backyard. In essence, though, your setbacks will be the width of the landscape buffer easement on the back of all the lots around the property, and d would bo2O feet fi-nrn the water's edge around all the — and the lake in the central part o[ the property. Sowe still have setbacks, but they're created bv easements iu this case. MR. MJLllBlOE: Yeah, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think from o— clarity Sn the buyer, that's probably u really good move, because otherwise you're going to have someone's title changed with every one ofthese euacrneo1o. That gets us through the propei ty line setback and the discussion of the layout of the lots. You did have u visual un the lots. You wanted to change -- you were going to have to change that exhibit, so by next _ Page 7 of 40 January 16, 2014 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By consent on this particular one, because of all the changes, we'll probably have to have a consent on it. We'll do that by vote if the rest feel -- MR. MULHERE: We could do that. I'm sorry. We could do that. And I did want to -- I've, basically, cleaned up that exhibit, which is a typical lot layout exhibit. And let me just point out we've removed the reference to five foot of the 20 -foot lake maintenance easement being within the lot itself. And so this now is the lot line. And then you have a rear -yard setback, within which you could have an accessory structure, but the lake maintenance easement is entirely outside of the lot. And, of course, this depicts the setback from preserve. So -- did you need to say something, Chris? MR. HAGAN: No. MR. MULHERE: So we'll -- you know, we can bring those back. Since there's going to be some other changes, I understand you may want us to come back for consent, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. On that same exhibit, your development standards table, Bob, you have a footnote there, No. 1, and it says, "Lots fronting on two streets shall provide a front -yard setback along the street on which the entrance is located," and that -- as we discussed, that seemed a bit confusing because a lot of the entrances to homes nowadays are on the sides. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you were going to clean that up with a suggestion. Did you have anything? MR. MULHERE: I did. I went and looked into other PUDs that have this deviation -- it's not really • deviation. It's a setback relaxation. What I suggest is that it reads, lots fronting on two streets shall provide • front yard -- a full front yard setback along the shorter street and a minimum -- excuse me -- yes, along the shorter street, and a minimum I0 -foot setback along the other street frontage. So it's -- you're getting relaxation on the longer. There's only a couple of lots that have this condition where they're corner lots. And if I put the master plan up, I'll point that out to you. There will only be a couple of lots here and here that actually have a corner. So the longer street will have the reduced setback. The shorter street will have the full setback, and that has been applied in many other circumstances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any problems? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me go on to the next one then. It's on the master plan -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which would be Page 5. And I mentioned to you that your references to footnote -- or Deviation 5 and 4 need to be switched -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in your note below, and you did do that. MR. MULHERE: Yes. We transposed those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the next exhibit, which is your typical road section, you have a 5 -foot CUE. What is -- why would we want -- I don't think the county needs a CUE on the side of the road. Well, you have them within the right -of -way. Usually there's a 10 -foot UE. Is that what you were intending, or what was the intention of that -- so you've got a 4 -foot CUE, and then the -- that's a different plan than you've given us. MR. MULHERE: Yes, we've -- well, based on your comments -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- we went and looked at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And I believe this does properly reflect the requirements. The 4 -foot CUE is only required if the width of the right -of -way is less than 50 feet. If it's 50 feet or greater, that's not required, and that's reflected on the footnote there. So that is -- to answer your question, why is it a county utility easement? The county does require Page 8 of 40 that extra width if the is less than 5@feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: [o you know why? MR.BAGAN: Yes. Yes, sir. The reason being iai[ you have to maintain that water main and you dig it up, the angle of repose on the soil would extend into that, and that's basically what ifs there for. I've discussed this with the county utilities department, and they were comfortable as long as they had the 5-fuot minimum that's shown on the bottom. They want to just be able to make sure that if they dig that line up, they're not onto somebody's private property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your water main's going tobe one foot inside the right-of-way underneath the sidewalk? MR.BAGy\N: That's correct. And they've found that acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, theyre here, and I'm sure when they -- if they had anything -- if they objected, they'd be running up to thnmi|ehvumv,00 — thank you. MS.GUND[/\CB: Ihuta the cue. got hz run uyhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying tn see what we haven't touched yet, Bob. yWR.yWUULBERB: Page 9,lthink. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That Exhibit E, which ison Page 9, that's correct. l think the issue with the pipe has been resolved. I talked io the county engineer, and that seems toho worked out. So we're ou the perimeter wall and fence height. There's two sections to the code that require a 6'fbot fence, and one of them iau Type Cbuffer, aoI suggested that you include that iu your Deviation No. 3 uua reference 4.06.02C3. MR.MlNLIOBIDE: Correct. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Also, you're going tobo between two and five feet iu height. At five feet high you've got a slope that io going tohe excessive. How are you going to get that within the 2O-footor whatever you're going 0o allow for your landscape buffer? MR.IlAGAN: What our intention is is on the north and on the east sides, because of the roadway work that's being done there, we don't have quite as large a differential exterior slope; however, on the west side wcdo. We're looking at probably around four feet based on the -- four vertical feet which, at dhroe-to-ono,ia going tohu|2tec{. So you're right, � going v�' to exceed that. Our objective imm put the wall onthe top of the perimeter beirn, and we'll designate that area from the wall out as part of the -- well, would be the landscape buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't — Ray, threo-to'une,dowe need —inthat a deviation, oriuthat currently allowed? l mean, does b take just special plantings? MS. GDNDIACH: Three-to-one is currently allowed. CBAUlV1AN3TRAIN: Okay. Then tbufmgood. MUl.BAGAN: To add ho that, Commissioner, because o{ the Water K4uuugementDiutrio/o requirements, we would bolooking at planting that with the native grasses, because they don't want to have sod or anything else that would bo potential pollution source. So we're looking at— and that's the way the district's now pcnod1in& those things. CBARUV4AN3TKAJN: Okay. While you're there — MR. RA(AN: Yea. CHAlRJvIANS7ibANN: — what's your control elevation of your lake? K4R.}lAG/\N: I want to say it's eight and a half, but I haven't looked at the calcs in about a week and u half, oo let noedouble check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And while you're doing that, do you know what the PBMbA elevation is, minimum floor? M8.|{AG/UN: l have all that here. Just usecond. Mp control elevation ia87, and our FBM�\ elevation is 113. All of those are NA\/D. CIDADlVYANSTDAJN: So you've got about a thiee-foot difference in elevation between where your control's going to be. Finjust thinking of your 20-foot maintenance easement. Basically, if you'll use that -- I mean, it's upto you guys. |[ you use that zero rear lot, people opening their screen doors are going &o drop off onto u sloped area because there's not going tohespace for any flat area. You're going tohc basically using it Page 9 of 40 January 16, 2014 all up. So I imagine that you'll be either addressing that with retaining walls or putting the doors on the side or something like that. MR. 14AGAN: We will, when we get to building permit stage, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you'll have to. It's just not something we have to write in, but I was just trying to calculate; I hadn't seen one laid out quite like this before, so I was trying to figure out how you were going to make it all work. Okay. Thank you. And, Bob, when we get -- the next one is Exhibit F. It's on Page 10, Transportation Requirement C. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we could shorten that paragraph to one simple sentence. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did you come up with one? MR. MULHERE: You know, I did. I think I probably have it on my phone, but we're coming back for consent. It -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. MULHERE: It's a simple sentence. It basically says if the sidewalks haven't already been, you know, installed, then they will be prior to CO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's -- you're required to have a six - inch - thick, five -foot sidewalk installed prior to the -- on the south side of Lords Way prior to the first plat or SDP. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all there is to it, instead of the six lines in text. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I'm sure I have that draft language somewhere here, but I promise I'll bring it back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine. I know we talked about it. The ownership. Did you bring a new covenant of unified control? MR. MULHERE: We did not, but we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By consent? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULIIERE: That condition, you said at final plat or SDP; it's at first CO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First CO, you're right. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. I had a couple -- one issue I wanted to make sure we've cleared up. The project currently dispenses water when --in it's natural state on three sides. I think the road to the north probably stops it. So you're going to come back in and focus all the water flow through the preserve on the south? MR. HAGAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a property directly to the south of that preserve not owned by you -all. How are we assured that that developer, by moving all of the outfall from that project, is not going to see a larger quantity of water hitting his project than he would have expected otherwise? MR. HAGAN: We're in one of the areas that has a restricted discharge capacity, and the restricted discharge capacity that's permitted through the county and through the district is less than the current off -site discharge. So just the fact that we're developing means we're going to reduce. The fact that we're concentrating that discharge now instead of having it in multiple places is we're concentrating it into a wetland at the direction of the Water Management District during their permitting. There are adjoining swales that run the discharge all the way down underneath Rattlesnake Hammock Road extension and out Haldeman (sic) Creek, yep. So I guess the easy answer is is the discharge is being minimized to meet the code, and it's being directed as per the district, and there's really not much else we can do. Our floodplain calculations show that we're not increasing regional flooding issues by -- through those other calculations, so I don't know how else I can address that. Page 10 of 40 =MVITVARIKIM CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And Ijust wanted to -- I had made a note of it. I talked to Bob. I've also talked to the county engineer to make sure, in his hydrology analysis, it was consistent, and he said that it's fine with him. I just wanted to make sure it was clear for the record. It's a different way of directing the flow on that property, and I wanted to make sure, for the public's need, there wasn't any issues. Those are all the questions I have. Are there any others from anybody? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just -- that's Henderson Creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Henderson Creek. MR. 14AGAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CURZANOWSKI: I always get those two confused, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Bob, we'll go to staff and then any speakers. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, did you want to do a staff report? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. Staff has recommended approval to the one stipulation. And I just want to double-check with our team or specialists to make sure that nobody wants to respond to any of the comments that were brought up today. (No response.) MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. The response to that is no. And we are recommending approval, as this petition is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. If you have any questions, it would be our pleasure to answer them this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any public speakers or is anybody wishing to speak on this item? (No response.) C14ARMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll -- Bob, did you want to wrap up, or you're done? MR. MULHERE: No, we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They are coming back for consent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. On this particular one, I'd like to ask the Planning Commission to ask that it come back on consent. We need to do that by motion. Does someone want to move for that? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CFIRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion -- opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not. So 7-0. This will come back on consent. The items for consent Page 11 of 40 January 16, 2014 will include, first of all, the -- here's the notes that I have. I don't see the necessary need for the staff recommendation. On this small of a project, it doesn't seem necessary; that the series of issues that Bob and I went through for strikethroughs will be incorporated into the consent. There will be a property line setback noted, and it will be equal to the landscape buffer widths. The Footnote I will be changed to be a full front -yard setback along the shorter street frontage. There will be new exhibit revisions for the master plan, correcting -- which they showed us today, correcting the deviations. There will be a new -- two new exhibits, one for the lots and one's for the road right -of -way, and that's the -- oh, they're going to re- language that transportation issue involving the sidewalk. Yes. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I just -- Rich just asked me to make sure for the record that Transportation Stipulations B, C, the one that you were just referring is to shorten that one, but in both cases -- and we've already run this by staff, and they have no problem with it -- Reed Jarvi -- both of those will be triggered at CO. I think presently it says -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I remember that discussion, yes. And if Reed disagrees with it, he can just run on up. MR. MULHERE: He was okay with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Otherwise, we're good to go. MR. N ULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those changes will be made, so I'd like to make sure that all that information is part of anybody's motion. Is there a motion by someone on the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I'd make a motion for approval of Petition PUDZ- PL201300000827, the Lords Way, with stipulations as stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIlZMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Motion carries 7 -0. Thank you all. Now we will move into our next one. ** *The next -- there are two petitions involving the same project coming up. Both petitions will be discussed and heard simultaneously, but they'll be voted on separately. This is because it's the development of regional impact, a DRI, and it's, as well, a local PUD planned unit development. The two agenda items are PUDA- PL20120002855, the Winding Cypress Planned Unit Development, and the DOA, PL20120002856. That's the Winding Cypress development of regional impact. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. Any members of the public that are going to speak on this item, please rise to be sworn in at this time. Page 12 of 40 (?he speakers were duly sworn and indicated iu the uDfinoodve] CBAUU\4AN8IRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Let's stoi tvvhh Chudrtte. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. Conversations with staff, and l attempted to make u site visit. CBLAORMMNSTR/\IN: Okay. You attempted? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. { got pretty close but not completely onto the properties. CHAURIvLAN STRAIN: Oh. Was there — COMMISSIONER ROMAN: There was a gate. l couldn't quite figure out how {onavigate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tell them that you're m member of the Planning Commission there to took u1 the property, and they should have let you through. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But l didn't see too many people where T was, oo- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (]kov. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thanks. C()MMlSSl{NBRDOYLB: I had u discussion with Richard as well, Mr. `/ovauuvioh. COMMISSIONER HO2WUAK: l spoke to Mr. l/ovuooviob. C14AJIUv4*N8TRADN: And l spoke \u Mr. `/ovunoviobuawell. COMMISSIONER EBER[: No. C(}MMISSl(D>OERllDSBN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have noreouae myself on this particular petition due to various conflicts, and I'm filling out Form 813 to turn into the court reporter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COM\0iS8IONERC8QZANQVVSKI: And [ had discussions with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sounds good. Nothing else. Richard, it's all yours. NLR.1/0«//\N(}\/|CH: Good morning. For the record, Rich ?6/vunovicboo behalf of the petitioner and applicant. With mn today to answer any questions that I can't answer are Mike Humikin d with 9u|te, who is the contract purchaser for the property; Anita Jenkins with J.R. Evans Engineering, the professional planner on this project; }oahBvano,p/NzJ.Fl. Evans Engineering, who iu the engineer; 8huneJobnoouvvdh PusmureUu& Associates to answer any environmental questions that may come up; and Ron Talone with David Plummer & Associates to answer any transportation-related questions that may come up. {bcoitate to ask this question, but I think [ need to. Mr. Cbubmmo, are ve— are you-all also sitting as the BAC for this particular petition? CHAIR-MAN STRAIN: We are. I'm in disagreement with it, but p/ are sitting uo the {AC. MR.Y(]\/ANCu/QCH: |'no{ wanted io make sure, if that's what's happening. } put upoo the aerial both the location and surrounding zoning maps d/ufs already in your packet to identify where the property iolocated. Ao you can see, the property has frontage oo both 95| and also on\].S.4|. The property iu approximately |,928 acres in size. And l'ust want &o make k clear — and it's really related to the EAC question I brought up -- is this is an existing PUD that, as you can see from this document right here, is substantially developed with the Verona Walk project. And what we're simply what was originally intended for this portion of the project —aud|1|ahow you the master plan ioa minute —was going tubou residential golf course development. And what we're simply here today todoie eliminate the golf course and basically add j84units. And indoing so, somehow } believe we are being treated ouifwe are a brand new project thatiunonnobov/ impacting over 500 acres of native vegetation and, therefore, you-all are sitting, I think for the first time, in your capacity uo the B}\C— second time. C11A_HUV1AN STRAIN: ldbbdk, it's the second time. MR. Y[V/\N(}\/kCF|: Second time, okay. So I will put up the new master plan, but Ijust want to briefly go over the history of this project. First of all, we're in the urban residential fringe, which allows us a maximum density of 1.5 units per acre unless we take advantage of the 7DR program, which we're not. The original DIQ and P[D]was Page 13 of 40 January 16, 2014 approved in December of 1999 at 2,892 units with 45 holes of golf. It was amended in 2002 to go down to 18 holes of golf and reduce the density to 2,300 with the ability to convert some of the units to, I think it was, multifamily so you can increase to 2,395. In January of 2006, I think it was confirmed that it would be 2,300 units and 18 holes of golf What we're here today to do is basically reduce -- I'll take you through. We are creating a -- this is Tract A in the PUD, obviously, which is where Verona Walk currently exists, and this is Tract B, and this is the new proposed master plan. If I need to, I can put the old master plan up. CHAIlZMAN STRAIN: You're not changing anything in the existing Verona Tract A? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not -- you're ahead of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not affecting that? Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We are not touching anything in Tract A other than some of the general provisions that deal with recitations -- or cites to the LDC. We are not touching the development standards, the density, the amount of square footage that's associated with that village center. We are not touching anything with regard to Tract A at all. So I just want to make sure that that's very clear. What we're simply doing for Tract B is we are removing what was the former 18 holes of golf, we're actually increasing the preserves overall for the project by 44 acres from 796 acres to 840 acres. And that's basically associated with the removal of a roadway that used to bisect the preserve and golf course going away. We're required 450 acres of native vegetation for this project, but we're providing 840. So we're 390 acres to the good as far as the required native preservation (sic) preserves. We're increasing the buffers by 39 acres. I mentioned we're changing the density from 2,300 to 2,854, which is still less than what was originally approved for the project in 1999, which was 2,892 units. We're adding a second village center -- which is right here -- for the project so that Verona Walk keeps their village center and this project would have its own village center. We're generally updating the LDC references to bring them more current with the way we currently refer to LDC sections. I want to briefly address access. And I know at one time -- and access will be off of -- I've got to get myself reoriented here -- Collier Boulevard. There will be access off of Collier Boulevard. At one time there was a consideration of having, basically, a gatehouse that would be shared between Tract A and Tract B, and then Tract A would have another -- their currently existing secondary access gate, and then this project would have access as well. That's no longer the plan. The plan is to go ahead and move the access gate back into this -- I'm going to go general area. Ain I right, Mike? MR. HUNIKAN: That's right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So there will no longer be a shared access gate between the two projects. It will basically remain as it currently is. The secondary access for Verona Walk will remain their current access, so there will not be any costs associated with a second gate for both projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the documents, is that gate location specifically discussed? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not part of the documents, but it was mentioned during part of their presentation about how the project would work, and I think that there was some concern from residents of Verona Walk about having a separate second gate that they would have to share in the cost of -- the cost of CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the gate will be independent of Tract A? MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be independent of Tract A, and it will serve Tract B. What we've essentially done is the original PUD had two separate development standard tables. You had one for Tract A, and then you had one for Tract B, which was going to be the residential golf community. We've basically eliminated the second development standards table for the golf course community, and now the same development standards table will apply throughout the entire project. I already touched on the changes regarding the preserve. I honestly don't think we qualify to go through the EAC hearing, but I know we're going to go through that hearing process anyway. But I think what we're essentially doing is we're not impacting anymore preserves with this basic amendment to the Page 14 of 40 UP= RIVANKIMA PU]. We're actually increasing the number ofpreserves. So I'm not sure that vvo meet the criteria. But understand that that decision's been made, and you'll he ohtbxz in both capacities. I just note that for future projects. lt seems unnecessary to have u9DD amendment where the impacts hothe environment were yoeviouo|vconuidereddorbngdzuoriginal approval, but we are where we are. C14A0MANSTRAIN: To get to the 45O-acre threshold that was required for your preserves, you would have had to disturb or modify 346 acres of the preserve you previously dedicated, which was 796. Have you, in this process, disturbed 346 acres ofpreserve? Modified? Changed? MR. YOV/\NOVlCH[: Well, we've actually — we've increased preserves. CffALRIW}\N STRAIN: |knovv. And I— MR. : And I could show you, if you would like, what this project uotuaJiydoes— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ,/em. MD. : — roeardipgUhepceunnea. CBLADUV[AN STRAIN: That would behelpful. MR. Bear with me. I've got things to show you onthe signs that the chairman's brought out. I want tn make sure Ihave the right exhibit. Thank you, Shane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the sign that's |2-und-o-hu|F sheets of plywood large? MR. YO\AN0V|CB: That was kind of hurtful. But if you could see the green iu what was fon-nerly impacted area that is now becoming preserve, and the -- I think thats gold or a yellowish is what was fonnerly preserve that's now being developed. 8o what you can see ix there's u significant positive increase iodbupreoorveuzeutbut'oocounrin8 because of the reconfiguration of the preserves and the elimination of the golf course. And this was the road and development areas that are being eliminated that were formerly bisecting or cutting off the preserve area. So as you can see, there's a significant positive impact environmentally by this change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you finish with your part of the presentation, did you bring your environmental person here? MR.Yl)\/AN(yVDC{I: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ' MR.\,[V/0NOVICH[: We've also coordinated with Marco Island Utilities, and I have an exhibit to show you regarding Marco Island Utilities. They have lands that they own out east that could someday become a -- basically a wellfield, and they have requested that we provide them an interconnect or basically the ability to have a raw water line go through our property, and that ia — right here is the raw water Uan. This iauu exhibit 0o show you that their vmUfie|do are pretty far out east, and that's the property that they own. So they have asked us to work with them to allow them to have a raw water line through our project, which nehave. Thatmayhappon.b may never happen through our preserve. We just don't know. 8uttheyhavo the ability because they asked ueto. We've also agreed to eliminate service stations c« gas ui the village center on Tract D.Sowe've agreed to limit oc eliminate gas station ou the village center for Tract l0. Marco Island Utilities has been involved in reviewing this process for the EDP process through the South Florida Water Management District, on they have been very involved and kept upto date as to what we're doing and why we're doing it. Wedu have some — let oze quickly jump 10 what we're doing on the [Xll and then I'll take you through the PUD changes, and then we'll go through the DRI changes, if that works okay, Mr. Chainnan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, tha[mfine. MR. YOYAQOV|CH: Au far ua the UBJ goes, we're making the xmue changes tothe density, the preserves, and everything I just noted tothe DRI development order. We're also changingthe build-out date, which will now become December 3|,202O. We're changing the expiration date, which will now become December 3|`2025. And I'll go through some changes that we're making based upon conversations we've had with the Page 15 of 40 January 16, 2014 chairman and others. The RPC is recommending approval to the changes to the DRI development order, and so is your staff. Your staff is also making -- recommending approval to the PUD that we're requesting, and that includes both planning, transportation, and environmental staff. I do want to take you through -- we did meet with residents of the Falling Waters project, which is to our west. I think I got that right, to the west. And one of their concerns was their PUD is -- we have basically a 10 -foot buffer identified on the project, and it's -- although it says 10 -foot buffer, it's really not a 10 -foot buffer. So we went out on site, and we showed them, basically, how it really works as far as -- because there's some existing easements out there that really push the 10 -foot buffer further back. And I'll put a -- you have to zoom in. And I've also got some photos that I can show you when we met on site. As you can see, the Falling Waters project is over here. Is my finger showing up? Right here. And this is actually their parking structures, and behind their parking structure is the actual residential multifamily building that they have. They have their -- they have their landscape buffer here, and then you have -- this is between, and then they have the road, and there's another landscape buffer, then there's the creek. And the county has a hundred - foot -wide easement for the creek. So the distance between their buildings and our buildings is -- Josh, how far is that? I can't do math in my head, but it's pretty significant. It's not the 10 feet that they originally thought we were going to have on our property. Here's our property line. We have a buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you move that screen over so we can see it. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Does that work? Okay. So you have -- off the creek, here's our property line. Here would be a tract line. We have another buffering here, 22 -feet wide. Here's our tract line where that 10 feet is actually measured from. So when we sat down with the residents of Falling Waters, and they saw how it really lays out with the existing easements that exist, where the tract line is going to be, where that 10 feet is measured from, I think they were more comfortable. And one of their concerns was, you know, what were we going to be doing in, basically, this area that's on our property line. So we took some photographs of the existing conditions. And we're on the Falling Waters property looking across the creek and you see all that native vegetation, which will -- basically, that's in the county's easement. So that native vegetation's going to remain unless the county someday comes and wipes out that native vegetation. So we just have some more photos kind of showing those conditions that exist. And this is where we were taking the photographs, and this is their buffer on the other side of their road. Again, kind of showing you existing conditions, how they have their parking structures here. Is my finger showing up? My parking structure here, and then they're -- back in here is where they have their actual buildings. And, again, other picture of, you know, the existing native vegetation that, again, is within the county's easement. I know they had a concern about would they actually see what was being developed on our property from their second -floor residences. And I think with the existing native vegetation that's there and the distance that we're back, I hope we've convinced them or confirmed to them that we will not be visually intrusive to their project as it currently exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, while we're -- before we get past this subject, one of the pictures you just showed on their side of the canal, that one, that's not native. So are you saying that the adjacent property on the other side will not be treated in the same manner? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't know how they -- Page 16 of 40 MR. What I'm showing you is that's not cm our property. CHLAIBJV[AN8TR\TN: l know disn't, but it's part of—d, you put the other diagrain back up, b looks like d was part of the county's maintenance easement, the same part of the county's maintenance easement that you have on your side of the creek. And if they could go in on their side of the creek and clear the county easement, why wouldn't you do the same thing? And if you did` then you wouldn't have the uubuod vegetation you're now trying to say is going to be there. So, basically, you're agreeing that you will not disturb any of that natural vegetation. YWR.\rOVANQV}CH: We're not going togomz— it's off site of our property. It's not within our legal boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's outside o[ their property, too, apparently, by this thing, but they've cleared it. MR. Y(}l/ANO\7lC}l: Well, yrujua telling you we've committed that we're not going in there and clearing the county's native vegetation around the county's easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll make sure — we'll write that down. And also you kept saying a\Q-fbot buffer. You meant ul0-fbotsetback? Because this shows u 22-foot buffer. MR. Y[VANOVICD: The l0-fbot setback, when we were referring ill the neighborhood information meeting, was from the tract boundary. We told them there was al0-fbot setback from the tract boundary, and that's what brought them a concern. So we showed them how the tract boundary actually works, that |O-fbotsetback, at the ND\4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (lkuv. But your location ofu Type A buffer — and b calls h out a122feet. Now, Kay, iau Type /\—1 don't have that document in front ofme. Dsu Type /122feet? J thought b was smaller than that. MB.DESE[BM: For the record, Kay Deuclmn.bio smaller than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now you're volunteering u22-fbot Type /\ buffer, and if you gn to your master plan, {think it showed u l5 -foot buffer io that area. But now that you've produced this plan, all that's going to change. You're really going to have u32'fbot minimum setback from the county's canal easement, right? MDl.YOl7ANO\/lCl]: Along the portion of the project that'ou|onAf{cndcromuCrcckunddho Falling Waters, that io absolutely correct. We wiUbebuck — dhere*U|ho — ifyonwmnt to measure 5nmthe property line, our property line, there will be a 32-foot setback in place. Twenty-two feet of it will be buffer; |O-fbutofd will heu setback on the tract boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Somehow dzoVs got \o get articulated, because that's not the way your documents are consistently portraying it. MUR.\,(]\/AN(}\/0Cff: [)km/. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8o we'll have to figure that out as we goon. But I've made note ofd all, oo we'll see what happens. And you can continue. I'm sorry. l wanted to catch this while vewere right onit. MR. YOlANOVlCD: Okay. Surely my exhibit's here. Regarding the sign, the small sign that we had asked for— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the sign that's triple what d was before; yeah, that's small. MR. ,/[)\/ANO\/IC}{:lhope you like that l set you up for these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well — MR. : i need to pan out. There are going <ohe three signs utthe project entrance, and | think when vvo were doing the math we got confused as to what counted towards the calculation of the sign and what did not count toward the calculation of the sign. 8o what pe need iu— these are going tohe the three project onban000ignnu1th000trunoo.Weuzu further back from the road than the current Verona Walk project. So, basically, this sign, instead ofthe existing 100 square feet, would be 125 square feet, and then these two are right around 80; 1 rounded up. SoI asked for, basically no sign would be larger than 125 square feet, and the total of those signs Page 17 of 40 January 16, 2014 would be 300 square feet. And I think -- I hope that's better than the way it was originally written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not good enough. Based on that, then, without referencing the quantity of signs that are going to be placed, you could take it all and collate it all into one massive 300 - square -foot sign. MR. YOVANOVICH: And no -- the way -- when we get to that page -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to change that? MR. YOVANOVICH: It says "no sign area may exceed 125 square feet" -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- "with a total of 300," okay. So that's the change we'll make when we get to that page. But you're -- that was not our intent, and I was just showing you, in context of what we really need as the largest sign, was 125 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that works. It was just -- plain reading of it would allow you to do a sign of 400 square feet, and that seemed a little excessive, since it's 12 -and -a -half sheets of plywood, and three times bigger than my office, or four times. MR. YOVANOVICH: Four times is what you told me. It was very graphic the way you described it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what it was intended to do. MR. YOVANOVICH: So if I can walk you through some of the changes to the PUD to address comments that were brought up in the various discussions and meetings, I think that would be beneficial. My first change, I think, is to Page 16 of the PUD, and that's where project signage shows up. And that would be Item C2. Are you -all with me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 16, did you say? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sixteen of 46 of the ordinance. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: See, we all have our pages. You don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got it right there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Took you a little longer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you -all with me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we're with you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Under C2 where it currently says, "No sign face may exceed 280," that would change to 125. And then where it says, "Total sign face area of entrance sign may not exceed," where it currently says "400," that would go down to the 300. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Anita, what do we need to do for that other reference here? Do we need to still go with 300 there? MS. JENKINS: 125. MR. YOVANOVICH: So then the other reference where you see 280 underlined, that would become 125. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But, again, the 300 isn't separated out into multiple signs. We need to do something with that, because you could still do a 300 - square -foot sign. MR. YOVANOVICH: It says, "No sign face may exceed 125 square feet." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be the first sentence. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And then cumulatively they cannot exceed 300. So if none of them can exceed 125, I'd have to have multiple signs to get to 300. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the sign is plural. Okay, that works. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we could clarify that -- I think that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it will. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Then there were -- there was a clarification to the -- and we've provided, by the way, copies of these changes to your staff, so hopefully they've had a chance to look at them and see that they're -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: At the last minute. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I just had the conversations. Page 18 of 40 There was aquestion about Footnote No. 5 and whether or not dreferred to the proper exhibits. It had previously correlated to ExhibdCmndD,mnd that's been corrected to refer toD and E as well as there should heunote. And there was o question — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got to use the mike, Rich. MFl.Y[VANK}\/0C}I: There was u question uuto whether or not, I'll call it, the 23'fbot rule would apply \o this PO[J because it was au older PTJZ>,00vve included uFootnote No. \l for front-entry garages. It says d shall beo minimum of23feet from edge o[ sidewalk tu the garage, and tbu[o what that footnote says to make dclear that the 23 -foot rule does apply to thioP0D even though it's a little older P0D. When we get to the village center subdish ict, which is Page 26 of 46 in the ordinance, we may need to -- there was a comment of getting rid of, basically, the floor-area ratio reference to the village center and putting the actual square fbotageu from the — from the 0RI in there, which iu5O,O00square feet. And we've tried to clarify that 20,000 square feet for the village center would go to Tract B, because there's 3O,00U square feet already ou Tract /\. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. : AndIhonethotUxatvvuovvbo&wua — tbutuddrexoodyoorcononoerta,Mc Sbobu. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does mine, yeah. MR. : Okay. And then also, where you see the underlying language oo the village center, we referenced the Exhibit C, which is the pedestrian bicycle master plan, because that's really one of the justifications for the deviation for the distance from the village center to the surrounding residences, that we are providing -- and the exhibit's attached -- a pretty extensive bicycle and pedestrian tract to lead people to the village center. So we wanted to reference that in the document itself since I think -- it's an exhibit, but there was really uo specific reference to that Exhibit C,xop/ tried todo that there in the revision to4.3. We need to- Cl{ADUVL\NSTRAIN: 44(A)5 remove, right? MR. l{: 4.4(A)5? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You've got to remove that one. MR.l,0\/ANOV0Cll: Well, we need to clarify that k will not beponnbtodon Tract B. There's an existing one on/\— CffADlM/LaN STRAIN: Okay. MR. :—auvve need to make sure; uuvvo just need 10 clarify that that innot going to be pelinitted mm Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. : We had, iothe preserve tract, deleted some uses. But we need to — hased on our conversations with Mark Riley in utilities, we need to put No. 5back in in your packet. It's shown us you stricken. And that No. 5iu the utility or roadway crossings. Sove can just say utilities — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you get that onto the screen? We— MD../(}\/}\N(]\/1CI{: Ifs right here, No. 5. That's what we're putting back in. lt already exists. We had shown it as struck, but Marco Island Utilities came to us and asked us to put that utility easement in the preserve, mowc have to put that back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you need roadway orjua(utility? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think we need roadway; just need utility crossing. You know what, that's another good point. Wedonecdnoudcroamiogbcuuuae — lhadu't thought about that. I didn't have this inng/ comments, but we're also —ua you've read the documents, we're being required to reserve road right-of-way for Benfield Road, and a portion of that is in the presei ve, so I guess we do need both utility and roadway crossings within the preserves auHhcvncdupictcdonthornontezp|an. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. yN0l : I think that's everything on the POI). 0n the I}R2 resolution, i[ you'll go<o Page 5 of 9 -- and I forgot to talk about this with -- I think you'll be okay with -- there was a grammatical change that the chairman asked mutomake. Whereio — l'mgoing to get to right here. Okay. There vmgo. Page 19 of 40 January 16, 2014 And it's under the transportation provisions regarding, basically, that the impact fees -- it says -- basically, it said have been -- those commitments have been satisfied by the payment of the impact fees. Well, we'll be continuing to pay impact fees, so the chairman suggested we change "have been" to "will be" satisfied by the payment. I didn't see -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's a big difference. MR. YOVANOVICH: So that's one change that I failed to share with my client. Another change was -- where'd it go? It's double - sided, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mike again, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, sorry. Under the developer commitments, under transportation on Page 6 of 9, there's an H, which is new material or new text. And, basically, the way we had originally written this was -- MS. JENKINS: What page? MR. YOVANOVICH: Page 6 of 9. Basically the way this provision is written, it's really unnecessary, because it says that if there are changes to the concurrency management rules in Collier County, we'd have to go back to the RPC, and we don't think that that language is actually necessary any longer the way it was written based upon our conversations with the chairman, so we would eliminate that Paragraph H. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, I do believe this was language requested by the RPC in writing to Ms. Deselem. MS. DESELEM: That is correct. For the record, Kay Deselem. That was part of their recommendation. In your packet should be the RPC recommendation, and they had forwarded that to us and discussed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the reasoning was? MS. DESELEM: I can't tell you that. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's pretty broad, they can remove transportation concurrency requirements. And I'm just not sure we would want to do it that broadly. Is that --but that's what the --why would the RPC want that? I mean, is anybody there that might be able to tell us? MS. DESELEM: If I recall correctly, in their staff report it was analyzed without the requirement for them to come -- the request had been submitted by the applicant. The concern from the RPC was, the way they had worded it, it would have been self - amending. So the RPC added the clause that says they have to come back for an NOPC if they do wish to implement that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's correct. Their response was to a language I had in there that says we don't have to come amend the NOPC. So if that language that I had originally proposed is no longer in there, I don't know what the need for Exhibit -- or Paragraph H is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but at this point I don't want to try to second -guess the RPC's issue on this. I had no -- I didn't know that they had placed it there. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll leave it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So at this point I don't think we should delete it. We'll have to leave it in. I'm not sure what the intent of it was. Between now and consent, I'd like to find out so at least if the board questions it, they would have an answer for that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So it's going to stay in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will stay in then. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do you know what it means? Because I don't. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think I caught all of the issues that were brought up in the individual conversations that I had with members of the Planning Commission and concerns that were raised by the public. So with that, I -- obviously, the team can answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have. Page 20 of 40 C14AORyNAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Let's start. Anybody have any COMMISSIONER EQERT:J do, Rich. Rich, are you treating Tract B completely separate from Verona Walk? Uo other vmrds�� have their ovvntuvmocenter. There wiUreally ho— even though i�oou�i�akb/dofUke i Bay where you have one side, and you have the other. And ao these people who now move into Tract B will bo completely separated? So it's really kind oftheir PUD?l know it's all in one, but imit— MR.l,QV4NOV8C}{: The practical answer to your question is yes, they're two separate developments. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Two separate developments, okay. In the original one, there was going tobe golf courses. So as far uy the cnnunohznent, the developer ia going back oo that commitment? Mfl.Y0VAIN(}\/KCfI: Tberunaonevcru — ldnn'tuudcrubandthut. l mean, there was u- COMMISSIONER BBERI: You said there was a commitment for 18 holes. MR.y(}\7AN{)\/TCH: No. There was ou allowance for 18 holes. Tbe/evvuadhc — tbeodginu| intent was there was going tohoun|8-hub golf course residential community nn Tract B. Market conditions have changed. I probably have come through personally with three or four or five recently, amendments to PUDs to eliminate the golf course portion of the PUD because, as I think you may have even said, there are a lot of golf courses in Collier County right now, and the need for more isn't necessary u1 this time. COMMISSIONER EDEKT: Coming back. Okay. That's why l want — but d was originally intbe POD. But you're taking -- MR'Y(}\/ANOVDCf{: AJuh\. CO2WUVOSSlONBR EBEDT: You want to eliminate the golf course — MR. Y[>V&N(}\qCH[: Correct. COMMTB8T{)NERBU8KT: — ooto[thia. Okay. Just ao—okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have aquestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, goahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: My question deals with the utility easement that's running through the preserve. Could you address that u little more in terms of this roadway and the amount ofpreserve that is impacted hvthat easement and that roadway? MR.Yl}\/AN[yV0C|{: I'm probably going to punt {o Josh here inu second, because [ don't know that we've calculated the amount of preserve that is -- I don't know -- first of all, if Marco Island Utilities ever decides to extend a utility line through that preserve, they will have to go modify our existing permits and appropriately mitigate for any impact they have to that preserve. Right now | don't know what that might be. Ifs just ureservation for them should they ever need k for a utility line, and they will have to go through and permit and mitigate for any impact to the preserve. Likewise, Collier County, for the road 6ght-of-wuymoovatimn, will have to go through and pennd and mitigate for any preserve area that they impact, should they ever build BeuOe/d Road iu that area. We have not -- I don't think we've done an actual calculation as to what that area is. I guess we could try, but we didn't -o through that exercise because we saw that as a future permitting exercise for Collier County with regard tuBucfidd Road and Marco Island Utilities with regard totheir raw water line. l could attempt io calculate that, but l don't think nohave. YVe have not. And we don't know that they'll ever doit. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah, but [ think we have to plan — COMMISSIONER ROMAN: — fbrUhe inevitability that they would. Thank you. MR. Right. And*ohave — they*ill have to— they will bo required to go through u permitting process and u mitigation process for that tooccur. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But it bumicu1|v runs right through the middle of that area, and that's what prompted nuyquestion. Page 21 of 40 January 1.6, 2014 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, let's start -- first of all, the one thing you didn't clean up on the DO, or DRI, is the dual master plans being the same, the exhibits, where one was supposed to be the existing master plan, but they're both the same master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the DRI resolution itself? CHA UVIAN STRAIN: For the DO application. Let me pull it up here. The actual DO -- it's -- well, actually, I think staff -- maybe it's part of the staff exhibit. You've got Exhibit B. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it's a staff exhibit, not ours, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I want to get the record clear. Kay, those two were supposed to be one original and one of the new; is that correct? MS. DESELEM: That's correct, sir, and I do have the existing, if you want me to put it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just put it on the overhead so everybody can see what it was supposed to have been, and then we're clear. MS. DESELEM: It's rather difficult to see, but it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Black and white, yeah. That was the exhibit for the members of the Planning Commission that was supposed to appear on Page 4 of the staff report, and then Page 5 would have been the new one, which is the colored one. So that's all I wanted to clear up for the record on that one. Now let's go back to the PUD on Page 5 of 18. Rich, there's a reference to 4.07.04 B.I at the bottom in an LDC section that talked about the acreages allowed in the village center, and it went from 15 -- the maximum that was allowed is 15 acres, but it says there you're using 17 acres. I just wanted to clarify why that is not a deviation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because, regard -- the limitation of the 15 acres will be met. There will be a couple of extra acres that will not be utilized for what has historically been village center type uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the staff -- Page 5 of the staff report -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, is that where you are, on the staff report? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Page 5 of staff report. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I was looking at the ordinance, and I couldn't find it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. And maybe Kay needs to correct this in the staff report then. Where it says the maximum size of 15 acres for the village centers, and then it allocates this one as 17 acres. Well, they're exceeding the maximum, and it appears that they need a deviation for that. When I talked to Richard, he said that they're not going to exceed 15 acres of commercial, that the rest is going to be recreational, although this says it's commercial. So is that, Kay, something that you can correct, or do you feel this is accurate? MS. DESELEM: This was a portion written by the comp planning staff. And I understand what they're saying. It might not be clearly written, but I believe it's accurate. MR. YOVANOVICH: The retail is capped at 15, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are the planning /comprehensive staff people here? Someone want to -- okay. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the comprehensive planning staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the bottom of that, David, if you know where we are, the statement says the maximum size shall be 15 contiguous acres, and then it says in the last sentence, the PUD specifies two conveniently located village center sites that will be no more than 17 acres for commercial uses. When talking with the applicant, I asked him why he wasn't getting a deviation for that, then, if he exceeded the standard by two acres. And he said it's because they're not really going to have 17 acres of conunercial; they're going to have recreational in there. So I'm wondering, does the staff report need to be clarified so it doesn't appears as though they're having an excess -- they're inconsistent with our GMP -- Page 22 of 40 La��l I CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --or LDC. MR. WEEKS: -- you're correct. This is an incorrect statement that will -- the village center total size is not limited because it allows noncommercial uses, but the commercial portion of it is limited to 15 acres maximum. So this statement of 17 acres should be 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we can just get that corrected. MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Thank you, David. C14AHZMAN STRAIN: One of the staffs recommendations was to clarify the acreage for the village center. You did that. Staff, are you -- Kay, are you satisfied with the way they've corrected that? It was one of your recommendations. MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. And if you have further questions on that, David Weeks can also address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm -- as long as you're fine with it, I'm okay. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. I'm just checking to make sure all the issues that Richard got to were ones we had discussed. Oh, Richard, the exhibits. You've got a series of exhibits that don't have exhibit numbers on them or letters. Those will all need to be cleaned up. I think the county attorney had done that in one of the drafts that was sent, but it didn't get done in time for the packet. I know we have two Exhibit As. One is Al and one is A2, but then you've got the legal description that's referenced in the document, but it's not listed as an exhibit. It should be Exhibit B. Then pedestrian pathway should be listed as an exhibit, et cetera. MR- YOVANOVICH: Yeah. The version that was sent to me by Heidi does have them labeled, the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ijust want to make sure, for the record, we get them labeled -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in our final document that we review. And that's what I have for questions right now. Oh, I would like your environmental person to address a question, if he or she is available. MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. Shane Johnson with Passarella & Associates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The map we showed earlier with the green and gold colors, the gold is preserve that is apparently no longer preserve, and the green is areas that were not preserve that are preserve. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gold areas, do you kriow the total acreage of those gold areas? MR. JOHNSON: I do not know that acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think it could be over 346 acres? MR. JOHNSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then at no point does any of your changes impact the base preserve that you're required to have on this project of 450 acres? MR. JOHNSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gold areas, was there any unusual sensitivity from a preserve, vegetated wetland, or any other category that would rank those any differently on, say, even a FLUCCS maps -- the FLUCCS maps than you currently have in the green or any other area of the project? MR. JOHNSON: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you did the transects, and all that? MR. JOHNSON: I was involved, yes. C14AHUYLA-N STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for him. Page 23 of 40 January 16, 2014 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you tell me on Tract B, Tract B alone, what the total acreage is for preserve. MR. JOHNSON: For Tract B, Winding Cypress, the total acreage of preserve is approximately 582 acres. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that's on Tract B? MR. JOHNSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll have the -- we'll do the staff report, and then we'll take a break and then hear the members of the public. Kay? MS. DESELEM: Yes. Good morning, again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner with Collier County, and also here from staff we have Surnmer Araque, Kris van Lengen, Bill Lorenz, and you already heard from David Weeks, and we also have Reed Jarvi for transportation issues. So you do have a staff report on each of the two projects. The one for the DRI is dated last revised 12/31, as is the PUD. The staff report for the DRI talks about the changes that are being proposed, explains the location, and explains what the changes have been to date and what the proposed changes are. And as noted, we discussed previously, it does include the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's recommendation that is the Item H that we spoke of earlier. We got no comments from DCA, but my understanding is that the RPC did work -- DCA; I'm dating myself -- Department of Economic Opportunity for the state, and my understanding is RPC did work in conjunction with them, but we got nothing directly from them. And you have the criteria for consideration and staffs recommendation of approval; however, we do have two things we want to put on the record. One is an email message that we received from David Crawford, who is the plainer at Regional Planning Council, and he explains the position as to why the project, although it's asking for a longer period of extension that would normally be allowed without determining it to be a substantial deviation and why they've determined, in concert, that it is not. I've put on the visualizer -- you can read it if you like, and we will incorporate that into the record. And Heidi has something else that she would like to add into the record as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. We've given a copy of that email to the court reporter for the pennanent record, and it does reflect that the RPC discussed this matter with the DOA, and they concluded together that there was no substantial deviation or likelihood of regional impacts for this project. As a result of that letter, I'm making a couple changes to the resolution under the findings of fact, which is on Page 7. That language will be inserted as Paragraph F, and your existing Paragraph F will be changed to G. And then on Page 8 of 9 under- conclusions of law, Paragraph A will be revised to state, "The proposed changes to the previously approved development order as presented do not constitute a substantial deviation pursuant to Section 380.06(19)(e)(2).L. And the rest of the sentence will remain -- the rest of the paragraph will remain as is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Kay, is that all? MS. DESELEM: Staff is accepting the change that the applicant proposed to the DRI development order amendment as well. That's all I have on the DO, the DRI portion. If you have any questions on that, I can address them now, or I can go onto the PUD, and we can do questions later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we'll do is we'll probably take a break first and then come back after the break. The court reporter's going to need to rest her fingers for a little while. So let's come back at Page 24 of 40 10:45 and resume. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please resume their seats, we can continue with the meeting. And, Kay, we had left off, you were going to go into the staff report for the PUD, I believe. MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. As noted, it is dated revised December 31 st. The first page is the identification information of the property owner and the applicant and the agent with the requested action showing below, again, the geographic location, and then a more detailed purpose and description of the proposed changes, along with reference information about what's happened up to date. It provides the surrounding land use and zoning, both in written form and you have the depiction on the next page showing the outline of the property and the surrounding uses. And it goes into the growth management discussion that we got into earlier this morning with the one correction provided by David. You have information from transportation staff and the environmental staff regarding the Growth Management Plan, and you also have in the transportation and environmental review as part of the overall analysis of the project on Page 9. And we do have people here, as I noted, that can address those concerns that you might have on those portions. We have the zoning review that goes into the deviation. There's only one deviation being requested as part of this amendment, and staff is recommending approval of that deviation. We've provided both rezone and PUD findings of fact in support of our recommendation. We've provided a synopsis of the neighborhood information meeting that was held on October 22nd, and we are providing a recommmendation of approval, and that approval does include limitation on Tract B, and we now have that. So I think we're good to go. One thing I did want to mention, the exhibit -- the exhibit providing the setback area from Falling Waters -- it keeps disappearing. I was wondering if you wanted to incorporate that into the record for the PUD ordinance or some information in a written form to depict it. I mean, I can understand the applicant, when I spoke on the break, they're reluctant to have that entered into the record because it depicts something off their site that they have no control of CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's what I was going to suggest, Kay, was that we'd include some stipulation, and it would have to be a little bit refined, but it would be that they'd be set back 32 feet from the Collier County canal easement, they will not clear the county easement, and the buffer that will be within that 32 feet will be 22 feet wide. MS. DESELEM: I think that will work just fine. We need not include that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That meets the criteria shown right there, so -- MS. DESELEM: Yes. That's what I was wanting. I wanted to get something on the record in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: And I don't have anything further. I do believe that Kris Van Lengen has something he needs to add. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kris, you want to come on up? MR. Van LENGEN: Good morning. Kris Van Lengen, public utilities principal planner. I don't really have anything to add to the record. I did have conversation with the City of Marco Island. I know that the developer worked very, very closely in all aspects of this development with the city. There was one issue that the city had -- or the city had not specifically addressed, which was the village center. And I think Mr. Yovanovich indicated that he had conversations and that there would be fewer uses within the village center to accommodate the concerns of the City of Marco Island and their utility. They are here today represented by Justin Martin so, as part of public comment, they may want to add any issues that they may have to the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's two things I'd like to mention. First of all, the only use that they removed is the gasoline service stations for Tract B. Page 25 of 40 January 16, 2014 MR. Van LENGEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that sufficient? Well, maybe when they comment on public record we'll find that out. MR. Van LENGEN: Yeah. I really think it's the city's prerogative and probably not the Collier County Water /Sewer District's concern. I will say that the former Pollution Control Department that was under public utilities' umbrella is now -- this portion of it, this function of it is now under natural resources. So to the extent that there's wellfield protection issues or certificate to operate issues, Mr. Bill Lorenz could answer those questions in general if they come up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, Chris. Bill, since Kris just volunteered you. MS. DESELEM: Threw you to the wolves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, I know that we have wellfield protection areas around our wells and our water resources throughout Collier County. We amend those periodically. They change as, I guess, the water table and the cones of influence change, but we don't have any protection around the Marco facility. And the Marco facility, now I find out, there's two of them. There's one to the east, and there's one that we currently know about on 951. We should be protecting that as equally as we are ours. How do we need to go about implementing a change to our plan, our wellfield protection ordinance, to implement wellfield protection areas of influence around their well sites, their reservoirs sites as well? I mean, everybody knows what happened in West Virginia. The last thing we need is a crisis like that in Collier County because we simply didn't look out for our neighboring community. So what do we have to do? MR. LORENZ: Sure. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. Our focus has been on the Marco Island lakes. They essentially -- that particular portion of the water supply we understood -- and this goes back about three or four or five years ago -- that they were just drawing the water from those lakes. And as you draw those -- if you're drawing the water from those lakes, you draw down the water elevation -- the elevation of the water, and then you -- that induces groundwater to come into the system. And to that degree, there was a modeling effort that was initiated to determine, essentially, what that drawdown curve would be around the lakes, and then we could apply the same types of principles that we apply to county wellfields that are so -- obviously solely getting their water from groundwater. When we began -- when we began to take this to the -- through that public hearing process, we learned that the Marco Island lakes actually is a -- receives their water not just from that induced groundwater movement but also from an overflow structure from the Henderson Creek Canal. In fact, our information that we've received is that they receive about 20 percent of their water from the Henderson Creek Canal that spills over into those lakes usually towards the -- I believe July and August time frame is what I understood. And, therefore, we have a hybrid system. So we could not just simply apply the groundwater principles to that particular water supply source. So you essentially -- you essentially have a groundwater source and a surface water source that gets mixed into the Marco Island lake -- lakes they use for that particular portion of their supply. And, therefore, you're really looking at -- it's almost -- you almost have a watershed management type of condition, because anything that comes down the Henderson Creek during that time frame that it discharges into the lakes, obviously, it's going to be -- your supply is dependent upon the water quality from Henderson Creek at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but, Bill, knowing that makes it even more responsible (sic) that we look at that Henderson Creek -- what flows into that creek and all of the properties alongside of it as having some level of protection that we -- especially when it's gasoline and other chemicals. I mean, what just happened in West Virginia would be devastating to the town of Marco Island. I mean, that's a bigger area. I mean, I don't know how many people are on Marco right now, but West Virginia had 300,000 people plus that were out of water for a week. I would suggest that we look at some way of working with Marco Island to find out where the Page 26 of 40 January 16, 2014 influence arcasureupmnddmwn — o«toUeomtho[Ue flow of Henderson Creek and consider putting a notation ma our GMP and our other maps that this omxa!a got uceduhn level of sensitivity. Is that impossible to do, miu that — MR. LORENZ: No, it wouldn't be impossible to do. It would be a matter of what options would be available. Obviously, if you're talking about trying to affect u discharge m amend, let's say, anything that discharges into that creek, such as the stormwater system, iywe're talking about higher regulatory standards, obviously, we're looking at -- at the moment we're looking at the South Florida Water Management District through the ERP process to capture that. But, of course, that could be— that could he one option. Oo the other hand, through our Pollution Control Department, we certainly maintain and we understand, when we have certain spills, noreact to certain spills. We recognize whafs downstream, and we would report any infort-nation downstream to the -- to any type of downstream users. Sowecuudcve|op — wnrki with Marco Island, wn can certainly develop u system hv which you have an early warning type of effort, and they understand what is being -- what is being spilled or what type of pollution complaints we're investigating. But that's more ofun operational concern ua opposed tomore higher regulatory standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, l saw some pictures o[ the location in West Virginia vvbc/mdbuau tanks had leaked into the river. They were right uu the edge of the bank of the river. l mean, for the community to even allow that kind ofstorage of that quantity of heavy chemicals tobo stored right alongside that river that feeds their reservoir, that was a mistake. And Ijust hope we have something in place or we could put something in place that would avoid a similar mistake, and that's all I was suggesting. Maybe we'll figuoeout u way to get there. I mean, l was going to make bu point to point out tothe Board of County Commissioners after this meeting -- as a result of this meeting that something they -- maybe we should consider looking into, ao— thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZ&NOW8QJ: Mark CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stun? COMMISSIONER CDRZANOWSKI: Yeah. You're next u`u very heavily traveled road, and there's — all kinds of fuel tankers go down that road. l think you'd stand u better chance of having one of those have an accident and going into the canal than this project doingdha1uuuedh' And l don't know how you're going to stop any chemicals from going near that. But I've got u question for Bill. | remember many years ago when there was u drought here, ldidn't know about the overflow between the canal and the lake, the pit. The pit was blasted in, and theowau — the rock was fractured, and we could watch the water come down Henderson Creek and thenjust kind of suck into the ground before b ever hit the weir. And I'm wondering how much ofon underground connection io there between the canal and the lake. MR. LORENZ: Well, certainly — certainly there is. Obviously, ma you — something's coming through the system -- excuse me. Certainly there iuun inducement of flow Onm the canal both uaadirect discharge into the lakes but also oo it's flowing from the canal through the ground and into the lakes. 0MMISS0NERCHRZAN0W3K]: Especially if they purnp the lake down and increase the head difference. MR. LORENZ: Exactly; it's proportional 0o the difference iuhead. COMMl8SlONERCB[lZ&NOWSK|: So you could get stuff going into the lake even if you didn't have the direct connection between the two. And the kind of solvents we're bdkingnbout,lUkothunncothut you talk about in West Virginia, youdontjuxt—youkno:,theydon'toitontop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that could always occur. Mv position was, ,/e don't even acknowledge this reservoir on the maps that are used when analyses are done for projects going bn right next door tothem. And when I got this packet and brought it up to Kris, at that point I don't even know the extent that anybody had looked u1 that oaapossibility. And because of that, I'd like to see us at least somehow acknowledge that reservoir is there in our documents. How it's worked out with the cone of influence or anything else, we'll leave that up to the -- you Page 27 of 40 January 16, 2014 guys to figure out, but at least I'd like to see some more acknowledgment of it than what we currently have, which seems to be none, so -- MR. LORENZ: And we can certainly work that out. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one quick question for you, Mr. Lorenz. I believe -- is there wellfields -- and I'm going to just -- is there wellfields in Naples Reserve? If I remember right, we have a lot of wellfields there. Is that our wellfields, or is this part of the Marco Island? MR. LORENZ: I'm not aware of them, the wellfields in Naples Reserve. We -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: To the east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not Naples Reserve. They're five or six miles to the east where Marco Island's other water source is. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because I remember the wellfields kind of out in that area when we were doing another project. I believe Mr. Yovanovich was on that. Is there not wellfields? What is the name of that one, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: The county has historically requested, when developments come through, that we set aside easements so the county someday later on can do a raw water -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So it's just set aside. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's set aside. No, there are no existing wells. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's— MR. YOVANOVICH: And they're deepwater wells. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Thank you, Bill. I appreciate it. And, Kay, you were finished with your report? MS. DESELEM: I am finished with my portion of it. If you have any questions, I would be happy to attempt to answer them or have someone on staff address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff before we go to public speakers? Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question. Just a point of clarification. In the staff report it's mentioned that there's an increase in 44 acres in preserve area for a total of 848 acres. I thought I heard the environmental expert for the petitioner to mention that there were 582 acres of preserve in Tract B. So I'm just trying to figure out what's the correct number. MR. JOHNSON: Again, Shane Johnson with Passarella, for the record. I'd like to clarify. That's a good question. I can clarify that for you. The information that's presented in our environmental impact statement document is presented a little bit differently than what is shown on the master concept plan. When I was asked what -- the total preserve acreage for Tract B, I was thinking about a different portion of the property, which I'll show you. Now, our environmental impact statement document focuses on -- focuses on the changes occurring within the property, which is the Winding Cypress portion of the property. And our boundary for those changes were aligned with what was done for the ERP, environmental resource permit, and that boundary is that thicker yellow boundary that you see here on this map. So within that boundary of Winding Cypress, there are 500 -- approximately 582 acres of preserve area. Now, within the PUD master plan, the master plan includes this area down here as part of Tract B. So there's an additional acreage that wasn't included in our sum total of 582 acres down here at the southern portion of the property that makes up the difference. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we're going to call public speakers. The first speakers we'll call are those that had registered with a slip. If you didn't, at the end of those I will ask -- anybody that Page 28 of 40 wants Wspeak will be able to. We've got to make sure you were sworn in, and you need to state yomuarne for the record when you come uytothe microphone, and either microphone can housed. Ray, would you call the first . MR. BELLOWS: Justin Mai-tin. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And vvedo ask that you try to Iii-nit your discussion b`fivcminutes. MR. MARTIN: Good morning. For the record, Justin Martin, here from the City of Marco Island Utilities representing our interests. I appreciate the Planning Commission's discussion regarding the -- our water source facility. As you know, we are a barrier island surrounded by saltwater, and all of our water, oh, I would say, 80 to 100 percent, depending ou the situation, comes from the mainland. There was mention ofthe property owned tu the cast, five or six miles tothe east. That iaproperty that the City of Marco Island owns that could potentially be used as a wellfield location in the future depending on what happens with the quality of the water at this source here, also depending on development on Marco Island and the quality of our on-island wells. VVc don't oppose this project. Wo think it's u compatible use. VVedo have some concerns, and we'd like to see some safeguards put in. And some of these things have already been mentioned; l think most uf them have. I'm just here today to talk about some ofthe things that did not get put into the written document right now but wo would like to see put in. One of them mentioned already was the gas station use in the village center. And we understand that the petitioner has stated dho1—orconondted0mtdci that out, and we'd like Wsee that be taken out before d goes toconsent. One other thing, in the village center use iaa recreation maintenance facility, and we asked the question whether there were going to be any hazardous chemicals or fertilizers stored, staged, or dispensed in this location, and ve were told that the pool maintenance and landscape maintenance, all that iacontracted out uothat they would not be doing that in that recreation maintenance facility use. We'd like Wsee something in the document to reflect that. And one other item that we have iu access. The Henderson Creek Canal right now, not only the City of Marco Island Utilities, but also the Water Management District accesses that creek through the southern entrance right now into Verona Walk, which was the old construction entrance, which will be the main new entrance into the Winding Cypress PUlJ. We'd just like some acknowledgment that we'll be able to access the creek through that entrance. Right now we have the sarne sort of situation with Fiddler's Creek, which we have a facility adjacent to there. We access it through their main entrance, and b hasn't been uproblem. The petitioner has indicated that that wouldn't be a problem. We'd just like some reassurances in the document when k gets finalized. I appreciate the discussion from Mr. ).oronzunddeconnniaaioucmrUcrobontdbopmlLDeld protection zone and whatnot. Viou concern for us. Wodn feel u little bit vulnerable and exposed that wo don't have the same sorts of protections that u county *e|LDe|ddoes. And just as a point of clarification, 80 percent -- and to answer Stan's question, 80 percent of the water into those lakes does come in through bank infiltration, and this is in the season, and 2Opercent does go over the weir, but that only occurs in the height ofthe rainy season. So it is a concern of anything getting into that creek, coming into the lakes, and making it into our beatinentaymtem. We understand that the district -- and this is not -- has nothing to do with the county, but the district does spray chernicals in that creek in order to keep some of the vegetation down. We work with them closely to try and have them use mechanical methods as much as possible, but the concern is, if we further add a use that would impact or that would degrade the water quality, that would be obviously a big deal for us. 3u these are the things that vehave. And there wasudioouosioueadieruboutdhe — whatthis easement reservation is for and, essentially, that would be just a 16-inch PVC groundwater main to get ground*mterfi-omwm§cUity — fromompmpertyOve miles east into our facility. And we understand that we'd have to go through the permitting process with the district and ERP and Page 29 of 40 January 16, 2014 whatnot and -- at that point in time if we pursue that and -- but we do not plan to have a roadway through there. It would just be the water main with -- in the ground 30- inches of cover. And I'd be happy to answer any questions while I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple. First of all, your settlement ponds at Fiddler's Creek were done by easement when the Deltona used to own that system way back in the early days. Do you not have a similar easement at the Winding Cypress project? MR. MARTIN: No, we do not. And there's other properties to the east of here which are now either agricultural or undeveloped, which we don't have those easements in place. But this project would -- essentially, if we did nothing, would block our access from getting it from our property that is to the east to this facility. So that's why when this came up we approached the petitioner, and they agreed to do this easement reservation at least through this property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they have agreed to do an easement reservation? MR. MARTIN: That's what it shows on the current PUD master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I mean, access to the -- from the entranceway into your reservoir. MR. MARTIN: Oh, no. That we haven't discussed. They've just said that, yes, that wouldn't be a problem to allow you access into there. I don't think we actually need to go so far as doing an easement, just putting it in the documentation that if this property gets sold to some other developer down the line or the homeowners' association, they wouldn't have a problem with us coming in through their front gate in order to get to the canal. And we don't even go into their property. It would just be to the canal, to the creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll discuss that with the applicant as a stipulation. The last thing I wanted to mention is if these -- if it would be of help to Marco Island to have a closer watch of the -- MR. MARTIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- uses that contribute to the water supply, I'm sure this board, when we -- when this is -- when recommendations go forward to the Board of County Commissioners, that part of that is to consider this -- consider your water supply as a future look at -- through our GMP or however we do it. But you might want to have some of your city councilmen or one of them contact somebody up here to initiate that. It might help having it come from both directions. MR. MARTIN: Absolutely. I think it's a great idea, and I appreciate the concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If they did put in that pipe, you'd -- it looks like about 6,000 feet long on the property; 20 feet wide, 120,000 square feet, 3 acres, but it would totally be cleared and kept clear, because you'd need it for maintenance and observation, right? You wouldn't revegetate it? MR. MARTIN: If we had the -- no, we would not revegetate it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. MARTIN: But if vegetation grew up and we had the ability to -- and we wouldn't necessarily clear the entire 20 acres. We'd just need to clear what we need to in order to put the pipe in. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, which is eight foot to put the pipe in and 12 foot to run the trucks on the side of it. That's 20. MR. MARTIN: But if we had the ability to -- if we had to revegetate it as part of the mitigation -- which I don't think we would need to, because we could do mitigation off site at our other property. But if we had to -- if we had the ability to go back in there and remove vegetation to get to our pipeline -- we don't anticipate having problems with it, being buried and PVC, but you never know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. It wouldn't disrupt flow, and it wouldn't disrupt the animal movement. You know, I wouldn't see a problem with it. MR. MARTIN: Okay. Thank you. Page 30 of 40 CI{ydR2KLaN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Ray, you want to call the next MR. BELLOWS: Helen Gottlieb. MS.GOq[}lLTkB: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MS.G[)TTLOBB: YWy name iu Helen Gottlieb, for the record, 7673 Siodka Court in Verona Walk. My first time up here; however, for your infortuation, in my previous residence I did serve on the board of adjustments and then the planning board, so I appreciate the work you do in protecting the county and the residents oF the county. I'm speaking this morning about the additional units requested by the applicant, 584 units. Right now we are being inundated with growth, both multi-use as well as residential, as you know. Mv concern ia the impact uo the quality o[ life for the residents. Perhaps vve can hold the applicant to the number of units that he had, considering possibly 2.5 people per unit and possibly two automobiles or vehicles per unit. It is going to impact the quality of life because of the number of cars and residents ballooning in the area. I would suggest that we strike and hold them to the units. And 1 understand that the original application, which is what was quoted to me, requested even more, but what they had now was 2,300, and my suggestion is, would you please hold them tothat? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, rnu'uin. MS.Q(}T1OLDE8: Any questions? C8ADUVLA-N8TRADN: No, okay. MS.[l[YITL[BB: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: MudkmCzzbko*'aki. MS.CZDB&I)VV3KI: Marilyn Czubkovvnki,8556 Julia Lane io Verona Walk. ldo appreciate the developer moving the guardhouse. That was one of our chief concerns. Traffic was not discussed on Collier Boulevard, but the entrance off of Collier Boulevard does not have a good right or left turn into it, and I wondered if someone had information on that. Also, construction traffiuon the oouthun part of our development of Verona Walk, there's an entrance, and we don't understand why construction trucks aren't using that entrance versus our main entrance and going through our development. Signugc. I'd like to know where that aignugc in supposed to be placed. Is it all going to be placed on Collier Boulevard? And b didn't indicate where that was. You discussed a buffer onu development bv the river. [a that same 32 feet, d,l understood correctly, going toboon Collier Boulevard from that waterway also? And those are some of the questions Thave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank yon. We'll get with the applicant before the meeting's over, and hopefully they'll address — we'll get it addressed for you. Thank you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: That's all that registered. CHAIRMAN S7K/\DN: Okay. For those people that would like to speak who have not registered, we'll ask you to come up one atu time. You'll have to verify whether you were sworn inor not and then state your narne for the record. 3i were you sworn in? MR. MIESCZAK:l was sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.MDESC2AK: M/ name's Larry Mimozuk, nine-year resident, Verona Walk. I've seen u lot of development, and it's been real good. And most o[ the people io this area really love their community. Page 31 of 40 January 16, 2014 Pm here today with probably 11 people -- what -- I don't know where they all went. But, anyway, quite a few people, and we're real happy about this gate issue. That was probably our biggest concern. And that's why we're here. And so that was important to us. And so that worked out really well. And the other thing is, is I'm not sure of where your project entrance is. I need to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what the previous speaker mentioned, and we'll find that out when we get done with public speakers. MR. MIESCZAK: Okay. I mean, that's important, because that tells me where's the construction traffic going if they're not using -- they're going to have a couple of entrances. So that's a concern because right now we are inundated with construction. And they come over that bridge, and I don't know -- it's a lot of traffic. But it is what it is. And the other thing is, does the traffic and safety do the study for 951 for like if you want to do a curb cut or put in a light? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They have to get a right -of -way permit, and that is regulated by our transportation department. MR. MIESCZAK: Okay. So that's another issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's a separate issue. That comes well after these kind of meetings. MR. MIESCZAK: And I'd just say one comment on 41. It was noted that one of the reasons the builder didn't want to have that as an entrance is because it's over by trailer parks. And, you know, we're all residents whether you have a big home or a little home. And 41 is a perfect spot -- and because they're developing that east to six lanes and four lanes going out three miles, that would be perfect for that entrance -- main entrance to be right on 41. And to me, when they come off 951 to go into that complex of Winding Cypress, it's winding, and it's going to be a long way in there. I don't see sales promoting on that side. And thank you very much, and we're very happy, the community of Verona Walk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? Anybody else wish to speak? Okay. Richard -- oh, sir, come on up. That's okay. Were you sworn in, sir? MR. McHUGH: Yes, I was. Jim McHugh, Ferrara Court, 8722. My concern is mainly the entrance to this new development. I would like to see it, as previously spoken, on 41. I think that should be their main entrance, and the rear entrance being the same location as our rear entrance is going to be mainly because that is the closest spot, gate to the well water from Marco Island and also Henderson Creek, which flows down there. I'm worried about truck spills, accidents. You have all these 18- wheelers coming in, 12- wheelers with -- loaded with sand and gravel. It's going to be a narrow road in that section. There could be an accident. These cars and trucks fly, so that's one of my main certains. Also, I'd like to see the original golf course remain open to land, preserve land. I don't see why they have to build out on that. There was no plans to. Why can't we just keep that area all preserves. Thank you. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Come on up, sir. MR. BELLUCK: I was not sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll take care of that as soon as you come up to the speaker. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BELLUCK: Thank you. I'm a resident of Verona Walk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to state your name first. MR. BELLUCK: Jeff Belluck, B- e- 1- 1- u -c -k. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLUCK: The current bridge over the creek is one lane on each -- it's two lanes wide. Are they proposing a new bridge to go into that main entrance, or are they proposing such a chokepoint to come across? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll find out as soon as we get back to them. Page 32 of 40 January 16, 2014 MR. B8LLDCK:Thank you CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ukxv else wish tospeak? Sir, come onup. MR. RUSH: Stephen Rush. Y was sworn in. 0599 Palermo Court, resident kvo-uud-u-bulf years u1 Verona Walk. Mvqucutiouia — lwunttonzokeonrulumucrtaiu. They have now 35O units they can build down there 'in Tract 8; im that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: l don't know how many they have left. I think it's u little bit more than that. I think — MR. RUSH: l was told \,95O6vthe office yesterday of how many more their total finish-out will he ou our Tract A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll try to find out when they come back up and speak. MR. RUSH: Okay. 8o that —and then they're asking to go to9O4units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're asking for un increase ofu little over 500units. I'd have to get the old numbers that are left bm order {o tell you what the total would be. MR. RUSH: Their gentleman, their speaker, their main speaker said that Tract B was going Aobe completely separate from Tract A. Is that going tobo anywhere in the documentation? Because does that mean they're not going to have any kind of road access into our facility from Tract B residents? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll put the -- when we get back to them, we'll put the master plan back up, and you'll see they're not connected. They're separated bv quite u long distance ofpreserves. MR. RUSH: [)kov. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that should take care oFthat. MR. RUSH: Well, k would be down al our back entrance vvberctbeynuioht — hF they get access to our gate system, hv being u resident down there, are they going toho coming into our unit? 1[ they decide tu pull in off of 951 through our entranceway, will they have access to go out and can come back in some other time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how the roads interconnect in there, but we'll find out. ldonl know offliund. ldo know that this in all one — and from our perspective, it's all one PDD. You may have two separate communities, but it's all one PUD, so that does bring in a different level of connection. We'll find out here inusecond. MR. RUSH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else wish hospeak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (lknv. We will — that will hethe end of the public speakers. And, Richard, we need you to respond to some of the concerns that you've heard, and you will have any closing statement time that you need. I think it would be pertinent to go into the entrances, how they're interconnected, what roads are working between the two communities. MR. YOVANOVlCB: What you see iathe main entrance off the 95l. Ifa drawn ill in blue. And the signs that we showed you early -- I mean, they could put the signs back up, but the entrance will come off of95|. D will — and it's — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's u new entrance, though. It's not the existing entrance. Ml.Y(}VANO\78C|{: lt will — well, there's uu entrance there now, I understand, for the back entrance of— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR- : --Verona Walk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the main entrance of Verona Walk with the nice bridge and all that, that's not the entrance you're talking about; thafm another entrance, right? MR. YOVANOV|CB: No. It'uutotally — nntuoot going through their project atuU<ogetucceaeto our project. There will he— that road iu blue will hcshared. That's their back entrance. b will bo our main entrance. What's drawn on there in the circle -- there's the blue. The circle was -- the gatehouse I was talking Page 33 of 40 January 16, 2014 -- or the guardhouse I was talking about will be back away from them from their entrance. So we will not be using their project to get access to our project other than their secondary access will share our main entrance road, and then they'll go off each other. We will not have access to their gate off their back entrance. Okay. So I hope that answers -- they are two separate communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it looks like you've got an entrance on 41 as well. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have two -- just like they do. They have two entrances on 951; we have one on 951, and we also have a secondary entrance on 41. As you know, 41 is about to go under some pretty extensive construction for six - laning for a portion and four -laning for a portion that I think is scheduled in, I don't -- Reed, two -- at least two years? At least two years of construction to occur in that area. That's going to occur. So I think that was -- one of the questions dealt with access, so hopefully that addresses the access question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this project -- because of Mike's abstention, maybe it is. It's a CDD? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. Is it? Verona Walk is. I don't believe we're in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to ask you. Okay. Well, then if the entrance that you've got going onto 951 is currently their back entrance and it's a CDD, who's paying for the maintenance of that entrance -- that piece that you're going to be using now for your road that's their back entrance? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, we don't think that the triangular piece that we're talking about -- right here. Is that what you're talking about? We don't believe that that's -- I'm telling you what we believe. I'm not sure I'm absolutely right, but we don't think that's within the CDD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I -- it's outside your project. So you've got a segment of road going from 951 up to your project boundary. At what point does that road enter the Tract A area; do you know? Because I'm just wondering, if you're going into Tract A and it's used -- it's a back entrance that that Tract A has an access to and has a right to use, whose CDD -- is the CDD paying the maintenance on it? MR. YOVANOVICH: We expect that there will be a cost - sharing agreement for the portion of the road that will serve both projects. The portion that won't be serving their project, our entrance, main entrance, will be our expense. But to the extent that there is a sharing of that road, which has always been contemplated, there will be a cost - sharing agreement. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich, I see a lot of heads shaking here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your CDD -- the CDD that represents this project, are they aware of the cost - sharing agreement and all this going on, what's going to have to interact with them? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, first of all, I don't -- Mr. Rosen, do you know if that piece of property's in the CDD? I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you just said it was. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did not. I said we don't think it is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is what I said. We don't think it is, but I'm not 100 percent sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the HOA. Well, then you've got an HOA. Someone's paying for the maintenance on that road system, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're going to work out a cost - sharing agreement between -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When are you going to do that by? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's being talked about right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So by consent? By the Board of County Commissioners' meeting? MR. YOVANOVICH: Before the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, we'll have to -- if that's what you're telling me we have to have it worked out by then, we'll have it worked out by then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it would probably resolve a lot of issues that are in question. So I think it would be a good idea to have it worked out by then. If you're going to do it anyway, why don't Page 34 of 40 [HADR\4/\N STRAIN: Ihe — oneUhinodhatkustcomctomeiatboconshoctkonbuffio. MR l[a going togo — it'm going tn come off of95|. CBAJ{UWL4N STRAIN: It's going tu come off of95l? MR.Y(}\/AN(}\/DCB|: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: | mean, and we can't —*e have uo ordinance that tells you you've got &z put danywhere else. But you see, you're going to bring your construction traffic in through your main entrance? MR. |I: Yea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could bring bbn through 4\. MR. YOVANOVlCH: The project io starting towards the front and working its way south, iflgot my directions right. It's always hard for me, uy you know, directions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't —1 mean, it's u public road, ao we're kind o[— MR.Y[)\/AN0\/ICH[: | mean, k` build that level of infrastructure doesn't make sense until you get closer \o that portion of the development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BBE%lT: I have uquestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBEQT: This —being this ia completely different, there iaooCDD for this; this is going tobu — vou'redoiugthciufraubnchuroY MR. Y(]\/AN(}\/kCFl: Yom. COM\0[88lONBk{lBERI: The/ouoouTaokahouttboproaurvcuudtbobbuu — anddiagoiogto he separated, ao Tract Aiagoing to have nothing todo with Tract B;iu that correct? L really want to understand this. MR.Y(]\7ANOV]CH: Yea. C()MMlS8lONERBBBRT: Okay. And there's 582 acres o[ preserve here. Are you going to dedicate this to someone, or is it going to be up to the residents to maintain the preserve and the lakes? Ml.l,O\/&NO\/kCff: Well, it's more than 582acres. Ao Shane had come up here and explained, it's probably pretty close to the full 84O. There imu bit of preserve io Tract /\, okay. So it's going to—Idon't know the exact numbers, but it's -- Shane came up here and told you what he did not include in the original numbers. b will bc the BkJA'u cost obligation, like itiuin every other community, 0o maintain the preserve unless Collier County would like to accept that burden, which I'm sure they won't. It's nodifferent than any other community that has a lot of preserves in it. It becomes uuROA expense. {ya all uzncuhvto the community to have those preserves. C0MMI8Sl0NEKEBEKT: Rich, what 1 guess — I'm coming m& this unu consumer would aa someone moving into Winding Cypress. That's why l asked how many acres are going tohoon Tract D1bu1 that homeowners' association will have tnmaintain for the preserves and the lakes. MI.`/(}\/AN(}\/]CII: Correct. COMMIBOlONERUB8RT: MuhdoioinQp,eoon/emix not inexpensive. Jo there away that Puke Homes is going tu let the people know? Where l live it's |76 acres, and ifs $2O"O0Oa year, and we're un older community. That's u lot of money for the amount ofhomes. How many homes are actually going tohc in Tract B? Do we have that number? MR.Y(}VAN[)VKCl{: l don't have —) could tell you a maximum number. l don't know that we'll hit the maximum, but ifs -- if the 1,950 units is correct that the gentleman spoke to earlier, you would take -- you would take our number, which is -- let me make sure I get the right exact number, because it's 28 -- Page 35 of 40 January 16, 2014 what's our number? COMMISSIONER EBERT: 2,854. MR. YOVANOVICH: Minus 1,950 is 900 and something. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 904. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. 904 units is the maximum theoretical number of units that go on that piece of property. If the -- yeah, if the 1,950 number is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You're looking at one acre of preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, you can't talk from the audience. That doesn't get picked up. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is no different than the plan you had before you -- there were 44 less acres of preserve, okay, and there was a golf course before and less units. Okay. It was always going to be something that, whoever buys into that community, they were going to absorb as part of their HOA expense. If they're not happy with it, they will not buy in the community. It's a market - driven issue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Richard, I understand that, but I also understand a different perspective than you do with people coming in as buyers of this. I just want to make sure, you know, that the developer is going to let the people know somehow that this is going to be -- I mean, this has to be quite plain to the people, I think, is what I guess I'm saying. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Now, as a follow -up to that, I mean, how do we monitor this as well? I mean, at some point if it becomes too expensive to maintain this extensive preserve, which is some of the finest in our area, how do we monitor that and safeguard it for the future? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Kay or Ray will -- first of all, it's put into a conservation easement, and the HOA has to maintain it and keep it in perpetuity. So, I mean, if there's a complaint or if it's not done, code enforcement goes out, and the HOA will be forced to do it once the HOA is turned over from the developer. Until that point, the developer does it. At least that's the experience I've had, and Mike's probably had similar. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. If I may, kind of, add into the conversation. Now, this is one overall PUD, and the preserve is for the overall PUD. Will both Tract A and Tract B have to participate in the maintenance fees, or is it only in Tract B? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's not -- that's more of an issue for the developer and for the HOA to work out than it is. Unless you've got a regulation, Kay, that regulates it, I'm not sure that we enter into that picture. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. Well, somebody had asked me, and that's why I brought up the question, because there was concerns because it was overall -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would read my homeowners' documents very carefully. That's all got to be spelled out that way. And I don't know of any regulation we have that says how it's split up. That's basically a requirement of the overall tract to be done that way. And if the developer passes it on, whoever accepts it better know what they're getting into. It's all there -- that's how it's always done, that I know of Okay. Anybody else have any -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask Shane a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Would it cost more to maintain a high - quality wetland or a low - quality wetland? MR. JOHNSON: Well, theoretically, it would cost more to maintain a low - quality wetland if there's a lot of exotic plants on it. Is that what you're referring to? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. MR. JOHNSON: It would cost more to maintain a more exotic - infested wetland or a lower - quality wetland than it would a higher - quality wetland. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because the higher quality, the less you have to do. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. Page 36 of 40 COMMISSIONER Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? flichun1 do you want 10 make any closing abdeozeu1? MR- : No. I just thbnk{bot — uutbheflv'iuokoai T think that the revisions that we're are on enhancement 0o both the enmkoomcnt — it'amtallycmnsistentwdhthe Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive P|uuoon1enupbded|.5unknperacnnoudhispie000fpnoperh/. We're within the comprehensive plan density assigned to the property. The preserve areas are, you know, 44 uurco more than before, but there were a large number of preserves bnovvu to the Verona Walk residents ua well um the future buyers of this piece o[property. We've -- I believe we've addressed the concerns about access by having the separate gate. I think we've addressed Marco Island Utilities' concerns. I do want to say that the concern about -- we will not store hazardous materials on site, l think was a concern of Marco Island Utilities. {o that correct, Justin? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: \,ou. MR.Y(}\/AJNOVDCH: No hazardous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, in your maintenance facility. M3l.YOm//0N()\/0C}l: Right. Qove can agree that there will honm hazardous chemicals stored in our maintenance facility. Other than that, lthink that your staffs recommending approval, the BPCiy recommended approval, and we're asking that you transmit to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation o[ approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: [}kux. Anybody else have any questions before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CBAIQMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing, and l have some stipulations I want to read. The public hearing is closed. There will beoo other comments a1 this point. COMMISSIONER EBERI: No, b was back there, lguess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That doesn't matter. We don't have any other comments. Inooum — tbc notes that I've made on this project uzcdefbl{owiog:Ko gasoline service stations will hc allowed on Tract D. Hazardous chemicals will not be stored bo any maintenance facility iu Tract 8. The uuuoaa through — dhuvU provide — |oyx see. They'll be — Marco laluud reservoir will be providing unaccess through the main entrance. The staff recommendations will beincluded. Tract [} will have a gate independent of Tract /\. The email from the B9C indicating the timeline for the development is not a substantial deviation; it will be included in the record. There will heu distance u[32feet from the Collier County canal easement io the —uaabuilding setback. They will not clear any area of the county easement, and there will bou buffer within that 32 feet uf 22 feet wide. Entry signs. There will be— entry signs will bc limited tu|25 feet for the facing and 300feet aggregate. And if I've said that wrong, I think we've got it clear in the -- we'll get it written clearly. There will be — you'll include the 23-foot rule as u setback issue for your garages. The village 000ie, will have the FAR removed, and the actual square footage will be included that will apply to Tract B, as staff had recommended. The exhibit references throughout the document will becorrected. The utility and roadway crossings will be added back in as a permitted use to cover the Marco Island need and the Benfield corridor need that xe\/o -- that's on the plan. Impact fees. There will hno change iii the reference to the impact fees io the DO, that they will bo nu1ixDcd—dhovvvO|aadmFvtheouoonoencyiomoes`mrUho1atatemunttbutwaaudded. They were going to exchange the duplicate master plan exhibit in the D0 with one of the original master plans. And there will be a cost-sharing arrangement for new entry on 951 produced by the time of the Board of County Commiaxionom'ueeting. Soim there anything else that anybody thinks we need k`add? Richard? Page 37 of 40 January 16, 2014 MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to clarify. You said that there will be an easement through the main entrance, and I don't know that you meant -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't say easement. I said access through the main -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Through the main. I don't think you need to get all the way up to here, Mr. Strain. I think they were saying they just needed access up to here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all. Is that -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll refine that in the stipulation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The intent -- we got the intent. Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah, because you've got the utility easement going through the preserve there. They might need access to that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think what Justin said, he just really wanted access to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Henderson Creek. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'll revise that to make sure it's access to Henderson Creek -- access through to Henderson Creek. Okay. Anybody else have any carmnents or changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion on the matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion by anybody on the Planning Commission? There's no comments from the planning -- anybody at this point. The meeting's closed. We will continue on with our discussion. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask for one more clarification on the buffer width? I assume you meant wherever we have residential -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wherever you have residential up against Henderson Creek. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what the intention was. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to recommend approval of PUDA- PL20120002855, Winding Cypress PUD -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're starting with -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- with all of the stipulations and changes you mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Bring it back for consent on this particular one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, after we get done with the -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll bring it up at the end. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 38 of 40 VA011PTIMI, COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are the rest of you feeling the same way? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. Page 39 of 40 January 16, 2014 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0, one abstention. So we'll have a consent in two weeks. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that will take care of it. Thank you. With that, I don't think we have any old business. Anybody have anything they -- I think that just leaves -- we're done. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Ebert, seconded by Mike Rosen. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:43 a.m. CK]11 I !:ZK�1 ►I11•a9r1_A►L►I!010 10ju1uILIS13 16 �/l ,� o MAR K STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on 2 - Zo- I I , as presented / or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 40 of 40 -/ rns 9696 i 9C CG/'G ///o by /y FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST E—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE S�✓�/ �/ G!`AFL �. C o//!c`/C C c("Ai? /'�L,�J,v,,v. . ` C cyl,4,ate.. -1 MAILIN ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION, UTHORITY OR COMMCFTEE ON 3 / 5 6-`-y 9/£c Si A/4 I �/�/% WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OAF:- / [ / 0 CITY COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY � COUNTY NAME OF POLITICA SUBDI ISION: /�✓/ ��5 L 3 y� tC c/�i"e rCDV,47 7 DATE ON WH H VOTE OCCURRED�/ MY POSITION IS: 1�;1/ . /d 'O/fL 0 ELECTIVE cAPPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing and Ming the form. • INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate.Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies(CRAB)under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law.A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating in these matters. However;you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, . whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2) CE FORM 8B-EFF.11/2013 PAGE 1 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C. APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, /41- 1<4Z4 rS ti , hereby disclose that on ��fL f' , 20 / : (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one or more) inured to my special private gain or loss; ured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, C,/674./-e D, S/2/c r fe.4 vi'6 5 1"—A/4 inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, • �! inured to the special gain or loss of _CA e i C Sri r ft.e Vie 4S , by whom I am retained; or 1,44.,lo y•r.r inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent subsidiary, or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: A/4 v4 Svgs'-M,// .4 Ave) L ./1,7 oA-1,31(We ' c tit C 79.--A-4-7-- 'J, 5Ti4, c,— If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules governing attorneys, a public officer, who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way as to provide the public with notice of the conflict. Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF.11/2013 PAGE 2 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C.