Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/18/2001 ROctober 18, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 18,2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:35 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Joyceanna J. Rautio Russell A. Budd Kenneth L. Abernathy Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Lora Jean Young David J. Wolfley NOT PRESENT: Dwight Richardson Mark P. Strain ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie M. Student, Asst. County Attorney Susan Murray, Chief Planner, Planning Services Page 1 CLERK TO THE BOARD MAUREEN KENYON AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2001, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS 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, WRrFTEN 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES - MARK P. STRAIN, DWIGHT RICHARDSON 6. BCC REPORT - RECAPS OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 7. CHAmMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS VA-2001-AR- 1311, John Enlow, representing Adam Hubschman, requesting an after-the-fact 1-foot variance from the required side yard setback of 7.5 feet to 6.5 feet and an after-the-fact 0.4-foot variance from the required side yard setback of 7.5 feet to 7.1 feet for property described as Lot 9, Block C, North Naples Highlands, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) B. PUDZ-2001=AR-986, Karen Bishop of Project Management Services, Inc., representing Kenneth P. Saundry, Jr., Trustee, requesting a rezone from "RSF-3" and "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Walnut Lakes PUD permitting a 4.5 acre Village Center, a maximum of 612 residential dwelling units and Adult Living Facility units, and a 9-hole golf course with related lakes and open space, for property located on the north side of U.S. 41, approximately 3 miles east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 12, Township 5t South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2044- acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) C. RZ-2001-AR- 1050, Crreg Jeppesen, P.E., of Jeppesen Engineering Corporation,representing Michael G. Iaconelli and Joan Iaconelli, requesting a rezone from "C-4" to "C4" to remove a restriction for access for property located on the east side of U.S. 41 East, between Martin Street and Broward Street, further described as the South ½ of Lot 5, and Lot 6, Block 1, Naples Manor Lakes, in Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 0.85 acres.-t:. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) D. RZ-2001-AR-1376, Carlos Morales, representing La Quinta Homes of SW Florida, Inc., requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to RMF-6 for property located at 5211 24th Avenue S.W., in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 0.284- acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) E. CU-2001-AR-990, Robert Duane, of Hole, Montes, Inc., requesting conditional use for a fire station in the "E" Estates Zoning District per Section 2.6.9.2 "Essential Services" for property located at the southwest comer of Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard in Section 30, Township 47 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.7 acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) F. CP-2001-1, R. Bruce Anderson of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson & D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Assoc., representing LDJ Associates, requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan text and Future Land Use Map to change the designation from Residential Estates Subdistrict to Neighborhood Center Subdistrict, and modify standards, for 5 acres located on the northwest comer of Collier Blvd. (CR-951) and 11t~ Avenue SW, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. (Coordinator: Aaron Blair) G. CP2001-2, Karen Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples representing Buckley Enterprises, requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to create the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict allowing 172,500 s.f. of office and retail commercial uses, and 345 dwelling units, and changing the designation from Urban Residential Subdislrict to Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict, for 22.84 acres located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road, 300' north of Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Amy Taylor) H. CP-2001-3, Terrance Kepple of Kepple Engineering, Iq.c. representing Northside Construction Co. requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to change the designation from Urban Residential Subdistrict to Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict to permit a maximum of 40,000 s.f. of commercial development, for 10.47 acres located on the northwest comer of Pine Ridge and Livingston Roads, in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Jean Jourdan) 2 CP-2001-4, D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Assoc. representing Warstler-Schrage Development Co., LLC, requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to create the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdislrict allowing 325,000 s.f. of commercial uses and up to 500 dwelling units, subject to the Density Rating System, and changing the designation from Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, for 83 acres located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (SR-951) and the south side of U.S. 41 East, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. (Coordinator: Aaron Blair) CP-2001-5, Comprehensive Planning Section, representing the Board of County Commissioners, requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element to establish the Research and Technology Subdistrict within the Uiban Mixed-Use District. (Coordinator: Aaron Blair) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 10/i 8/01/CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo 3 October 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to call to order this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for Thursday, October 18th, 2001. Please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next item, roll call. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio, present. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Present. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson, absent but excused. Mr. Strain, absent but excused. We do have a quorum. Is there any addenda to the agenda, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: No, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Next item would be approval of the minutes for September 20th. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mrs. Young for approval of the September 20th, 2001, minutes. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Page 2 October 18, 2001 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Do we have any Planning Commission absences that you're aware of?. Okay. The next item would be No. 6, the Board of County Commissioners report, recap of September 25th. Do we have any specific questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, Madam Chairman. Susan, on page 6, top of the page, that item I was interested in about Eagle Creek and their storage, personal storage lockers, it sets it out there, but it doesn't say what happened to it. MS. MURRAY: The board denied that petition. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, good for them. Thank yoH. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions, or did you have any highlights you wanted to cover, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: No. I did want to mention that we had our first public hearing for the LDC amendments. And to preface that, I did want to say that the staff did forward the LDC amendments with all of your recommended changes to the Board of County Commissioners. We had our first public hearing. There was one speaker in the audience. Some of the issues that came up were the sunsetting issue and the three-year time frame and the requirements for the applicants to notify the property owners for the public meeting. Those were some of the discussion items. I'll give you a final report after we meet again with them next Wednesday and they have their final public hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I have nothing specific in the chairman's report for No. 7. No. 8 is the advertised public hearings. The first item we have today is VA-2001-AR- 1311. All those wishing to give testimony today, please stand, raise your right Page 3 October 18, 2001 hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: petitioner? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There's no one here for the It doesn't look like it. I guess he's not here yet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I think we ought to put this over till the end of the agenda. I don't think you can have a hearing without a petitioner very well. COMMISSIONER BUDD: We can proceed, and if there's questions and he's not here to answer them -- you know, we have a schedule for a date and time certain. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What's the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't feel strongly. Whichever way you want to do it, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Is the pleasure of the board to continue on, or would you like to postpone this to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to continue on. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Continue on. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is an after-the-fact variance for property located on Frank Whiteman Boulevard. The house was built in 1953, and in 1991 they applied for a permit to expand the house. And the plans showed side setback at 7 1/2, and later they gave us a survey showing 7 1/2. And the -- they were issued a final CO. And subsequent to that, the house was sold. And last year the house was sold again, and the new owners asked for a survey. The new survey showed that the old surveyor was wrong, and the side setback is 6 1/2 and not 7 1/2. And they are applying for a variance to remove the encroachment there. While they are at it, they are also asking for a variance to the other side of Page 4 October 18, 2001 the house, on the west side. That side does not really require a variance. At the time the house was built setback was 5 feet. Later in 1974 we changed the setback to 7 1/2. So legally they are not in need of a variance, but to make sure that they will not have problems in the future, they are asking this also be added to the variance request so there are no problems with that in the future. Staff recommends approval of this variance. The area was developed many years ago. And, as I said, at that time the side setback was 5. Most homes, they have 5- or 6-foot setback. This 6 1/2-foot setback is not going to be out of character with the area. And, again, it happened many years ago, and since then the house was sold twice. And we know that it wasn't the applicant's fault. It wasn't the owner's fault. It was the surveyor's fault in 1991. Staff recommends that we forward this to the BZA with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would like to ask a question. You said it was the surveyor's fault in 1991 ? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 1991. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: 1991. We have a copy of the survey which was on the back of the application -- excuse me, the permit. Could you clarify who actually was the surveyor for the -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Art Cornell (phonetic). CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. BADAMTCHIAN: surveyor on Marco Island. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: the survey? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This survey-- --'96 one? The wrong survey was done by Mr. By whom? Art Cornell, his name is. He's a Okay. Don't they normally put it on Their name? Yes, they do. I had to Page 5 October 18, 2001 copy a portion of the survey to fit in your staff report. The survey was 11 by 17. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The paperwork we got said that it would be expensive for them to do something for the house to bring it back into code. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have to basically tear it down. I don't know any other way of, you know, changing the setbacks. Once you remove the wall, you have to change all the trusses, and the roofing structure must come down, and it will be very expensive to correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who owns the house now? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right now the house is owned by Mr. Adam Hubschman and before that was owned by Mr. John Enlow. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So Hubschman went ahead and completed the purchase despite the fact that he had this -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They completed the purchase subject to the previous owner either obtaining a variance or-- I don't know what -- the other contingencies they had. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, the petition -- or the variance petition we have in front of us originally shows Mr. Enlow, and that's crossed out to Mr. Hubschman. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Enlow was the owner who sold the house in nineteen -- in the year 2000, I believe, to Mr. Hubschman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And we don't have anyone here to give us a little clarification. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Enlow was supposed to be here this morning. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And just clarify for me then, what future complications are they trying to avoid? Page 6 October 18, 2001 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are worried that in the future -- you're talking about the west side of the house; correct? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Correct. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. They are worried that in the future if they want to sell the house and somebody else is going to say, "The setback is 7 1/2; how come yours is 7.3?" So they just want to have this added to the variance. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They're afraid that history will be lost by the time the next sale takes place. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It could happen. It was built in 1953. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning Commission forward Petition VA-2001-AR-1311 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mr. Abernathy for approval of this petition. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Next item on the agenda is PUDZ-2001-AR-986, a rezone for Walnut Lakes PUD. All those wishing to present testimony today, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, planning services staff. The petitioner is requesting a rezone from RSF-3 and Page 7 October 18, 2001 agriculture to a planned unit development to be known as Walnut Lakes PUD. As you can see on the visualizer, the site is located on the north side of U.S. 41 approximately 2 miles east of Collier Boulevard. The proposed 204-acre planned unit development permits a mix of residential dwellings including an assisted-living facility that's designed around a golf course, lakes, open space, and preserve areas. As you can see on the master plan, the preserve area's along the north. To the north is the Naples Reserve golf course community. To the east is the West Wind Mobile Home Park, and to the west is vacant agricultural land. This master plan is slightly different than the one you have in your packet. It's revised by transportation. It limits the ingress/egress to this point up here. The one you have has two access points. That has been eliminated. Only the one to the north -- everything else is pretty much the same as what you have in your packet. The traffic impact review indicates that the project will not significantly impact any traffic capacity standard. The Future Land Use Element indicates that the site is eligible for residential densities not to exceed three units per acre. The base density is four units per acre, but it's within a traffic congestion zone, so it drops down to three units per acre. This PUD proposes a maximum density of three units per acre. And if there is developed an assisted-living facility, staff is requesting that for every acre converted from residential use to the ALF use, that three dwelling units per acre be subtracted from that maximum total dwelling units. That way we don't double-count that land. A review of consistency and compatibility with adjacent uses indicates that the development standards are fairly consistent with the nearby uses in the PUD zoning districts to the north. Staff has found no consistency problems with this project. The golf course intermixed around the perimeter of the project provides a nice visual buffer. Staff has not received any letters in objection to this petition and is recommending that the Page 8 October 18, 2001 petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of stafl~. Okay. We'd like to hear from the petitioner. MS. BISHOP: Good morning. Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. I really don't have much more to add than what Ray had. I have my engineer here to discuss water management issues if there are any questions. The site was previously permitted and platted at three units to the acre. And actually, they cleared it and were digging the lake, and then it sat for a very long time. So we're picking up and taking it over from there. You can see that there is a buffer on our northern edge which will be in conjunction with a buffer to the north, which is the Naples Reserve project. Other than that, it's a pretty typical golf course community, residential mixed use. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a couple. Karen, could you tell me for whom Mr. Saundry is acting as trustee? MR. BELLOWS: I passed out this morning the list of beneficiaries. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's for this item? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: that. Okay. That takes care of MS. BISHOP: We have Mr. Saundry here to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. That's fine. I have one other question. On page 12 of your submittal, Footnote 1, rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots which abut reserve areas may be zero feet. I take it a reserve area is the same as a preserve area? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. It could be something that's saved on Page 9 October 18, 2001 the golf course that doesn't quite fit in that preserves that we permitted, but yet it's still in that area that we would call a reserve or restricted area of development. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. If the rear yard is zero feet, does that mean the person who steps out his back door is not on his property anymore; he's in the reserve area? MS. BISHOP: No, not necessarily. Actually, these lots can be platted to have a reserve area in the back. Collier's Reserve is one that has a rear area that's a no-touch area, but it's part of the ownership of the lot. So you will -- you can own property that would be reserved and you can't -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You can walk on it, but you can't touch it. MS. BISHOP: Pretty much, or build on it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of the petitioner? Do we have a registered public speaker? MS. MURRAY: I have two registered speakers. The first is Jerry Trask followed by Charles Maurais. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Please come up to the microphone, state your name, and spell it for the court reporter, please. MR. MAURAIS: My name is Charles Maurais, M-a-u-r-a-i-s. We represent Jerry Trask. MR. TRASK: My name is Jerry D. Trask, and we represent West Wind. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And we'll have one person at a time speak. Okay? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Madam Chairman, would it be all right if the speakers went to this microphone? I can barely hear from that one. I'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Page 10 October 18, 2001 MR. MAURAIS: Is this better? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it is. MR. MAURAIS: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. We represent West Wind, which is adjacent to this development. We have several concerns, I believe, before us, and I'd like to get some answers if we could. We have got some plans and drawings, but we have a few concerns about this. Number one is the drainage. As you know, West Wind, during some heavy rains, we are pretty well inundated with water. We'd like to know what the drainage situation will be and how this drainage is going to be taken care of. Will there be retention basins in this property large enough to hold the water runoff?. Another one we have is the sewerage. During some high water times, our sewerage pumps are unable to handle the sewerage, and we'd like to know if this is going to be addressed. The other thing we have, of course everybody knows about the schools on Manatee Road. They now have portable classrooms. What's this -- what's the impact going to be on this? Traffic, I've heard some reports on the traffic. The road is being developed, I think, currently as we speak. What will happen? Will there be traffic lights at this intersection, and is 41 going to be widened sufficiently to handle the traffic? We've had numerous accidents in that area. Another problem we have and it says in there adult living facility. We'd like to know what that means, and how that is going to affect us because the layout we have actually shows single lots on the property. Is it going to be a large building, small building, individual homes? What will it be? I think that basically -- we'd like to know what type of drainage -- like I said, drainage is our main concern, personally, because we do have a lot of water. We have canals around our property, and during the last season, the last recent storms we've had, they've actually overflowed quite considerably. And we'd Page 11 October 18, 2001 like to know what the impact will be. Will there be a buffer zone between their property and our property? If we could get some of those answered -- that was a lot of questions. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sir, did you broach any of these questions with either the developer or with the planning staff prior to this meeting? MR. MAURAIS: We sent a letter dated October 8th. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: To whom? MR. MAURAIS: To the planning services, Ray Bellows. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. Don't speak from the audience. We will -- I wrote down, I think, most of your questions, and we can have the petitioner answer some of the issues on drainage and talk a little bit more about what you're asking for specifically. MR. MAURAIS: We did send this letter registered mail, by the way. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. TRASK: He covered about everything I needed to cover too. I'm a little concerned about -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Speak to us, please. MR. TRASK: I'm a little concerned about the zero backyard that she was talking about. I'd like to know how close that's going to come to West Wind property, to our canal. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I believe, Ms. Bishop, you have a few items you might want to cover, and staff might be able to elaborate. MS. BISHOP: I'm going to leave the drainage up to Reed Jarvi and just go over the fact that it is an existing permit with already a lake in the center, so we will have on-site retention, as most permits require. The outfall Reed will speak directly to, but we will have to permit through South Florida Water Management, so the neighbors Page 12 October 18, 2001 can be assured that we will not be adding to their problem because we won't be allowed to do that. The perimeter buffers are the typical landscape buffers in Collier County, 15-foot buffers. In a lot of areas, we're going to incorporate the golf course as a part of that buffer leaving as much natural vegetation as we can, but pretty much everything that's out there is pretty nasty. So we'll be bringing in a lot of landscaping to cover that. I believe the other thing he was talking about was the zero lot lines. None of those rear yards will be abutting the perimeter of their project. And still, even then, I would have to have the typical 15-foot buffer, as the code would require. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: He also asked about the sewage treatment. MS. BISHOP: Reed's going to speak to the sewage also. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And with reference to traffic, he can handle that also? MS. BISHOP: He's a multitalented guy. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And then how about the -- a little bit of elaboration on the adult living facility. What does that really mean? MS. BISHOP: Well, we've had several ideas of what kind of product we're putting out in here. One of the ideas have been a -- this is an adult community specifically, so the school issue too -- he was talking about the schools. We are planning an adult facility. The ACLF section of this has been an idea we've been kicking around that -- where you go and you start in maybe a single family, you move into a multifamily, you move then into an apartment, and then you go to assisted living, all in the same area. So you stay, you know, in your neighborhood from the time you move in until the time you pass away. We haven't really come up with what that idea would be. Most likely that facility would be located closer to U.S. 41 because of Page 13 October 18, 2001 the issues of having its own kind of, you know, trucks and everything else. We wouldn't want to bring those through the community, so they'd be farther to 41. The standards for that building are in the PUD already. We haven't really located -- and we haven't decided whether we are or aren't going to put it in there, so we just just-in- cased it and given us criteria to use if that's the direction we head in. But right now all we're looking for -- or all that we're planning at this juncture is the multifamily adult facility. And Reed will speak to the sewer and the drainage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Ray, did you have a comment? MR. BELLOWS: Just about the letter. I don't recall seeing any letter. I would have responded-- all of these issues are pretty straightforward, and I could have answered those things. I apologize if for some reason I -- just maybe part of-- put it in a different file by accident. I'm not sure what happened. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: He did mention that it came registered mail, and sometimes that holds up the delivery of it. If they have a copy, they may want to present it to you now so at least it's in the record. Okay. Mr. Jarvi. MR. JARVI: Hi. My name is Reed Jarvi. I'm a professional engineer with Vanasse & Daylor and representing the petitioner today. And I'll cover, I think, most of the questions. I wrote them down too. First we'll talk about water management. There currently exists a water management permit on this property, which was Naples Isles. It was about early '80s; I think '81, if I remember right. And it had single-family homes across the whole area with this lake system that is currently constructed part of the water management system for the project. Our project is going to be changing the layout a little bit, and the PUD plan's not up right now. But it's a series of lakes not dissimilar to what's there now, but they'll be reshaping them Page 14 October 18, 2001 to use the product that Mr. Saundry is looking for directly. But we will be working all the water management internal to the site. We designed -- we are into our second round with the water management district, and we're fairly hopeful that in the next 10, 15 days we'll have a permit -- or excuse me -- a staff report that will give us the permit for the water management district. We've talked to FDOT because we are discharging into the FDOT right-of-way, and that has been approved by FDOT. So we have the permit. We are in the final stages of the water management district permit for the site. And then more specific water management issues will be handled when we do the plats and plans in the, hopefully, near future. So hopefully that'll answer that question. But basically it's all self-contained. It runs to the south. Currently there is a control structure approximately here on the site. We are not using that control structure. We are actually raising -- that control structure is permitted at, if I remember right, elevation 2.75. We are actually raising that to 5 1/2, per the water management district's direction, to keep the water table up for natural vegetation purposes. So it will be self-contained. Sewage, I'll just briefly talk about sewage. You know, we- at the PUD stage, we don't do much more than sewage calculations and show that there are -- the plant has the capacity, and that we have done. When we do it, it'll -- at the plats and plans stage, we'll be doing our sewage lift stations to make sure it works from our standpoint and should not affect the West Wind property any more than it is currently. The last one was traffic. We looked at traffic. At the present time we don't believe there'll be a signal at the entrance. Our project will be going -- will be just using the main accesses up here. The Naples Reserve has -- is under construction now and is building this access road. We'll be using that as our main access. The access off 41 is a secondary access at this point in time, and so most of the traffic will be going to this access Page 15 October 18, 2001 road. Calculations have been done that show that that will function adequately as an unsignalized intersection, so we don't expect it to be a signalized intersection. Otherwise, the traffic is basically within standards -- the traffic that we add to the system on 41 is within level- of-service standards for 41. And best I know, there's no immediate scheduled widening of U.S. 41 in this vicinity. I think that answers the questions I wrote down. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There was the comment about the zero yard -- backyard zero lot line and how close would it be to the West Winds. I'm not sure I got a clear answer on that. MS. BISHOP: Okay. Well, we have the typical landscape buffers, but none of the zero lot lines are going to -- their zero edge is going to be along the property line of West Winds. We will always have a buffer, and in this case we are using the golf course as a buffer between the two. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bellows, do you have a statement? MR. BELLOWS: No. I was just going to point out the golf course abuts the West Winds, so they would not have any properties abutting their property line. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of either staff or petitioner? Yes, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question. It says that it's in a traffic congestion area and that the project trips exceed the significance test on U.S. 41 at the project buildout but will not lower the level of service below the road's adopted level-of-service standard. Could you explain that a little bit? MR. BELLOWS: The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan has certain criteria that all rezones must meet before the Board of County Commissioners can recommend Page 16 October 18, 2001 approval, and that is each road has what's called an adopted level of service that they can operate at. And if they operate below that, then it could trigger concurrency, which is a separate ordinance dealing with issuance of building permits on roads that are deemed deficient. The level of service of these roads are operating at an acceptable level of service. There is another section to that that says what is a significant impact, and that's generally 5 percent of the Level of Service C design capacity of the adjacent roadways. And this project exceeds 5 percent, but it will not lower the level of service below the adopted standards. So, therefore, it's not an overall significant impact, and we can recommend approval. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm just wondering because I know that there's a lot of traffic delays. Every time I come in here I see it, and I wonder how we could have gotten to the point where the roads are supposedly, you know, within the limits of their capacity, but yet there's rush-hour delays almost every day. MR. BELLOWS: Also, I'd like to point out, this -- before I answer that last part, this project is already zoned, for the most part, RSF-3. They can pull building permits now for single-family homes within this development without having to get this rezone for much of the site. This PUD rezone allows them to do other things, such as a golf course and assisted-living facility. But for the most part, the residential units are already vested in. Now, the overall traffic capacity system has been impacted by delays in road construction. We had not built roads for three, four years, and the capacity that we had prior to that has now reached its limit since we had-- and now we're in a full-blown road construction process to catch up for the time period where we weren't building roads. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought the infrastructure was supposed to be there concurrently or first. MR. BELLOWS: For the most part. For this project it is. For Page 17 October 18,2001 other projects within the county, at the time they were going through the rezone process, those roads were listed on their five-year work program as being built; however, they were not built, and now we're rushing to catch up with that. MS. STUDENT: I just would like to state for the record -- and I don't have the adequate public facilities ordinance right in front of me, but at least for transportation there is a three-year window for that. In other words, it's -- and that's in the Rule 9J-5 as well. So if it's in the five-year CIE and going to be constructed in the third year of that five year, essentially you have a three-year window. And for parks and recreation facilities, you have a one-year window. I just wanted to explain that for the record. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young, you have a question. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yeah. What is the level of service, then, for 41 down there? MR. BELLOWS: I believe that's in the staff report. I don't list the actual buildout because this language basically comes from transportation. And they're not stating what the actual level of service is, but they are saying it is consistent. And maybe Reed can -- MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi for the petitioner. The level-of-service standard for U.S. 41 in that area is Level of Service D. The level-of- service projection for our buildout, which is 2009, is C in that area. So it's actually better than the standard, the projected. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: By 2009. MR. JARVI: By 2009. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions? No questions? Okay. That was the last public speaker? MS. MURRAY: Yes. No more speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No more speakers. I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? Page 18 October 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning Commission forward Petition PUDA-2001-AR-986 (sic) to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mr. Abernathy for approval of the petition. Do we have any discussion? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Madam Chair, I'm going to have to recuse myself from the vote. I've had previous dealings with Mr. Saundry. MS. STUDENT: I beg your -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You're going to abstain from voting. MS. STUDENT: Yes. Because as I understand it from talking with Mr. Wolfley, there is a voting conflict of interest. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any other comments? Hearing no further discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response with Commissioner Wolfley not voting.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have one abstention. Motion carries. Thank you. Next item on the agenda for public hearing is RZ-2001-AR-1050,a rezone from C-4 to C-4. All those wishing to give testimony today, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a rezone from C-4 to C-4, and Page 19 October 18, 2001 this came about as a result of the zoning reevaluation program in the early '90s, 1990 and '91. The existing zoning at that time was -- throughout the county was evaluated for consistency and compatibility with the new Growth Management Plan. In this particular case for this parcel and a half, the board added four conditions, which you saw in your staff report. And the petitioner wishes to remove one of those conditions, which is the access for four of the parcels onto Tamiami Trail East. The method to remove that one stipulation, one condition, is to rezone the parcel from C-4 with the condition to C-4 without the condition; hence, that's the petition that's before you today. The petitioner (sic) was reviewed by our comprehensive planning staff and was found that it was consistent with the Growth Management Plan. It was reviewed by our transportation services division, who had no objections. And it was also reviewed by fire, who asked to modify the -- one of the other stipulations for no access to Floridan. They would like controlled emergency vehicle access, which usually is not a problem. It's not a paved -- it's usually a stabilized subsurface and then grassed over. The fire department knows it's there, but it's not -- it looks like landscaping and not a road, so the public doesn't use it. I've received no objections to this petition, and staff recommends approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Fred, I don't read Dawn Wolfe's letter the same way you do, I'm afraid. She says, "The Transportation Planning Department will recommend that the modification be conditioned on the provision for cross access to the original lots to minimize entering and exiting traffic conflicts." Now, that disappeared in the -- or was ignored by the rest of the staff. I assume if they could achieve these cross-access points, they might Page 20 October 18, 2001 not even be bothering to come in here. MR. REISCHL: Right. I believe that letter was written prior to -- Mr. Jeppesen had subsequent conversations with Ms. Wolfe, and that was resolved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, the record, then, ought to be brought up to date with something else from Ms. Wolfe saying that her previous objections have been satisfied, I would think, because the record as it stands says she has this condition. So I'll leave it to you to do something about that. A more serious problem begins on page 3 at the bottom. There's a statement "Fire access to the site from Floridan Avenue may be required." There's nothing in here to indicate that the East Naples Fire District is of that view. And the staff proposal says, "The restriction currently reads 'Access onto Floridan Avenue is prohibited.' Staff proposes this be revised to 'Access to Floridan Avenue is prohibited, except for controlled, emergency-vehicle access.'" Then you go back to the summary findings, and -- where is it -- "The only access to the adjacent single-family neighbor will be for emergency vehicles." Well, it starts out sounding like the fire department wants to be able to come down Floridan Avenue to access -- to get to this lot for fire purposes, but then the language tums around and sounds like the fire department wants to get from this property to Floridan Avenue. I can't imagine they would want to service this property itself from Floridan when they've got Highway 41 to travel on. In other words, what we're giving here is something the petitioner has not even asked for. So is it "to" or "from" or -- the minute you cut this access, you know dam well that for one reason or another, the occupant of this property who wants this developed is going to find it convenient from time to time to go out onto Floridan Avenue. And the fact that you've Page 21 October 18, 2001 got some stipulation that says the only time it can be used is for fire -- what, is the fire department supposed to come down 41, cut through this lot to get to Floridan? Is that the idea? MR. REISCHL: I think it was for the access of the trucks. Again, I don't want to use "to" or "from," but to have trucks be able to use that as a cutthrough. Whether they come from Floridan or come from 41, to be able to not have to back up the truck, but to get onto Floridan with a big fire truck. Now, it's controlled access because it's going to be, as I said before, a stabilized subsurface that's sodded and, you know, doesn't look like a driveway. It's going to look like landscaping, like sod. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it seems to me it would be more orderly if the fire department would make some kind of a written presentation of what it is they want, whether it's to or from or both ways or whatever. And I don't know how the petitioner feels about that. MR. JEPPESEN: Greg Jeppesen representing the petitioner. As far as I know it, it's to be able to get trucks, you know, through the property. Whether they come down Floridan or come down 41, there's some properties along that corridor that, you know, are between Floridan and 41 that -- actually, I think that the rental place right next to it, the fire department made them put in an access on Floridan because all the fire hydrants are along Floridan, and they need just to get back there and need to be able to drive through. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you understand that they're going to use your lot as a cutthrough for fires unrelated to your lot or just your lot? MR. JEPPESEN: Just to be able to serve our lot. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Your lot. MR. JEPPESEN: Yeah. There's roads, I mean, you know -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The lot next door already Page 22 October 18, 2001 has that cutthrough? MR. JEPPESEN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I want to make sure I'm clear on that. You're saying that you think the fire department will only use this access for your property? MR. JEPPESEN: Yeah. That's my understanding. MR. REISCHL: That's my understanding also. MR. JEPPESEN: Yeah. Because that area of town has a grid system. I mean, there's roads -- it's not -- everything around there is easy to get to. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. But there's quite a distance between Martin and the other street, some distance, anyway. MR. REISCHL: The fire department requires turning radii for the trucks depending on the size of the building that they're protecting. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And this lot wouldn't be big enough to do that? MR. REISCHL: That's right. Therefore, they want the emergency access. MR. JEPPESEN: They have to back up onto 41. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Now it's beginning to make a little better sense. MR. JEPPESEN: Regarding the access easement requirement, cross access, when I met with Dawn, actually before she wrote that letter -- you know, in looking at that old ordinance, there should have been provisions for those four lots to have cross access because, I mean, land's going to have to be bought and sold. And this parcel and a half got sold, and now there's no cross access. Her intention of that -- that requirement was that in the future when projects around us get redeveloped -- I mean, we're going to put in a cross access in the front of our property. So in the future, you Page 23 October 18,2001 know, whether it might be 10 years, might be 50 years, you know, the people next to us can cut through our property and use it. It's just looking into the future since it wasn't done in the past. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Lots on either side of you developed already or-- MR. JEPPESEN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: East? MR. JEPPESEN: The one on the north side is developed already, which is the truck rental place I was just talking about, and the one on the south isn't developed yet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is someone here from transportation that could clarify this for us, make some testimony on the record? MR. MULLER: Sorry. I wasn't sworn in. (The speaker was sworn.) MR. MULLER: My name, for the record, is Russ Muller, and I'm with development services, engineering. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have to speak up a little. MR. MULLER: When he comes in with an SDP, we'll make sure that the SDP would accommodate future access to the property to the west or north. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you stand for the proposition that the East Naples Fire Department has made -- made this request to you, or did you-all just know that they needed that? MR. MULLER: The East Naples Fire Department, I don't know what their request was. I just know that as far as the cross access, he's going to provide it for the future properties, undeveloped property. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We're talking about access to Floridan Street (sic). Do you know anything about that? MR. MULLER: I can't help you with that one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Page 24 October 18,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further questions of staff?. Would you care to do a regular presentation? MR. JEPPESEN: No. It's pretty self-explanatory other than I'd -- you know, regarding the fire issue, I'd kind of like to have that addressed at the SDP process regarding -- I mean, it may be approved, the controlled access, but as far as the means and way to do it, have that approved at the SDP process. I mean, I haven't -- I haven't talked to the fire department regarding this either, and I'd rather not agree to a -- you know, a detailed type of-- that's not really the intent of this petition. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, the intent of this petition is just to give a general requirement. What we'll do is I'll have Fred clarify with the fire department before this even goes to the Board of County Commissioners so we all know we're on the same page, and then the details, of course, would be worked out at the SDP -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because the way I read this recommendation is that you're only following through on the petition versus the additional analysis you provided for the emergency- vehicle access. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Jeppesen just requested the access from 41. The fire reviewer requested the emergency access. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And I guess maybe I'm missing something, but you're referring only to the rezone for the access to the site, and it doesn't specify the controlled, emergency-vehicle access in your recommendation because he didn't petition for it. MR. REISCHL: It's in the resolution. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's in the resolution. MR. JEPPESEN: It's something that's going to come up later in the SDP, and it's -- you know, because that provision's not in this restrict -- you know, it isn't allowed with the restrictions in place Page 25 October 18,2001 now. It's better to deal with it now because otherwise it'll be a problem. MR. REISCHL: Today's restriction says access to Floridan is prohibited, and that includes fire trucks. So if the fire department requires a -- an access during SDP review, this would allow them to have it. They may -- as Greg said, they may not -- during their SDP review, they may not want it. But this would at least allow the possibility without going through this rezone process again in the future. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So it is in the resolution, but it's not in the statement for the recommendation. I just want to make sure I'm on the right page here and that you're agreeing to this access. MR. JEPPESEN: I'm agreeing to the access, sure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Any there any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that this Planning Commission forward Petition RZ-2001-AR-1050 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mrs. Young for approval of this petition. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. Page 26 October 18,2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. MR. JEPPESEN: Thanks. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Moving right along to RZ- 2001-AR-1376, the La Quinta Homes rezone, all those wishing to give testimony today, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a rezone for a single lot in Golden Gate City which is located at the comer of 24th Avenue Southwest and 52nd Terrace Southwest. The property is zoned single family RSF-3, and the applicant is requesting to change it to RMF-6. What happened was the building permit was issued for a duplex for this lot. By mistake a building permit was issued for this lot, and we only caught the mistake after the house was almost complete. The Growth Management Plan allows rezoning up to seven units per acre because this lot is within the density band of an activity center. And as you can see from the zoning map, this is the lot in question, Lot 1. And we have RMF-6 here, RMF-6 here, and RMF- 12 here. And the person who issued the permit in the building department by mistake thought this lot was also RMF-6; however, this lot is RSF-3, as you can see in here. It says RSF-3. And the building permit was issued thinking that it was RMF-6. This -- the duplex which is almost complete is surrounded by duplexes on either side, east and west. And my staff report says to the south there's a duplex. Actually, it's a triplex to the south. And there's a single-family house to the north. Staff recommends approval of this -- this rezone since it will not be out of character with the area, it's surrounded by RMF-6 and RMF-12, and the mistake was Page 27 October 18,2001 made and the building permit issued, and the house is almost -- the duplex is almost complete. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There must be some logic why the lines are drawn as they are for the RSF-3 and the 6. Did you look into that concept? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. I didn't, but I noticed that there are other places that -- as you can see, there are RMF-6's all over, but this lot in here is also RSF-3. I don't know why they did it that way. They meandered the lines to include some in RSF-3 and some in RMF-6, and I don't think there's any real logic behind it. This is a row of RSF-3. I believe they want the entire road to be RSF-3, but they back into RMF-6. So I don't think there was any real logic behind it when they drew those lines. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, this is a really weird situation here. You'll notice that a lot of the multifamily and single family are split, actually, behind the lots -- I mean, to the rear. So you have -- rear to rear you have single family abutting multifamily. I'm going to guess that this was probably done as a result of the development patterns in the area. Generally we try to follow street lines and other natural property -- or boundary lines when we're drawing zoning designations on a map. And when you're starting out with a clean slate, sometimes that's a little bit easier than if you're starting out in an area that's been developed for a while. I'm going to guess that's probably kind of what happened here, was the lines attempted to follow in some logical pattern the existing development patterns in the area when they were originally drawn. Normally you don't see the back to back, you know, with the multifamily and the single family. It's a little bit different case here than you find throughout a lot of the county, but Golden Gate City's been around for a while. That may be an explanation. Page 28 October 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions from the board? Okay. No questions of staff?. Petitioner, would you care to present, please? Excuse me. You have to come to the mike. MR. MORALES: Good morning. My name is Carlos Morales. I'm the owner of La Quinta Homes. What happened here, I bought this lot thinking that it was a duplex because it's all surrounded by duplex. And I checked with the planning and the building department, and they said yes. I applied for a permit, and they issued it. That's basically it. May I ask who you bought the CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: property from. for? MR. MORALES: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. MORALES: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. MORALES: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: A Realtor. A Realtor. I bought it from -- Do you recall who that Realtor is? Would you care to state it, please. MR. MORALES: Dave Hoff, I think it is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And which company does he work MR. MORALES: He's a broker, I think. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Huff, H-u-f-f. MR. MORALES: Dave Hoff, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. MORALES: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' Okay. And then the building department went ahead and gave you the permit. MR. MORALES' That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' So it was an error on their part also. MR. MORALES' That's correct. Page 29 October 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Wow. I think we have some registered public speakers if you have nothing else to present. MR. MORALES: No. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. The first registered public speaker, please. MS. MURRAY: The first registered speaker is Simone Gartner followed by Manetta Osburn. MS. GARTNER: Good morning. I'm sorry. I have a cold. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us. My name is Simone Gartner, S-i-m-o-n-e, Gartner, G-a-r-t-n-e-r. Listening to him about the way that the maps and stuff are laid out, myself and this lady here, we own the duplex across the street, which is L-shaped. It actually sits on both streets. We have two separate addresses. I face this gentleman's duplex. The street in front of me is solid single family, and then at the end of the street you have this duplex that faces the opposite way, so it really kind of is an eyesore. When we built our duplex, we had to go through extensive things for drainage. They don't have the proper drainage. I don't think the property's elevated enough. We're concerned about the flow of the water. We had to put a certain amount of trees on our property, which I don't see any trees on their property. It butts up against a neighbor's yard, which the air conditionings are going to be kind of loud. Sorry. My throat's very sore. But because it is multifamily, the parking -- their driveways are very small, which they're going to start parking on the streets unless fences or trees are put up. And we understand that we live in a multifamily residence, but we chose it because the one whole side is single family. It's one of the nicer areas. But the way that it sits at the end of the property just looks -- you have all these homes facing this way, and then you have this orange duplex sitting there that faces the opposite street. And Page 30 October 18,2001 those are basically our concerns, is that they -- I mean, we don't expect them to tear it down. We have to be realistic, but they should comply like we had to: Proper drainage, trees, you know, things to prevent 15 cars from parking in this driveway and so forth. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What street do you face, please? MS. GARTNER: I am on 52nd, which-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're on 52nd and you're -- MS. GARTNER: Their duplex sits on a comer. Here's the street. We are right here. And ours is an L-shaped on the opposite comer. Ours is L-shaped. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MS. GARTNER: And our property has, like, big ditches for lots of drainage of which, by the way, when we did ask for the drainage, it took them a year and a half to get the drainage in, and we just got it a couple weeks ago. So we're concerned. What, are we going to wait two years to get the drainage into this place? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you're concerned about drainage issues and landscaping -- MS. GARTNER: Parking. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- requirements. MS. GARTNER: yoll. So they have to comply like we do. Thank The next speaker is Manetta Osbum followed MS. MURRAY: by Patricia Deutsch. MS. OSBURN: My name is spelled M-a-n-e-t-t-a, O-s-b-u-r-n. Simone and I built a duplex on the opposite comer. It is our home. We live there. And addressing the issue of how these streets were laid out, I'm sure it had something to do with density, which is a serious problem in the area where we live. I don't know if there are restrictions for density. In a multifamily neighborhood, of course, you're going to have more people, but I believe there are probably a Page 31 October 18,2001 lot more people living there than the structures were ever intended to house. When I received this notice, it made me angry because I don't see this happening except in places like Golden Gate or Naples Manor where such things are -- are ignored by the -- by the government that we put our trust into to manage these things. I hope not. But we do have a number of problems in Golden Gate that should be addressed. Nevertheless, we object for the reasons that Simone set forth. The drainage does not appear to be adequate. The color is -- is horrible. It's pumpkin and mustard, if you can picture this. Anyway, I appreciate the time that you've taken to listen to us, and I hope that we can make some resolutions here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next speaker. MS. MURRAY: Patricia Deutsch. That's your last speaker. MS. DEUTSCH: My name is Patricia Deutsch. The last name is D-e-u-t-s-c-h. I've lived at -- I live at 2380 52nd Terrace. I've lived in this home for, like, 21 years now, so it's been nice not to have a property built next to me. My two bedroom windows on that side of my home are, like, within 20 feet of his air-conditioning systems and well systems where you're going to hear this at night running, and I find that objective (sic). I think that there should be a privacy fence of some type put up so that I -- you know, when we're trying to sleep at night, that we're not hearing these things kick on and off. The privacy fence, the color of the home. We know it's built. We can't tear it down. You know, they have a patio that just sits on 52nd. And with no drainage, my yard, since we've had a lot of rains here lately, has been flooding. I did not have this problem before. So, you know, I know we've got to live with what we've got there, but we've got to make -- you know, Mr. Ramirez (sic) has got to do something to make it livable for all of us. You know, these Page 32 October 18, 2001 people with their little patios, they're going to have 20 trucks parked there having their little barbecue, which we understand. But it's -- you know, what do we do? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does his place face on 24th or on 52nd? MS. DEUTSCH: It faces on 24th, but the patio sits on 52nd. So, I mean, it's really out of line. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it's a side yard then. MS. DEUTSCH: Right. It's a side yard. And, like I said, the air-conditioner units and the well units are adjacent to my two bedroom windows. You know, one on the front side of my home, and one on the back side of my home. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: building? That's the back of his MS. DEUTSCH: Yes, the back of his building. And we're, like, within 26 feet. You know, I mean, I guess when I get up in the morning, I can make my bed and his too. So I just thought that was awful close to my property line as far as -- you know, when you don't know what the property jurisdictions are, you just figure that's the way it is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Chahram, could you elaborate a little bit on the idea that this gentleman has a different set of regulations for drainage and landscaping than the people right across the street? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: For one thing, the house is not complete, 100 percent complete. So the landscaping, if that's the problem, our code requires basically two trees per unit, two shade trees per unit, so he has to plant four trees on the site. I don't know how many of them he has planted, but he has to plant four trees. For the drainage, I think they are talking about the street drainage, the swale that's on the street, and that's transportation Page 33 October 18,2001 department. They take care of that, and it's not his responsibility. It's a street drainage. And for a duplex or a single family, you don't have to provide for the water retention on site. That water retention requirements only start when you have three or more units. And what was the other one? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, the buffering -- concern about the parking. How many cars can be parked there? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have room for four cars, and it's -- cars, they will be entering the property from 24th Avenue, since it is -- the building is facing 24th Avenue. That's where the driveway is located and the parking spaces. For the orientation of the building, when you have a comer lot, you basically pick which side your house is going to be facing. And since there is another duplex in here -- there's another duplex in here facing that 24th Avenue, and he decided to make his duplex face 24th Avenue. And about the color, I don't know. We don't have a restriction on how -- what color you want to paint your building. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think I understand that our building department made a mistake. It sounds like the Realtor made a mistake. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Possibly, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What are the controls that we have internally to identify immediately what the zoning of a piece of property is that a permit's coming in on? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I think basically we go to the zoning map when somebody applies for a permit, and that's where the mistake occurred. The person who reviewed it didn't notice that that's RSF-3 here and this lot belongs to this zoning district and not this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just for my edification, when a staff members look at this map, they see those very dark lines also; right? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. Page 34 October 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's not just for our-- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. This is a copy of the map. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Made a mistake. Now, I still have trouble -- as a licensed real estate broker in Florida, there's a certain amount of responsibility there. This gentleman is a contractor. I find it difficult to see that this went this far. I'm not sure what the resolution is because these people obviously are impacted by a mistake that a broker has made, someone who's a contractor -- both have licenses -- and then our own building department. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But if this house was made into a single-family house, let's say, we will still have the same setbacks, and the air conditioner still will be there. And that doesn't mean that in a single family they are going to have less cars or less people living in that single family. I understand their concern, but changing this into a single family, it's just going to change things inside the building. It's not going to affect the footprint of the building, the location of the building, or location of the well or air-conditioning unit. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you're saying changing it to a single-family home, the structure. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. It's just going to change the inside of it, not the outside. And the objection is basically for water -- for drainage and for the location of it and where the air- conditioning units are sitting, and those are not -- those are not going to change. Single family or duplex, they're going to stay where they are. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many bedrooms per unit are -- MR. MORALES: Three bedroom. Page 35 October 18,2001 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Three per unit. So I would have to say that certainly there's going to be more parking at a duplex than a single-family home unless they're going to have a six- or five- bedroom home there, which I don't think would fit. I'm particularly sensitive to this drainage issue since I'm subject to one of those at my house. What can be done so that these folks or the lady that lives to the north doesn't get flooded out because the property was raised, and it tends to flow? Is there any type of drainage down to the swale? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is a swale -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- but it's maintained-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Between the units. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: and 2. Between No. 1 and 2, Lot 1 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Lot 1 and 2? There is a drainage easement here which part of it's sitting on Lot 1, part of it's sitting on Lot 2. It's a 12-foot-wide drainage easement, which is supposed to bring the water down to the street on 52nd. And there's another drainage easement on the east side of the property, which is supposed to bring the water down to the 24th Avenue Southwest. We can make sure that these drainage swales are graded properly and water flows the way it's supposed to. MS. MURRAY: Prior to the issuance of final CO, the grading of the lot will be verified to ensure that the water is flowing to the drainage easements and then to the proper swales which then carry to control structures located elsewhere in that neighborhood. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have some additional questions? Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm just -- I'm also quite Page 36 October 18, 2001 upset about this drainage situation and that their property is not going to be influenced by the fact that -- a mistake was made honestly. I have no problem with that. But if this drainage can't be corrected, then something has to be done about this. MS. MURRAY: I don't think it's an issue -- in other words, the building, regardless of whether it was single family or multifamily, would still have to comply with the drainage requirements for grading of the lot and the flow of the water. So I don't think that the drainage problem-- you know, we could certainly have staff look into it, but it may be exacerbated by other development in the area. I don't -- I don't know. This development will be required to comply with the drainage requirements. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One more, just a clarification. These ladies with the duplex across the street had one set of rules, and this gentleman, the contractor, doesn't have to adhere to those set of rules now that he's applying for -- MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure which rules they were referring to. The comer lot situation is you have two fronts and two sides, so the setbacks apply on -- the front-yard setbacks apply to the structure on both sides of the street, and then you have no rear-yard setback requirement. You have two side setback requirements. And your side setback requirements are typically less than your rear setback requirements. The problem is you have to choose a street upon which you want to front, or you can design your building -- it sounded like one of these ladies had a duplex that designed their building to front on both streets. That is kind of an issue that's inherent with comer lots. You end up with a frontage on one side and a frontage on the other side that looks like the side of a building and not necessarily the front. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'm going to allow -- the public Page 37 October 18, 2001 hearing is still open, so if you can testify to some new facts, please, I'll let you speak. MS. GARTNER: First of all, Mr. Huff works for Naples Realty. As far as the drainage, when we did our place, we had to have special pipes. We -- it cost us a fortune to have additional dirt brought in. Zoning made us do that. Because our driveways were wider, we had to have bigger pipes put in. I don't think your driveways are as wide as ours, but on the left side of your property, there's no drainage. There's trees and it flows. There's no drainage on the back of the property going to her house. There's no pipes. There's no nothing. On the part facing me, there's no pipes. There's only pipes under the driveway. And there's not enough elevation, and there's not enough dirt. We had to bring in all this and pay for it ourselves to have that done. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How long ago did you build? MS. GARTNER: March of-- year and a half, two years. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Would you care to make another factual statement? State your name too. MS. DEUTSCH: Okay. Pat Deutsch. Just to reaffirm what she said about the drainage and the noise from the air-conditioning units, I think it's -- you know, we've got to live together and live peacefully, so that's what I want. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You can come up and speak tOO. MR. MORALES: As far as what they're concerned about, the drainage, I have gone out of my way and put an 85-foot culvert to cover the whole front area of this duplex, 85 foot. On the side that they talking about that's facing is where the septic tank is. There's nobody going to park there. And the drainage that they have, they have a catch basin to the north, and that's where the water is flowing on their side. On my side it's running to the west -- I mean -- to the Page 38 October 18,2001 west; right? To the east. And, you know, the -- the -- what do you call? The fellow that does the permit for the right-of-way has an elevation that they have gave me, and that's what I did. He told me that I could put two culverts or put one, and I put one, an 85-foot culvert. And I got parking for six car on each unit (sic), six car. Not four, six. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Six cars? MR. MORALES: That's correct. My driveway is 20 feet by 40 feet-- 30 feet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And your 85-foot culvert, what type of material is it and what size is it? MR. MORALES: It's 12 inch. That's the requirement that they do in Golden Gate City, and they -- you know, but I could have done 20 -- two pieces of 20 feet. I went the whole side of the road, 85 foot. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that culvert empties into what? MR. MORALES: It's going into the east side. That's where the water flows, to the east. Now, to go back on the backyard, I have put gutters. I have put gutters in the back of the house, you know, 6-inch gutters with -- I put a pipe underneath the ground to drain into the ditch. So the backyard is not going to be flooded with my water. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And one question I have for you, Mr. Morales, is your La Quinta Homes, what type of state license do you have? Which category? MR. MORALES: GC. It's a general contractor. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have a GC license, a general contractor license. Okay. MR. MORALES: So there's no water going into their yard because I got gutters all around the house. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you're talking about a gutter which is a roof drain. MR. MORALES: You know, the gutter goes on the back of the Page 39 October 18, 2001 house. It's a 6 inch. All of my roof water will drain into that gutter, go underneath the ground with a pipe, and drain it to the ditch. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you're actually draining by a roof drain, and the gutter system is tied into the culvert? MR. MORALES: It's going into the culvert, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Tied into the culvert. MR. MORALES: No. You can't tie it in. It drains into the swale. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: that. Okay. I'm somewhat familiar with MR. MORALES: But, like I said, I have put in 85 foot, so it's more than sufficient. Now, the house in front of mine, they have big ditches in there that looks ugly and stuff like that. Water sit there all day long. On mine it doesn't sit there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just one other question. Just to establish for the record, how long have you had your general contractor's license? MR. MORALES: Well, I am the owner of La Quinta Homes, and I have a gentleman that is the vice president who holds a license. I don't hold a license. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You don't hold a license. MR. MORALES: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And how long have you had him in your employ? MR. MORALES: Three years. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abemathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Your earlier testimony, Mr. Morales, you said you bought this piece of property from an owner who was represented by David Hoff; is that right? Page 40 October 18,2001 MR. MORALES: That's correct. There was a sign for sale. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. MORALES: And I went ahead and bought it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Now, did he tell you that it was zoned for duplex or-- MR. MORALES: I didn't ask for that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Didn't ask. MR. MORALES: I did not ask. What I did was I bought it, and I went to the planning at the county. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And they told you -- MR. MORALES: And I asked them if I could build a duplex there. The question (sic) was yes. I applied for a permit, I paid for the permit, and I started a house. I mean, it's -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So the misinformation was from the county staff, not from the Realtor. MR. MORALES: That's correct. But, I mean, I do whatever. I got about six or seven pine trees in there. I'm still not done with the landscaping. So, you know, I still got a little things to do there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have one question for him. You bought this piece of property not knowing what you were going to build on it? MR. MORALES: No, sir, I didn't know what I was going to build on there. I check to see whether I could build a duplex. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: After you bought the property? MR. MORALES: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Boy, that changes the economics, doesn't it? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: This is somewhat fascinating. As a licensed real estate broker in Florida -- I'm inactive -- it's required to Page 41 October 18,2001 have the information what the zoning is when you're purchasing a piece of property. And you are a builder, so you would be very interested in that. I'm having difficulty understanding -- MR. MORALES: Well-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. -- the complete innocence and then coming to the county -- which I have almost no tolerance for -- telling you that you can build a duplex there. MR. MORALES: Okay. The situation was -- if you look at this lot, you got a duplex to the west, a duplex to the east, a triplex to the south. You know, it's surrounded with duplex except to the north. So that lot sits right there. So, you know, it's really a critical situation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, you know, I believe in research and getting facts, and that's what I feel that you had a responsibility or a Realtor had a responsibility. And I'm not sure where we fit into this whole picture, but there are definite responsibilities to get facts and figures on what it is that you purchased and what you can build. MR. MORALES: Like I said-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm not overly sympathetic. MR. MORALES: Like I said, I went to the county, you know, in a goodwill to find out what I could build there. And, you know, if I'm going to be punished for that, that's okay. But, you know, what else can I do? I trusted the system. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further questions or discussion here? Questions of staff?. No more registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I have a motion to start with, but I do have some discussion. I'm also a real estate broker and a general contractor, and I can see how Mr. Morales could purchase the Page 42 October 18,2001 property and then -- fully believing that a single-family home might fit, could be feasible and then in talking to the county, would determine that a duplex would fit and could make that transition and purchase that. I've been involved in transactions similar to that, so it's not inconceivable to me that -- that the tale that he's told us is not (sic) credible. In regard to the drainage, I'm depending on the county staff, that they will follow through in the building inspection process and make sure that the invert elevations of the swales and the culverts and the drainage structures are all at the proper elevations. And as with every project we approve, or in the development process, we have to go with that reliance. The landscaping isn't complete, and again, I'm depending on county staff that the landscaping will be consistent, as with every project that's permitted and built within the county. And the parking, if there's parking for six vehicles, that again, it's dependent upon on the county staff that it's appropriate within the codes and that the turnaround radius is provided for the parking and that everything is in order. So with that reliance upon county staff, I'm left with the dilemma of, should this reasonably be a duplex? And it looks like a little notch taken out, and with every other property on 24th Avenue Southwest in both directions being duplex or higher zone with the RMF-12, I can see how a mistake could be made. And I don't -- while I'm with Chairman Rautio, I'm not overly sympathetic with the staff on making such an error, I don't see how we can reasonably punish Mr. Morales. But I think we should rely on the county building department to make sure that the adjacent neighbors' rights are not infringed, with proper landscaping, drainage, and parking considerations. So with all that, I don't know if there's any other discussions. If not, I'll be prepared to make a motion. Page 43 October 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I agree with everything you said. I think the one uncontroverted fact and uncontrovertible, I think, is that the county made an error in issuing the building permit. Now, I'm not convinced that a single-family home would have the same footprint that a duplex has, so I don't think it's necessarily all same, same. To build a single-family home of that dimension on -- in that particular neighborhood would seem to me to be the priciest house on the street, and nobody wants to do that. But the point is that the structure is there. The neighbors' reservations about the property can be addressed by staff, and I can't -- I don't think we can penalize Mr. Morales for having taken the county at its word. So I'd be prepared to second the motion when Mr. Budd gets around to making it. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'll make a motion that would prompt discussion and debate. I, therefore, move that the Planning Commission forward Petition RZ-2001-AR-1376 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to rezone this property from RSF-3, residential single family, to RMF-6, residential multifamily. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mr. Abernathy to approve this petition for the rezone. Further discussion, please. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there anything that we can do from -- from the county staff standpoint to try to see that something like this doesn't happen again? MS. MURRAY: Be more careful, I suppose. I think Mr. Budd pointed out it -- and I think I was even called in to Ed Perico's office to examine the issue and found that you just had to study the map quite a bit to figure out where the zoning lines were. And I'm not making excuses. A mistake was made. But I think in this case, you Page 44 October 18,2001 know, it was just kind of a difficult read on the map, and we'll try to be a little more careful. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Reliance on the county to make sure these -- all these things do come to pass would be the only way I could agree to do it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, relying on the county, this gentleman's relied on the county, and look where he got. I'm still having some difficulty with this. I'd like to hear from the rest of the board. Mr. Wolfley, I know you want to speak. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm a little unclear. The people who are not -- the neighbors are not -- I'm unclear of what they want, I mean, what they think. They say the structure is there; nothing we can do about it. But I'm unclear about what they want. What do they want? COMMISSIONER BUDD: The hearing's closed, but it seems to me what they want is their rights not to be infringed. They have an air-conditioning unit that's nearby, but single family or duplex, as long as we're within the building setbacks, there could have been an air-conditioning unit there either way. They're concerned about the landscaping. The requirements of the county are clear. We've stated numerous times by different commissioners that we're expecting the county to enforce the landscaping requirements and the drainage that -- again, we're relying on county staff and the inspection and final CO process to approve that, and those requirements would be there. Drainage would be an issue for a single-family home. Landscaping would be an issue for a single-family home. The one major point, which Mr. Abemathy brought out, I have to agree with, is that this house or this -- because it is a duplex, with the sizes I see here, it works out to 2,467 square feet. That would be an awfully big single-family house. It's quite doubtful, I think, that a Page 45 October 18,2001 single-family home would be built in this neighborhood at that size. So the structure that we have is probably almost certainly physically bigger than a single-family home that would reasonably be built here, but there would still be drainage and landscaping issues to be considered. So I think that all that can reasonably be done for the neighbors has been discussed. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MS. MURRAY: May I also clarify just when you're thinking about how you're going to vote that, of course, you have to consider the required rezone findings. And two of those most important findings are, of course, consistency with the Growth Management Plan and compatibility. And I think that staff has presented to you that this request is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and a duplex is compatible with the neighborhood. I just wanted to remind you of that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yeah. I, too, am concerned about the rights of his neighbors. So I would say to you, Mr. Morales, it's a good time to be a good neighbor. Talk with your neighbors about their concerns, and live up to what the county requires, but talk with your neighbors and make sure that you do your very best to be a good neighbor yourself. MR. MORALES: Sure. No problem. COMMISSIONER BUDD: And with that in mind, Mr. Morales, it is not within our abilities to regulate the color of your house. I would suggest that as a good neighbor you'd consider something other than pumpkin mustard orange, but that's your privilege. MR. MORALES: Let me say something to that. There's some houses there that are painted green. Page 46 October 18,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I know, but we're -- we closed the public hearing, so we really can't take testimony from you. Thank you. This really is a dilemma for me. And I'm not sure how this board's going to vote, but on principle I'm going to say that I feel there were a number of errors made here. There was a responsibility on the part of the petitioner. We do have to rely on county staff. I think this project will be watched very closely. But on principle I'm going to have to vote against it. So is there any further discussion? Hearing no further discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Aye. Okay. Motion carries, two against. Thank you. Next item is -- okay. Next item -- do you need a break by any chance? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: CU-2001-AR-990, this is a conditional use for a fire station in the estates zoning. All those wishing to give testimony today, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a conditional use request for a fire station on Page 47 October 18, 2001 Immokalee Road. Actually, it's going to be located at the comer of Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard, and the applicant is Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control District. Fire stations, police stations, and things like that are considered essential services and are permitted as conditional uses use -- uses throughout the county. And basically the property in here is zoned estates and surrounded mostly with vacant land. And the applicant is requesting to build a fire house -- fire station on this property, which will also have a future EMS station. Staff recommends that you approve this with the condition -- with all the stipulations listed by staff in the resolutions (sic) of approval. Basically they have to provide right-turn lanes to the station, improve the access on Immokalee Road. And that's the only stipulation, basically, we have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Where is this in relation to the existing fire -- firehouse? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Existing firehouse is how many miles? Four miles to the west of this station. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. If we don't have any other questions of staff, would the petitioner care to present? MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane, and we are in agreement with the staff recommendation and the stipulations. And just for the record, to reiterate the findings of the staff report, this petition can be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, which is Condition A. Ingress and egress to the property may be found to be adequate, Item B. Number C, the effect on neighboring properties is minimal, in part based on placement of the structure and the open spaces provided on the plan. And, finally, the petition can be found compatible by and large because there's very little around Page 48 October 18,2001 the subject property at the present time. In fact, this fire station will provide opportunities for potentially some other transitional-type uses in the future to those property owners. And that concludes my presentation, members of the commission, thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of the petitioner? No questions. Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that we approve -- send forward CU-2001-AR-990 to the county commission with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I second that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Whoops. Board of Zoning Appeals. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion by Mrs. Young, a second by Mr. Wolfley for approval of this peti -- excuse me -- this conditional use petition. Do we have any discussion? No discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Please fill out your findings of facts form, sign them, and pass them down to the secretary, Mrs. Young. Okay. Now we are going to be considering the Comprehensive Plan amendments, and I'd like to take a ten-minute break, if that's okay with the rest of the board. We're in recess. Page 49 October 18, 2001 (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We are back in session. If everyone would take their places, please. Could we have staff in position, too, please. Okay. I think we're ready to consider our amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. We have five of them before us today. This is for transmittal. The first item will be CP-2000-1 (sic). Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for the record. And I just do want to put on the record that I reviewed these amendments. I believe it was towards the end of September. And there are a number of wordsmithing and -- issues that need to be dealt with; nothing that changes the actual substance, but just for clarification purposes. And with the -- just the number of things that are happening in the county right now, staff and I haven't been able to sit down, but we anticipate doing so before the board. So this has come up before. So just if you'll make your motion, whatever the motion is, you know, with the idea that some clarity needs to be added and some formatting issues and they need to be dealt with as well, that would be fine. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. As you might be able to see, I have a number of colorful tabs, and I think that -- I wholeheartedly agree with you, Ms. Student, that there's some definite wordsmithing that needs to be done, some formatting consistencies so that we can really move through these. I won't bring all of these up, but for instance, when you approve one mixed-use district, you might want to include the next time that if it's approved, it gets placed in the list. One of them I thought was interesting, the item on the technical -- the research and technology park subdistrict. It was left out of one of the policy areas. And this seems to be pretty consistent throughout the changes that are here. I do have some very specific questions on some other items, though, but I will trust staff that they will indeed Page 50 October 18,2001 wordsmith, and they will format, and they will present a document that Collier County will be proud to have go to DCA. With that, let's try the first item. I wanted to clarify. Should we make a motion on each individual comp plan, or should we straw vote and then vote on everything? MS. STUDENT: The way I believe we've usually done this is to take a straw vote after each individual item and then have the official vote be the final vote. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. BLAIR: Good morning. For the record, Aaron Blair, comprehensive planning department. And what the petitioner seeks to do here is to amend the existing Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element of the Growth Management Plan to expand the estates neighborhood center boundary, which is located at Pine Ridge and Collier Boulevard, to include Tract 114, as you can see on the map here. This is the subject site, and the petitioner seeks to add this. It's a 5-acre parcel. As you can see on this map here, what's in orange and also what's in green is in the current neighborhood center subdistrict. The green part of the parcels is restricted to just water management and open space requirement, and the petitioner-- the two things he's seeking to do is, one, to add this parcel, but also to delete this open space management here, just to completely delete it. And instead what we'll have is just a right-of-way buffer and also the street, which is 11 th Avenue Southwest here, which will be a buffer. Another requirement I just talked about was the buffer. As you can see in the packet, they want to change the right-of-way buffer. And staff has included text that, along with Nancy Siemion, landscape architect for planning services, feels that is -- would do better justice here for a landscape buffer. And I believe that the petitioner agrees with it with an addition of just one word that we Page 51 October 18,2001 would like to add, which would just state that the project shall provide a 25-foot wide landscape buffer abutting the external right- of-way. So it would be for the external here along these roads. But what the petitioner and I have talked about is a loop road that would go through the property. And then that way, if there was a loop road, then they would have that buffer also in that loop road. And instead we would like to have it for external roadway only, and then you'd have your normal buffer on the internal loop road. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So am I understanding you correctly that the petitioner is agreeing to delete their language and insert your language with the addition of the one word "external" right-of-away? MR. BLAIR: Yes. As far as I understand, they are. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And just while we're on that issue, when we talk about staggering the rows of trees and planting a double row of hedges that are at least 24 inches high and they're going to attain 3 feet in a year, have we identified types of plants that meet that 12-inches-of-growth-in- 12-months criteria? MR. BLAIR: I think Nancy has a list of different plants that she recommends to people that -- she knows what works best and what'll reach a certain heighth. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is it realistic that this does happen? I see this an awful lot, and I'm just curious. MR. BLAIR: I'm not sure. I guess she wouldn't have it in there if she didn't feel that it would be realistic. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because I do know of a number of projects that never obtained the heighth, and then the hedges were cut down, and it's sort of fascinating to drive around town to see this. And I'm just curious if there's some new Miracle Grow that we have, and we can rely on the criteria that the plants will cooperate also. MR. BLAIR: We just rely on Nancy's judgment on that because Page 52 October 18, 2001 that's what her title is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And if the plants don't cooperate, what happens to the -- the property owner? MR. BLAIR: That I don't know. I don't deal with the landscaping portion of the project. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I guess it becomes a code enforcement issue, as Mr. Abernathy just commented. I'm not sure what they do at code enforcement when the plants don't grow. Okay. Does anyone have any specific questions? MR. BLAIR: We do recommend approval of this with the staff's language. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With the staff's language. Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I do have a question. You say that the market demand analysis has a trade area that overlaps the market trade area for VB/Collier Boulevard. That means you're questioning the validity of their showing of need? MR. BLAIR: Well, we were -- just wanted to note that so that you-all would have that information, that what the trend has become -- that we've seen the market area for a lot of projects come in and that they're using the same market area with -- it varies a little bit, but it's generally the same, which is going to be, because that's where most of the development is happening also. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's funny these market analyses and traffic analyses always come out to support what the petitioner wants to do. If they don't, as you pointed out in this case, that's not a fatal shortcoming? MR. BLAIR: If the market analysis did not? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: MR. BLAIR: I would assume yes. doesn't support it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. That means the market Well, the -- if you carve out Page 53 October 18, 2001 the part that's overlapped, then you'd have a question of whether it supports it or not, wouldn't you? MR. BLAIR: This is true. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was wondering, this is a privately owned piece of property? I mean, it may not have any bearing on this, but I'm just-- MR. BLAIR: I believe so. I believe it's owned by Mr. Larry Brooks. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And is there any specific use that he has in mind for it? MR. BLAIR: The application didn't state any site use. Maybe the petitioner can answer that question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think in the Comprehensive Plan we're -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just sort of curious. If we change it to this and then put up something that's objectionable, then it'll be in a situation where we approve -- but, again, it's just a question in my mind. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. The petitioner may wish to comment. Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the petitioner. I'd like to introduce Larry and David Brooks, two of the property owners that are here today, and Wayne Arnold, the project planner, and Dean Smith, the project engineer, who are here to answer any questions. This is a simple, straightforward Golden Gate Master Plan amendment to add 5 acres to the neighborhood center that's already been designated at the southwest comer of Pine Ridge Road and Page 54 October 18,2001 Collier Boulevard. This is not a commercial rezoning. This is merely an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which will make the property eligible to apply for a commercial rezoning at some time in the future, along with the other parcels that are within this neighborhood center. The Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review the actual commercial rezoning of this property at some time in the future. We believe this addition provides for a logical extension of the boundaries of this neighborhood center to the intersection with 1 lth Avenue Southwest. It will also enable people to access this neighborhood center and Pine Ridge Road from 11 th Avenue Southwest without ever having to get on Collier Boulevard. We are in agreement with the proposed changes to the text recommended by staff, with their one addition of the word "external." We have made a presentation to the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association several months ago, and they have no objection to this amendment. We also offered to meet with the Golden Gate Civic Association, and they said that they would contact us if they felt it was necessary for us to come make a presentation to them. And so far we have not heard any more from them. We'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have, and we would respectfully request your recommendation of approval to the county commission. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions for Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Straightforward. Okay. Next item, or do we want to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, straw vote. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to vote on each one. I may have difficulty voting on one of the last two, and I would like to get my vote in. Page 55 October 18,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Then if it's agreeable to everyone, we can take a quick vote on each one. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I make a motion that we forward Petition No. CP-2001-1 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do I need to make any findings, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: This is legislative. It's a comp plan amendment. It's legislative, so it's different than quasi-judicial where you make a finding of fact or legal conclusion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have the motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Adelstein for approval of this particular amendment. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Number 2. MS. TAYLOR: Yes. Good morning. My name is Amy Taylor for the record. I'm with your comprehensive planning staff. Before you for your consideration is Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2001- 2, the Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict. The geographic location of this is just north of the Collier County Public Library on Airport Road and northwest -- at the northwest comer of Airport-Pulling and Orange Blossom Road, and it is in the Naples -- North Naples planning community. The petition seeks to amend an existing Future Land Use Element and Map of the Collier County Growth Page 56 October 18, 2001 Management Plan to create a new mixed-use district known as the Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict to the urban mixed-use district for specified lands located northwest of the comer of Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom. The intent of this amendment is to develop a small-scale, mixed-use development that encourages the principals of traditional neighborhood districts at a -- this amendment establishes a mixed-use, site-specific subdistrict that creates -- its intent is to create a pedestrian-friendly environment for small-size retail and office uses with a residential component developed on the same site. The amendment proposes to cap retail uses at 3,250 square feet per acre and office uses at 4,250 square feet per acre while ensuring a residential component within the same building of a substantial percentage. A minimum of 25 percent of the maximum residential density would have to be constructed prior to the development of 40,000 square feet. This would equate to 86 dwelling units. The entire site is 22.84 acres. If built out to maximum capacity, the project could be developed with 74,230 square feet of retail, 97,070 square feet of office, and 343 residential units. I want to also provide a clarification. In the -- in the agenda package, the summary stated a little higher. It had been that -- we had calculated for a full 23 acres to provide for the square footage in the residential units. And as we were developing -- and this was for the advertisement. As we were developing the staff report, the acreages were -- were reevaluated based on 22.84 and the intensities and densities, which were -- are a little less. The existing conditions of the site are that its designation is future -- is urban mixed-use district/urban residential subdistrict, and it is within the traffic congestion area as identified on the Future Land Use Map. Under the criteria of these designations, three dwelling units per acre will be permitted. In addition, the parcels could be Page 57 October 18,2001 eligible for an additional 8 dwelling units per acre under the affordable housing provision of the density rating system. Both parcels -- it is actually two parcels -- are currently zoned agricultural and are being used as a commercial nursery at this time. The surrounding land uses are to the north Brighton Gardens Assisted Living Facility; east is Airport-Pulling Road, currently being expanded to six lanes; the Vineyards residential community to the east, Lakeside of Naples residential community, a church, and a plant nursery all to the east; south is the currently being constructed Collier County Public Library site; and to the west is Emerald Lakes. The -- a commercial demand-- or commercial analysis was not submitted by the applicant. We used the 1998 update of the commercial inventory of Collier County, and specifically the North Naples community, and did a brief analysis for you. Based on that 1998 commercial inventory, there -- there were 499 properties that were identified as commercially zoned in the North Naples planning community. It is a -- something that the -- the petitioner has proposed if there are not enough of the smaller pieces of property. There are quite a few, up to 27 or 5 percent of-- of the properties were only -- were over 10 acres. The remainder were less than 10 acres. But staff concluded that while, based on the 1998 commercial inventory, there is sufficient commercial acreage in the North Naples planning community, this project would be one of the first of its kind to be developed in the county. A mix of uses to include a substantial residential component could set an example for development of this kind or redevelopment of this kind at a smaller scale and provides the opportunity for residents to live, work, and shop in the same location. The Airport-Pulling Road corridor, in terms of its appropriateness for the area, is anchored by two activities centers. Similar approved and developed uses along this segment of Airport- Page 58 October 18, 2001 Pulling Road between the two activity centers are consistent and compatible with the proposed amendment. The Lone Oak PUD has 25,000 square feet of office space. The Willow Park PUD is approved for 7.47 acres for office and retail uses. The new Collier County library is being constructed to the south and will have an interconnection to the subject site. North of the subject site is the Brighton Gardens Assisted Living Facility with a density of 22 units per acre. One of the biggest challenges for any of these mixed-use properties will be interconnection. Opportunities for interconnectivity with adjacent residential will be a major difficulty for any new small-scale, mixed-use development in Collier County. The potential for increased internal capture by allowing higher densities on site will only partially mitigate this issue. Market conditions and/or increased traffic congestion on major roadways may provide incentives for existing neighborhoods to seek interconnection in the future. And primarily what I'm -- I'm thinking of is the Emerald Lakes. There is access to the north of the site at the -- at -- just north of the assisted-living facility. There will be no internal access to this mixed-use development. Properties that are east of Airport Road, there would be no opportunity or real good opportunity for pedestrian access. But this project would be, as I stated before, one of the first of its kind in Collier County. And staff does recommend approval of this petition with one specific change. There are -- the -- in the language there is a-- 50 percent of the commercial buildings -- there's language that states that 50 percent of the commercial buildings would have a residential component. I did get a call yesterday from the petitioner, and they're actually doing the site design at this time. And they found that they were -- one of their last designs was at 42 percent, and they would Page 59 October 18, 2001 like to -- to move that cap down to 40 percent. Staff has no objection to that. Staff does recommend that the Planning Commission forward this petition to the BC (sic) with recommendation for approval to transmit. Any questions? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do have a question just to clarify for me a little bit about the concept of the process to get an interconnect. I was intrigued by what I read in here and how this is a new concept, but what would they have to go through to get an interconnect, say, to Emerald Lakes? MS. TAYLOR: It would have to be an agreement with Emerald Lakes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So it's all private. It's nothing to do with the county. They don't have to come to the county to do anything from a county standpoint for an interconnect? MS. TAYLOR: They would need to have that agreement before they could start that process with the county, for an interconnect. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I guess I'm misunderstanding. We're not talking about a rezone. We're not talking about a variance. What are we talking about to encourage if the market conditions will encourage this and the traffic congestion of the road is encouraging? MS. TAYLOR: Frankly, if the site is so popular and it's very -- very welcoming and there are uses there that Emerald Lakes would like to have easier access to -- the assisted-living facility, for example, may want to have access. There is actually an access to Emerald Lakes just north of the assisted-living facility and access to the assisted-living facility from that access road. That -- that's a potential there. But if-- if Emerald Lakes wanted to have additional access, other internal interconnection, pedestrian or bike path-wise, there would have to be an agreement between the two property owners to provide that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you care to say something Page 60 October 18, 2001 about that, Ms. Bishop? MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. We're huge interconnect fans. Pretty much all the projects I work on, it's a fact of life because of what we see that we want to -- especially when you have a commercial element near a residential element, the whole idea that somebody would go out on the main drag just to go a couple hundred feet and pull into the commercial seems to be a little ridiculous. I have spoken with the lakes -- the Emerald Lakes people, and at this time they have a history of not wanting interconnections. Even to the library they're not -- they removed their pedestrian -- or I think voted down their pedestrian connection to the library. Across the street with the Pulling commercial that we just did, we have been working with the church in Lakeside to interconnect through the church, through Pulling, to Orange Blossom, and we are currently working on that now. There is no way that the county can get involved in this, unfortunately, at this point because it's all private property. Now, we are willing to certainly connect to Brighton Gardens, and that would -- if they could connect to the commercial at the comer, that would even be better. But right now -- and I have a meeting with the Lakeside people next week to -- actually, it's next month at their board hearing -- to go over the things. And the main things that they want to know is that I'm not doing anything to mess with them in any way, shape, or form visually, connection-wise, anything. So that's what I'm going to go there and tell them, is that, you know, we're going to be good neighbors and make sure that their lifestyle is intact and their ambiance is intact and go from there. But as interconnect fans, we would love to see those kinds of things happen. It would just make sense. As we've all seen on the roads lately, it just makes sense. But it has to be through private Page 61 October 18, 2001 cooperation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. That was a point I definitely wanted clarified. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Karen, I like your project or your ideas. I'm just curious. If you're -- if you're talking about people living on the site and working in these small retail, you're really talking about affordable housing, aren't you? MS. BISHOP: Oh. No, no. We're -- we're actually kind of talking like downtown Naples. I mean, if you think about it, you're going to have -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Upscale small retail. MS. BISHOP: Exactly. And you're going to have apartments that are going to be upscale apartments. They're not going to be -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I didn't know what your -- MS. BISHOP: -- what you're saying, affordable housing to that degree, but even-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- what your market segment was, but it's upscale. MS. BISHOP: But even what I've seen down the street with some of the -- what we call affordable housing, they're nice-looking jobs. They've been, you know, not a blight on the visual as you drive down the roads. But in this case the whole point is to keep people there and not to create the traffic and interconnect the library and be able to walk here and walk there and literally have what I think was the intent of the activity centers to begin with, was some sort of traditional neighborhood designs where people got out of their cars and actually got on their feet and walked from place to place. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does Brighton Gardens have any interest in a pedestrian -- MS. BISHOP: We are hoping so. We've actually contacted Page 62 October 18, 2001 them and-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- for those that are ambulatory? MS. BISHOP: Well, you know, I actually see some people sitting out in the parking lots and stuff, so I was thinking that maybe there is an opportunity for some of the retail we would have or even office space -- maybe there's attorneys or there's the dentist or something where those people that live there can come to this facility. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Couldn't be much closer, could they? MS. BISHOP: No. And the bicycle paths, unfortunately, right now are destined for the back of curb on Airport Road. And what we're going to look to do is try to do some internal pathway to keep people off that main drag because that's one of the issues, I think. With some of these neighborhood designs and what we're doing on our major roadways, we're literally building facilities that keep the public from getting on them because it's a little scary for me to walk on six lanes of 55-mile-an-hour traffic. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Last question. Do you know off the top of your head what your linear frontage is on Airport Road? MS. BISHOP: Off the top of my head, I do not. I know that we have a problem with depth. That's one of the reasons why we're going to this kind of project, because we don't have the depth to get residential far enough, you know, to do anything really nice and get it far enough off the road. But I think we -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm talking about your north/south dimension. MS. BISHOP: Right. Yeah, the frontage. Reed's doing his -- MR. JARVI: It looks about 1500, 1600 feet. MS. BISHOP: It looks about 1500, 1600 feet. Page 63 October 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Almost a third of a mile. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a few questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, please, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What -- how were you able to get from the 69 residential units that were planned by the acreage to 343? MS. BISHOP: I'm going to have Joe McHarris speak of that because this type of design is specific, and Joe is the one that developed the language for this based on projects that have been done in other areas including the one that we have done at -- right down the street from here, at the comer of Orange Blossom. The problem with these smaller parcels, you have difficulty making them work with anything, especially when you have a linear issue, like this one does, with the geometry. It's a skinny site, so you can't really create a market. You can't sell the property. And commercial here would be way too intense or you'd start creating, what we see, the strips going all the way down, which is what we're trying to stay away from. So what you're trying to do is come up with a difference between buffering the intense commercial and the residential behind you, and so you come up with this mixed use. So I'll have Joe explain. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. But my problem -- oh, Joe, go ahead and do that first. MR. McHARRIS: The way we got to that -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Identify yourself, please. MR. McHARRIS: Oh, I'm sorry. Joe McHarris, agent for the owner -- is to take the density bonus for that area that's available and then a multiplier, and then you add that to it, and you can come up with that. The other thing is that to make a mixed-use commercial work you have to have some residential components there, and you're not talking about 10 or 12. So the two actually go together very Page 64 October 18,2001 quickly to provide for the amount of mixed use and residential on property to support the commercial in its early stages as it builds out. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So basically what you've done is gone from 3 units per acre to 15 units per acre. MR. McHARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Could you answer my question regarding the road access onto 41 (sic)? Last year it went up 24.28 percent. If we put 343 acres -- 343 units and all of this commercial, what kind of effect is that going to have on Airport, which now -- is almost impassable as it is now? MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi, Vanasse & Daylor for the record. We've analyzed the corridor of north/south on Airport Road for traffic specifically, and Airport Road, as you know, is going -- undergoing changes as we speak from four lanes to six lanes in this area. And at the same time Livingston Road has -- it's not there yet, but it's planned to be from, well, actually, south county all the way through Bonita. But the section south of Pine Ridge is just starting construction, and the section north of Pine Ridge, which would be parallel to this, is in the final planning stages as we speak. So by the time we are -- by the time this project is anticipated to be completed, there'll be at least two more lanes with Airport Road and four to six more lanes with Livingston Road. So the distribution of the traffic north/south actually is expected to have a slight decrease on Airport Road with the advent of Livingston Road. And so we've gone through that analysis, and we show that in the worst case we have, which is the 300-and-some-odd dwelling units and the commercial, that it's anticipated that Airport Road will remain within level of service standards in the buildout year, which is anticipated to be 2006. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: When you say you expect it to be, if it's overcrowded now -- and there's no problem that it is; Page 65 October 18, 2001 trying to drive from north coming down, it's almost impossible today during the normal business day -- you're going to have this more vehicles and say, "Yeah, but it's going to be okay. Livingston will carry it off." The actual facts are that we have what we have now. I understand it's going to be expanded to six lanes, as it is below that to six lanes, and it still hasn't solved the problem. I'm just wondering how 343 units along with your commercial is going to fit into this and make it work properly. MR. JARVI: Well, part of the answer is the mixed-use-type of development because, as Joe said and Karen, too, that being a mixed use, not all of that traffic would be on Airport because there'll be interactions between the uses within the development. Additionally, on the commercial standpoint, commercial we usually have -- we have what is called pacified traffic, as you're going down wherever and you decide that you're going to run into Home Depot and grab something or grab a burger at McDonald's or something. Your primary trip or primary reason for being on that road is not to go there; it just happens to be there on your way. And there's many different names for this, but mainly it's called pacified traffic. So there's a percentage that comes off for that, and then there's a percentage that comes off when you have a mixed-use-type development, that the people that are leaving their homes for either retail use or an office use are also the same people that are coming to the retail use or office use, so you have a reduction from those types of uses. So by the nature of it being a true mixed-use community, you actually have a significant reduction of trips than if it was a separate, stand-alone -- or three separate: Office, retail, and residential uses. So you don't have the full impact of the -- of all the commercial, office, and residential units that you would. So that's one answer to -- or a partial answer to your question. But mainly the answer is that you have two additional lanes of-- Page 66 October 18, 2001 of capacity coming in now and that are coming on-line now for this area. And then in the near term, the next couple years, you're going to have four or six lanes of traffic capacity coming in on Livingston Road from a north/south character, north/south standpoint. And we've gone over this methodology with staff, and we've all come to an agreement that the methodology is correct, and they agree with our analysis. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And you're not planning on having an anchor store or any anchor stores in your commercial? MR. JARVI: I can't really answer that, but from my understanding, the answer is no. But that's really not my part. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You understand what I'm saying. You're talking about traffic inside, but if there's an anchor store, you're going to have people coming from other places just to get to that store. MR. JARVI: We will have that anyway, whether it's a dress shop boutique or something like that. But there will be an interchange or interaction among the residents that live there and the retail, so you'd have -- I mean, even if it was an anchor store, you'd have that same interaction, but you wouldn't have people from outside the area or outside this development coming to the project. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Obviously you can see I'm kind of worried about the traffic problem, and I'm trying to get some answers that will make it justifiable. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Jarvi, I'm curious. The statement was made earlier about the commercial activity centers on both ends anchoring this on Airport Road. A commercial activity center was not designed to have any residential in it. We were all supposed to get in our cars and drive there and then wander around and do a whole lot of shopping and then leave and go home? MR. JARVI: I think the original intent -- and I wasn't here Page 67 October 18,2001 when they brought that up, but what I understand, the original intent of the activity center was a mixed use. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It was? MR. JARVI: That's my understanding. And that's why you have a density bonus in the activity centers. However, you know, from observation it doesn't happen hardly, if at all, that you have residential within the activity center because the land in general is so valuable for commercial. So it's more valuable for commercial than it is for residential. Plus people -- you know, most people don't want to live at Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road, you know, within 50 feet of that intersection because it is a large noise and hazard to your lifestyle, probably. But my understanding is originally the concept was mixed use. It just hasn't really developed that way. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And the idea of so much commercial, you wanted to -- you had limitations on where you could have other commercial, so that pretty much forced you to be in those activity centers and not do any mixed use, not do the residential. And that's -- I've been here 22 years, and it's always sort of intrigued me to listen to some of those arguments in the very beginning. MR. JARVI: I agree. When I first came here 12 years ago, I said, "This is -- from a traffic engineering standpoint, this is exactly what you don't want to do." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's why this is being touted here as the first of its kind in the county and that we're actually going to set a good example and maybe actually focus on what we call a traditional neighborhood design versus gated communities and chunks where people are because you have to get out and drive. MR. JARVI: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because I was impressed by what this said, and hopefully there will be other projects that could use this as a model within our community. We've changed an awful Page 68 October 18,2001 lot in 22 years here. Okay. Do we have any other questions or comments? Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? We might as well go ahead and do them one at a time since we're right -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we forward Petition No. CP-2001-2 to the Board of County Commissioners recommending approval. And I'm not clear on whether the staff-- staff had a condition that wasfft in here. MS. TAYLOR: Yes. It isn't in there. It's the reduction from the 50 percent requirement of-- 50 percent of commercial (sic) buildings down to 40 percent that would need to have a residential component. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Subject to the staff condition. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy and a second by Mrs. Young for approval of this petition with the change that staff suggested on the residential component. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One opposed. 6-1. Motion carries. Thank you. That concludes that item. Next item is CP-2001-3 Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial infill Page 69 October 18,2001 subdistrict. MS. JOURDAN: Good morning. For the record, my name is Jean Jourdan. I'm with the comprehensive planning department. Before you for your consideration is Comp Plan Amendment Petition No. CP-2001-03. Representing the applicant is Terrence Kepple of Kepple Engineering, Incorporated. The location of this property is -- it contains 10.47 acres more or less and is located at the northwest quadrant of Livingston and Pine Ridge Road. The parcel lies within the North Naples planning community. This is the subject parcel. The petitioner seeks to amend the existing Future Land Use Element of the (sic) map of Collier County Growth Management Plan for the addition of 10.47 acres to the Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial infill subdistrict of the urban commercial subdistrict for the specified lands. The proposed text change adds language under the urban commercial district, Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial infill subdistrict, page 31, Section B. The intent of the amendment is the petitioner proposes to add 10.47 acres to the Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial infill subdistrict as to allow retail and commercial office uses on the site at the northwest comer of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road. The northwest quadrant would allow single-story retail commercial uses and up to three-story professional or medical-related offices. As proposed this amendment would allow for a maximum of 40,000 square feet of leasable area for retail, commercial, and office development. The surrounding uses of the property is to the north, which is the Community School of Naples. It's a private school. It's zoned CF for community facility. To the east would -- from Livingston Road is a single-family dwelling which is zoned estates. To the west we have a conditional use, which is Naples Progressive Gymnastics Camp. And then to the south, which is across Pine Ridge Road here, we have the Page 70 October 18, 2001 PUD which is a community containing 276 dwelling units on 39 acres. The staff has recommended that the CCPC forward Petition CP- 2001-3 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the DCA. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I noticed in the findings and conclusions we were talking about the subject site has residential development options up to 15 units per acre with the affordable housing density bonus applied. And it says, "Staff concurs with the petitioner that the site is not suitable for a residential project." Could you just elaborate on that just a little? MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. The -- the subject property has an existing 6.7 FPL easement which encumbers the property. So, therefore, there's only 3.8 acres of the property which is usable. The property actually ranges from 57 feet wide to a maximum of 167 feet in width, so it really affects what they can put on the property. Although they could put up to 15 units, it would not be a viable project with the size of the property due to the encumbrance of the FP&L easement. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just have a question. Right now, of course, there is a nursery right underneath the FPL lines. MS. JOURDAN' Correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What is going to be there, just out of curiosity? Nothing? MS. JOURDAN: Right. They could not actually utilize that for anything. The only reason the nursery could utilize it was because it's things that could be moved, such as plants and things like that. So no stationary type object would be allowed to be placed under those FP&L easements. Page 71 October 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So would it be, like, a landscaping or green area? MS. JOURDAN: That's possible. I don't know what they plan to put there at this time, but they're limiting the building square footage to 40,000 square feet, which isn't a large building. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not a very nice site for all that construction. MS. JOURDAN: Actually, it's not. It's not viable for too many things, actually, because of the FP&L easement. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Almost turn the FP&L easement into a lineal park. Any other questions? Anyone care to comment from the audience? MR. KEPPLE: For the record, Terrence Kepple representing the petitioner. I don't have a formal presentation this morning. I think most of your questions have been answered. But if you have any other questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions, Commissioners? Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll go again. Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we forward Petition No. CP-2001-03 to the Board of County Commissioners recommending approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Budd for approval of this particular petition. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. We are -- next one is CP-2001-4, which would create the Page 72 October 18, 2001 Henderson Creek mixed-use subdistrict. Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm David Weeks of the comprehensive planning section. This petition seeks to amend the designation of the subject property which is -- presently that designation is urban coastal fringe which, from a residential standpoint, limits the property to a maximum density of 4 units per acre with the exception of affordable housing or transfer of development rights. It's also within the traffic congestion area. So essentially, outside of affordable housing, it's limited to 3 units per acre residentially; with affordable housing, as much as 11 units per acre. And it also is allowed to develop any of those types of uses allowed throughout the urbanized area, such as community-facility uses such as churches, child-care centers, nursing homes, ALFs, recreation and open spaces uses, and essential services, that kind of in-between category of residential and commercial. But what they're proposing for this 83-acre site is to create a mixed-use subdistrict that will allow for regional commercial uses primarily as well as affordable housing or work-force housing for the property. A few -- I'll highlight a few of the points in this amendment as it was proposed, modified by staff, and agreed to by the petitioner. Again, I want to stress, as the petitioner did in their application, that the intent of this subdistrict is to provide for regional commercial uses, not community and neighborhood commercial uses as you typically find in the activity centers and as you would typically find in most of our other commercial provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. One of the shortfalls of this regional commercial is the sense -- not on the petitioner's part but the fact that we don't have a definition for that in our codes, and I'm going to address that later in my presentation. But the proposal of the 83-acre site would be a maximum of 40 Page 73 October 18,2001 acres for commercial development and a maximum of 325,000 square feet for commercial; a maximum of 500 dwelling units, but the residential units on the property will be subject to the density rating system. So they're not getting anything special here, but it's an acknowledgment that they can provide as much as 500, and they are committed to, they are required to provide a minimum of 200 dwelling units on the property. And that goes back to the purpose asserted by the petitioner is we want to have a mixed-use project of regional commercial uses and work-force housing. We're saying, "That's what you say; let's put it in the text that you'll do that." Additionally, there will be a loop road provided through the project from U.S. 41 to 951, Collier Boulevard. The regional commercial uses, at least one of them, will be limited to a minimum of 100,000 square feet. Again, you're saying it's going to be regional commercial, then let's tie their hands to provide regional commercial. The remainder of the project, as far as commercial uses go, would be allowed to develop as small as 20,000 square feet of regional commercial uses. And that I'll also touch on again in a few moments. We've suggested, they've agreed to, a maximum of 10 percent of that total of 325,000 square feet, or 32,500 square feet, to be used for nonregional uses. So we are allowing for some community, some neighbor -- we're not saying you must build these huge -- two huge or three huge or so forth -- buildings on the property. A small amount of neighborhood or community commercial would be allowed such as you would oftentimes find on outparcels. And that's also one of the points. They're limited to a maximum of four outparcels. They all must be located along Collier Boulevard, and they all must have internal access. We're not precluding at this point to having access directly onto Collier Boulevard, but we are mandating that there be access internal to the project so that a person -- I will point out a similar situation: The Home Depot on Pine Ridge Page 74 October 18, 2001 Road. There's a Checkers. There's an oil change business. Neither of those -- and I'm not suggesting that's what we're proposing, but as an example, both of those uses are on outparcels within that total site. Neither of those uses has direct access onto Pine Ridge Road. They can only be accessed internal to the project. That's the concept. Certainly if they have larger development of-- the outparcels can be as large as 5 acres, so they conceivably could have their entire nonregional commercial use -- uses, square footage, built on an outparcel. And in that case it might be appropriate to have a direct access onto 951. But regardless, they must have internal access as well. There are certain prohibited uses, certain types of nonregional prohibited uses, and we've listed a few of those here, such as grocery stores. Again, focus on regional commercial. The height is limited to a maximum of one story and 35 feet for the commercial uses; residential allowed at three habitable stories. And I think that's the main points I wanted to -- also, interconnections would be investigated to the properties to the north, most of which are in the activity center. Now let me jump -- I got a little bit out of order. As far as the location goes, the visualizer here shows the subject property and the strike pattern. It fronts on both 41 and 951 and is adjacent to the south of the activity center, the mixed-use activity center. The dashed line is showing the boundaries of that mixed-use activity center. So to the north are properties zoned mostly commercial, C-2 and C-4; also some ag properties, mostly within the activity center. To the east across Henderson Creek is a mobile home park. To the south adjacent is a mobile home park. And further to the south beyond Henderson Creek where it turns east/west, more mobile home development. And to the west across Collier Boulevard is the Eagle Page 75 October 18,2001 Creek development, a golf course residential community, at a low density of-- I just looked that up, but I think around three, maybe four units per acre. It's a typical, low-density golf course residential community. As I -- as you hear me continuously stressing, regional commercial, because that's what the petitioner has asserted, that that is their intent to provide, work-force housing and regional commercial uses. In looking at the commercial inventory, we don't take that into account, the county's commercial inventory, this particular type. What we identify are the total acres of commercial zoning, the total square foot of the development that's there, the zoning districts of the various commercial properties. But we don't -- and the dimensions are provided, the acreage is provided. But we don't have any type of particular analysis as far as large commercial sites that would accommodate regional commercial uses. There are some examples in the staff report of what we're talking about of the large regional commercial uses: Home Depot, Costco, Pace Warehouse, Sam's Club; and then some of the smaller ones, but nevertheless regional uses, Sports Authority, Toys "R" Us, I think, would both be examples. And, as we mentioned, the square footage of all of those larger ones exceed a hundred thousand square feet. The Sports Authority is one example of a smaller one, and it's just over 40,000 square feet. Another frame of reference for building size, the county's Development Services Center on north Horseshoe Drive is also approximately 40,000 square feet. The particular -- I'll phrase it as a concern from the staff standpoint has to do with simply making sure that what the petitioner's proposing is what they are limited to and, in fact, ultimately develop. And, as I mentioned earlier, there's no definition of regional commercial use in our codes. There certainly are Page 76 October 18,2001 definitions and examples in the planning literature such as Urban Land Institute. So staff's recommendation is to approve this petition. But understand, please, that when this comes back for the adoption hearing, assuming the board does transmit it, you may see a little bit of additional language here added by staff or recommended by staff, and one might be a definition of regional commercial. Number two, that 20,000 square foot minimum for the other regional commercial uses either may increase or may be augmented by having a stair step. A certain amount of square footage of regional commercial can be at 20,000 square feet. A certain amount, for example, might have to be 40,000 or 50,000. Again, this is to ensure regional commercial uses and to account for the fact that there's, in our opinion, adequate inventory of commercial sites that would accommodate a 20,000-square-foot building. We don't think that's where the particular need is at. We do agree with the petitioner, though, the large sizes are very limited. Essentially, you would have to go to an undeveloped quadrant of an activity center to be able to accommodate the size of commercial for these large regional commercial uses that they are proposing. The other thing is -- which I've not discussed with the petitioner; this'll be new to them. I see their reaction. But one of the things that's provided here, they have committed to the 200 dwelling units, but there's not a trigger mechanism; that is, there's not some requirement that after you build X square feet of commercial, you must get your residential component going. And the concern there is, again, make sure that, in fact, happens. I'll give you an example of a parallel circumstance: Carillon Plaza shopping center. It has a residential component to it. The PUD was approved with residential behind it and, of course, the shopping Page 77 October 18, 2001 center on the frontage. Well, the shopping center got built, but to this day the residential hasn't -- hasn't begun. Will it ever? Well, time will tell. But there's no trigger mechanism to make sure that it happens, and we think it's appropriate that there would be some type of trigger mechanism. Again, you're saying you're going to do it; let's put the language in there that ensures that that does, in fact, happen. And of course all these different requirements and limitations would be carried through to the next step which, as you know, is the rezoning process. This is the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but there are, as you can see, a lot of specific provisions in here, again, proposed by staff and the petitioner jointly. And in some cases we modified the language, and they have agreed to these changes. And with that I think I'm done. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I want to ask a question. Is there a current definition of work-force housing/affordable housing in a dollar value, what the apartments rent for or that type of thing? How do we define this work-force housing? MR. WEEKS: Not work-force housing but affordable housing, and that's why we -- staff proposed that those words be used as well. The affordable housing, first of all, links to the density rating system, the density calculation, and the Future Land Use Element. And then, secondly, the bonus ordinance that the county's adopted, how do we determine how many affordable housing units you get? It depends on the number of-- of dwelling units you're proposing, the size of the units. And there is a linkage to the -- I think it's the median household income for Collier County. So there is an ultimate linkage to income levels. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And in this particular subdistrict, we would have similar rules and regulations criteria, so it's architecturally sort of the same? MR. WEEKS: Yes. The only reference to that here is that the Page 78 October 18, 2001 two components, residential and commercial -- I believe it's in there -- would be developed with architecturally similar style. Our opinion is that at this point we're not going to try to get more specific. Let that be dealt with at the zoning stage. Typically what the zoning process would result in is simply a requirement to comply with the provisions in the Land Development Code, that Division 2.8. And that spells out certain architectural embellishments and the limits to the amount of blank walls on buildings and so forth. We would simply rely on that to -- to apply to this project. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is this sort of an idea of an advance vision for community character? We're going to try to have a particular look to it? MR. WEEKS: Not from a staff perspective. No particular thought being given to that or mentioned by the petitioner. Certainly once this -- if we get there and once it does come for the rezoning, that could be discussed further. We may be further along, we the county, in the community character process. As you know, the plan itself was adopted or endorsed by the board, but we're yet to see the actual implementation. And that's what we're -- depending on where our implementing regulations are at, that may be applicable to the site, or you may, independent of that process, make certain recommendations as far as the property goes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'm trying to make a linkage here, but I'm not sure how to ask the question yet. I want to think -- I want to hear what the petitioner says. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: David, I'm troubled by the fact that all the brain power over in the planning department cannot come up with a definition of regional commercial. And if you've had time to cogitate on that, why should I believe that between now and then, whenever then comes up, you will be more successful? Is it going to come to you in a dream or in the shower? What's so difficult Page 79 October 18, 2001 about defining this? MR. WEEKS: One never knows where it'll come from, Mr. Abernathy -- no. Purely facetious. The timing of this, the process, this petition, I'll say, evolved. It actually was originally submitted as an expansion of the activity center. So it's evolved through the process while it's been in our hands, gone back and forth, trying to fine-tune it, trying to tie it down. And as a result, I'm just going to say we ran out of time. I did look at regional commercial. The literature I looked at, however, was specific to shopping centers, and that's not what they're proposing here. But I'm certain that the literature's out there. It was just -- I'll say staff ran out of time to specifically come up with that definition. I'm sure it exists. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is "commercial" a word of art that would exclude industrial? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it does. And also I'll go ahead and point out again that the language here limits them to level of intensity of C-4, so C-1, 2, 3 and 4. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So that would take heavy industrial out of it altogether. MR. WEEKS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Would there -- could we at this point agree that the regional commercial is limited to retail as opposed to any kind of wholesale operation there? MR. WEEKS: I think that's safe to say because I can't think of any wholesale uses allowed in the C-4 district. If I'm corrected, so be it. But the C-4 and lower districts primarily deal with retail. Your wholesale pretty much starts at C-5 and then into the industrial district. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I'm just deathly afraid of being mousetrapped, as I was once before, and when we come back for a rezone, the petitioner saying, "Well, if I had known Page 80 October 18,2001 you were going to define it that way, you know, I would have done things differently at the comp plan amendment stage." What if you now say 150,000 square feet, and he says, "Hey, I can't agree to that"? Where does that put us? MR. WEEKS: One of the reasons for the specificity you're seeing here is to make sure that there is not a misunderstanding as much as possible. For example, again, we're specifically stating the maximum commercial intensity is C-4. Therefore, if they come in at the rezone stage and want a C-5 use, they're out of luck. The language is very clear, and it's for the benefit of both sides. They walk away with a very clear understanding of what their limitations are -- hopefully a clear understanding -- and, likewise, the county has a clear understanding. This is what the language says. This is what it means. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Good. Okay. Well, I expressed the same misgivings to a couple of the petitioner's agents and asked them to come up with a better definition if they could, but that was just a few days ago. So we'll see. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTE1N: You say affordable housing. Is there a price figure for that, or how are they going to determine what is affordable housing? MR. WEEKS: I can -- don't know the specifics enough to answer that right to the point, but I will, again, say there's a linkage in the median household income for Collier County as to what affordable housing means. In a certain sense, you might say that's one of the problems that we have in Collier County, is our median income is so darn high. And, therefore, having 80 percent of that or 60 percent, some certain percentage of that -- and I think it is 80 percent, I think is what the code says -- is still a relatively high figure. The flip side of that in a certain sense is economically it certainly Page 81 October 18,2001 makes it a lot more, I'll say, viable or easier for the developer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. But you're still giving me 80 percent of the median income. We still aren't coming up with what that figure absolutely represents. MR. WEEKS: I believe the median income for the county is around 65,000, I think is the 2000 figure. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So you take 80 percent of that, and then you multiply it by what? MR. WEEKS: Eighty percent times 65,000 gives you the income level-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. Then what happens? MR. WEEKS: -- for the persons that are allowed to -- to occupy the dwelling units there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I mean, you're still not telling me. These are all going to be rental units then? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Now I'm back where I want to be. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of Mr. Weeks at the moment? I think Mr. Yovanovich has a few comments he'd like to make. Ms. Young go ahead. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Is this the time to ask you about the traffic impact of this proposal? I mean, it's already LOS-D, and that is -- you're proposing this kind of growth in commercial traffic. Aren't you suggesting future deadlock, you know, ala Pine Ridge? MR. WEEKS: A couple of comments on that. First of all, I'm going to let the petitioner address some of the particulars of the traffic impacts, the actual number of trips and so forth it's going to generate. I think your reference to Level of Service D, that is the adopted level of service for the county, not necessarily the functional level of service. That is how it's operating today. There's a difference. Page 82 October 18,2001 Here's what we adopt. The county says we must maintain this level of service. And then over here is the way it actually operates because potentially it could be operating above the level of service adopted or below, at least for a short period of time. If it does operate below -- operating below its level of service, then the county is required within, I think, a maximum of three years to do something to improve that circumstance: Widen the road, build a new road, change the level of service, lower it. We have to do something, though. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: But in good planning this isn't something we want to continue to do. MR. WEEKS: I agree. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: They have done that in the past. We don't want to do that in the future. MR. WEEKS: I agree. And ultimately -- I don't like passing the buck, but the decision-makers are the Board of County Commissioners. Ultimately they have to determine if they want to go along under the present policies, which means that we can go as far as two or three years below level of service or not. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich representing the petitioner. I have with me Bill Schrage and Rob Warstler, who are the petitioners; Wayne Arnold, the planner on the project; Dean Smith, the engineer on the project; and Chuck Nolty (phonetic), who prepared our market analysis. Again, we're at the Comprehensive Plan amendment stage, and we will have to get into a lot more detail at the time we come through with the PUD analysis, to get more specific into the traffic analysis that Commissioner Young was alluding to or getting to. I think it -- we've done the requisite analysis we need at this point to have support from staff on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but we will have to do a lot more Page 83 October 18, 2001 analysis when we go through the PUD process. David, as usual, did an excellent job of explaining what our project is. We have committed that this is a regional commercial type of center. David is right. Most of the definitions talk about shopping centers. And since I've met with Mr. Abemathy, my client and Wayne and I have gone through the literature. And we're really more what they classify as a power center, meaning that we are -- we are a project that has multiple stand-alone, anchor-type stores. We'll have one store that will be a minimum of a hundred thousand square feet, and then we will have other regional-type uses, like Toys "R" Us, Sports Authority, that will be smaller, but it won't be your typical shopping center. So what we've come up with, Mr. Abemathy -- and I have not had a chance to share this with David -- is a definition that would probably need some working with, but would read something to this effect: Regional retail would be defined as retail typically dominated by large anchors, including discount departments stores, off-price stores, warehouse clubs, and the like, some of which offer large selection in particular merchandise categories. Regional retailers also typically have square footages ranging from 20,000 square feet to over 100,000 square feet. And what we've done is we've done -- primary trade area are generally 5 to 10 miles in area with typical store separation of 5 miles for any particular retail user. So what we've tried to do is show you we're not -- that we're talking about -- you know, Sports Authority is not going to be on every comer. It's going to be -- there may be more than one Sports Authority in a community, but there is a rather large separation between stores, and that's how -- the approach we've taken. That's where we're coming from. And hopefully we'll enhance where we've come with staff and evolved with staff, and hopefully we'll show you that we're not talking about a commercial neighborhood-type Page 84 October 18,2001 shopping center. The project, as David pointed out, does front both on U.S. 41 and 951, and there will be an interconnection. The anticipated alignment will be with the entrance of Eagle Creek. Eagle Creek is still -- their association is still controlled by the developer, but we contacted the president of the golf club, who is -- it's not controlled by the developer, and asked him to meet with us and bring people he thought were appropriate so we can get the residents' opinion as to our project. And we met with six or seven different representatives of their condominium associations as well as the residential areas within Eagle Creek, and they were favorable to our project. They did -- obviously they said, you know, when it comes through zoning, we'll get to see better detail. But their concerns were not with our uses, but with, one, they wanted to see if we can assist in obtaining a traffic light at that entrance, their entrance and our entrance. We obviously would like that and are going to work with the state. This is a state road, and we're going to work with them trying to get a traffic light there. And they wanted to assure that we had good landscaping in the medians, but they wanted landscaping that was not high that would block the view of what's going on. They wanted lower level vegetation. So I think we can obviously accommodate their request as far as landscaping goes, and we'll do our best to try to get a traffic light there. As David pointed out, we have provided for interconnectivity for properties to the north, which is in the activity center that already exists. And we're committed to doing that, and we'll work with that property owner for an appropriate location for that interconnectivity. Affordable housing, obviously it is tied to income levels. It ranges. There's very low, low, and -- I forget the third. MS. STUDENT: Moderate. Page 85 October 18, 2001 MR. YOVANOVICH: -- moderate is, I think, the three terms, and they're all tied to our median income. It will -- at this point it is anticipated it will be a rental community, but we have committed to at least 200 units meeting that affordable-housing definition. So that will evolve, and we'll have to come back with an agreement with the county to get a density bonus that will address affordable housing. So that's -- that usually comes through at the time of the PUD. So that commitment is there. We also committed to the residents of Eagle Creek and to your staff that if we get transmittal from the Board of County Commissioners to the Department of Community Affairs, we would submit our PUD application. So at the -- as close to as possible -- and the timing won't be exact, but as close to as possible as the adoption hearing to the comp plan amendment, soon thereafter you will be seeing for approval, hopefully, the PUD. But we will already be in the process where staff will have had an opportunity to review our PUD. We will have met with the neighborhood to show them what we're planning, so you will get a -- what you're approving is basically what you're getting. And we have tried to make very, very detailed -- and agree with all the changes to what staff is -- what staff is recommending. We have no -- no problems with their changes. I -- unless you have specific questions of any of the subconsultants regarding any of the issues, we'd be happy to answer those questions. But we wanted to reiterate what David had said, and this is probably -- we have committed -- and he's right. He did not talk to me about the trigger mechanism. The only thing I could commit to is obviously we'll work with staff to figure out what that is. Affordable housing's not as -- you don't control your destiny as easily as you do regular residential. I mean, you've got to work with state agencies to get commitments from them as to financing. So we will work with Page 86 October 18,2001 the trigger with David on those issues between now and the adoption hearing. We have committed -- and we've said right up front we want it to be a mixed-use project, which is different than how a lot of the activity centers have developed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do have a question. I'm not sure who can answer it specifically. The concept of a large regional retailer, such as one that sits out there right now, one the county -- Wal-Mart, they never built a supercenter in Collier County. A supercenter would be over a hundred thousand square feet, but they would usually have a component of a grocery store in it. Are we excluding the concept of an internal grocery store of a very large retailer such as Wal-Mart, as the example, by putting -- excluding the prohibited use here of a grocery store? How does that impact? I just want to make sure we're not being too specific. MR. WEEKS: You've certainly identified an area where we need to clarify. That is a freestanding grocery store or a grocery store in a shopping center, your typical, like, Publix, Winn-Dixie, Food Lion. That's what -- our intent is to say you can't have that here. Conversely, to directly answer your question, no. The intent is not to prohibit the grocery store component within a larger use. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: As long as that is a regional commercial use -- MR. WEEKS: That's right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- it can have the various components with -- inside. I just want to make sure because, as Mr. Abernathy said, sometimes we go, "Now, I would have done it differently if I understood what you really meant." I do believe we have legal comment. MS. STUDENT: Yes. I think for clarity, David, we might need to write that in there as what it is because I can see down the road that it's going to come to an interpretation, perhaps, at some point. So I Page 87 October 18,2001 think for clarity -- and if I might, I just wanted to answer the question about the affordable housing because it's taken as a percentage of our median income in the county, which changes over time. And then, if I recall correctly, a percentage of what those different income levels are are attributed to what would be affordable for somebody making that kind of money. In other words, if they make $30,000 a year, perhaps 33 1/3 percent of that or 35 percent of that for mortgage, interest, and tax payment of that figure would be determined to be what they could devote towards rent or mortgage payment. And then, you know, you can factor then what a monthly payment would be. And that's -- if memory serves me correctly, that's how -- to Mr. Adelstein's query, that's how that's arrived at. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So we may want to clarify that particular concept. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think we're on the same page. We understood that Super Wal-Mart was not a prohibited use, but we couldn't come in with a -- say Publix came out with a new hundred- thousand-square-foot store. We could not do that. We understood that. So I think we'll -- we'll work with staff on clarifying some of those issues. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because on one hand we don't want to deal with the idea of just a grocery store, but on another hand, we don't want to limit the -- a very large retailer that might have that component there and not argue about it six months from now. Any other questions or comments? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Question for David. How does Mr. Yovanovich's definition of regional commercial retail commercial (sic) suit you? It sounds pretty good to me, at least a start. Page 88 October 18,2001 MR. WEEKS: We might want to tweak it, but I think it -- I think it reflects that we're in agreement philosophically, whether the actual wording, you know, we need to tweak a little bit one way or the other. But as with the project in general -- and we've been very much in agreement of what they wanted. The changes that staff has made to their language is simply to make it more specific, to tighten it down. But what they've stated that they wanted is -- is what the language is saying they're going to provide. This language here, the regional commercial definition, as a starting point, I agree with it. And, again, philosophically we're on the same page. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Much more mellow this time. I'm impressed. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's almost not as much fun. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He's not sure that's a compliment. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It was meant to be a compliment. Any other comments from up here? MR. WEEKS: I just wanted to go back to the question of affordable housing. I just wanted to make it clear that the specific language in here, in this provision, deals with the provision of affordable housing, that a minimum of 200 affordable housing units would be provided. The project can, and I would assume will, have a nonaffordable housing, residential component to it. I don't want you to walk away thinking this is only going to be an affordable-housing project along with the commercial. That's not necessarily -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But I can understand that affordable housing is only going to be rental, not purchasable. MR. WEEKS: I'll have to clarify that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Practically, yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. I just want to make sure that that's what you're saying to me. Page 89 October 18, 2001 MR. WEEKS: There is the ability to have affordable housing ownership, I do believe. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There is. But I'm saying in this particular project, that is not what's going to happen. That's what I wanted to know. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How do you know that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now I know it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now you know it. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I was doing a little bit of math. I don't have a calculator, so I may be wrong, but 80 percent of $65,000 a year is $52,000 a year. That I guess -- and then 35 percent of that is $17,000 a year. So roughly $1500 a month is what you could charge for affordable housing. That -- that seems almost meaningless, that's so high. MS. STUDENT: Well, we have different levels. There's very -- there's very low, low, and moderate. And it's unfortunate, I guess, that Mr. Mihalic, our housing director, is not here. But there are different percentage levels, depending. And this has been a problem for Collier County because we had issues with the Department of Community Affairs about this. And it's the fact that -- I think at one time we either had the highest or the second highest median income in the state, so excuse the figures. And there was even talk about breaking it out for earned income levels because the earned income level here is quite a bit less than the median income. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It really is a shock. I tried to help some people that needed some help on a personal basis. And at one point a couple years ago it was, like, $1,075 they could be subsidized for rent, and I'm saying, "That's awfully high." I mean, I don't even pay that for my mortgage, and I have a single-family house. So it really does skew it. And I think I'm going to do a little more research myself in the future so that we have this information readily available Page 90 October 18, 2001 to us. But it is like sticker shock for what you consider work-force housing and affordable housing and what can be actually subsidized by the various programs. It's an absolute shock. MR. YOVANOVICH: And please know that we have met with Mr. Mihalic about the project, and I think we have his support. And those numbers, you've got to factor in family size. You've got to factor in a lot of different things before you get to the -- MS. STUDENT: Family size is part of it too. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- before you get to what the number is. And we'll work with Mr. Mihalic on that, and we're committed to the affordable-housing definition, whatever it is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Whatever it is. I -- MR. WEEKS: If it's of interest to the Planning Commission, we could certainly gather some information on affordable-housing density bonus, the process, to kind of give some better understanding of what it means. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be very helpful. I'd appreciate that. So thank you. We'll watch for that soon. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You were saying, Ms. Student, that there's three levels: Very affordable, moderately or -- MS. STUDENT: No. Very low, low, and moderate, and this is if memory serves me correctly. And I don't recall what the different percentages were for those, but there were three levels. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you can't have it all at the moderate. You have to have some at the very low, some at the low? MS. STUDENT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: In order to get into an agreement with Mr. Mihalic, he will not let you just do moderate. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Pardon me? MR. YOVANOVICH: He will not let you just target moderate. He will -- he will require a mixture. Page 91 October 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And who decides what his mixture is? MR. YOVANOVICH: There is a -- it actually is -- there's a matrix that is involved in how you get your bonuses and how many units. It's not -- it's not an automatic, as far as your number of bonus units you get. It's -- there's an administrative process we'll have to go through with Mr. Mihalic. MS. STUDENT: I would submit, for equal protection of the law purposes and also some other considerations on exclusionary zoning, that we would have to consider those different income levels. And we could not exclude, you know, one or the other for the reason there's some case law. It's out of another jurisdiction, but it's been very telling for local governments everywhere about exclusionary zoning and excluding out certain housing types and certain income levels. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You're saying that we will do that, we will exclude the higher end, or that we should or -- MS. STUDENT: No. For the affordable housing, you look at all three levels. And to exclude one or the other might be -- might be problematic from an equal-protection-of-the-law standpoint. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So in other words, you couldn't say no medium. You can't say only very low. MS. STUDENT: I think usually you find it going the other way, where the tendency would be to have moderate but maybe not very low. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because to me affordable housing is, like, $400 a month, and $1500 a month doesn't do anything for most working-class people. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just wanted to point out here, too, that we're talking about a maximum of 500 dwelling units, and we want the 200 affordable or work-force housing items. Somebody Page 92 October 18,2001 has done some calculations to make sure that that's going to work within our definitions? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Yes. And the commercial acreage is a maximum of 40 acres, which leaves approximately 43 for residential. But if they -- which would not allow them to get quite to 500. But it's a -- the potential is there that they could get their commercial square footage on less than 40 acres, which means more residential available, which means they could achieve the 500. The 500 dwelling units, though, is -- again, is not the mandatory; it's the 200. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But it says residential development shall be limited to a maximum of 500 dwelling units subject to the density rating system. MR. WEEKS: Yes. Let me phrase it differently. If, for example, they could get all of their commercial development on 30 acres, which leaves, then, 53 acres of residential, doing the math, they could then exceed 500 acres. They're being limited to 500. MR. YOVANOVICH: Five hundred units. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Units. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll take the acres. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You'll take the acres. Want some floor area ratio too? Okay. Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just going to say, you know, we're only talking about those 200 units. The other 300 units can be whatever. So I just -- let's not get hung up on the 200 too much. MR. WEEKS: Well, let me -- again, that density rating system, when it goes into the rezoning process, will calculate. Aside from affordable housing, it's three units per acre. So if they say, "Well, we're just going to provide the 200 affordable housing," the density's going to drop way down. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just wanted to make sure I Page 93 October 18, 2001 understood which direction the math was going. my questions resolved. Any other comments? in-- I think I've had all Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's not a public hearing. Aren't we MR. WEEKS: This is an advertised hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Advertised hearing. Okay. I guess I better close that public hearing. I didn't do that on the other ones. Sorry. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, I move that we forward Petition No. CP-2001-4 to the Board of County Commissioners recommending approval subject to an expanded, enlightened definition of regional commercial use and such other language tweaking as we've alluded to here this morning. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Adelstein to approve this with his language there. Do we have any further discussion? Okay. I call the question. All those in favor, aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I just want a point of order here. Marjorie, I don't think the record reflects that I closed the public hearings previously. Do I have a problem from Robert's Rules of Order or not? MR. WEEKS: There was actually a single hearing for all comp plan amendments. You actually did it correctly by closing it at the end. The change that occurred is we typically -- Page 94 October 18,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have one more. MR. WEEKS: I take everything I just said back. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's why I sort of stopped, hesitated, and thought, why would I close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We voted on them one by one. That's what's -- MS. STUDENT: Yeah. I think that's what -- what changed things, because they're being considered individually. And I don't-- I don't think it's fatal. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: As long as our attorney says it's not fatal, we'll move right along to -- MS. STUDENT: You might just want to state for the record that your intent was -- on CP-2001-01 through 03, that your intent was to close the public hearing before the vote on each of those, and you might want to say that. That would be -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. It was my intent to close the public hearing on the first three different comp plan amendments from 1 through 3. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. CP-2001-01 through 03. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: CP-2001-1 through, dash, 3. That was my intent, to clarify the record. Thank you. So now we get to talk about CP-2001-5 with reference to the research and technology subdistrict. MS. TAYLOR: Yes. Good morning again. Amy Taylor for the record, comprehensive planning. This petition was actually directed by the board in their May workshop as a result of a request by the Economic Development Council of Collier County. The -- in response, the -- the comprehensive planning staff prepared some background information. They did an industrial inventory of the county, updated it from an older inventory -- so it's 2001 updated data -- as well as examined the types of uses that were allowed within Page 95 October 18,2001 business parks and existing industrial straight zoning. It was the -- the impression of the Economic Development Council that the industrial zoning alone and the business park designation alone did not provide for the combination of uses that they would need in order to encourage and attract those that would want to reside in a more formal research and technology park. The comprehensive planning section also developed framework language for the EDC to review and add to for their specific needs in terms of their target industries, which are aviation, information technology, and health technology. There are a couple of aspects of this petition -- and I'll make this brief and be available for questions -- that are different from the business park. The roadway access. Currently the business park allows -- is only allowed along arterials. The research and technology park would be allowed on collectors as well. The -- this would include Vanderbilt, Goodlette, new Livingston Road. There's only, as you can barely see on this map, a few designations for major and minor arterials, including U.S. 41, parts of Airport Road, and County Road 84. So there's fewer opportunities but quite acceptable locations along the collector roads for a park of this type. This also allows for-- to provide, from a land use perspective, incentive, C-1 through C-3 uses. The -- it also provides for another opportunity for work-force housing or affordable housing. If the property -- the property -- the park could not locate adjacent to residential unless it had a work-force component -- work-force housing component to it. When it is adjacent to commercial, it can have up to 40 percent of the acreage as residential work-force housing. There is a -- as far as the combination of uses that the EDC felt it needed to attract their target industries, when we did an examination of the -- the industrial zoning and the business park Page 96 October 18, 2001 zoning by SIC code, we found that things like a computer software development could not be located -- or is allowed in industrial but not be located in a business park. And at the same -- in the same case where a programming assistance company would want to locate probably near or it would be nice for it to be near that software development company, that is allowed in C-1 but not in a business park. So this is kind of an example of-- of combining these types of uses within a regional technology park that would provide that -- that dynamic and that combination that the EDC feels that it needs. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any specific questions? Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No questions. I just think the area is definitely in need of this type of a -- type of park, without a doubt. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I agree with the concept also. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So do I. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have anyone from the audience wishes to present? Apparently not, so I will close the public hearing on this one for sure. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we forward Petition No. CP-2001-5 to the Board of County Commissioners recommending approval. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I second that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, boy. I have a motion by Mr. Abernathy and a second -- I'm going to go with Mr. Wolfley -- for approval of this particular petition. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say Page 97 October 18,2001 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Number 9, old business. Did we establish a date for the training session we've discussed for the last two years? MS. MURRAY: Yes. I have two dates, and there's not much of a choice here other than if you just don't want these dates. November 15th we have scheduled for the presentation to be done by planning and -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: November what? MS. MURRAY: November 15th. And the second date is December 6th, which will be the presentation by the county attorney's office. And I believe you may have already had part of that already. Was this not part of a series? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. I think we never could get -- MS. STUDENT: There were problems in scheduling and then we had some with the commission, and it had to be changed because not enough people would be here. So there have been problems with scheduling throughout. MS. MURRAY: I placed on the agenda a five-item limit. So all the staff knows not to put any more than five items, and hopefully a few of those will be things like boat docks and whatnot. We usually have a pretty healthy mix. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hopefully they're Keewaydin boat docks, not Vanderbilt. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: November 15th is the second date? MS. MURRAY: November 15th is the planning presentation, and December 6th is the county attorney's office presentation. Page 98 October 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Is that acceptable? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sounds good to me. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What time of day? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: What date did she say? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It would be our same regular meeting, scheduled meeting. And we'd have a few petitions, at the most five, before that particular presentation so we can have time for discussion and interchange with the staff. MS. MURRAY: And am I to understand correctly that the planning staffs presentation is just kind of a general overview presentation of the role of this board as it relates to the role of the county commissioners and our relationship with staff and a little bit of the structure of Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan? COMMISSIONER BUDD: It would seem to me it would be appropriate, and it might be staffs role, is just review the differences between the quasi-judicial, legislative, land use because the manner in which the petition approaches us totally affects the governing criteria and how we're supposed to act. And that's not always obvious, and some description on your part would probably be very helpful. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And then we can ask some specific- type questions that relate to the concepts you just presented. MS. MURRAY: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That will be very useful. MS. MURRAY: The other item I had was the LDCs have been ordered. And, Mr. Wolfley, we had to just order you a new book. So I would stress -- I'm going to lecture a little bit here. These books are upwards of $75 apiece, and I hate to keep having to buy them for new Page 99 October 18, 2001 people every time they come along. If you could -- you get the supplements. If you wouldn't mind keeping your books up to date, that would be very helpful for us so that we could just turn them over to the new members that come along. And then they don't have to have messed-up books, and they can follow what's going on and be -- jump in feet first and know what's going on right away, hopefully. And that'll take about a month to get, hopefully within the three -- I would say within three weeks they should be here. I'm also having a problem with the SIC code books. They were originally published in 1987, and the original publisher no longer publishes them, so I'm having to go through other sources to try to get those books, and I'm working through one of our secretarial staff. So that's going to be a little bit challenging, but I hope we'll be able to overcome that. And I think that was all I needed to mention. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we -- I think those were the big blue ones; right? MS. MURRAY: Those are the bound, dark blue books with the gold lettering. That's the Standard Industrial Classification. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That was the national? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do any of us have those? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Didn't you just give us a huge one that's sitting on my shelf at home? MS. MURRAY: That is the NAICS, which is the update to the SIC, Standard Industrial Classification. And that is what we will be actually amending the code to go to. We will be doing the conversion from the Standard Industrial Classification to NAICS. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. That makes sense. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd and I are about to get our feelings hurt. We don't have either one. Page 100 October 18, 2001 MS. MURRAY: You don't have the NAICS? Okay. I bring them and people aren't here, and then I take them home. I will bring two more. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any new business? Do we have any public comment? No one's out there in the audience. Discussion of addenda. Move for adjournment. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I so move. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are so adjourned. Thank you very much. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:53 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 101