Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/01/2001 RNovember 1,2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 1,2001 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 8:36 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 Dwight Richardson Mark P. Strain ALSO PRESENT: Patrick G. White, 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, NOVEMBER 1, 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, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMIT'FED 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 - OCTOBER 4, 2001 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES - None 6. BCC REPORT - RECAPS OF OCTOBER 9, 2001 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEAdGNGS A. BD-2000-27, Ben Nelson, Jr., of Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., representing Norm Aipert, requesting a 15 foot extension for a dock facility protruding a total of 35 feet into the waterway, for property located at 217 Bayfront Drive, further described as Lot 22, Bayfront Gardens, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) Bo BD-2001-AR-1182, Jerry Ncal, representing Wayne Carmignani, requesting a 5-foot boat dock extension of an existing 44-foot dock to create a dock facility protruding a total of 49 feet into the waterway at 41 East Pelican Street, further described as Lot 27, Isles of Capri Unit 1, in Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.(Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) VA-2001-AR-1295, Robert L. Duane, AICP, representing Collier County Public Utilities/Wastewater Collections, requesting an after-the-fact 4.5-foot variance from the required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet in the "A" Agricultural Zoning District to 45.5 feet for the existing Secondary Clarifier Tank; a 9.5-foot variance from the required 50-foot front yard setback to 40.5 feet for the existing Sludge Holding Tank No. 1; and a 23-foot variance from the required 50-foot front yard setback to 27 feet for the proposed Sludge Holding Tank No. 2, for property located at 5600 Warren Street, in Section 20, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUDA-2001-AR-881, William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., representing James Morande, of Morande Kid, Inc., requesting an amendment to the Salvation Army PUD for the purpose of a adding an automobile dealership as a permitted use, for property located at 3180 Estey Avenue, on the western side of Airport Road, approximately., 600 feet north of Davis Blvd., in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.78± acres. (Coordinator: Chahrarn Badamtchian) PUDA-2001-AR-843, William L. Hoover, Trustee, representing Bucks Run Land Trust and The Restoration Church, Inc., requesting an amendment to the Bucks Run PUD having the effect of adding a child care center as a permitted use on the western 15+ acres and a maximum of 288 affordable housing dwelling units on the eastern 24+ acres, for property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 700 ft. north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 38.99+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUDA-2001-AR-1404, Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc., representing Conquest Development U.S.A., L.C., requesting an amendment to the Silver Lakes PUD for the purpose of reducing the Park/Travel Trailer area fi.om 26 to 24 acres, the buffer area fi.om 5 to 3 acres, the commons/recreation area from 97 to 78 acres and increasing the conservation area from 3 to 26 acres, for property located at 1001 Silver Lakes Boulevard, in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) RZ-2001-AR-1143, Tim Hancock, of Va~r~s,,se~,~,~ ~,a, ylor,,~LP, re,,presenting Golden Gate Capital, Ltd., requesting a rezone fi'om~l~SF-3 to RSF-6 for single-family housing for property located on the comer of 20~U~a~e S.W. and 51st Street S.W., Golden Gate City, in Section 2 I, Township 49 South, Rangg'26 L~, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) CU-2001-AR-371, Bryan Milk of RWA Inc., representing Hideout Golf Club, Ltd., requesting Conditional Use "1" of the "A" zoning dislrict for earthrnining per Section 2.2.2.3.1, for property located at the southwest intersection of Kean Avenue (a.k.a. Brantley Boulevard) and Garland Road, in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 20.5:t: acres (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) PDI-2001-AR-1317, Kevin L. Higginsoa, P.E., of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Southern Marsh Golf Club, L.C., requesting an Insubstantial Change Deternaln_ation to the San Marino 16UD for modifications to a portion of the PUD Master Plan to reflect layout of the entrance road and the boundaries of the preservation areas for property located on the east side of C.R. 951 approximately 1.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84), in Section l 1, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) o 10. 11. 12. 13. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN 1 1-01-01/CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo November 1, 2001 (The proceedings commenced with Commissioner Midney not present.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to call to order this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for Thursday, November 1 st, 2001. Welcome. The first item on the agenda is pledge of allegiance. Please stand with me and join us in the pledge of allegiance. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have an announcement to make. We have obviously exceeded the capacity of this room for fire safety, so each of you who is not seated at the moment must stand out in the hall and observe our proceedings from the hall. We have speakers out there that you can hear what's going on. It is a safety issue. So, please, if you're not seated, move toward the hall. (Commissioner Midney entered the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And if you happen to be a speaker, if you have somebody here that is a friend of yours and trade out their seat, please do so. And we're going to change the agenda this morning. Mr. Weigel, can you talk to him? (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Unfortunately, we may exceed the capacity of the hallway too. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: If you could depart the room quietly, we'll call the roll. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. Good morning. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. Page 2 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio, here. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Present. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We do have a quorum. Thank you. Do we have any addenda to the agenda? MS. MURRAY: Yes, Madam Chair. For the record, my name is Susan Murray, current planning manager. Item G has been continued, and honestly I'm not sure why. I don't know if that was at the request of the petitioner or not. I just got a notice that it was continued. Marjorie Student has,jury duty today. I understand Patrick White is supposed to be filling in for her. I don't see him, but David Weigel is here, so I'm sure we're covered. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: He'll be satisfactory. MS. MURRAY: As well, I know you wanted to have some discussion on e-mails. I don't know if'you want to have that now. I know Mr. Weigel's here to discuss that with you, I believe. I just wanted to bring that to your attention, and that's all I have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And has someone made a request, then, to move Item E to be the first item on the agenda? COMMISSIONER BUDD: So moved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. Page 3 November 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Everybody on the right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- and a second by -- everyone on the right -- a second by Mrs. Young to move Item E, PUDA-2001-AR- 843, an amendment to the Bucks Run PUD, to the first item on the agenda. Do we have any discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: sides here that represent that? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: standing in the hall too. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, because it's so -- they may have counted on that being later in the schedule. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, they do-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Before we vote we're in discussion. I'll recognize Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold representing Bucks Run. Mr. Cuyler, our attorney who's been working on our affordable-housing component, is on his way. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is that mike on? MS. MURRAY: It should be. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Somebody said they saw him in the building. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is Mr. Cuyler in the audience anywhere, in the hall? Well, actually it's not fair, then, to the petitioner to move this. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Madam Chairman, while we have this, what is the number of this? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: This would be E, as in elephant. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 8-E. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. The -- I have 834 on Are the people on both Are the attorneys here? I believe I saw everyone. They may be Page 4 November 1, 2001 mine, not 843. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, I have 843 on my agenda. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. But on the -- on the actual packet, it's 834. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm dyslexic. I didn't notice it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, it looks like we have succeeded in one more typo for this particular agenda and packet. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, 43 is 34 backwards. It's close. MS. MURRAY: It's not really relevant. We know what the -- the petition name is. It doesn't affect the advertising requirements. As well, I need to read into the record the correct title for another one of your items. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. But we're not doing that. We have a motion and a second on the floor to move this item on the agenda, and we're in discussion at the moment. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would offer a -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. I would like clarification. Are we dealing with 834 on this Bucks Run, or is it 843, as the agenda states? MS. MURRAY: 834. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you, just for the record. Okay. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would just offer a tabling motion until both sides are ready. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Or we can withdraw the motion if we want to. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would move we withdraw the motion and go on with the next case. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Page 5 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was going to amend it and take these two boat dock extensions first and slide it in there so we won't have to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. Go to the top of the agenda. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's reasonable. So would you like to amend your motion to hear Public Hearings A and B first on the two boat docks, and then the third item would be the Bucks Run PUD amendment? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That sounds fair to me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Second, okay? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Second agrees. Any discussion? Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just to comment, the -- it would only be fair if the other two applicants, C and D, had no problem with being pushed to the latter part of the agenda because they're going to have to wait through the Bucks Run issue now, and I'm not sure that's fair to them. It might be fair to have Bucks Run move forward, but is it equally as fair to those other people that have been scheduled all along? So do we have any objections, then, from C and D? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That is a consideration. If they're handy, would they please step forward. MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, for the record. I'm willing to defer Item C until you've finished your business this morning. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Hoover's on both, so it doesn't make a difference. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Hoover? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, he's on both. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. He's on both, so he's here Page 6 November 1, 2001 anyway. Okay. Any other comments, discussion on our amended motion? Mr. -- Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want -- I had a meeting with Mr. Cuyler and Mr. Arnold here a day or so ago regarding Bucks Run. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. call -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, we're not there yet? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- each individual item. We're not quite there yet. We still have a ways to go to -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: My apologies. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. I call the question. All those in favor of moving Item E to C, change it to the third item on the agenda, say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Okay. Moving right along, we will have a discussion of e-mails at the item on new business. Any other addenda to the agenda? MS. MURRAY: Just that I need to read the title whenever you're ready. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: For which item, please? MS. MURRAY: That would be Item C. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's an amendment to the agenda then, isn't it? MS. MURRAY: Not really. I mean, there's -- it's just a correction. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The title of it. MS. MURRAY: A correction, yeah. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Go ahead and correct that one. We'll do our disclosures when I Page 7 November 1, 2001 MS. MURRAY: Okay. It would be VA-2001-AR-1295, Robert L. Duane, AICP, representing the Collier County Public Utilities/Wastewater Administration, requesting a 3-foot variance in the "A" Rural Agricultural Zoning district from the required minimum side yard setback of 30 feet to 27 feet for the proposed Sludge Holding Tank No. 2 for property located at 5600 Warren Street in Section 20, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. Moving along to approval of the minutes for October 4th, do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think I have a motion by Mr. Wolfley, a second by Mr. Budd to approve the minutes for the October 4th meeting. All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a correction. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, we do have a correction. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 114 says -- and this is my discussion -- "When I was down at the county scrambling for money to get documents." I don't go to the county for money, and I don't want that to be on the record that way. I used the words "on Monday," when I was down at the county scrambling on Monday, not for money. So if I could make sure that gets corrected. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's been enough scrambling for money already. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I read this morning's paper before I came in too. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So we have a correction on page 114 for Mr. Strain's remarks. Are there any other corrections to the minutes? Page 8 November 1, 2001 Okay. So we have a motion to approve revised minutes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would so move. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. First and second agree? All right. All those in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. We have revised minutes. Planning Commission absences, do we have any anticipated absences during the month of November? Hearing none from other commissioners, it is possible that I will be out of town on the 28th of November, which is a scheduled Land Development Code meeting. So Mr. Abernathy, as long as he's here, he can run the show. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Come to think of it-- no. I'll be here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. Board of County Commissioners report, recaps of October 9th. Do we have some highlights you would like to present to us, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: Not unless you have questions. I did want to let you know that on 10/24 the Board of County Commissioners approved the LDC amendments pretty much as you-all have recommended. There were really no substantive changes to those. So the public participation strategy is now in effect, and we have been telling applicants as of October 1 that they needed to abide by that as policy. So you will see some petitions come through that have not participated in those -- that process. They were in -- in the analysis stage way before October 1. But anything as of October 1 or later will be required to comply. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Susan, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this recap. This is the second time I see Page 9 November 1,2001 items that are listed here, but they don't give what the disposition was. There's one that starts on page 3, continues to the top of page 4, the Vanderbilt Villas PUD. And then there's one at the bottom of page 4 that continues -- or is it -- let me see. Yeah, the Eagle Creek PUD, and then-- well, that's denied 5-0. Excuse me. Then the following one, White Lake Industrial Park PUD, it sets out the whole issue, but it doesn't give a disposition. I thought that's what this thing was supposed to do. MS. MURRAY: You're correct. Our office doesn't handle this. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can you -- do you know off the top of your -- MS. MURRAY: approved. I do know. The White Lake PUD was COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Okay. And the other one that you mentioned COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Vanderbilt Villas is the second installment that was built too close to the first. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Vanderbilt Villas, is that -- MS. MURRAY: Vanderbilt Villas was actually withdrawn, and if you see right under Item 8-A, usually they put the result of the hearing at the bottom under the item, but here they had put it at the top. It says "withdrawn" right at the top there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just to clarify that, though, Mr. Abernathy, it was withdrawn at the applicant's request because the -- I listened to that part of the hearing -- because they determined that the sense of the commission was such that they were going to be defeated, so they took it back and were going to try to work it out with the -- between the two parties. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So that withdrawn with the Page 10 November 1, 2001 colon applies to A, B, and C; is that -- MS. MURRAY: No. That would just apply to Item A. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you take the time to express to whomever it is in charge of formatting this particular report that we'd like a little more clarity -- MS. MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- to save us some time and your staff time? Any other comments, questions from commissioners on the Board of County Commissioners report? Okay. Moving right along to No. 7, the commissioners -- excuse me -- the chairman's report. I'm going to take a little time here today and talk about some guidelines of-- for all the public, for staff, petitioners and, of course, for planning commissioners. First item for the planning commissioners would be a reminder that we must disclose all ex parte communications. When I call the particular item for the public hearing, that is the time to get my attention and let me know if you have spoken to anyone. Number two, reminder for those who come to the podium, please state your name clearly. If it's unusual, spell it for the court reporter and, also, that only one person in the room speaks at a time. I'd like to remind each person to kindly wait until the person speaking finishes their thought process before attempting to answer a question or to comment. It makes it so much easier in this particular board, and we do not want people anticipating an answer to a question, whether that be staff, a petitioner, or someone from the public. So we certainly appreciate you-all being here today. And, again, only one person speaks, and we cannot have people speaking from the audience because it's impossible for the court reporter to get an accurate verbatim record. Thank you. With that, I'd like to open the advertised public hearings. The first item is BD-2000-27, a 15-foot boat dock extension. All those wishing to present testimony today please stand, raise your right Page 11 November 1,2001 hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 15-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 35 feet into a waterway which is about 300 feet wide. The property is located at 217 Bayfront Drive in Lely Barefoot Beach and contains about 88 feet of water frontage. The projects consists of the construction of a U-shaped dock and boat lift on a lot which is currently unimproved. No building permit for this facility would be issued unless a building permit were issued simultaneously for a single-family home on the lot, and even then the dock could not be legally used prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the home. The proposed dock as shown in the petitioner's drawing has been modified in response to the concerns of the owner of neighboring Lot 21, and the second boat lift has been deleted as shown in the amended drawing. And this is what I've passed out prior to the hearing this morning. We've received no objections to this petition. It meets all relevant criteria, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ross, on subparagraph H you say that the petitioner owns a 27-foot vessel. I can't find anywhere where the petitioner said that. MR. GOCHENAUR: That information was provided to me separately. I have a letter from the petitioner which states that. It wasn't in his original application. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The letter is not in here either, is it? Page 12 November 1,2001 MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, it's not. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff'?. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. Ross, this dock cannot be used, then, until the house is placed on the property that it's serving. That's what you said; right? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, correct. That's generic to all such -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is there such -- is there any procedure that that dock could be posted so that someone else doesn't come along and start using it illegally? It just seems like it's an attraction to someone to start to use prior to the time it's legally appropriate to use. I just wonder if they ever have any posting that would say, you know, you can't fish off this dock or you can't boat here or something because it's not -- why have the rule if we don't have a way to enforce it? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought you couldn't build it until you had a structure; is that -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: He's going to build it. MR. GOCHENAUR: You could build the house and the dock simultaneously. And in answer to your question, technically that would be a construction site. So, for instance, trespassing would be prohibited since the house would be under construction at the same time as the dock. I don't think -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I misunderstood. I thought they could go ahead and build a dock ahead but not use it until the property has a house on it. You're saying it has to be simultaneous. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff?. Would the petitioner care to present? Page 13 November 1,2001 MR. NELSON: For the record, Ben Nelson representing the applicant. I'd be glad to answer any questions anybody might have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What will the first lift hold? What does -- the first lift, what capacity does it have? MR. NELSON: The capacity of the lift is a 16,000-pound lift. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The correction that we were just handed shows a 10,000 pound. Is that right or wrong? MR. NELSON: It's probably a typo. It's a 16,000-pound lift. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the correction needs correction? MR. NELSON: Well, I'm not sure that the lift capacity has anything to do with the extension. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Having no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I make a motion to approve BD-2001-AR-11 -- no that's the wrong one -- BD-2000-27. We're getting ahead of ourself. MR. BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Abemathy, a second by Mr. Budd to approve the BD-2001-27. 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. (No response.) Page 14 November 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. Second public hearing petition would be BD-2001-AR-1182, a 5-foot boat dock extension. 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: Mr. Gochenaur. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 29-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 49 feet into a waterway which is about 390 feet wide. The property is located at 41 East Pelican Street in Isles of Capri and contains about 431 feet of water frontage. There's a typographical error in the staff report that says that's 231. That conflicts with another reference in the staff report that says 431. The correct water frontage is 431 feet. The project consists of the removal of existing mooring pilings seaward of an existing legal nonconforming dock and the replacement of pilings which would protrude 5 feet further into the waterway than the originals. And I've shown that on the drawing here. The proposed new pilings would increase the protrusion of the dock and, therefore, the nonconformity, requiring approval of an extension to the full 49 feet. No deck area would be added to the existing dock. We've received no objections to this proposal, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ross, I'm a little -- would you explain the concept of a legal nonconforming deck? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. There was a time when docks could be constructed to any length without a boat dock extension petition. If the dock was legally built according to the county rules Page 15 November 1,2001 that were in effect at the time, it's considered legally nonconforming. The addition of these two pilings results in a 5-foot extension to the legal nonconforming dock. And the code says that you can't increase a nonconformity; therefore, the property owner had to come back and basically legalize the entire facility just to have these pilings. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So it is now completely legal? MR. GOCHENAUR: If you approve it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So it's no longer a nonconforming covered dock after this action. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. It'll be a legal dock. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? Would the petitioner care to present? MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal representing the owner. The dock was built in 1976. And, as Ross said, back then the rules were totally different than they are today. The owner of today just purchased it, just remodeled the home, and just brought his boat in and found that the existing facility would not accommodate his boat. For one, the boat would slide underneath the roof of the boathouse and get caught up underneath of it, so he's asking to be able to shift it out away from the boat dock -- boathouse, existing, 5 feet in order to keep his boat from getting caught underneath the roof of the boathouse. If there are any other questions ... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No questions? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion to approve BD-2001-AR- 1182. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. Page 16 November 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Abemathy, a second by Mr. Budd to approve this boat dock extension 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. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. We are now at the changed agenda for Item E, which is now C, PUD-2001-AR-834, amendment to the Bucks Run PUD. All those wishing to give testimony today, even those in the hall, please step inside, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn by the clerk -- clerk of the courts. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Your turn. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with the planning services staff presenting the Bucks Run PUD, Petition No. AR-834. The petitioner is requesting to amend the Bucks Run PUD, which is located, as you can see on the visualizer, on the east side of Collier Boulevard, the Golden Pond PUD to the west. To the north is a vacant agricultural land with -- and a landscape nursery on part of it. To the south is an approved but undeveloped Mission Church PUD. To the east is the developed Vanderbilt Country Club PUD, and in the southeast comer is the Collier County treatment facility. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And before you go any further, are there any disclosures? Mr. Strain, we'll start at your end. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I spoke with the applicant's representative, Mr. Wayne Arnold, and we discussed my concerns about the project as well as his. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I also had a conversation with Page 17 November 1, 2001 Mr. Arnold and Mr. Cuyler, same -- referring to objections that I saw, problems. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. I was contacted by the applicants and had a telephone conversation with them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I had a telephone conversation with Ken Cuyler regarding this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Cuyler and Mr. Wayne Arnold, who is the planner for the petitioner. And I also had a telephone call from a Mr. Mike Davis, who is a property owner in a land trust very near this piece of property. We discussed my concerns. We discussed affordable housing. I asked a number of questions to clarify points in the petition for -- that we're considering today. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I met with Mr. Cuyler, and Mr. Arnold joined us via teleconference, and that's -- we had a conversation about the petition. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I met with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Cuyler regarding this petition. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I feel left out. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you very much. Okay. You may continue. MR. BELLOWS: The Bucks Run PUD was approved in 1999 in Ordinance No. 99-79. It allowed for 156 dwelling units at that time at a density of four units per acre. It also allowed for a church and a school. The proposed amendment is to increase the number of units to 348 via the affordable-housing density bonus process. In your agenda packet, you will see an attached affordable-housing agreement that's prepared by our housing and urban improvement. We have the housing and urban improvement director here to go into Page 18 November 1, 2001 detail of that part of the application. The Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan allow for increases in density via this affordable-housing process. The reason we have a PUD document that's not striked through and underlined is the fact that there were significant changes due to the increase in density, and we treat it like a new PUD. And so, therefore, there is no strike through and deletions. We're treating this like a brand-new project, and that's why it's presented in this format. The Future Land Use Element has what we call a map showing where a future development can go and the densities. It's located in the yellow area which is urban residential with a base density of four units per acre. If it was located within a density band, it would be eligible for three additional dwelling units per acre, but it's not in a density band. So, therefore, to increase the number of units to make an affordable-housing project, the county offers its bonus incentive program. And with the -- an executed affordable-housing density agreement, they're eligible to receive up to 8 additional dwelling units for a total of 12 dwelling units per acre, and such is pointed out in your staff report. So the proposed petition is consistent with the Growth Management Plan with the approval of the affordable- housing density bonus. The transportation review indicates that the subject site would generate 1,152 weekday trips and 115 during the a.m. Peak hour, will not lower the level of service on Collier Boulevard or any other road and, therefore, is consistent with Policies 5.1 and 5.2, the transportation element of the Growth Management Plan. In regards to compatibility with the adjacent land uses, one of the more important things that staff looks at when we change densities -- you can see that this is a copy of the master plan. Basically not much has changed on the master plan from the originally approved master plan. The access still is off of Collier Boulevard. We have a Page 19 November 1,2001 -- preserve areas in -- centrally located with an access to the back. In the west track is proposed for the church, school, and possibly a day- care facility. In the eastern tract is proposed for this affordable- housing project. The affordable-housing project was originally intended to be -- and I think it may have snuck into your staff report -- be limited to 55 and older. That was the original submission by the applicant; however, they were not able to work out that process to their satisfaction. And they resubmitted the affordable-housing agreement after the staff report was prepared to eliminate that requirement. I hope that you got the revised page to eliminate that requirement in your document. The compatibility issue is the fact that we'll probably be dealing with multifamily instead of single-family housing type. The rental -- the affordable-housing agreement points out to rental units. The property to the east in the Vanderbilt Villas PUD currently contains multifamily structures that would be similar in nature to what's being proposed for this affordable-housing project except that this will be a rental unit versus their condominium type of units. I have an aerial photo attached to your staff report that basically shows the structures. As you can see, they line the property line to the east side. From a compatibility of structure to structure, the multifamily buildings proposed for this development would be compatible to what's being proposed in Bucks Run. We also have water management lakes and preserve areas. The county transportation department has requested an interconnect with the property to the south and the property to the north; however, it may not be feasible to have the interconnect to the property to the south. That PUD is far along in its development and design, and there's some environmental issues that may prevent the interconnection at that point, though we still think we can get the Page 20 November 1,2001 interconnection to the north. To the north is vacant agricultural land or is partly developed with a landscape nursery. And to the south is the Mission Church PUD, and if we could get that interconnection, it would be a natural connection between the two church/school projects. Staff has received just recently a petition from residents within the Vanderbilt Country Club objecting to the affordable-housing component of this petition primarily. They do have some concerns with traffic also. As you can see, we have numerous people here, so I guess -- I also wanted Greg Mihalic to speak now to address the affordable-housing component to give you a better idea of the price ranges in that market. MR. MIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Greg Mihalic. I'm director of housing and urban improvement for Collier County. I really would like to reserve most of my comments until after the petitioner makes their presentation so I'm available to answer questions and talk about what's going to be in this project, if that's okay with you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It might -- MR. MIHALIC: If you have questions now, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It might be; however, we had questions last time on an affordable-housing issue. Would anyone care to just ask him some general questions now to clarify points that were not clarified previously that wasn't in the staff report? Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have specific questions about your affordable-housing agreement. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know what the appropriate time would be to bring those up. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead. Page 21 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It was included in our packet, and I need to -- unfortunately I thought it would be something we should have reviewed prior to this meeting. Mine seems to be incomplete. Page 6, No. 9 is a beginning of a -- it says "Authority to Monitor. The parties hereto acknowledge that the Director of Collier" ... That's it. The rest of the document's missing. The same thing applies to page 7. The same thing applies to page 8. And I'm just wondering if the completed document has all those paragraphs completed in it, or what happened that we got a version that wasn't complete? MR. MIHALIC: I'm not sure, but we'll check on that and be sure there is a complete original version. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm just wondering if it has any relevance to this meeting today. MR. MIHALIC: It's a legal question, but really it's my understanding legally the affordable-housing density bonus is really not even an issue that's generally presented to the Planning Commission. We tried to include it so you had a complete package, but the Board of County Commissioners really makes the decision on that document to the best of my knowledge. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. But we do have the opportunity to review it, and this board -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And this board truly wants to be able to read the documents in total. It may not be your fault, but someone who provided this information leaves us wondering about verbiage. MR. MIHALIC: I'm afraid I can't -- I can't answer that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Richardson, you had a question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure that -- on the public record that I understand that this application's coming in under the Ordinance 90-89 which is the -- Page 22 November 1,2001 permits this density. MR. MIHALIC: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And that from staff's standpoint this application fully meets the requirements of that ordinance. MR. MIHALIC: It goes far beyond the requirements of that ordinance, and that ordinance has now been integrated into the Land Development Code, so it no longer stands alone. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions for Mr. Mihalic at this time? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any other information other than if you have other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Staff is recommending that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ms. Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ray, under your findings for the PUD, page 2, Finding No. 3 it says in the last sentence, "The subject PUD proposes to allow residential uses at a density under one unit per acre, which is consistent with the Future Land Use Element." Is that a typo? MR. BELLOWS: Which page? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 2 of the findings for the PUD, Item No. 3, finding. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. It should read 12 units per acre. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does the finding still remain the same then if it goes from 1 to 127 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The staff report earlier on under Growth Management Plan consistency talks about the compatibility. There was just a typo in that reflection there. Page 23 November 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Certainly one that I tripped on also. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And on No. 7, under your summary finding, the last sentence says, "Relative to this petition, development of the subject property is timely, because supporting infrastructure is available." I drive the roads out there every day multiple times, and I know that there's probably going to be discussion about the roads. I had heard that Dawn Wolfe might be here to discuss that. Good. She is. The roads are two lanes out there, and I can tell you that the level of service on those roads from a driving viewpoint is not acceptable. I'm sure that you're going to have some counter to that, and I'd be curious to -- (Applause) MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I live out there too, and I understand the conditions. And Dawn Wolfe will be here to elaborate the changes she's making to the level-of-service standards through the next LDC amendment cycles to make them more realistic to the conditions out there and directions that the board has given staff. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I look forward to her discussion. And I have one other comment. On your rezone findings, No. 5 under the pro it says, "The proposed zoning change is appropriate based on the approved residential land uses to the east and the south." The residential land use to the south is a church. I mean, there's a church there, not a residential land use, isn't that correct, or at least it's zoned for a church or approved for a church? MR. BELLOWS: Which page are you on now? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 2 of the rezone findings, Question No. 5. MR. BELLOWS: I don't see that one. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I can show you my copy if you'd like. MR. BELLOWS: This is Exhibit A, findings for PUD or-- Page 24 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. Rezone findings. We had two findings in our packages. One that says PUD and-- MR. BELLOWS: Number 5? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Summary findings? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. Number 5 under pro. It says that the residential land is to the east and to the south. I think there's a church to the south or is proposed to be a church to the south; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Residential land uses to the east -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: To the north there's a nursery. To the south there's a church, a zoned church. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Just to the east. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's the questions I have of staff at this time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I, too, am concerned about the transportation element with the terrible problems we have now on our infrastructure, our roads. You say this project will generate trips of approximately 1,152 weekday trips. And, of course, with people going out to their jobs, that'll be at the peak period of use. How can you say that this will not have a significant affect on 951 ? MR. BELLOWS: I said there is a significant impact, but it does not degrade the level of service below the adopted standards the county has maintained for the minimal service standards. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: What standard would that be? Would that be D? MR. BELLOWS: D. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Wolfe, do you care to comment? Page 25 November 1, 2001 MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, transportation planning director. One of the primary issues we've been battling for the past year is the issues with transportation and our level-of-service standards. We currently have submitted a major modification to our level-of-service standards and capacities which had not been updated since 1997. That is one of the reasons why we are here telling you that this is consistent because we are still working under those old standards which do not necessarily incorporate the most current technical parameters. You will be seeing a significant change in roadway level-of- service capacities and how we grade and rate whether or not a new development is at significant and adverse. However, because the current level-of-service tables are contained in the Comprehensive Plan, we are bound by the tables that are contained in there. And by going from those tables, they're being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, and we can only measure them against those standards. Our hands are tied to measuring them against what our code and Growth Management Plan require. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are the new standards going to be more liberal or more stringent? MS. WOLFE: The majority of them will be significantly more restrictive. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What's the process that you're using to develop these new standards? MS. WOLFE: We are using the most current version of the nationally recognized highway capacity manual procedures and utilizing methodology developed by the Florida Department of Transportation, which is consistently applied throughout the State of Florida and which is based on most current standards. It has taken us Page 26 November 1, 2001 a while to get all of the data in order to provide the most accurate tables. One thing we are doing is we are removing the specific tables from the Growth Management Plan to allow ease of update of those tables. That is something that is currently in the pipeline for our next round of amendments to the Growth Management Plan. So we are actively working towards updating them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How soon do you expect that to be available to be actually used? MS. WOLFE: Susan, what's our time line on our Growth Management Plan updates? MS. MURRAY: That's usually a comprehensive planning issue. I'm going to say at the earliest this time next year, Dawn. It's usually about a year process before it's transmitted and then adopted by the board. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: About a year. Mr. Midney, you had another question. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why is this change in the standards coming about now? Is it that people were more tolerant of traffic congestion before, or what's happened? MS. WOLFE: I can't explain what happened prior to October of last year when I came on board here. I can say that our application of these and review of these criteria has been ongoing since last year, and it takes some time to actually generate them and make sure that they are consistent with accepted practices. I can't say what happened prior to now, but they've been applied generally consistent with what's in the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. It's just that because some of them were quite expansive in their allowances for capacity, the nexus of whether or not they are either significant or adverse were very hard to define based on those standards. And that's what we're trying to remedy, but Page 27 November 1, 2001 it does take a little bit of time. We do have other avenues to ensure that the immediate areas of any development through the Land Development Code are appropriately evaluated and upgraded to ensure safe and operational consistency when these projects do develop. So there's other steps down the road where we will ensure that we will maximize the safety out there on the roads as well as make sure they provide for turn lanes and other improvements potentially at adjacent intersections, not necessarily their direct access, to make sure that conditions are at least tried to be maintained. But until we get those changes in place which we talked about over the past year -- and we are forwarding now so that we can actually implement them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Could you clarify this for me? Would this -- if we approved it, then would we be approving a lesser road capacity which will be improved by law in later time? MS. WOLFE: We actually are -- would be -- you would be recommending approval of this based on a roadway capacity that actually is greater than will -- would be approximately one year from now. But there's -- the county is very aggressively pursuing all projects to address what we have identified as deficiencies. And this is in our program -- at least in the early stages for design, within our five-year program. So we're actively pursuing improving the roads within this area and this road in particular. It's a matter of timing, being able to pay for these improvements. But we're actively pursuing to address the issue of level of service out on that road regardless of what the Comprehensive Plan says the level of service is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Midney, you had one more follow- up and then Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. I will be pleased to Page 28 November 1,2001 see a more stringent requirement because it's been somewhat frustrating to me in my short time on this board to see that -- you know, when it's plain that there is traffic problems on certain roads and yet it's presented, you know, when PUDs come up that everything is, you know, sufficient, you know, even for the proposed increases, which in a common sense basis doesn't make sense to me. But, you know, we have to go by what the law says. MS. WOLFE: And I share your frustration. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Dawn, if you take this table out of the comp plan and just put it in an ordinance, aren't you making it more susceptible to political -- politicization? In other words, every subsequent commission -- a couple of votes change on the commission, and you could go back to liberalizing it again. MS. WOLFE: As long as we're basing it off of technical merits and accepted practices, it will be not readily changed just to meet a -- a decision that may be made by the board. These are of a technical nature and are based on facts and accepted practices. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I hope -- your optimism has got to be forward looking, I would say, rather than backward. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Having experienced four, five years' worth of efforts at getting a solid operational code for utilities and knowing what happened on the ground versus what was there and what was approved by our Board of County Commissioners who didn't understand all the technicalities, you are very optimistic. (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ms. Wolfe, as long as you're there. On this particular application, all that -- what we've talked about is forward looking and I'm sure will be helpful because Page 29 November 1,2001 you'll be there to make sure it happens. But in terms of this specific application, what the board, commission, here typically struggles with is concurrency. We're looking forward to capacity that's three years out, typically, when you apply the -- the judgment that the capacity's going to be there. Can you give us some insight as to what the road plans are of improvement for this specific -- that would affect this specific project, how its timing will come in and relative to what we'll be asking the applicant, the timing of whatever improvements he plans for this property, to see if we can get this to dovetail? MS. WOLFE: Well, first off, a PUD approval does not give explicit concurrency approval. That is issued at a later time in the development process. That is another issue we are addressing in the Land Development Code. Rather than adequate public facility certificates or your concurrency certificate being issued solely at the time of building permit, we are looking at moving that up to where with -- when a site development plan is submitted, that is the time at which we will say yea or nay on whether or not concurrency has been met. And we are going to be addressing the issue of cumulative rather than this is what the count is now, but also looking at what other projects are out there and pending that also have a direct implication to what our level of service will be. The timing of when this plan is submitted will either fall within our current standards if it's applied for early on, or if it's later on, it could be subject to more stringent standards in regards to concurrency. Our five-year capital improvement program has identified a design stage for the 951 widening. We are actively looking at multiple alternatives and resources to advance all projects that we can within that program, seeking state and federal funds as well as what we have locally to put into that program. And we will continue to try and advance needed projects. But right now we -- it's not Page 30 November 1, 2001 construction funded in the five years as part of it taking a while to get to the point of where you can go to construction. We do have the design funded in the next five years because it had not been previously designed, and we will be designing that for six lanes out there, not just a four to a six lane. Our goal is to put what is needed at one shot, as with many of our other projects. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And in this particular petition that we're looking at, as far as concurrency is concerned, no one's going to wave their magic wand and suddenly all these units are going to appear, just like no one's going to wave the magic wand and suddenly all of the roads are going to appear that we need, that we know we need. So there is a time frame, which I know the public is frustrated as is transportation, but we have to have a concept of the timeliness of this as it moves through the process, although it may be very slow. MS. WOLFE: If, for instance, the -- the application was approved and they submitted a site development plan next month, they would be subject to the current Land Development Code criteria, which means they could wait until the time of their building permit to actually get their adequate public facilities. And since we are still functioning under the old level of service, they would be issued a level-of-service certificate for concurrency. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that is a reasonable expectation of anyone who owns property, whether you're an individual family, individual homeowner, you expect certain rules to be in place; or whether you're a developer, you expect certain rules to be in place and be able to work with them. I think Mr. Strain had a comment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I want to make sure we stay with this petition. We're doing good, but we want to make sure we focus on Bucks Run. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. That's what I was going to Page 31 November 1,2001 do. There's a sentence in the Growth Management Plan consistency summary that was provided to us, and it sparked my interest in the sense it said, "However, all road segments within the project's radius of development influence will operate at an acceptable level of service at the project buildout in 2003." So I thought maybe there was something that I didn't know about in regards to that date, 2003. And I went to your department and pulled your long range or your five-year plan. And the information I got on that plan dovetails with what you just said. The construction funding for Vanderbilt Beach Road to 951 is not even slated to be obtained until fiscal year '03, and that's unfunded at this point. They don't know the source of funding from what -- it's a shaded box on your report. And the same for CR- 951 from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road. All of it, including right-of-way and design, everything, is shown as unfunded, and there is no construction date for funding within the next five years. So those roads at this point are going to be like they are for a while; is that correct? MS. WOLFE: Yes. And if I may clarify, our five-year capital improvement program is based off of current needs based on the -- the more realistic level-of-service tables. We did not feel it was appropriate to define a capital improvement program that was based on the dated tables in the Growth Management Plan. As a planning tool, we have the ability to try and apply the most current technical standards in establishing what projects need to be when. So the capital improvement program is reflective of what -- our real-time needs versus what we can apply legally from the Growth Management Plan, which by applying the level-of-service tables from the Growth Management Plan, the statement contained in the staff report is correct because of the higher degree of capacity that's allowed under the current tables. Page 32 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: So are you saying that neither the improvements on Vanderbilt Road nor 951 are scheduled for as early as 2003? MS. WOLFE: We can go to construction if funding is found for Vanderbilt Beach Road by 2003. From a production standpoint, County Road 951 will not be ready to go to construction by that point in time. We do have caveats within the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code which allows a window of-- if it is committed for construction, and albeit these are not committed for construction. But, once again, we have to go based on the level-of- service tables that are in the Comp -- in the Growth Management Plan which indicates that these facilities are operating at an adequate level of service and meets the consistency test for determination of this application. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other comments from the board? I just would like to say that those of you that were not here during the intense discussions about level of service and what that meant for our Board of County Commissioners to apply those to our various infrastructure that we have, specifically roads, you've missed out on an awful lot. And sometimes it's difficult to understand why a level of service was set, say for instance, at D, and a lot of it has to do with availability of funding and the public's willingness to pay for this infrastructure. So we're all in this together. Any more questions of Dawn? Mr. Bellows, any further comments you'd like to make before we give the petitioner an opportunity to speak? MR. BELLOWS: No other comments at this time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of Mr. Bellows? Moving right along. Petitioner, please. MR. CUYLER: Good morning, Commissioners. Page 33 November 1,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning. MR. CUYLER: We do appreciate the opportunity to -- for the record Ken Cuyler with Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson. Caught again. We do appreciate the opportunity to speak and to present to you our petition. I apologize to Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Midney for not calling you. I hope you won't hold that against me. We did offer to all the planning commissioners the opportunity to talk to you either by phone or in person to present to you some issues we thought were important and to listen to your issues. And, as a matter of fact, we gave that opportunity to the adjacent neighborhood, Vanderbilt, as well. We asked them last week if they'd like to meet to us -- meet with us so we could explain to them some of the things that we thought were important about our project and to hear any issues or concerns. I know that's certainly something that the Planning Commission has encouraged in the past, and we wanted to do that as well. We had a meeting set up, and that meeting was canceled by the neighbors, and we're not sure why. But for whatever it's worth, we don't know what they're going to say today or what their issues are, but it really doesn't matter because we have a petition to present, and we're going to do that. With me today is Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor, who will speak immediately after me and talk to you a little bit about the petition; Blair Foley, who will answer any engineering questions; and Bill Hoover, who's both owner and trustee of a portion of the property and also with Hoover Planning and Development. We also have Mitchell Friedman, who is with the work-force housing group and is prepared to talk to you a little about their product, what they do, what their history is, what they try to accomplish, and to give you some idea of what their building product looks like. I wasn't going to do this, but before I let Wayne come up and start talking to you about the project, I think there's a couple important things to keep in mind, one of which is the density bonus system in Page 34 November 1,2001 this county was set up by the Board of County Commissioners. Sometimes we get into these hearings and there's a lot of discussion about I don't like additional density for this reason. Is this the best way to promote work-force housing or affordable housing? Is this the appropriate density bonus system that we should have? I would suggest to you that you have a very important job in reviewing petitions under the regulations that exist. But those policy questions -- and I think the people in the audience need to understand this. Those policy questions have already been answered by the Board of County Commissioners. There is a density bonus system in place where a developer can come to Collier County and say, "What are your rules? What is it you want me to do?" And they'll go to Mr. Mihalic, and he'll say, "This is the system that we have, and you have the ability to acquire additional units per acre if you make certain written commitments in agreement form to Collier County." And this is the way that the Board of County Commissioners has decided that it wants to promote a very important issue, and that is affordable housing or work-force housing in this county. I would also suggest to you that Ms. Wolfe's discussion is extremely important. I think the chairman brought out several important points, and that is not only is it not legal, but it's not fair for developers to come into this county, file an application, meet all the rules and regulations, meet everything that staff suggests to them, and then go to a higher level and have them told, "Well, the regulations we have may not accomplish right now exactly what we want them to. It may be a year or two before we can get to that point." So I would suggest to you and hope that if-- the one relevant question for Ms. Wolfe is, does this petition meet the transportation guidelines and requirements today? And the answer to that is yes. And if you ask her that question, she'll tell you that the answer's yes. Page 35 November 1, 2001 yOU. to speak with the residents? MR. CUYLER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: developer? We can't be sure what those regulations are going to be a year from now. We don't know what they are. You don't know what they are. If we were here a year from now or two years from now and there were new regulations, we would meet those regulations, or we wouldn't expect to be approved. But we have to deal under certain guidelines, and that's what we've done. So I -- I don't think this is a particularly complex project, but you -- I don't envy you your decision-making requirements. I know sometimes it's tough when 200 people are sitting in front of you. No matter how good the project is, it puts a lot of-- a lot of pressure. But I think when you hear this petition, that you'll find it's in compliance with all of the county rules and regulations. And it's not just a mediocre project. It's a good project. So with that I'll let Mr. Arnold take the podium and give you some idea what our project is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ken, I may have a question for You had mentioned that you had given an opportunity last week Was it the residents or the MR. CUYLER: It was the residents. We had a meeting that I had understood -- and I can be corrected, but my understanding is that we had a meeting set up that was going to actually be with residents that were interested in talking to us and not necessarily opposed to the project at that point because we didn't know. As a matter of fact, I think Mr. Bellows will indicate prior to today there was one letter of objection. So this is a situation where somebody Page 36 November 1, 2001 decided it was better to come into the Planning Commission and bring 200 people to talk to you than it was to meet with us last week and possibly try to find out what this project was about. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So -- ladies and gentlemen, please respect the speaker. So you're saying that it was the Vanderbilt Country Club Homeowners Association you had the meeting with; is that correct? Maybe someone else could clarify that. MR. CUYLER: It was residents from Vanderbilt. I think that it was the association, but I can't swear to that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because under the public participation, you would be required to in the future tell us exactly who you met with and what the concerns were. MR. CUYLER: I'll try to find that out in the meantime. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And, Mr. Wolfley, does that satisfy your question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. I'd just like that clarification. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ken, my problem with this has been the increase in density, and I'm trying to understand what you had just said about -- listening to Dawn about the current standards being applied. We've got a crisis in this county on roads. And to that extent, we've even got a sales tax initiative going on to try to correct it. The crisis is there because we've admitted mistakes in the way this was -- roads were laid out or approved or projects approved on the roads in the past. Admittedly, we're having new standards come into play because the old standards aren't right. But you're saying that even though we know the old standards are wrong and they aren't correct, that we should continue to approve projects that are overburdening the system based on those old standards? MR. CUYLER: I'm saying not only should you, but you're legal Page 37 November 1, 2001 -- legally required to do that. If you -- what about the next project that comes in after us? Are you going to say no to everybody for the next year that wants to develop on 951 ? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think the beginning format, Section 2 of the ULDC -- or 1.2; I'm not sure of the correct section -- says that we are supposed to be doing what's in the best interest, public safety, and welfare for the public. (Applause) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I'm not sure approving old standards that have been acknowledged as being wrong is in the best interest of the public. (Applause) MR. CUYLER: I would suggest that you're not dealing with old standards; you're dealing with today's legal standards. If-- if you have a question as to whether you're legally required to follow today's standards, there is an assistant county attorney sitting right there, and I'm confident that what he'll tell you is yes. I mean, how is anybody going to know what the rules are supposed to be in terms of development? Do we have traffic problems? Yes. Do we have a huge advocate for curing those? Yes. Ms. Wolfe is standing over there. The Board of County Commissioners knows there has to be some cures. But if the question is -- I mean, we've heard a lot lately about, you know, being a country of laws and rules and regulations. That's what we are. I mean, you don't want to go down to the supermarket and stand in line, and then they say, "Well, you know, it's 89.50, but we decided to raise it to 150.50." I mean, you don't change the roles when people are in the middle of their activities. And I think it's fundamentally unfair for a developer to come in and say, "What are the roles? All right. I will meet all of your roles" and then get to a philosophical discussion -- and I understand it's an Page 38 November 1,2001 important discussion, and I understand it's becoming, you know, a very real situation. But to come to the Planning Commission and say "I've met all your rules and regulations" and be told, "Well, our roads are not in good shape. We're not sure exactly what the future rules are going to be, but we have a concern right now you're going to impact that road, and we're not going to approve your project because of that," that's just fundamental unfairness. Nobody can operate under that system. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You do have a PUD that is approved within the rules. It exists right now. MR. CUYLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Now you're tripling that or doubling it or over doubling it. That's where my concern is. The rules are changing, apparently. MR. CUYLER: Right. But-- (Applause) MR. CUYLER: I think -- you know, and I don't want to tell you how to do your job because -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ladies and gentlemen, please. We need decorum. MR. CUYLER: I don't want to tell you how to do your job, but those types of philosophical discussions -- you can make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. They are the policy makers. We're not coming in and saying, "Could we have additional density because we want it?" What we're doing is, the developer went to Greg Mihalic and said, "We are a developer of work-force housing, affordable housing. We have been told your county promotes that. Could you tell us how you promote that?" "Yes. We promote that by increasing density." "And what do I have to do?" "Well, you have to have a certain type of product. You have to have certain income levels," which Greg can go through. "You Page 39 November 1,2001 have to meet certain requirements, and then you go to the Planning Commission. You go to the Board of County Commissioners," both of whom are supposed to be promoting affordable housing, which we have a huge deficiency of. I mean, that's -- another issue in the county is, do you have enough affordable housing? The Board of County Commissioners makes the policy decisions of, do we have additional density? How are the roads doing? What should the regulations for the roads be? How do we promote affordable housing? Should it be through tax incentives? Should it be through additional density? And your comment about there being additional density, I just- I would suggest to you that it -- it's not fair to say, "I don't want any additional density," even though in general I understand what you're saying. But if you come under a specific program to accomplish a specific goal that the Board of County Commissioners has established, that's not just coming in willy-nilly and asking for additional density. There's commitments that developers make, commitments to provide a housing type that this county needs and the board has said it wants. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We have a disagreement, but I understand what you're saying. MR. CUYLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Cuyler, before you leave, I think Mr. Richardson has one quick question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No, not a question. I just would like to hear from Mr. Arnold. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We're ready to go to Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good morning. Wayne Arnold representing Bucks Run Land Trust, Grady Minor Engineering. Mr. Cuyler did a good job, I think, explaining where we are because it Page 40 November 1, 2001 seems the cornerstone issue here today is regarding the affordable- housing component of this project, which is on the eastern two-thirds of the project, if you will, and not necessarily the church and school proposal that sits on the Collier Boulevard frontage. On your monitors I know Mr. Bellows has showed you the master concept plan for the planned development. It's a fairly straightforward -- there's an east and there's a west tract. The west tract along 951 is where the church and school are intended to be. The only issue that has come up that I'm aware of involving the church is the potential interconnect that's shown next to the preserve in about the middle of our project, that Mr. Bellows is pointing to. That interconnect is something that we're indifferent about. We didn't initially offer that. That was requested. We will agree to keep it there if you wish. We will delete it if you wish. It's really a nonissue from our perspective. The access point to the north is a little bit more important to us personally because there is a joint agreement to participate in bringing a bridge across the 951 canal, a hundred-foot-wide canal there, that will be shared with future potential development, the landscape nursery currently and whatever else happens in the future across that project. The bridge needs to be constructed and -- and would be designed to be able to share limited access points to Collier Boulevard, which I think would be to the benefit of the general public. The issue with respect to the affordable-housing component that we show, I think that it's important to note from the perspective -- and you have a reduced aerial in your packet. There are essentially two buildings at Vanderbilt Country Club that have an orientation to the Bucks Run PUD. There's one 24-unit, three-story building that's parallel to the property line. There's another building that sits at approximately a 45-degree angle that has maybe one unit that could Page 41 November 1, 2001 potentially have any view toward this project. And then there's a small pool and the club building that sits near the property line. But, in essence, the building at the Vanderbilt Country Club -- the nearest building is about 110 feet from our common property line. Vanderbilt Country Club provided a 1 O-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Bucks Run PUD. We're proposing to have an 80-foot- wide buffer between the two projects. So the nearest orientation of buildings that you will have between the nearest three-stow building in the Vanderbilt Country Club and the proposed maximum three- stow building that would be associated with the work-force housing is going to be about 190 feet minimum separation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: 190 feet? MR. ARNOLD: About 190 feet because of our 80-foot buffer and their 11 O-foot setback. I think it's even more important to note that the orientation of their building, their front door may face Bucks Run, but at their property line you have their buffer. You have their covered parking, a drive aisle, covered parking, and then the buildings. Their lanais and the orientation is to the lake and the golf course that that building also fronts on. So your amenity is not the current vegetation at Bucks Run. Your amenity is the existing golf course and lake system that's in the Vanderbilt Country Club. So I think from a perspective of any physical impact or even view, it's very limited. You have 24 units that are there, but I think when you look at the extent of the vegetative buffer that would remain and the separation between the like building types, I -- you know, as a professional planner, I don't see any compatibility question whatsoever with that situation. I don't think that anyone can make a compatibility argument that the St. Agnes Church or Mission Church PUD has a compatibility issue with another church and a work-force housing project. I don't see that as being a relationship that's incompatible at all. And, in fact, I would say that it's a very good Page 42 November 1,2001 opportunity to have those two components side by side. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you have a specific question, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. Wayne, did you-- as we, I think, discussed a couple of days ago, did you have a plan for your buffered area, your vegetation that you're going to put in? It sounded like you just were going to use your -- that 190 foot and not buffer it with vegetation. MR. ARNOLD: Right now there is existing vegetation on our side that we plan to retain in place. It's stated there as a landscape buffer. That's what it's intended to be. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What is the height of that vegetation? MR. ARNOLD: The height of the vegetation varies. I don't know if Mr. Hoover has any specific photographs of it, but there's largely pine trees and-- it's slash pine trees. They're probably -- you know, 20 to 30 feet is typical slash pine. There's some, you know, understory vegetation there. But it's our intent, except for the exotics that we would be required to remove from that, that we would leave it in place. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So if you're on the third floor in the Vanderbilt Country Club, those units there, those condos, you're not going to see the view of the affordable-housing units. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think I can tell you that you will not see those units, but what I can tell you is that nearly a 200-foot separation with their -- their vegetative plantings -- which are your typical Type B buffer. It's got a row of trees 25 and 30 feet on center; and they're, you know, planted four years ago. So they're not very mature vegetation at this point that's in their buffer. But what I'm telling you is we're leaving the mature vegetation intact. And, in fact, we'll be supplementing that on site with our own required vegetative Page 43 November 1, 2001 requirements to meet the county's landscape codes, etc. So it's certainly less expensive for us to go ahead and leave the vegetation in place rather than try to supplement it with other vegetation, but we certainly will. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wayne, you started out your presentation with the comment that you thought the problem with this whole thing is the affordable housing. Based on my conversations with you yesterday, I wanted to assure you that is not my concern. I don't care if you're putting in multifamily, high-rise luxury or you're putting in affordable housing there. My concern is the increase in density and the reality of that on the infrastructure for that area. I want that clear. (Applause) MR. ARNOLD: I didn't mean to imply that that -- that was so the case, but what I've heard, the focus so far has been on the fact that it's affordable housing. And I understand your concerns about the level of service, but as you heard Ms. Wolfe say and Mr. Cuyler reinforced, we are consistent with the standards that are in place today relevant to the traffic. And I think that it's important also that we look at this in the context of what's really happening on that Collier Boulevard corridor and the Vanderbilt corridor and everything, really, in that eastern Collier County area, because this is the corridor. This is where lands are still available at 40-acre pieces of land. You don't find them on Airport Road. You don't find them on Goodlette-Frank Road. You find these pieces of land along Vanderbilt, Collier Boulevard, etc. And the one incentive that we do have for bringing in the much needed affordable housing is a density bonus. And understanding that, we could have asked for more. We didn't. We're asking for the number that's a marketable and very economical number for the Page 44 November 1,2001 developer to build. And you're going to hear from them in just a few moments to take you through what they do and who they are, and I think that you'll be impressed with their qualifications. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Arnold, just for the record then, I'm hearing you represent that the buffering that's going to be provided on this project exceeds any of the other Land Development Code requirements. MR. ARNOLD: It certainly does. We would be required to provide you with a 1 O-foot landscape buffer under the current code. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abemathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We had a discussion about the west tract and the building of a church or child care, whatever, and how you would determine this setoff at the four units per acre. It was my suggestion that if you build one of those things there, that you just concede the 60 units altogether rather than trying to say how much of the 15 acres is attributable to the church and how much is attributable -- is not attributable to it. Have you-all had a chance to roll that around? MR. ARNOLD: Well, we've talked about that. And to be very honest with you, to give up those additional units, we would need some representation that we're moving in a positive fashion forward on this project relative to the balance of the project, which is essentially the affordable-housing component. And I think if we're looking at a positive recommendation, I think we can be in a position to go ahead and say we can give up all of those 60 units, because right now it's based on a ratio of acreage to units at four units per acre, which is the density that's essentially the base density for that property. Page 45 November 1,2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But it sort of puts the cart before the horse, doesn't it? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I understand what you're saying, and I -- I totally expect the church to utilize all of it. You do raise a very practical question, when we spoke, about how you account for -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Allocate. MR. ARNOLD: -- just what's the church property. And I went through with you an analysis of it's parking, it's water management, it's -- etc. And I can't tell you whether or not the church uses 10 acres, 12 acres today; but once you get into the site planning, I can certainly tell you. You may find that when it's all said and done you end up with 1 acre, and I don't think anybody's going to come and want to put four units there unless, as you and I discussed, it would be, you know, for a minister and, you know, a home minister's residence or something. But otherwise, I think that it's something that -- as we move forward into something, that we certainly are going to entertain your suggestion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: I really don't have anything else to add relative to the compatibility. I know we're going to hear from a lot of speakers, and I know Mr. Cuyler indicated that we'd really welcome the opportunity to come back and rebut or, I guess, respond to any comments that arise from their discussions, because at this point we don't know what they are going to say. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. So that concludes your presentation for now? MR. ARNOLD: It does. The Pinnacle Housing representatives are here, and they're going to make a brief presentation for you as well. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And then we can open up to public speakers, additional speakers. Page 46 November 1, 2001 Excuse me. If that's going to be something -- if you could, put it, like, over there so that the cameras can pick it up and the audience hopefully can see a little bit too. Right behind the attorney sort of. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Push that other chair over in this direction. Push it this way. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There should be a microphone over there that you can turn on and speak from also. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You have to look on the monitors. MR. FRIEDMAN: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the board. My name is Mitchell Friedman. I'm a partner and principal in Pinnacle Housing Group. I'd like to just spend a few minutes and tell you who we are and what we do and how we believe that the development that we propose is consistent and will be a value added for this particular community. Pinnacle -- let me just first say -- introduce my associate Karen Warner over there. Karen has a few slides that will show up on the screen. MS. WARNER: I was hoping to actually show them on the -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. You're going to have to state your name and -- and speak a little closer to the microphone. It's not picking you up. Maybe it's the tone. MR. FRIEDMAN: Is that better? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Much better. MS. WARNER: For the record, my name is Karen Warner with Pinnacle Housing Group. MR. FRIEDMAN: Pinnacle Housing Group is a housing developer, multifamily-community developer, based out of Miami. The principals -- and there's four of us -- have been involved in this type of community development for the last 13 or 14 years, although Pinnacle as a company has only been in business for approximately five years. The developments that we do range from typical, single- Page 47 November 1, 2001 family-home ownership to garden-style, suburban-style developments -- which is similar to what we're proposing here in Collier County -- to also high-rise, 13-, 14-story structures with 4- or 5-story parking garages. So we have the depth of experience and knowledge to be able to develop many different types of housing and many different types of developments. Before I go into the specifics of Bucks Run or Pinnacle Run, let me just kind of tell you the types of developments that we do. One of the most important things that we do and one of the things that's extremely important is management. We manage our properties. We make sure that the tenants that we put into our developments are worthy of living there. They undergo a series of background checks. They go through an extensive interviewing process, and we're very careful as to who we place into our facilities. Secondly, the tenants that we work with we work with on an everyday basis. We just don't put people in a housing development, we put them into a community. And as a community we ensure that they're involved in every aspect of the community. We empower them to make sure that we're making this community the best that we can. Another thing that we do to ensure that this type of development is -- remains what we say it's going to remain, is we have a very tough standard of maintenance. We keep these facilities in the shape that they were when they were brand-new. We also provide security. Most of our developments, including this one over here, is going to be a gated security that can only be accessed by guard. We also make sure that people can't do things that none of us would like to see in a development. For instance, we don't allow car washing. We don't allow trucks up on blocks. We don't allow things that would -- typically might be in a development that some of us would find to be unsightly. We conduct ourselves in community Page 48 November 1, 2001 spirit. We're good neighbors, and we develop communities that we think are something that the overall community is very proud of. Let me just take you through a few of the developments that we have to give you an idea what we have. This is Douglas Pointe Apartments, which is in Miami, Florida. This just won a BS -- BASF award last year. This is 176 units, two- and three-bedroom units. It's a hundred percent leased and everything is going very, very well. Next. As I mentioned, we also do some home ownership. This is a Port Royal and Las Terrazas development that we did, again down in Miami, 40 and 28 units respectively. But I think it gives you an idea of the scale and type and the quality of the developments that we do. Again, you can see another development that we have. It's called Forest Green. You see the tot lot, which all of our developments have. Again, you see the types of developments and housing that we do. This, again, was home ownership. This is a development that we did of almost 450 units that is down near the Everglades National Park. This is one-stow and two- story developments. That has been very successful. It's been there since 1993. This is Pinnacle Cove. Pinnacle Cove is in Orlando, Florida, equidistance between the theme parks and the airport. This is 420 units. This is currently under construction. We anticipate moving our first tenants in this Thanksgiving. This is another development called Hidden Grove. This is a series of 200 quadraplex units that has just been completed. Tenants will be moving in as we speak right now. As I mentioned earlier, we also have the depth to do different types of developments. And although it's not particularly germane here, I just thought it was important to give you an understanding of the types of things that we can do. This is a recently completed high- rise in Miami one block off Biscayne Boulevard, viewing onto the Page 49 November 1, 2001 bay. You can see it's a 13-story structure with a 5-story parking garage. Another high-rise that we completed approximately three years ago is a ten-story facility which is in the heart of the central business district of Miami. And one last one that we'd like to show is one that we did approximately nine years ago. elderly units. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's a seven-story mid-rise of 160 I guess we have one more last. MR. FRIEDMAN: Excuse me? Well, this one -- because it hasn't been actually built yet. This has just started under construction. In fact, we broke ground last week. This is 14 stories, 4-story garage, with a mixed use retail surrounding the entire property. So with that, that just kind of gives you an idea of the types of developments that we do. I think you'll agree that you we -- you know, we try to strive for excellence and we maintain excellence throughout the property. Let me kind of take you through Pinnacle Run as we see it right now and as it's proposed in your application. We're proposing to do 288 units that are configured in 13 buildings, three-story buildings. Currently -- can you hear me? As currently configured right now, we have broken Pinnacle Run down into two different phases. Phase I is going to be 160 units immediately over here, surrounded by a lake with a road that circumnavigates the entire development. And as you can see in this particular Phase I, we have seven buildings strategically located around the property. Phase II, which is this particular location on the map as I'm showing, is six buildings, again three story, surrounded by two different lakes, surrounded by the wetlands area and, again, having ample parking to satisfy the needs of the tenants. Page 50 November 1, 2001 The buffer that Mr. Arnold was discussing with you a few minutes ago we highlighted over here in green. And as you can see, the Vanderbilt development is situated over here. The whole landscape buffer over here is all marked in green. And, as Mr. Arnold said, this is going to be a substantial landscape buffer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sir, the written record would indicate that -- that your housing is surrounded by lakes. I don't think that's what you meant to say. The housing surrounds the lakes. MR. FRIEDMAN: The housing does surround the lakes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: Specifically, of the 288 units that we're going to have, we're proposing that we have 8 one-bedroom units, 182 two-bedroom units, and 98 three-bedroom units. We intend to have a separate maintenance facility for things that we need to make sure that the facility is kept up in a first-class manner. We will have a separate clubhouse, and in that particular clubhouse we will have amenities such as community rooms, exercise facilities, computer labs, recreational facilities, tot lots, and central laundry facilities. I might also add that all of our facilities also give the tenants the option to have washer and dryer hookups or washers and dryers in each of their facilities. We will have two active and passive recreational areas within the facility, and we believe that this will be a self-contained facility, meaning that our tenants will be able to -- once they come home, be able to do their living and their recreating on property. With that, I have no further issues, although I would like to introduce Blair Foley. MR. FOLEY: Good morning, Commissioners and Madam Chairman. Blair Foley for the record. I'm representing the petitioner, and I work for the firm of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, and I'm a Page 51 November 1, 2001 professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. I want to be brief. I just want to talk a little bit about the development issues of this project, and I know that staff has received some input from the opposition. I just wanted an opportunity just to, in advance, comment on a few of the things. I've been involved in civil engineering, land development in this area, Naples specifically, for over 14 years, and I've looked at hundreds of projects in similar size. And in my professional opinion, this project is a very doable project. It's one that can be constructed, from an engineering standpoint. And unlike -- or just like many other projects, there are issues, of course, that we need to resolve. And during our due diligence period, we've -- we've met with county staff, and we've come up with -- with some issues that also the opposition, perhaps, will mention as part of their-- their argument. But I wanted to touch base, basically, on -- on two items. There is a concern about the area immediately adjacent to the county water plant and the well system that's in there, and there may be some discussions about blasting. We're well aware that blasting is not allowed in this particular area; however, it doesn't preclude the ability to construct lakes. There are -- there are alternative methods to -- to dig lakes. You could use a hammer with a hundred-thousand-pound track hoe or something of the like. There -- there are ways to get that done. And we don't see that as -- as a burden that will prohibit the project from becoming successful. We've included that in the pro forma numbers, to construct the lakes such as that, and the numbers still work pretty successfully. So we don't propose to blast and -- and interrupt any of the -- the well fields in the area. We also had some meetings with Collier County land development engineers to confirm that that's a feasible alternative as providing water management systems. Page 52 November 1,2001 Another item I wanted to talk about is sewer. Water, of course, is available along County Road 951 or Collier Boulevard, if you will. Sewer, however, will be, perhaps, addressed. We -- we have met with a consortium of developers in the immediate area, and a couple of them are here. They represent over 160 acres in the immediate area of Bucks Run. And we proposed and also included in our pro forma to extend the necessary force main facilities to the north as mandated by Collier County to connect. And that also -- it's a fairly large number, but we also -- it's not uncommon for developers to get together and construct their own facilities. And we also feel that this can be done and not suffer -- the project will not suffer any architectural elements that we've seen in some of the opposition's writing. So, in my opinion, these issues are pretty standard and benign as far as engineering elements go with the project. We will remain available for comment and, hopefully, rebuttal if any other items come up. But it's a pretty successful looking project, and -- and we're excited about it, and we hope that we get a favorable recommendation from your board. With that, I'll close unless there are any specific questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson first and then Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: From your experience as a project manager and engineer, looking at this project, I note that it's going to be phased, Phase I and Phase II. Can you give me any sense of the -- I know there's some marketing considerations, but some sense of the length of time it would take for this project to become a reality, given its approval? MR. FOLEY: I can't really speak to that. It's -- it's specific to be in two phases. And I do know that each phase will stand on its own from an engineering component. As far as the marketing and-- Page 53 November 1,2001 and the marketplace, I'm going to defer to our clients, Pinnacle, because they obviously chose this piece of property and the area that they did due to their background information and what's available as far as the marketplace goes. I can't speak specifically to that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, let's set the marketplace aside then, just from your project. Let's say you were given the go right now. Pick a time certain. How long does it take for this to come on-line and before we see some of the impacts on our infrastructure? MR. FOLEY: Okay. At an absolute minimum you're looking at well over a year, probably, before you get the approvals and have actual construction, I would say. Something around that is an average time frame for Phase I. We do have to get other permits, as you know: Site development plan approval, water management approval, that type of activity. So, you know, an estimate would be, perhaps, 12 months. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's for the actual construction? MR. FOLEY: No. That's for the permitability, and then the construction would begin after that. So we're -- hard to say on the product. I'm going to defer to Pinnacle. MR. FRIEDMAN: Based on our experience, if we were to do Phase I, which is 160 units, after the one year that Mr. Foley just talked about, construction alone would take another 13 to 14 months. So that's well over two years. And if we were to do Phase II, you're looking at at least another year out after that, so that would really take the entire development completion date well past '03, certainly the last quarter of'03 or early '04. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: See, I think these facts are very important to our understanding of your project and its impact on the community. What we see now, of course, are roads that are Page 54 November 1, 2001 chockablock, but we do have some hope that there's going to be some improvements. And if we could time your product to come in when the infrastructure is actually going to be available, I think it would relieve everyone's mind. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just as a comment to that, Mr. Wolfley (sic), the transportation just acknowledged there is no funds to put the roads in out there for even five years from now. So even within their time frame, the roads won't be there. That's what my concern would be. (Applause) COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just after the facts. MR. FOLEY: Other questions? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The lakes, are they for aesthetics or for stormwater management? MR. FOLEY: Sir, Mr. Abernathy, they will probably serve both purposes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Both? MR. FOLEY: Certainly for water management purposes. But, you know, a lake is a pleasing element to some of these communities, so I would say that it would -- it would serve both purposes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How deep do they have to be to take care of the runoff, the water management? MR. FOLEY: Well, it's really a surface-area issue, as far as storage goes. It's not really a depth; however, when you encounter the rock-- we'll probably propose these lakes to be 12 feet in depth. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Twelve feet? MR. FOLEY: Twelve feet. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions or comments we want to make to the petitioners at this moment? I think Page 55 November 1, 2001 it's time that we're going to have to take a break for the court reporter. Mr. Cuyler go ahead. MR. CUYLER: Let me just take two minutes, and then we'll wrap up the petitioner's side and you can -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. CUYLER: -- proceed with public comment. A couple questions were asked with regard to the 7-acre parcel. If the Planning Commission agrees with us that this is an excellent project and worthy of approval, we will -- if a church or school is built on that parcel, we will discount and delete any residential units per acre. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's a 15 acre, isn't it, the west? MR. CUYLER: Yeah. That includes the 8 plus the 7. It's for both. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Sorry. MR. CUYLER: With regard to the canceled meeting that you asked about, my secretary dealt with a secretary at Vanderbilt. The word we got was the association was in agreement that we would have a meeting, and the association canceled the meeting. Now, if somebody wants to correct that, that's fine, but that's the word I got. I called and checked that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you for clarifying that. MR. CUYLER: And just real quickly as a final statement, I was standing there listening to Pinnacle, and I heard somebody behind me say as they were looking at the pictures, you know, "This is supposed to be low-income housing." You know, I think that the point is people have a big misperception as to what low-income housing is. And, again, I'm going to hope Mr. Mihalic, at some point later in the proceeding, tells you what these rents are and what we're really talking about for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And, Mr. Cuyler, along that line, Page 56 November 1,2001 perception is everything, unfortunately. And I do believe that we have a certain perception that exists now with reference to work-force housing, affordable housing, or what someone calls low-income housing. So hopefully we can deal with that yet today. MR. CUYLER: Hopefully we can clear that up before the end of the meeting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Now, you've wrapped up your presentation? We do need a break for the court reporter. And I would like to ask whoever can hear me, if the fire marshal is here, if the facilities management person is here, or if there's a deputy sheriff here, during the break please come up to the front because I'd like to talk to you. We're going to take a -- about a ten-minute recess. Thank you. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to repeat something that was said earlier. With reference to the Petition G, which was RZ-2001-AR-1143, which was a rezone for Golden Gate Capital, Limited, that has been removed from our schedule. So if anyone is here that came for that particular item, it will not be heard today. So if you leave, you can give your seat up to someone in the hall. Another announcement is I did check with our facilities people, and if you do not have a seat, you cannot be in the room. It is unfortunate. It's a fire-safety issue. So we -- I was going to ask to have one -- one level of people standing along the wall, and I cannot allow that due to fire safety. And if we had an emergency to get out of here, those people in the hall, please make sure you use the stairs. The hall is probably more crowded than this room is at this point in time. I want to thank the audience for being so basically polite. You've maintained yourself, and we want to continue that during the Page 57 November 1,2001 public comment. Please do not cheer and clap too loudly. Expressions are fine, but I'd like you to keep it at a minimum so that we can move along quickly. And, again, thank you for your patience with us today. So we are at the public comment section. Our first registered speaker, Ms. Murray. MS. MURRAY: Yes, Madam Chair. I have 12 registered speakers. And could I ask the individuals in the hall to be quiet, please, or shut the door? Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We either have to shut the door for the hall, or those in the hall have to keep it down so we can hear, because we can hear you. We appreciate you being there. MS. MURRAY: One individual, Michael Fernandez, has asked to speak twice on two different issues, I think one associated with the housing and one associated with the church, is what he told me. I will leave that up to you. And with that, would you also like me to use the timer, or did you just want to let everybody know that five minutes is the max? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have five minutes, and I'll allow a certain amount of discretion. We would prefer that you don't keep repeating the same thing that the previous speaker has said and that -- try to bring new facts and information. And as a reminder, you are testifying here today, so you must give facts. That is very important because this is a verbatim record, and you are actually providing testimony in a public hearing. So we will have the timer, but if you're not quite finished, it's my discretion, as the chair, to allow you to continue. MS. MURRAY: So you do want me to use this? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Go ahead and use the timer. MS. MURRAY: I will attempt to use it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. The first registered public Page 58 November 1,2001 speaker? MS. MURRAY: Steven Hartsell. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And do spell your name for the court reporter and identify any group that you represent or whether you happen to be a property owner. MR. HARTSELL: For the record, my name is Steve Hartsell. I'm an attorney with the Pavese Law Firm. I'm here on behalf of the Vanderbilt Country Club Community Association. With your indulgence, Madam Chairman, there are obviously a number of folks here from Vanderbilt. What we have attempted to do is to coordinate a presentation that may run a bit longer than five minutes each, but we have -- what we've tried to do is to kind of avoid a parade of 50 people up here taking their two or three or four minutes. If you would indulge us, we would appreciate that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I appreciate that. Thank you. MR. HARTSELL: I have probably four or five folks who are going to speak after me. What we have done is in addition to the speakers from Vanderbilt, the association retained Michael Fernandez, a planner with Planning Development, Incorporated. Mike will be speaking first. He's got some -- actually, a presentation with regard to the application. He's got to take off. What I'm going to do is turn it over to Mike right now, let him speak. And if I could, then we'll introduce additional speakers from the country club, and then I would like to have the latitude to close with some legal arguments. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be fine. And Mr. Fernandez can speak on both items that he had registered on, during his presentation. MR. HARTSELL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael Page 59 November 1,2001 Fernandez with Planning Development, Incorporated, for the record. First I'd like to, on behalf of the Catholic church that owns the parcel to the south of Bucks Run, address a singular issue, and that has to do with the access that's being proposed as an interconnect between the proposed Bucks Run development and the church's own parcel. Our parcel was rezoned early last year to PUD. It includes a 50-foot buffer along our north property line that also serves as a wildlife corridor. It's a commitment that was made to other agencies, and we took that into account when we designed the site, including the site circulation. And it really does not mesh with an interconnect with the property to the north, which we had fully anticipated being a residential project at the time. So that's the only issue that the church wished to address, and that is the interconnect. And we'd like to see that removed from the proposal. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're asking for the entire interconnect to be removed? MR. FERNANDEZ: The one that goes between the two parcels, due to environmental and on-site circulation constraints. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's nothing in your PUD that would require you to do these interconnects? MR. FERNANDEZ: Actually, the proposal was to put the buffer in there to provide a shelter between the two developments. The other agencies took advantage of that wildlife corridor that connects some vegetation that goes around the front and along the canal. We have a 660-foot preserve, wetland, and created marsh area in the rear of our property, and all those are connected. It also connects the two wetland areas that you see on the Bucks Run development that abut our property, and that provides some continuity into a wildlife corridor, which the agencies were looking for. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman? Page 60 November 1,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, sir. Could I ask a question? You had mentioned that the church to the south -- when was that approved? Do you know the approximate date? MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe it was approved in November of '99. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because in the same time period, the Bucks Run original PUD was being put through. And you had said that you didn't anticipate residential in the Bucks Run PUD, but it does show on the original PUD that there was going to be a church there. That's why this inter-- MR. FERNANDEZ: The original Bucks Run PUD was actually named, if I can say it correctly, Muriel (phonetic) PUD. That was the original PUD. It was -- subsequently they changed the name to Bucks Run; and when they did so, they amended to provide for a church and for a school, and that was subsequent to our application. When we went forth, we were relying on the fact that the entire parcel would be developed as a residential PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just so you know, the church on the Bucks Run PUD did show up on November 23rd of 1999. MR. FERNANDEZ: And I think the Muriel PUD was predecessed -- preceded that by two or three years. Mr. Hoover's here, and he could probably -- he's one of the landowners of the Bucks Run parcel -- process that application and probably talk to that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My concern was simply that had the church to the south originated about the same time as the Bucks Run amendment that I'm speaking of, the one that does show the church-- which it sounds like it did-- then your church would then know that there was a church to the north, not just residential, and Page 61 November 1, 2001 they could have allowed the interconnect. MR. FERNANDEZ: We didn't provide for that. And, again, if you go back and research the history of it, it was a residential development, and it was reviewed upon at that time, and that's what we relied upon. And that was one of the reasons for providing this corridor, retain vegetation along that entire edge. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Continue. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm also representing today the Vanderbilt Country Club. And looking at the PUDs, I wanted to bring forth a couple points, and they have to do with the appropriateness and compatibility of the development. We're looking at an intensification from 4 units to 12 units an acre, which is a huge increase. Historically staff has looked at adjacent intensities ofjust 2 or 4 units as being significant enough to say that they're incompatible. Here we're looking at an intensity of 12 units adjacent to a project that has 2.5 units an acre in intensity. One of the problems that we have in addressing this -- and I myself, as a professional -- was that we have insufficient information to make judgments upon. Reviewing prior PUDs for affordable housing -- and I've got lots of examples that we've collected from staff-- their PUDs included applications that had site plans, elevations, renderings, and a great many other exhibits that allowed a neighborhood to make an assessment. We've seen today pictures of elevations and of site plans, but none of them are included as part of the PUD. We can't accept those as being what they're proposing because we don't know that for a fact. What we're dealing with is that drawing that's up on the board, and that gives us a little bit of-- is a little unsettling. The Bucks Run PUD was adopted in November of 1999, and we note that one of the major changes in that was a reduction in the amount of proposed preservation of wetland areas. We're seeing a Page 62 November 1, 2001 pattern of that here. The application that's being proposed today -- and it's unfortunate that you do not have an underlined and struck-out version, because one of the things that they have eliminated was a development standard that said that -- in the original Muriel PUD said 60 percent open space for the entire project. It is fully residential. In the Bucks Run PUD that's in effect right now, it says that 60 percent open space will be required for the residential portion of the project. If you'll review the current PUD that's proposed, that provision for open space has been eliminated altogether. It's not addressed in the PUD document at all. What is addressed is, in the PUD master plan it says -- and it -- I assume to be a nonbinding estimated land use breakdown which provides for 52 percent open space without identifying its location or its distribution across the site. We further note that the applicant has substituted a commitment to retain 25 percent of the existing on-site vegetation with an emphasis on largest contiguous area possible to a commitment of 5 acres of retained vegetation with a balance of the 9.75 being with an option to develop the rest of it as landscaped areas. So what -- they're coming back-- is they're -- we're looking at an intensification of a project, but we're looking at a reduction in the quality of the development standards that were proposed originally and which were relied upon by the homeowners that now live next door. So we're looking at more intensity, less mitigation of the impacts. The petitioner has also eliminated a provision that required a perimeter berm shown on the master plan to be entirely located outside all upland and wetland preserve areas. That may not seem overly significant to you, but as a site designer, it's very significant in how much greenspace will actually be left after a project's completed. I'll note that in the Exhibit B to the PUD, they're actually showing this perimeter berm within their proposed buffer that's located on the Page 63 November 1, 2001 east boundary. And in regard to that buffer, their representatives have just said, we are committed to keeping an 80-foot separation between Vanderbilt Country Club and the closest building. But in their document what we're seeing is that they have a 30-foot right-of-way easement that they say may be vacated, and then it says a landscape buffer. And all that would be required to meet that requirement with the Collier County Land Development Code is singular trees spaced one every 30 feet. There's no commitment to retain that vegetation other than what you've heard verbally here today. There's nothing in their PUD that says that they will do that. That gives me another pause because that is another item -- and I've got their existing master plan with me here today. In the existing PUD that exists today, there's a commitment to keep all 50 feet of that as retained vegetation. It was purposefully deleted for the purpose of going forward with this amendment. So we're given a great deal of pause when somebody says, you know, we are providing it, but there's nothing in the document that says so, and it's been deleted from the current existing zoning. We're wondering, as well, if that easement gets vacated, if that 50 feet gets that much closer to the project. Then there's a question of density. Another item that was previously deleted from the existing PUD stated that it be no more than 12 units per net acre on the subject property. What we're looking at now, based on 12 units per gross acre, could really -- could end up being more than double that or 24 units per acre. That's especially relevant when you look at the size of the parcel they're talking about being 24 --just over 24 acres. You'll also notice that approximately 80 percent of the wet -- of the preserve area is located within that 24. You'll also note that they're required to keep a 25-foot average buffer around the perimeter, adding probably another acre of land to that area. They'll have to keep water Page 64 November 1, 2001 management and other necessities there. They've acknowledged that there's a prohibition for doing blasting near the water treatment plant. There's also a Land Development Code requirement that doesn't allow you to do one within 350 existing structures, which the residents' homes within the club will be in that -- within that 350 feet. That's going to increase the site development cost of that site. And that becomes relevant because this is an affordable-housing community that sets an upper limit on the amount that they can charge as far as income (sic). And what we're seeing is that there's substantial costs that are going to be incurred in the site development that may not have been taken into account that may also lead to reduction in their ability to produce these kinds of developments that they're showing us. We would have a much greater sense of-- of comfort if we actually had some of these committed to, but there's nothing, again, in the PUD that commits to the quality that you're seeing here. In the church site that we're doing just south of this parcel, the differential between the ability to put lakes and not put lakes ended up costing -- is going to cost approximately $200,000 of off-site fill. On this site we could see something of that magnitude occur as well. It's not just a prohibition in doing blasting. It also has to do with breaking through a confining layer that's creating the wetlands. And the wetlands that are on their property are contiguous and connected to ours, and there's a likelihood and assumption here that that same rock confining layer occurs on both properties. All this gives us pause that maybe they haven't done their homework not well enough -- not well enough to commit to a site plan within the PUD that is generally committed to at this stage to give people some level of comfort. And, again, I've got numerous examples here of just that. Page 65 November 1,2001 And finally, when dealing with conceptual compatibility, there's nothing that we've seen in the staff report or in the presentation by the petitioner to indicate that the population that will utilize -- the residents that will utilize this facility have the appropriate amenities and resources in this area. In other words, is this an appropriate place to put an affordable-housing development? Are there the parks that are -- that they will utilize? Are there employment centers? Those are valid questions. And we're looking at a development that is committing a hundred percent to low to very low affordable housing. That's very different than many of the affordable-housing projects that have been considered and approved by this board and the Board of County Commissioners in the past, which have been mixtures of market rate and -- market rate and low-income housing, and that's important. Good planning practice has told us over a period of time that it's not desirable to concentrate large areas of affordable housing together. It's much better to integrate it with market-rate housing. That's not what this project proposes. So whether or not it's appropriate here we don't believe has been addressed in the application by the applicant. To sum it up, basically there's not enough information to review here to make good judgments on. What you're seeing here is not part of their application. It's not part of their commitments. And we've got a great deal of pause when we look at their project and we look at the existing PUD today that made some pretty good commitments to landscape buffers, to retain vegetation, to open space, and they've reduced them in their applications. They haven't increased them. They've increased intensity, but they've reduced them. We would suggest to you it should be the other way around. They made those commitments to gain the support of our community, to do four units an acre. If they would like to increase it, the intensity, then the mitigating factors should be increased as well. Thank you. Page 66 November 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do have a question. You indicated that you thought, I think, about $200,000 additional cost in fill. I think I heard you say that as I was taking some notes. But did you do some calculations on your additional development cost in general? Did you have an opportunity to do that? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, I didn't. But we're cognizant that they're -- you know, they have a bridge to construct. They have an entry drive to construct. Although they're talking about a consortium to put together the sewer, that's an issue that the church tackled and tried to put together as well. We weren't able to do it. We basically came back and committed to only building the sanctuary, limiting it to weekend service until that infrastructure's put in. We're willing to commit our fair share. But all these items suggest that there's higher- than-normal improvement costs subject to this property. And there's a concern, again, without the lack of commit -- without -- with the lack of commitment on a site plan, on amenities, on the architecture, that we may have to see a balancing act by the developer subsequent and down the line to balance those items that maybe they are unaware of or haven't taken into account fully. And I would not necessarily expect them to at this point in time, except that it's an affordable housing, and they're asking for this kind of density. Usually you're not concerned about how much the guy is going to ask for. In this case we have to be because they're -- they have an upper limit that they can charge. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that point. So you are claiming that there could be the relationship between the additional development costs and what the project looks like in the future, which you're indicating to us is not committed to. MR. FERNANDEZ: Absolutely. A specific example, one of the easiest things for a developer to put aside would be landscaping. Page 67 November 1,2001 And right now, although verbally we've heard different, the only thing that the developer would have to do on his eastern buffer is provide one tree every 30 feet. Because it doesn't specify a Type B buffer or a D buffer or any other LDC buffer there, it would default to the adjacencies, which would only require a 1 O-foot buffer. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And as we go through this, Mr. Fernandez, if some of these commitments occur that they agree that they're going to put them in writing, you or the attorney would feel more comfortable? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I think what we're -- we're looking for at this point is denial of the petition because it's insufficient. If they come up or reapply and they have additional information that we can review and rely on, then we can make a new assessment. But right now we don't see an assessment that can be made while either looking at their PUD document, their PUD master plan, nor compatibility in the overall scheme of things that would warrant an intensification of 12 units an acre adjacent to a 2 1/2 unit adjacent project. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do I understand, then, you're representing for your clients that you do not believe that the ordinance for affordable housing can be applied to this project? MR. FERNANDEZ: The ordinance for affordable housing, in my understanding and review of it, is simply one of a commitment to dollar amounts and number of units and size of the units. There's a very limited provision to a broad-brush architectural unified style that Page 68 November 1, 2001 has very little to do with actual conceptual drawings, as you could do a myriad of different elevations and designs within that scope. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Fernandez, then you're saying yes or no? I'm not sure what I heard. MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't think that the intensification has been substantiated as far as compatibility with -- which is being reviewed concurrently with the PUD. I think the affordable-housing application is -- relies on the review of this board and the Board of County Commissioners looking at that issue of compatibility and appropriateness. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you're alerting us that we should be directing this inquiry to our attorney in the final analysis as to whether this ordinance can be applied or not. MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. I think it's a judgment call by you and the Board of County Commissioners on whether it's appropriate or not. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't read the word "appropriate" in this particular ordinance. It's -- it has some broad parameters that they have met as they've come forward, at least that's what we're going to try to determine. So ultimately I'll be looking to Pat or somebody to help -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, aren't they two separate issues? One has to do with the affordability. Yes, they've made the commitments. I think your director has said they've signed off on that relative to those financial commitments. What hasn't been reviewed and what they're here before you -- they could put affordable housing on this site right now. They just don't get those additional units. All we're talking about is those additional units, those eight additional units per acre that raises the intensity. There's nothing to prohibit them from building below-market-rate apartments on this site right now as it currently stands. What they're asking for is an intensification, and Page 69 November 1,2001 that's part of the rezoning process. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: The next-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, next speaker, but I guess Mr. Hartsell would like a quick comment. MR. HARTSELL: Well, yes, ma'am. I was going to -- I said that I would call the other speakers forward so that we did that in kind of a coordinated fashion so it didn't get -- MS. MURRAY: I have the list. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Ms. Murray has to do that, and she has the list. MR. HARTSELL: Okay. Just briefly with response to Commissioner Richardson, it was a good question. I happen to have the affordable housing section here. It's section 2.7.7.4.2, which answers your question. Yes, the affordable-housing ordinance does apply. It has to be applied. And the section that I just stated states that compliance with Growth Management Plan and land development regulations: The affordable housing density bonus shall be available to a development only to the extent that it otherwise complies and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the land development regulations, including the procedures, requirements, conditions, and criteria for PUDs and rezonings. Thank you for letting me do that. And I'll sit down until my closing comes, which is -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. HARTSELL: -- right after Judge Wilson. MS. MURRAY: The next speaker is William Cooper followed by Richard Calabrese. And, Richard, if you would line up along that wall, please, and be ready to go after William, we'd appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: He's the person standing in the hall. Page 70 November 1, 2001 MR. COOPER: We'll bring him in. Good morning. I guess it is still morning. My name is William Cooper. I am a resident of Vanderbilt Country Club. I'm also a member of the board of directors, although I am not representing the board of directors at this particular meeting. I am speaking for myself as an owner. I would like to introduce all of the owners that are here, but I'm sure that you would appreciate that I not do that. But I would like to point out that there are 172 present and that we also have a signed petition which supports the presence of those here. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why not have the folks that are from your country club raise their hands so we can see. MR. COOPER: Okay. Good idea. Will those raise their hands. And the hallway. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: the hall. We gathered there are quite a few in COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Maybe we should have those people who aren't involved raise their hands. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: My goodness. MR. COOPER: We also have 202 on our petition with concerns about this particular application. There was some question raised earlier by the petitioners as to the -- their request to meet with us prior to this meeting. There is some confusion as to the originality of that request. Records are not always kept in detail. I'm not sure if they requested it, or maybe we requested it. But in any case, I am sure that it was us who canceled it, and we did that out of respect for them. We knew that they had a entourage of people with a lot of background and with a lot of information, had gone to a great deal of expense, and we appreciated that. And we did not want them to make a presentation to just a handful of us, and the time was too short for us to assemble the amount of people that you see here today. So out of respect for them and nothing more, we did cancel that meeting. Page 71 November 1,2001 We have several speakers lined up, and I will give you a little bit of the background on them. Mr. Calabrese is going to follow me, and he is a resident and also has background in the real estate business. Jack Prete will follow Richard, and his background information is a developer of senior housing. Following Jack will be Richard Platt, who has been associated with the airline industry. And then finally Judge Wilson, who has legal background information and has also been much involved in zoning requirements similar to this in the state of Kentucky, all of whom are residents of Vanderbilt Country Club. So at this point -- at the end I will have one further closing remark with a request. That's after Steven gives his closing remarks. So at this point, I am awed by your responsibilities and particularly after having briefly read this morning "Zoning Decisions." And in reading this I see that there are, not to mention all, probably, but 18 items that you have to take into consideration, plus probably some that you don't anticipate. In going through these, I find that probably 13 of these 18 have impact upon your decision-making process. So it is my hope that you act wisely, intelligently, and forthrightly in making a decision concerning this application. I'd like to call on Mr. Calabrese. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me ask you a question before you leave. MR. COOPER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You were careful to point out that you were not speaking for the board of Vanderbilt Country Club -- MR. COOPER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: member of it. MR. COOPER: That's right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- although you are a Does the board have an Page 72 November 1, 2001 official position as an entity, as a board? MR. COOPER: Well, you must understand that Vanderbilt Country Club is undergoing transition right now. While undergoing transition the board is still controlled by the developer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: By the developer. Okay. MR. COOPER: And the developer is present here, but he is going to speak for himself, not -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I got you. Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you, Mr. Cooper. MS. MURRAY: Richard Calabrese followed by John Prete. MR. CALABRESE: Madam Chairman, I have something to hand out to you people. I thought I had a sufficient amount. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: If you could spell your name, please. MR. CALABRESE: Calabrese, C-a-l-a-b-r-e-s-e, and my first name is Richard. Good morning. I live in Vanderbilt Country Club. I've looked through the staff report, and it seems inadequate because it doesn't have very many details in it. So I thought I would look at the big picture. I've made copies so that you could see what I was talking about. Today we're looking at a development that is going to change the character of our community. Has anybody given any thought to the density problem because of all the building that is being done? It's not just this one thing. If you look at the -- at what I supplied, everything that's shaded is building that's going to come up. At the north end we have Immokalee Road, which is always jammed with traffic. A lot of cars and trucks and vans turn onto 951 from about seven in the morning until ten in the morning. The traffic is incredible going north and south. If you look at the west side of 951, we have a Publix which will open next week and bring in more traffic; then Pebblebrooke development with more cars; then there's a school outlet; next, Ibis Cove development with lots of children and Page 73 November 1, 2001 cars; then affordable housing not yet built. How many families will this bring in and how many more cars? On the comer there's a new shopping center and an Albertson's and, again, more automobiles. Now you move to the east side of 951. You have a nursery; you have Crystal Lake RV Park, a church, an academy, and more housing; Vanderbilt has an exit and an entrance; now this development with a church, a school, day care, and affordable housing and, last, yet another church with schools -- with a school and day care. What are we doing with all of these people? What are we going to do with all of these cars? Do we just add school buses and cars going to the day care with the already heavy truck traffic that exists now, or do we just say, let's see what happens? Let's not put our children in danger before we say, "Have we overbuilt?" I ask you to please reject this proposal. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. (Applause) MS. MURRAY: John Prete followed by Richard Platt. MR. PRETE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. First I'd like to thank you for extending the courtesy to us to take us out of order on your agenda. I know you have a busy day. I'd also like to thank you for your special scrutiny of the issues around the traffic congestion which already exists in our area and which would be compounded by this project. We all use the highways, and there's already a serious problem. Unfortunately, as we heard from your staff, there just isn't the bucks to go around. Perhaps we're growing faster than what we really should. Growth is a good, healthy thing. Uncontrolled growth is a problem. It's a problem for everybody. As I say, we all use the highways. By way of background, I am a developer of senior housing up in Connecticut. I'm retired now. But I've seen traffic studies by traffic Page 74 November 1,2001 engineers, and as I look at the information that's available to us here, it is very scanty. In fact, most of it is nonexistent. In fact, I'll guess, since there's no way of knowing, really, whether a traffic study by a qualified engineer was performed at all for this property -- and considering the tremendous impact the property will have to our area in addition to all the other yet-to-be- built and under-construction projects right -- that one mile or so between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier -- between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road, we're just going to have an enormous traffic problem, and that is what I'm here to address. That's the key issue in my mind. Of particular concern is the existing problem that we have on Collier Boulevard. And, as I say, these problems would be significantly compounded if this petition is granted. It seems to me and to the previous speakers on our side of the aisle here that there's scanty and very unconvincing evidence, not only with respect to traffic, but the others that I'm not into. But particularly with respect to traffic, which seems to have been glossed over or glanced over, but I want to take another look at it. There are no plans to widen 951 or Collier Boulevard in the immediate future. There's no money. There's no nothing for five years except talk. And having some experience in this area of government, I know that talk is not extremely valuable in terms of practical applications. Sure we have to talk about what needs to be done in the future, but so far there's no bucks. And, as a matter of fact, as one of the commissioners pointed out, there is a need urgent enough to impose a special tax in order to address the highway problem. And here we are adding -- well, here the developer is attempting to add more problems to the problems that already exist that have not been addressed. All this adds up to that stretch of highway is very likely to result in congestion and will almost certainly result in a Condition F highway. Page 75 November 1, 2001 And if I'm not mistaken, there's a mandated moratorium on Condition F highways. I'm not sure whether that's state or federal. To all this the petitioner wants to add another 120-pupil school, a church, a day- care center, and 288 units of multifamily housing. And I'm going to take a guess that they'll be after the 60 units that are approved on the front 15 portion, too, because I have had no assurances that the church is ever going to be built, at least I didn't hear it here today. But I did hear the developer loud and clear say we're not giving up our prerogative on those 60 units. On the proposed development itself, the peak hour traffic is projected to be 150 -- 115 a.m. And 133 p.m. Trips. There's no mention whatsoever regarding the traffic generated by the proposed church, day-care center, related housing, and school. The petitioner's projection seems unrealistically optimistic, almost laughable. In affordable-housing developments, there are mainly working folk with a national average of about 1.8 vehicles per family, depending what state you're in. They leave in the morning to go to work, and they come back in the afternoon. So let's see. That works out -- without the benefit of an engineer, that works out to a maximum of 515 peak-hour trips per day. I don't see where the 115 came from, but perhaps your staff can fill us in on a little bit more details on that. But in any case, 115, 133 are the trips per peak hour, and I don't read it that way. It works out to 518 peak-hour trips per day. Even assuming that only 75 percent of the residents go to work on any given day, it's nearly three times the projected peak-hour trips in the proposal before you. The petition is also completely silent on public transportation, which I thought we wanted to make a priority in this county, the same as affordable housing is a priority. This petition is completely silent because there isn't going to be any. So, therefore, everybody's going in cars. Am I Page 76 November 1, 2001 out of time? I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Close. Go ahead. MR. PRETE: Close up? Okay. The petition is completely silent on this issue. To make matters worse, as our developer pointed out, there isn't going to be any -- any egress other than an ent -- other than Collier Boulevard itself. I wish I had more time to go into that. But I know from personal experience just how difficult it is to get onto Collier Boulevard from our exits and entrances, and I'm sure everyone in this room shares the -- the knowledge of just how dangerous it is with trucks ripping up and down at 55 miles an hour fully loaded with fill and so forth. This thing I want to get in. The commission staff, in recommending this petition, states the project trips will have a significant impact on Collier Boulevard from the project's entrance onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. That's a quote from the proposal. What entrance on Vanderbilt Beach Road? There's no information from the petitioner whatsoever regarding how he plans to provide cross access south across St. Agnes's property to Vanderbilt Beach Road. So all this traffic is going to go one way, right onto that busy little two-lane highway. I think that's a critical point because you have kids coming in and out of there, school buses and what all else, and they're all going to come right onto that busy stretch of highway. I'm finishing up right now, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. I'm not -- I'm just saying that my -- the report in front of me does not say the project's entrance onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. Mine says project entrance to Vanderbilt Beach Road. MR. PRETE: But there's access -- cross access is shown on the -- on the proposal map as if to say there are other opportunities that will be worked out. We know that those alternatives are impossible Page 77 November 1,2001 -- are not possible. The -- the St. -- the Catholic church, St. Agnes, have already indicated that they're not opposed to affordable housing. They can't. They don't have the power to grant a right-of-way across their property so that this petitioner can get to another entrance and egress onto -- directly onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. In summary -- I better get to that -- vital information from the petitioner is vague or missing altogether. And Collier Boulevard is already overburdened for a two-lane highway, and there's no plans for a widening. I trust the commission will do what it's empowered to do with a public trust. Protect our interests from inappropriate development invasions, and please turn down this petition. Thank yOU. (Applause) MS. MURRAY: Richard Platt followed by Judge chapel Wilson. MR. PRATT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Richard Platt, and I'm a resident of Vanderbilt Country Club. Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts on this proposal. I'll attempt to keep my remarks short and to the point. While these are my words, I believe they accurately reflect the concerns of those of us at Vanderbilt Country Club and in the North Naples community. But first I'd like to say that we are not opposed to the proper development of the lands that surround our community. On the contrary, we support the proper development of the community through a well-thought-out, well-planned project that is consistent with the current land use and adds value to the community. Any project that adds value to the community adds value to our neighborhood. All that said, judging by the number of people that are here from Vanderbilt today, I believe it's safe to say there are serious concerns Page 78 November 1, 2001 that the proposal on the table fails to meet those objectives. Specifically, we are concerned the proposal has the potential of having a dangerous and adverse effect on the area by exceeding infrastructure capacity, increasing traffic patterns, and destroying wildlife and wetlands. When one looks at the proposal, while general in nature, it is void of any real well-defined planning specifics and generates real concerns about compatibility and consistency with existing land use patterns. The intensity of the land use specifically stands out. This is not about affordable housing. This is about land use density. The proposal more than triples the existing land use patterns. Such a project would completely change the character of the neighborhood. It also raises real questions about the impacts on roads, schools, recreational facilities, and, most importantly, the environment. Given the fragile nature of our sewage and water treatment capacity, one has to question what a project of this nature would do to existing capability and what problems it would cause in the future. The proposal is short, if not devoid, of addressing environmental issues. There is considerable concern that the cost of addressing environmental issues in this project will lead to an overall reduced quality of the final product, meaning they put so much money building the required lakes and buffer zones, there's not much left to build a quality house, thereby making the project inconsistent with the neighborhood. In summary, as neighbors we find the proposal inadequate and insufficient in enough detail to be able to support it. It raises many concerns and leaves far too many questions unanswered. We are in favor of building a better community, one we can all share in. Unfortunately, we see no value added to the community in this proposal, but can easily predict problems, numerous problems, that will add burden to the taxpayers of this community and reduce the Page 79 November 1,2001 quality of life in our community. I'll close it with one final thought that seems to support Commissioner Strain's views. Responsive government listens to the people it serves and then leads in that direction. If outdated standards need updating to avoid the mistakes of the past, I'm confident this board will lead in that direction. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Platt-- I'm intrigued by what you had said, and I took a few notes -- as I do when speakers are up -- to ask additional questions. And one thought occurred to me with reference to this particular graphic I've been handed. Could you help define for me what you perceive as to be the neighborhood we're talking about here? Are we talking about the neighborhood from Immokalee Road clear down to Vanderbilt Beach? When you say "neighborhood," in your mind what is your neighborhood? MR. PLATT: Neighborhood has to be inclusive. It can't be exclusive. We can't just say Vanderbilt Country Club because we are part of the overall community there. So when we take a look at the planning factors to be considered here, we need to take a look at the overall infrastructure. Where are the children that live in this proposed community going to go play? The closest recreational facility is 3 miles away down Vanderbilt Beach Road, which is an extremely high-traffic road. The nearest school that exists right now is a mile and a half away. There are -- these children that are going to live there are part of our community. We're not talking about the golfers at Vanderbilt here. We're talking about North Naples. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I was just curious. I was trying to get a real sense for what you perceive as to be neighborhood and community because that is helpful. Thank you. Next speaker. MS. MURRAY: Judge Chappell Wilson followed by Tim Page 80 November 1,2001 McCann. JUDGE WILSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Chappell Wilson. And for the record I'll spell that. C-h-a-p-p-e-l-1, last name is Wilson. And I own property at Vanderbilt Country Club. And the address is 8450 Danbury Boulevard, Unit 202, Naples. I'm a retired trial court judge from Kentucky, and I've chosen Vanderbilt as my home. The thing that I did when I retired, I looked at whether or not I'd return back to my home, which was originally in Homestead, Florida, but I chose not to go there but to come to Naples. And the reason for that is Naples is a beautiful city with a lot of amenities. It has good golf and good fishing. It has controlled, orderly growth, but most of all it has lots of nice people. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You want to repeat that statement, "controlled, orderly growth"? Clap for that one. You give us some-- the benefit of the doubt that we do try here, sir. Thank you. JUDGE WILSON: And for the part that you, the commission, plays in that controlled and orderly growth is very much appreciated by me and from the residents who chose to come here, and for that we say thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're welcome. We try. JUDGE WILSON: When I retired after 21 years on the bench, I vowed never to go back to the courtroom or go into the public arena, but only to the golf course. And so when I did that, I came to Vanderbilt. But I heard the complaints and the fears and the concerns of my friends and neighbors there, and I felt like I was compelled at least to speak up now and to voice their fears, which they won't get the opportunity to make today. My neighbors are concerned about a high-density development that will impact their quality of life, and it will also impact the property values of their property if the development is improperly Page 81 November 1, 2001 done and approved. I understand your job. I know what it's about. I understand the input and considerations that you will have to have in order to make your findings, come up with your conclusions, and then ultimately make your recommendation to the board of commissioners. Prior to becoming a judge, I was an attorney, and I worked in Frankfort, Kentucky; Commonwealth of Kentucky; department of commerce; the planning and zoning division. And in that division I had a responsibility of drafting the new law for Kentucky, which is KRS Chapter 100, which has the planning and zoning statute in it. I walked that legislation through the legislature who ultimately adopted it. I conducted public hearings much like what we see here today. And then I had the privilege of going out into the county and having that plan implemented by the various governments. So I understand what goes on here. And I -- and I understand also that it's incumbent upon the petitioner when he comes forward asking for a rezone of a classification to not adversely impact the comprehensive land use plan as it exists. And I understand the obligations of the commission to make sure that the quality of life, the existing character of the cormnunity is not, then, detrimental to the future. What I've heard here today and what little I have seen with the petition gives me cause for great alarm. Primarily that is the alarm of my neighbors and friends, many of them who are sitting here in the audience and most of them who are standing out in the hallway. But first of all, in my observation here today and from the documents that I've reviewed, I've concluded that the petition is vague, it is incomplete, and it is missing the necessary supporting documentation. There is no valid analysis with the traffic problems coming onto Collier Boulevard. We hear today that there's 115 traffic trips. In Page 82 November 1, 2001 Kentucky we compute that by taking the number of residents, multiplying out the number of vehicles per day, movements of ingress and egress. And if that's the formula I use there, it would equate to almost 600 vehicle movements per day out of this -- out of this development; 288 residents, almost two cars per resident. Everyone goes to work. Everyone comes home. And then people go to shop and to eat. The incomplete description of the buffer zone also causes me a problem. The PUD indicated 50 feet. Today for the first time I've heard a figure of 190 feet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's okay. JUDGE WILSON: And I will close in about one minute. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's all right. You're doing fine. JUDGE WILSON: The -- the problem I have with that is there's no guarantees. There's nothing in writing. There is no showing that the zoning change will not adversely affect the existing community, and that's one of the findings in your statute. It also failed to show that -- the other sites available on which this development could be placed without a zoning change, and it's failed to show that the existing infrastructures will support this unit. In other words, where do the residents go to work? Where do they shop? Where do they eat? Where do the kids go to play, go to school, and recreate? In addition, the petition has not shown that the developer will not advance the project in the best interest of the existing community. My conclusion is that the petition -- the petitioner is attempting to build what is a needed development but only in the wrong place. There is no justification for changing the existing character of our community east of 951. And for all these reasons, Commissioners, I respectfully ask that the petition be denied. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Page 83 November 1, 2001 (Applause) MS. MURRAY: MR. McCANN: Tim McCann followed by Glenn Cribbett. Good morning. I'm Tim McCann. That's spelled M-c-C-a-n-n. My wife, Karen, and I own a home in Vanderbilt Country Club, a property that's adjacent to Bucks Run, as we've heard here earlier this morning. We filed about 18 pages of detailed written comments regarding the petition that is the subject of this hearing. Unfortunately, because we did not learn of this petition and hearing until a few days ago, we were unable to file those comments until this morning, although they will be part of the record of this proceeding, and we'd request that they be included in the package that goes up to the commissioners. You will not have had an opportunity to review our comments in detail prior to your decision on the petition, so we wanted to briefly summarize our comments with this short oral statement. We appreciate the opportunity to address you, and we appreciate the significant time and efforts expended by the Planning Commission staff in preparing the documentation for the petition. We especially want to thank Mr. Ray Bellows for the assistance that he has given us in trying to learn about and analyze this petition. Despite the fact that our comments are highly critical of the staff report that recommends approval of the subject petition, we assure you that our criticism is not directed personally at anyone on the staff. In fact, we suspect that the myriad of deficiencies in the staff report are a result of the insufficient information provided to the staff by the petitioners. The focus of our comments is straightforward. Although the staff report recommends approval of the petition, we believe there's an insufficient factual basis for the Planning Commission to approve that recommendation for action by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Accordingly, we respectfully request that Page 84 November 1, 2001 the Planning Commission recommend denial of the petition and retention of the current zoning. In making this request, it should be noted that we do not oppose affordable housing. We do oppose rezoning petitions that fail to comply with all applicable Collier County legal requirements. As demonstrated clearly in our written comments and comments of people who have been up here before, the subject petition does not comply with those legal requirements. And absent such compliance, we believe the Planning Commission must deny the petition and retain the current zoning. For example, based upon our reading of the staff report, it appears that appropriate evaluation of rezoning petitions must establish a factual basis upon which the Planning Commission may act. Although the staff report reflects substantial effort to evaluate the petition, it appears to fall far short of the evaluation requirements specified by the Collier County rezoning rulings. The staff report is replete with conclusory statements that appear to be unsupported by any underlying data or meaningful analysis of that data. Absent any meaningful data and detailed analysis supporting the conclusory statements, there is no means by which a third party, such as yourselves, may objectively evaluate the credibility of those statements. This, in turn, prevents the development of a factual basis that is required before the Planning Commission can act upon the staff recommendation. We believe this failure requires that the petition be denied and that the current zoning be retained. I have other things to comment on, but in order to shorten this up, I would just like to call your attention to one specific example; and that's with respect to the staff report's Exhibit B in the rezoning findings, and specifically it's Item No. 10. I believe you'll find it on page 4 of Exhibit B. Page 85 November 1,2001 You'll see there that the entire discussion of this critical issue which involves whether or not the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area is presented in one pro and one con -- and no cons. And that one pro or advantageous statement says, "Typically urban intensification increases the value of contiguous underutilized land." The summary findings then discuss the subjective nature of this determination, recognizes the importance of zoning to property valuation, and then concludes, quote, The mere fact that a property is given a new zoning designation may or may not affect the value. Well, if-- is that analysis sufficient to satisfy the Collier County rezoning requirements? The staff report fails to address the critical zoning issue related to property values in the adjacent area. It purports to address this issue by discussing what happens typically with respect to contiguous underutilized land. But the Vanderbilt Country Club, which is adjacent to it, is not underutilized land. I'm sorry. Do you want me to continue or-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You can continue. MR. McCANN: I'm almost finished. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're almost done. MR. McCANN: What is the purported project's impact on Vanderbilt Country Club property values that is on contiguous utilized property? The staff report is silent. It is not possible to make any determination about this important zoning issue based on the staff report, and this is but one example. Not only does it fail to address the impact on contiguous utilized property, the staff report simply concludes that zoning regulations may or may not affect property values. Of course, any of us in this room could have made that statement, but it does little to address the critical issue raised by the Land Development Code regarding rezoning requirements. Given the importance of this issue to any proposed rezoning, it is Page 86 November 1, 2001 imperative, we believe, that the staff report provide the Planning Commission with factual information related to property values potentially affected by the proposed project. The failure of the staff report to do so leaves a glaring and gaping hole in the staffs evaluation and does not constitute the type of factual basis needed for the Planning Commission to act. Accordingly, we believe this fatal flaw requires the petition be denied and the current zoning retained. In summary, we believe that these and other substantial deficiencies identified in our written comments clearly demonstrate that the staff report fails to provide the required factual basis supportive of the recommendation to approve the rezoning, and we request that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the petition and retention of the current zoning. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, I'd be pleased to try to answer them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. (Applause) COMMISSIONER YOUNG: May I have a copy of the petition to which you refer, or did you already give it to Ms. Murray? MR. McCANN: I -- of my comments or-- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: No. The entire petition with 222 signatures. MR. McCANN: submitted them. MR. COOPER: I believe someone else has collected those and I have collected those and-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have to be at the microphone. I think Mr. Cooper referred to this. MR. BELLOWS: I'll provide copies of everything that we got. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Because I made a note myself that we did not have a copy of it, and it hasn't gone down the dais to look at the names and that. So, Mr. Bellows, you'll be able to get that to us? Thank you. Because we do need that as part of the record. It's Page 87 November 1,2001 very helpful. And she is our secretary who's duty bound to make sure she has a copy. Thank you. Thank you. Glenn Cribbett-- MR. McCANN: MS. MURRAY: (Applause) MS. MURRAY: Glenn Cribbett followed by William Saunders. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe Mr. Hartsell has stepped up there for just one moment. MR. HARTSELL: I'm not Glenn Cribbett. I did request an opportunity to summarize, and I -- what I wanted to summarize was the group that I was representing as opposed to the entire public. The folks who had just spoken were part of the committee that retained our services, so if it's -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The next speaker is not one of yours? MR. HARTSELL: No. representing him. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: He's the developer, and he's -- we're not Okay. We will grant you that. MR. HARTSELL: Thank you very much. For the record again, Steve Hartsell, and we do thank you for your patience and appreciate the time that you're taking to listen to the questions that have been raised. Some of the issues that you've heard from Mike Fernandez and from the neighbors relate to the incompatibility of the intensity of a 12-unit-per-acre rental project that's next to a 2 1/2-acre (sic) residential subdivision; the lack of infrastructure, roads and sewer particularly, that have been proposed here. We've heard some speculative suggestions about the possibility that roads will be available at some point in the future or that a consortium might be put together in order to provide the sewer that would serve this project. But we haven't seen any evidences -- evidence that that's actually Page 88 November 1,2001 going to occur pursuant to this proposal. There's a lack of any evidence that supports granting what is the maximum bonus density that would be permissible through the affordable-housing density bonus program-- located-- as you've seen in your land use map, located essentially at the edge of your urban services district-- when this proposed community particularly is going to require special services like mass transportation. What you've found is that we're putting -- or we're suggesting that there be the maximum bonus density possible at the edge of the urban services area as far as possible away from things like mass transportation and the services that would -- that would serve these folks in this intensive density. Mr. Cuyler suggested that you were essentially duty bound to approve this application for affordable housing because the community recognizes that affordable housing is important and has put provisions into the code that affordable-housing providers need to meet. I would suggest to you that this application has not met all of the requirements for affordable housing. I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Cuyler that you are duty bound to approve the application. As one of the previous speakers pointed out, it's not just a matter of filling out the request for affordable housing and wrapping yourself in the mantle of this is a good thing for the community. You also have to find a location that is appropriate for the increased densities, the bonus densities that are being requested. We would submit that at 12 units an acre, this is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. I refer you to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element in the density rating system. It talks about a base density of four dwelling units per acre, but it does state specifically, and I quote, within the applicable urban designated areas, a base density of four Page 89 November 1,2001 residential dwelling units per gross acre is permitted, though not an entitlement. The base density of-- the base level of density may be adjusted depending upon the characteristics of the property. We would submit to you that the project that's immediately adjacent to 2 1/2-unit-per-acre Vanderbilt Country Club has not demonstrated that it's even entitled to four units per acre. Now, I know the first reaction is, wait a second. It's already a four-unit-per-acre PUD. That's true. The question then comes to mind, what evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the four- unit-per-acre PUD that's already there, that's zoned, that could be used for affordable housing, is inappropriate? What's wrong with the density that's already there? There's been no evidence to show that. Second, the Growth Management Plan shows that the base level density may be adjusted depending upon the characteristics of the property. We submit the density based on the characteristics that have been shown, particularly with regard to the level of services that are presently available, with regard to roads, with regard to sewer, with regard to development costs, would really argue more for a reduction in density more consistent with what's at Vanderbilt than it would for a tripling of the density, as has been requested. What about the bonus density? Under the Growth Management Plan, again it says density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as criteria in the Land Development Code. I'll be relatively quick, relatively. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're an attorney. It's relative. MR. HARTSELL: Thank you. It's important to remember-- and I appreciate the comments of the transportation department. But it's important to remember that unlike their review of this project where they felt that their hands were tied with regard to whether they could object to the proposed density or to the PUD, your hands are Page 90 November 1,2001 not tied. And I think that's very important to remember. It's been suggested that it's not fair to apply the new standards that are coming down the road to a project that has been presently submitted to you for review. I would submit to you that this isn't a question of whether there is going to be any use of the property that's permitted; rather, it's a question of whether you are going to take the maximum base density that's already permitted at four units per acre and essentially triple it at the edge of your urban services district. That's the thing that you-all -- that's the decision you-all have to consider today, and we would submit to you that it's not appropriate, that there has been no evidence to show that you should, in this location, triple that density. The neighbors understand that affordable housing can presently be built at Bucks Run. Bucks Run wants the maximum density but hasn't demonstrated that they've got the evidence to support that. As I pointed out before to Commissioner Richardson, Land Development Code 2.7.7.4.2 requires for affordable-housing density bonus to be granted, there must be a demonstration of compliance with the growth management code and the land development regulations. Looking again to the Growth Management Code Future Land Use Element Policy 5.3 -- and I quote part of that -- discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities. Well, I would submit to you that what's being requested here is specifically inconsistent with Growth Management Policy 5.3. This is encouraging urban sprawl. It is pushing higher densities out of the edge of your urban services area. Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4, new development shall be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. Again, as you've heard from numerous speakers, there is no compatibility between this 12-unit-per-acre project and the existing surrounding land use of Vanderbilt at 2.5 units per acre. Page 91 November 1, 2001 The question about the buffers, the argument has been made -- although, as Mr. Fernandez pointed out, you hear about the buffers, but they're not required as part of the PUD ordinance or as part of the application. That seems to have been expanded upon either today or subsequent to the application. As all of the neighbors have had to look at this information and review it for compatibility, they don't have the information about the buffers. When the exotics are removed, what's going to be out there? We hear that there's an intention to leave the existing vegetation, the native vegetation that's out there, but again, that's not part of the application. Concurrency issues, generally if concurrency with regard to roads, with regard to sewer service has not been demonstrated, how can this project -- how can this PUD rezoning be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Mr. McCann provided a very detailed review of the staff report. I just want to summarize about five or six points that relate specifically to the requirements that the Planning Commission has in terms of reviewing this application. Under Land Development Code 2.7.2.5, certain findings need to be made by the Planning Commission. Subsection 5 of that section is whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The staff report fails to identify any changed or changing conditions that make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. These are the findings that you-all have to address. Number 6, whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Again, the staff report failed to meaningfully consider whether the proposed change will adversely influence the living conditions in the neighborhood. Number 7 -- I'm sorry. Number 10, whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. As Mr. McCann pointed out, the staff report again fails to address Page 92 November 1,2001 adequately what impact this project will have on property values in the neighborhood. Number 11, whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with the existing regulations. Again, the staff report fails to address whether that proposed change will be a deterrent. Number 12, whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Well, that's exactly what's being requested here, triple the density for these folks compared to the rest of the folks in the neighborhood. That's not been demonstrated as being appropriate. I have one jurisdictional issue which I just throw out, and that's the question of whether there's been adequate notice of the review for the approval of affordable-housing density bonus. It's mentioned, as best I can tell, as part of the -- as part of the agenda, it's mentioned that there is affordable housing in this project, but I have not seen any notice that there is going to be an actual review of the affordable- housing density bonus that gets reviewed or approved today. While we are here, and obviously to the extent that we've participated, that may waive the objection for a number of folks who are here. The question comes to mind of whether any of the other 800 residents or other people in the neighborhood have waived their objections or are even aware of the fact that not only is there a PUD that's being requested increased density, but there's going to be a review of the affordable-housing density bonuses today. On behalf of the Vanderbilt Community Association, we submit that the application falls far short of what's necessary to demonstrate that they have met the requirements for affordable-housing density bonus. We also believe that the approval of the PUD as proposed fails Page 93 November 1,2001 to meet the criteria of the Land Development Code for the reasons that I've outlined as well as those that numerous other folks have outlined. And, finally, we would submit to you that for the reasons that I've outlined, it's inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and, for all of those reasons, should be denied. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do have one question for you. MR. HARTSELL: I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You kept using the phrase the "edge of the urban district" and that we were -- you were implying that we're encouraging urban sprawl here. Where do you consider the far edge of our urban district -- urban boundary? MR. HARTSELL: Well, looking at the land use management plan, you've got the urban development area is the area that's shown as yellow. And from what I can tell, this project is right next to Vanderbilt, which is essentially at the edge of that district. When you -- at the eastern edge of that district. It's got a strange line that -- or -- anyway, that's -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just wanted to clarify because I didn't think this was at the edge, and staff is discussing things over there at the moment. MR. HARTSELL: Certainly to the extent -- I understand that it may not be on the very -- on the very edge between rural next to it and this being the urban services district. But it does appear to me that what's happened is the Vanderbilt community is essentially being used as a buffer from your nonurban area for something that is very intense at 12 units an acre in your urban area. We just don't think that's appropriate to make Vanderbilt the buffer between the urban services district and -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because Vanderbilt is in the urban service area. Page 94 November 1, 2001 MR. HARTSELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And the line is out further. I was just wondering what you meant by "edge." MR. HARTSELL: Well, I'm -- as we look at the blue -- the blue arrow there -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. This line here is Collier Boulevard or 951. The yellow arrow, representing urban residential, extends 1 mile east of 951, incorporates Vanderbilt Country Club. MR. HARTSELL: So to the extent that we are -- I will amend my remarks. We are not actually on the edge, but we're within a mile or so of the edge. Certainly it appears to me that we are tripling the density out within a mile of the edge of your urban services district, which means that all of your services are going to have to go out to that edge. The question is, between 1-75 and this area, is there any other need for the kinds of urban services that this level of intensity is going to require? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just wanted to make sure we were clear that we do intend to have urban services within the urban services district, and that is part of the concept. If you keep lowering the density in an urban service area that's been agreed forever, then we have major pressures on the rural fringe and then even further out SO-- MR. HARTSELL: And that's a valid point. But what's important to remember here is that we're not suggesting that you should lower the densities within the urban services district. What's already approved there right now is at the maximum density that's approved. What we're suggesting to you is that this is not an appropriate place at this time for tripling those maximum densities. At some point in time when the roads are available, when there's actually sewer service that's available, this PUD might be appropriate Page 95 November 1,2001 for that level of density. But we would certainly argue that today this is definitely premature at very best. And it's for that reason that we argue that it's not only premature, it's inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and it ought to be denied. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You and a number of your speakers have made much of the deficiencies in this PUD application. Do you think they are remediable, curable? Could the deficiencies be cured with a little more workmanship? MR. HARTSELL: Well, certainly the absence of information that has been provided could be cured by providing more information. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. HARTSELL: Whether you provide more information or not, the question is, how do you demonstrate that tripling the density at this location is going to be appropriate today as opposed to some point in the future? I don't know if that's -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, then you're-- MR. HARTSELL: I don't know what else they can provide. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Then you're saying that no matter how much this application was beefed up, it would still not pass muster. MR. HARTSELL: I'm not sure if you beef the application up that still is going to provide the roads, for instance, within the time frames of this development taking place or demonstration that sewer capacity is available or reasonably likely to be available instead of speculative. So I-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, then why have we spent all this time picking at these deficiencies if the long and the short of it is that if those deficiencies were cured, you would still be against it? Page 96 November 1,2001 MR. HARTSELL: It's not a question of whether we're against it or not. It's a question of whether this application meets the requirements of the code. And we submit to you that the application doesn't meet the requirements of the code, that there has not been evidence that's been submitted to you or as part of the application process that demonstrates that this level of intensity ought to be approved at this location. What you've heard with regard to kind of picking at the deficiencies is the frustration of a group of neighbors trying to figure out why it is that there's going to be a tripling of density next door to them. And they go and they pull the application and go through it, and they find things, for instance, like the buffer that used to be there when they moved in, as part of the previous PUD, has now been removed. The specifics of the requirements, Mr. Fernandez pointed out, have been amended. This document, for instance -- I mean, it is COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't want to go back over all those deficiencies again. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're not going to go over the deficiencies, please. MR. HARTSELL: You asked the question. When the neighbors are trying to figure out what's going in next door, there's a brand-new PUD document. It doesn't -- it's not a comparison of a strikethrough and underline. Here are the things we're taking out; here's the stuff we're adding. It's just a brand-new document. They have to go through and try and figure out or find out, where's the original? What's actually changed here? It's those kinds of things that are frustrating to them. That's why you find a lot of picking at the deficiencies. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What I'm asking is, in all candor, if all of these mechanical deficiencies in here were satisfied, I Page 97 November 1, 2001 think your people would still be against it because it's an affordable housing or it's too much density. MR. HARTSELL: No. I think that it's -- I think it's important for you to understand that this is not an argument against affordable housing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's an argument against density. MR. HARTSELL: It's an argument against tripling the density next to their neighborhood. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you know, we could have gotten -- cut to the chase a long time ago, as far as I'm concerned. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you suggesting, though, you and most every other speaker, that we have the authority to change the traffic issue? Right now the law says they have the right to build this as far as traffic is concerned. We may not agree with that, but the point is we can't change it. And, therefore, we have to go with what we are told. That's the law. We can't change the law. MR. HARTSELL: Let me address that. It's a valid question, which is really what the applicant is urging. You can't really do anything about it. And I submit to you that you absolutely can because you've got a responsibility to determine whether this is compatible in this neighborhood. And I submit to you -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTE1N: Wait a minute. You're off the subject that I'm on. I'm talking to you literally about one issue, and that is the traffic issue. We have to live with what we are given. We'd like to say, hey, I don't particularly like the traffic issues in my area, either. We'd like this or that. But right now that department said to us that this PUD absolutely meets the criteria as far as traffic is concerned, and I don't believe this board has a right to change that Page 98 November 1, 2001 in any manner, just including that traffic issue. I'm not discussing the others. MR. HARTSELL: Let me -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But that issue cannot be changed. MR. HARTSELL: Let me ask -- if that were true, there would be no need for this board. I submit to you that you do have the responsibility to take that piece of information where the staff has said to you, we've looked at this. It doesn't meet the new standards that are coming through. It meets the present standards today. That's one element of information that you need to look at. Staff is not, I would submit, suggesting to you that this is a great development from a traffic standpoint. They're suggesting there are problems. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. MR. HARTSELL: Now, based on those problems, I believe that it's incumbent on the board to look at this and to say from a compatibility standpoint, there are problems associated with this level of intensity. We shouldn't triple the intensity just because the standards say, under the present standards, that's not a traffic issue. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You are an attorney; am I correct? MR. HARTSELL: COMMISSIONER Yes, sir. ADELSTEIN: And you're telling me that this board can change existing law at their whim. MR. HARTSELL: No, sir. I'm not telling you you can change the law. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, that's -- MR. HARTSELL: I'm telling you that the law right now requires you to take all of the information you've been given -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I am not discussing -- MR. HARTSELL: -- and make a determination. Page 99 November 1,2001 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I am not discussing the other issues. I mean, I understand what they are. I just wanted to make it clear to you that as far as the traffic issue itself is concerned, you're asking us to change what is now existing law. MR. HARTSELL: I don't believe that I am. We're not asking you to change the law. We're asking you to recognize there are traffic problems out there. Don't approve a tripling of density when you already recognize there are traffic problems out there, and there's no requirement that you approve tripling of density. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The last point I will make is there are a great many PUDs that come before us. Anything on Airport Road then, as far as you're concerned, should not be added because there's already such a traffic problem there, anything else will increase the traffic problem. MR. HARTSELL: Tripling of the density? I would probably argue that point where you're asking to triple the density on a place where there's already traffic problems, yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What about doubling the density on that traffic -- again, we have a problem. MR. HARTSELL: That's exactly the point. It's not that affordable housing is inappropriate in Collier County. The question is -- after you demonstrate that you meet affordable housing, essentially, minimum thresholds, then the question is, where in Collier County do you increase the densities? And I submit to you you don't increase them where you already have problems. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. White, when it comes to the statement of level of service and what we're trying to do here, could you just give us a little guidance on the fact that -- concept of the magic wand? We have rules. We have a time frame for the roads. Could you just elaborate a little bit on that for our benefit when we make the decision on criteria and for all of these people that Page 100 November 1, 2001 have taken their time to come here and hear today? MR. WHITE: Thank you. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I believe that Mr. Hartsell is in particular, perhaps, talking about in LDC 27325. And in particular this is a provision that deals with Planning Commission recommendations. He's talking about sub 3, which talks about the conformity of the PUD with goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan. And if I understand the gist of his argument, it is essentially that he's asking you to find -- although he's used the term compatibility, I think he's talking consistency, in my way of understanding this, in that the project is inconsistent because the density is somehow inappropriate. And that's where it lapses over, one, into the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood on the one hand; on the other hand, he's talking about capacity in terms of concurrency. And, now, it's obvious that you cannot be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of proposing development that would exceed the capacity at the time that development's approved. That would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that would, under this particular finding, be something that you could make a determination it's not in conformity with. I believe you've also, just to be balanced about this, heard staff say essentially that it's their opinion that as to the Growth Management Plan and as to the issue of concurrency and as it relates to consistency, that this project, at the time of development, would have adequate capacities such that it would be deemed concurrent and, hence, consistent. So it's to your determination which end of the teetertotter carries the weight. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MR. HARTSELL: We would urge you that we have the heavy end of the teetertotter. Page 101 November 1,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would believe you would feel that way. How many more speakers do we have? MS. MURRAY: Three. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have three. Okay. Because we have to move along, and we will have an issue -- a technical issue here by quarter after 12 when it comes to the court reporter. So you're next. MS. MURRAY: Glenn Cribbett followed by William Saunders. MR. CRIBBETT: Good morning. My name is Glenn Cribbett. I represent Worthington Communities of Naples. We are the developer of Vanderbilt Country Club. And I believe all my minutes have been used up, so I will try to be brief. Just trying to lighten the affair here a little bit. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I got the humor. MR. CRIBBETT: Nobody laughed. We certainly have a concern because we still own quite a bit of property in Vanderbilt, and being a developer we obviously can also see both sides of a situation. We -- our goal is always to develop communities that are highly marketable and ones that we can, you know, certainly deliver on the promise. I don't know that I can say a lot of new things here or raise a lot of new questions that haven't been said because I think that's been very well done by -- by the folks that have been up here previous. We do have two concerns in a major way, and -- and number one would be the character of the community that's proposed. And, again, it's been said and there was some argument as to whether that was, you know, a viable thing to point out, but that the application was deficient in terms of exhibits and things and specifics. And although we have been shown some things here today, certainly without that being part of the petition, perhaps there is no guarantee Page 102 November 1,2001 that that's what will be delivered. In light of that, you know, a buffer would certainly be a major consideration or a concern on our part as to how it is buffered from-- from our existing community and whether, again, you know, just from a compatibility standpoint, everything, including architecture, just fits within what's existing there. Second to that -- or actually number one, probably, would be the density issue and the fact that they are asking for densities that are over five times what we've achieved at Vanderbilt and how those do, in fact, impact the infrastructure that's in place. I'm not going to sit here and argue from a legal standpoint. I don't know what you can or cannot do. I think you -- in a position you are, you can make decisions that you feel are in the best interest of the public. We have certainly fallen victim to that on occasion when faced with similar- type issues and -- and would always hope that the decisions are, in fact, being made in the best interest of the public. With regards to traffic, I'll just caution one more thing, that because there are a lot of communities along the corridor, most of them are new, and I don't think that corridor has really reached its full potential. So what we do see today, that is considered extremely bad at a lot of times, I think can potentially get worse given that no other development comes into the corridor because, again, most of the communities along there are very immature in their development at this stage, and so it's easy to see. Given that -- again, I don't have any new things to raise, but in terms of representing Worthington Communities and our position, we do respectfully ask that you deny the petition as it has been submitted to you at this point in time. Thank you. (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: William Saunders followed by Gayle Grosso, Page 103 November 1,2001 who's your last speaker. MR. SAUNDERS: Good morning. My name is William Saunders. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good afternoon. MR. SAUNDERS: That's S-a-u-n-d-e-r-s. I'm a resident of Vanderbilt, 8454 Gleneagle Way. I'm here this morning because I, like many of the people that are in this room, came to Vanderbilt thinking we had found a way of life, a place where we were secure, a place where we'd be looked after, a community that was an outstanding community with lots of nice features. I can understand Vanderbilt's concern when they have 89 more units to add traffic to our Vanderbilt Beach Road, that are unsold at this point. I think the basic issues that we have to contend with here are the fact that this project is going to change the way that we at Vanderbilt can live our lives. We're not going to have the security and the freedom that we currently have. We don't want to have to put fences up around our community to keep people out of our town houses and out of our estate homes. Many of us are not here a good number of months in the year, and it makes our homes and our properties in Vanderbilt very, very vulnerable. We think that placing a community of triple density right next to what is an estate community at this point flies in the face of everything that we thought we were buying when we came to Vanderbilt. We feel that this board has a fiduciary responsibility to think about that and to protect the interests of the people who have purchased in our community. I can assure you that if this was a little later in the season, we would have probably had another 200 people down here today, but a lot of our friends and a lot of our neighbors aren't here at this point. But the ones that I've talked to are all very, very concerned about the same things. We don't care if that property gets built on if it's built Page 104 November 1,2001 on in normal density under normal conditions. But to allow a tripling of the density, I think, places a burden on us that we don't feel we deserve. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm going to ask a rhetorical question to you, sir. If this triple density had teachers, policemen, sheriffs deputies, construction workers, would you have a sense of freedom and security lost if these rental units were handled by that type of person.'? MR. SAUNDERS: Well, it's been my experience -- I'm an old builder and developer, retired. I've built thousands of houses, and I've built many, many, many communities. And I can assure you that I've never found the situation that you're speaking of to end up being true. Generally what happens is that the -- the services that are necessary are overburdened with problems, and they can't deal as effectively as we'd like to think we could with the issues. It's nice -- it's a picture-book idea, but in reality I don't think that it works. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It seems to me that either your candor or your lack of being in step with the rest of the people who have professed and kept telling us that affordable housing is not the issue -- you just said that's exactly what it is. MR. SAUNDERS: No, I didn't say affordable housing was an issue. What I'm talking about is density. What I'm talking about-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, no, no. You're talking about building fences. MR. SAUNDERS: Well-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: fences -- MR. SAUNDERS: -- we have to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: MR. SAUNDERS: You don't have to build -- in Pelican Bay. We have to do what we have to do to protect Page 105 November 1,2001 our -- our interests where we live. I'm not saying that I think that affordable housing is the issue here. I think that this density is -- is a big-- is a big issue. I think in the interest of brevity and so that I don't get into something that I'm not going to have the time to speak to, I will -- I'll -- I will thank you for the time that you've allotted me and trust that you will give every consideration denying this application. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Gayle Grosso, who is your final speaker. MS. GROSSO: Hello. I'm Gayle Grosso, G-r-o-s-s-o. I'm a resident of Vanderbilt. And I didn't intend to speak today, so I have a very short statement. And -- but hours ago the very first speaker who said -- who spoke for the development and stated that it was not fair for a developer to follow all the regulations, to jump through all the hoops, and then be turned down, well, to me that-- it's not fair to the residents of Vanderbilt and to the other homeowners in the area who purchased in there after looking at the plan and looking at what was surrounding and saying, "Yes. This is a good community. We're going to have a church here." South of Collier there's very large lots. There's nice homes through there. We've got golf courses to the east of us. We've got this community that's going to be 154 single-family homes. Now, that's a little dense, four homes to an acre. But they're going to be individually owned homes, and people tend to take care of homes that they own, that they have ownership, and so this will be a good community. I think Vanderbilt would be a good place for me to invest and to live. I don't like the idea of it being changed to the triple density. I don't think that's fair. It's not what we bought. It is not the conununity that was supposed to surround us. When you talk about fairness, fairness is sticking to what was there, and that's just my -- Page 106 November 1, 2001 my comment, is that fair is fair, and it's not what we saw when we bought. Thank you. (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I believe -- Mr. Cuyler, I'm not sure how long you're going to take, and we need you to summarize this. Can you continue on? Thank you. Go ahead. She can handle you. MR. CUYLER: Okay. I was just going to first of all say, thank you for your patience. I understand this has been a long hearing. Mr. Wayne Arnold is, again, going to rebut some of the comments that were made, and then I'm going to have, hopefully, a very brief-- and I use that in every sense of the word -- summary to wrap up. MR. ARNOLD: Hi. Wayne Arnold representing the petitioner. I'd like to go back over just a few of the comments that were made. There were several references to your findings, and separately -- although a component of those findings is the issue of compatibility that I talk about a little bit separately. First of all, let me talk a little bit about those findings and the fact that they've referenced deficiencies with the application. This petition has been in the process for months. We've submitted everything that's typically required of those applications and more. We've worked with staff. The documents have gone through modification. We've gotten the transportation department to look at methodology, etc. Those issues have all been addressed to the satisfaction of your staff and your county attorney's office. It would not have made it to this point if it didn't. We believe, as far as we know, we are consistent with all provisions of your plan and your code with reference to having a complete and sufficient application. There cannot be any question that we have enough information to make that decision. Page 107 November 1,2001 One of the questions that was raised related to whether or not we have -- you know, are there changing conditions. There certainly are changing conditions that warrant changing the project from its original focus that occurred many, many years ago under a zoning change when there was little development out in this corridor, including Vanderbilt Country Club. But this Planning Commission approved a commercial comprehensive land use plan change for the other side of this intersection. Now, you heard from many of the same residents during that process where a portion of Bucks Run was proposed to be become, really, an office-type project. They didn't like the offices. With the Planning Commission's discretion and our applicants agreeing, we withdrew that component of the application and said, "We'll come back another day. We'll withdraw our commercial opportunity." The changing conditions are the Comprehensive Plan amendment did not go as planned over a year ago, but you did approve a 30-acre commercial development on the other side of the road that is in the process of being rezoned to have a community shopping center there. So you do have a changing condition. You had the applicant tell you that, "Where are the schools? Where are the facilities for the children and the people that will live here?" Well, there are proposed to be common amenities as a part of this project. They have a clubhouse. They have barbecue areas. They have play land-- you know, play areas for the children. So those amenities will be provided largely on site, like any community. We're not a country club community, so we're not providing a golf course as our recreational amenity. And clearly we are looking at a different age group than you have at Vanderbilt Country Club for the buyer or the renter of this particular project, but that goes with any project. They're not all the same, and that's what makes Collier County what it is. You have Page 108 November 1, 2001 very many different projects that make up Collier County. You look to their own community, and you look to the density. The buildings that are immediately adjacent to our property line are 24-unit buildings. If I take out the area that's necessary to satisfy my parking and my water management for only those units, I'm going to end up with exactly the same type of net density I have for my parcel of land because we're proposing 24- and 20-unit buildings on our property. Mr. Hoover is putting up an aerial exhibit on that property, and it doesn't, I don't think, highlight it extremely well, but maybe Bill can point to the building in question that's parallel to the property line. That's a closer view of it. And you can see that we have essentially two buildings that are along and are parallel to that property line. Again, that's the 11 O-foot distance from the property line that I referenced earlier. Again, we made the commitment on the record, and we'll be happy to amend our PUD document to put in place the 80-foot buffer requirement. That's why it was on the master plan. It wasn't that we're trying to hide anything here. That's what was proposed, and that's what we're willing to commit to. Again, I want to remind you that your code's minimum requirement for residential to residential is a 1 O-foot wide buffer. We're providing a minimum of eight times that buffer. We're providing like units at three-story maximum height. I don't think there's any question that that can be a compatible relationship. If Bill can flip back to that other aerial view -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But before you -- stay there for a second on that one. When you were talking about the buffer before, you were talking about mature vegetation, and this is pretty dense vegetation in there? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's -- the mature, dense Page 109 November 1,2001 vegetation you're referring to will be incorporated into this buffer. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You can go to another one now. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: The other view that I think -- and Bill can point to it -- within their own community, it's not an entirely three-stow, multifamily development. It has many housing types in there from single family to the 24-unit buildings that are nearest us. And I'm going to argue that if it's not compatible to put a three-stow unit 200 feet away from their own three-stow units, how can they say that they're -- they have their own internal compatibility? And I argue because that's -- because that's the way it is anywhere you go. You don't all have a community that's made up of single family or just multifamily. You have a community that's made up of many housing types, typically, and I think that's exactly what I'm trying to point out, that compatibility relationship. If it's land use to land use, we're really going to boil it down to residential to residential. And when you look at it further, we're 24-unit building to 24-unit building. I don't see how we can be incompatible. They've also said that there are deficiencies here with respect to our Comprehensive Plan. I think you can point to at least two locations in your staff report where staff has noted that we are entirely consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. We're consistent with the proposed density rating system. We don't violate your level-of-service standards for roadways. We've gone through that analysis. We've heard Ms. Wolfe indicate that we are consistent with the methodology that's in place today for that. We have water and sewer availability by tying into a line that Vanderbilt Country Club brought down from Immokalee Road, so the sewer and water are available. We don't have a concurrency issue. And, as you heard their own representatives indicate, concurrency is Page 110 November 1,2001 really determined at the time of building permit. Sure, there's an opportunity that if things don't go as planned, we could end up not building 288 units; we might get to the 260th unit, and the next building you're in a moratorium condition. That's the same situation anybody else is in in Collier County. There's absolutely no difference. That's the way it works. I think, again, they talked about that increasing traffic congestion and somehow being incompatible, but the same question would be, are you going to say no to three other projects that come in at four units per acre, even though they've met all the methodology tests? I don't know what the test is if we don't use the standards that are before us. I think it's pretty clear from the staff report, when you look at that, that the tests of compatibility, Comprehensive Plan consistency, compliance with our standards are all in order. The issue really should be, is this an appropriate location? And I'm going to tell you that the conditions have changed. There's a demand for more affordable housing in Collier County. Your plan, when it talks about affordable housing, says you shouldn't cluster affordable housing. And immediately people say, well, East Naples has a lot of it. North Naples is getting its share. You're going to have to go to Golden Gate City or up to Immokalee Road or 3 miles west on Vanderbilt Beach Road to find another affordable-housing project. And I think that in this particular case, we're not clustering those. We're providing a need. And I would challenge the argument that this is on the edge of our Urban boundary. It's a mile inside the urban boundary and it's in our urban services boundary. That's where development's supposed to go. That's our incentive for providing affordable housing, a density increase. So with that, I'll wrap up and let Mr. Cuyler go ahead and address -- Page 111 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This is a process question. We've heard a lot of verbal things said, commitments that you've made and now kind of reinforced, renderings and so forth have been made. I just want to know from staff whether or not our process includes the inclusion, if you will, of this material as part of the documentation that goes forward to the BCC. Because they're under oath and, you know, for-- for one of the opposition to say -- well, they've said it. "But it can't be true because we haven't seen it in writing." I just wanted to make sure that if it's said, it's really part of the record. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. For the record, Ray Bellows. Collier County's initiated a process of taking over the PUD document. And commitments made during the Planning Commission, staff will make those insertions into the PUD document. And it will not be up to the applicant to, hopefully, put those in at the time of the Board of County Commissioners. We'll ensure that it gets in at the time of the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. WHITE: If I may add, Madam Chairman, specifically the LDC in 2.7.3.3, I believe, reflects what Mr. Bellows has told you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ray, it might be helpful to point out to the audience here that this isn't the last step in the process, that there's something called a site development plan that would get into all the specifics that people have been com-- the absence of which they've been complaining about. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. The -- this is the first step in a Page 112 November 1,2001 land development process. We're looking at Growth Management Plan consistency requirements. To date I have not had anyone contact me personally to come in and look at the file to see the traffic study. There was a large traffic study. They've -- I had several general phone calls, but no one came in to actually look at the traffic study. Clearly it would show that we're consistent with the current Growth Management Plan, the traffic circulation, the traffic element. You know, staff will -- tries its best to fulfill all the analysis requirements. We have several -- many different review agencies that review these things and comment, and we try to summarize those in the staff report. The staff report is not a full analysis; it's just a summary. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And one other comment, too, then, from the staff standpoint is the appropriate notice. A gentleman was talking at the break that a lot of these people didn't seem to know what was going on. But you're satisfied from staff that you brought with you that it is appropriate notice. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We're required to have a 15-day notice requirement. That's what happened. We mailed out letters to property owners within 300 feet of the PUD. We placed signs at the property boundaries, all consistent with advertising requirements. And we have a great turnout to show. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And the affordable- housing element was mentioned in the -- in this -- in these letters? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chair, I'll try to be brief. Again, thank you for your patience. You'll be happy to know I was scratching a lot of notes off as Mr. Arnold was talking in recap. There's been some discussion of things that weren't in the petition. We've dealt with staff for months. We've met all the county Page 113 November 1, 2001 requirements. We've done everything that staff has asked us to do, both from Mr. Mihalic's point of view and Mr. Bellows' point of view. There has been no competent substantial evidence that the traffic is not in compliance with your regulations, and we have Ms. Wolfe who says that it is. We have no competent substantial evidence that the water/sewer facilities are any issue that you have to deal with at this point. We're required to meet those when we develop, and we understand that. I find some of Mr. Fernandez's comments disturbing because to not meet with the petitioner and then come in ten days later or a week later and say they didn't -- you know, they didn't show us X information, we would have been happy to explain that to Mr. Fernandez. So I just don't think that's a valid argument, particularly in light that we 'have met all the requirements. Mr. Hartsell talked about me saying that the -- the commission is duty bound to approve this. I did not say that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Hoover. MR. CUYLER: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Hoover, please. MR. CUYLER: I did not say that, and I would not say that. What I was saying in my exchange with Mr. Strain was that the philosophy of whether there should be additional density as -- as a trade-off for affordable housing or work-force housing has already been decided by the Board of County Commissioners. They've set up a system. I understand you have to look at land use perspectives, and I actually understand that. And it was really directed to something I heard a couple people say, and that is, "This isn't about affordable housing; this is about density." Well, you can't separate the work- force housing from the density. They go together. In order to make a viable project, you have to have them go together. This is not a case of urban sprawl. That is where, as the Page 114 November 1, 2001 chairman indicated, the policemen and the nurses and construction workers -- you know, they're not going to live on Gulf Shore. They're not going to live in Pine Ridge subdivision. They're going to go where it's affordable and where they can raise their families. And this is a location that meets all the criteria that's necessary, and it's also -- it is growing very fast out there. And I think one important point that I've heard that I just absolutely disagree with is the "don't approve this at 12 units an acre because of the roadways or because of the water and service," because the next three projects, whether they -- you know, you're going to quickly add up to 12 units an acre. So if you don't vote for this because of that reason, you practically have to decide you're not voting for any more projects, and that's just not where we are at this point. I would submit to you that affordable housing, work-force housing in this county has a track record. I hope Mr. Mihalic's going to say a little about that. It's worked out well. It does give people a place to affordably live and raise their family. And in conclusion, I would suggest to you that this not only legal -- I know we've met the legal requirements. I'm not concerned about that. But it's fair and it's right and it's the right location. And we would ask you to approve this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Mihalic, would you care to elaborate some on the work-force housing, affordable housing? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioners. I really heard a lot of things this morning, and I guess we need to sort of step back and look at the big picture again. And I guess the big picture is this Comprehensive Plan has many elements. One of those elements is the housing element. It says we're supposed to provide affordable housing for all residents of Collier County. Unfortunately we don't. Page 115 November 1,2001 The State of Florida has released a study this year that says we're at least 18,000 units deficient at this time. And last year in Collier County we created 6400 new jobs requiring new employees, and next year the projections are 7,000 more new jobs requiring new employees. And, you know, work-force housing is really a quality-of-life issue, but not as much for the residents as for the people out here. The quality of life to provide them with the services that they expect to have in Collier County, that's the quality of life that work-force housing will assist. And this developer has really stretched a long way. You know, we talk about density. Yes. I mean, every unit you can use a piece of property for lowers the cost of each individual unit. So, you know, he really needs 12 units an acre to bring down the cost to -- about a quarter for the land cost per unit is what was originally on this property -- or a third, I guess. That's why this developer can offer some units -- and he's offering units as -- as low as 35 percent of median income. Now, let me just talk a little bit about that. The median income right now in Collier County is $65,000 a year. The average wages in Collier County are $28,000 a year. So obviously that 65 isn't made up by workers. It's made up by those people that have nonwage earnings in this county; that is, people that are coming in and moving here with their incomes already sustained and have investments in other nonearned income. That's going to continue. Like I said, we expect 7,000 more jobs next year. Collier County has not been able to meet these people's needs. And employers see it. I'm sure they see it in the country club. They cannot fill the jobs that they have. I know they can't because no employer is filling all their jobs these days. It's just the way it is throughout the market, in all industries. Page 116 November 1, 2001 The average house -- now we're really home-ownership based, and you know, this is a rental development, but we really want to help people become homeowners. But one of the steps to that is letting them live in an affordable-housing development where the rents are reduced so they can save up for those closing costs and down payment costs and the other costs they have and get a little bit ahead. The average home price in Collier County at this time is $350,000. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Average? MR. MIHALIC: Average. The average price in the City of Naples is over $500,000 at this time. This developer, because of assistance with the density bonus, because of assistance in deferring the impact fees -- which is later on -- and because of our assistance in getting other state, local, and federal assistance for this development, tax credits, taxes on bonds, sale loans, things like that, IRS credits, he's going to offer some one bedrooms as low as $305 per month. Some two bedrooms will be as low as $366 a month, and some three bedrooms will be as low as $423 a month. You can only do that with some assistance. That will allow that very, very low-income family to have a start. And, you know, you had in your packets some of the rents that are -- what things cost in the community, and the fair-market rents are at least 400 to $500 a month higher than that. Now, the only way for a developer to do that is through local incentives, state and federal incentives. And that's what we are experts in the system at. I've been here for approximately ten years now. I really thought -- as Mr. Cuyler said, we've done a number of work-force housing developments around the community that have simulated (sic) in well, there really are no problems. In many cases the quality and amenity levels are higher than lower-end condos in the same neighborhood, and that's the reality of it. We do have transition Page 117 November 1, 2001 programs to help people become homeowners, but that's becoming more and more difficult. I think that it's crucial that you, the planning commissioners, understand that for quality-of-life reasons, we really need to approve developments like this sort. And also, they tell me, you know, affordable housing is good, but not in my back yard. I've been hearing that for ten years. It's not going to change. It's not going to change at all. Employment centers are in all areas of Collier County. We are only able to put density bonuses in the urban area. We're hoping to change that. We're hoping to increase density for work-force housing in the urban fringe and possibly in the rural areas, but that's not available at this time. So all of the affordable-housing density bonuses, all of the multifamily must come into the urban area. And that's becoming more and more difficult, and this is just one example of it. Oh, okay. Mr. Cuyler wanted me to say that not all the rents were at the low levels. This particular development will serve people who are at 35 percent of median income, some units; some at 50 percent of median income; and some at 60 percent of median income. Let me talk about who that is, because I think that's important. A single individual or a family of four at 35 percent of median income, that family will make $22,750. At 50 percent of median income, which is the midline, they will make $32,500 family income. And at 60 percent of median income, that family will make $39,000 per year. In the school system of Collier County right now, half of the families have incomes of less than $30,000 a year because those families participate in the free- and reduced-lunch programs offered by the school system. And that is in every school in Collier County. At least 12 percent is the minimum of every school in Collier County -- and that's Barron Collier High School, and it goes up from there -- that the kids who are already living in these neighborhoods would qualify to live in this development. And, again, we're creating 7,000 Page 118 November 1,2001 jobs more a year. Next year 7,0001 more jobs will be created in Collier County. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions from the commissioners? MR. MIHALIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'd like to ask Mr. Cuyler a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe Mr. Abernathy would like to go back to Mr. Cuyler. I'll grant that for a couple of minutes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ken, I'm still -- I'm sort of Johnny One Note on this east tract, west tract. If I made a motion to approve this petition, the PUD rezone, with a ceiling of 288 dwelling units on the east tract leaving you the option of either building a church or a school or four units per acre on the west tract, can you accept that? MR. CUYLER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. CUYLER: May I also make another commitment that I meant to make in my closing statements and didn't. We will assure to it that the closest building on our property is a hundred feet from our property line because that's approximately what the neighboring building is. So we will do whatever's necessary for our site plan to orient that at least a hundred foot away from -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman, I've got a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Cuyler. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Cuyler, before you disappear-- while you're waiting -- Page 119 November 1, 2001 MR. MIHALIC: Mr. Strain, I wanted to say that you were right, that we did drop some text style of the density bonus when it was printed. I've looked at the original. We will correct that as it moves forward. Thank you very much for pointing that out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're welcome. I just hope that it doesn't have a bearing on the way this board might look -- MR. MIHALIC: It has nothing -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- at the whole project. MR. MIHALIC: It is nothing that the developer has to add. It was a textural (sic) paragraph on-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's not substantive? MR. MIHALIC: No, not of substance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Mr. Cuyler. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Cuyler, since you're in the mood to make agreements or agree to things, would your -- would your applicant agree to defer certificates of occupancy on the residential portion of this project until the roads in that area were four laned, meaning Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road to Airport Road? MR. CUYLER: We -- we could not do that. If you -- if you put that in as a regulation everybody has to abide by, then any other petition I bring in front of you -- we'll comply with the rules, but with regard to volunteering that, no, sir, we can't do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I would have no objection to putting that in, that any work in any development in that area, wait now until those roads are up to par. (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Before we go any further on that particular item, Mr. White, I would think you need to clarify from a legal standpoint how that can or cannot be done, particularly Page 120 November 1, 2001 by this body. MR. WHITE: Well, I was thinking in terms of job security. There would certainly be a lot of it if that were, I believe, the practice that were followed not only by this commission but by the board itself. I can hear all kinds of equal protection arguments going off in Mr. Cuyler's head. I think absent a voluntary agreement on his part to acquiesce to that condition, it may be a difficult one to enforce. Given that it isn't something that the staff has recommended, it would seem to be to some degree, quote, inconsistent with our provisions in the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC pertaining to concurrency. So although it may be one that has appeal, I'm not sure that it's something that we would be able to prevail upon in an appeal. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Getting close to contract zoning, I think, if you're -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. MR. CUYLER: If it gives you any comfort, we obviously have to meet concurrency in all aspects of the infrastructure at the time of development. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, perhaps a middle ground, if you will, between Commissioner Strain and what you just said, but I understand you have to take it in terms of the applicant. As we've heard from Dawn today, the level-of-service standards are anticipating to be changed, and I think we can rely that within a year or so that there will be some different standards and, presumably, tighter than we currently have. Now, given that for a moment, you plan to phase your project, Phase I, Phase II. Perhaps I should be asking Wayne. As your SDP comes along, would you be having an SDP covering both phases at the same time, or would it be one at a time? And I think you know where I'm -- MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold. I understand where you're headed, and I think at this point we're not in a position to know Page 121 November 1,2001 whether or not we're coming in for an SDP covering both phases or only the single phase. And I wish I could tell you that that's, you know, something other, but the fact is that we don't know. We may go ahead and depending on financing, etc., they may move forward for a portion of Phase II, even, as an extension of Phase I. I just don't know, and I can't commit to that at this time. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I'd like the attorney to listen, then, to what I'm proposing. I propose that even though the applicant has not given us definitive words on this, he has presented that he's going to develop this in two phases, Phase I and Phase II. And we've heard from transportation that there's going to be some changes in the rules in that period of time, and I'd like to have our -- whatever action we take conditioned to the then conditions that would apply at a Phase II time to at least get some assurance that -- that there's going to be some help on the way as far as capacity is concerned. MR. WHITE: If I understand -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Does that make any sense? MR. WHITE: If I understand your proposed condition, it suggests to me that the condition would be something along the lines that Phase II would be deferred for approval until such time as -- it could only be considered under a set of rules that have yet to be themselves approved. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, just slightly different. I'd say that Phase II would have the new rules apply to it, whatever they are. Now, if no rules came along, well, they'd get home free. But I just want to make sure that -- MR. WHITE: Well, there'd have to be some timing -- some limit set even to consider discussing it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, the time limit I would set would be the time that they come in with Phase II versus Page 122 November 1,2001 their Phase I. MR. WHITE: That may be well before such rules are ever in effect. They may be challenged. They have to be, to some degree, reviewed by the DCA since they're Comprehensive Plan amendments. I'm thinking that an 18-month time frame may be actually more accurate. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're saying an 18-month-- MR. WHITE: Possibly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I didn't-- MR. WHITE: Because before they're fully adopted, I don't know. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, the engineer has already stated to us that it's going to be at least 12 months for them to get through the permitting process, another X months to get to the point where they can start construction. So we're looking like 18 months plus. MR. WHITE: The thing to keep in mind is that applicants are entitled to have their applications, once they're sufficient, considered under the rules then in effect. So part of that time frame, if you will, will be used up while their sufficient application is being reviewed and moving towards approval. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Perhaps the applicants can help us with this quandary. MR. CUYLER: I don't know whether to let Dawn speak before me or not, but I -- I think that we're obviously willing -- as I've said, I guess, from the first words out of my mouth this morning, we'll abide by the rules. If the new rules come into effect before we have our second-phase site plan done, then we have to and, you know, will adhere to those new rules. I can't tell you what the time frames are. Obviously we would not want to commit that we apply the new rules, you know, that aren't in effect. But once they're in effect, we're Page 123 November 1, 2001 bound by them just like everybody else is, which I think, in part, addresses the issues that have been raised. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think I almost understood what you said. MR. CUYLER: We'll meet whatever regulations -- if the new rules come in and we haven't done our Phase II, then we'll adhere to the new rules. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And, Dawn, do you want to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Better define what "done" is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, you better. (Several speakers speaking at once.) MR. CUYLER: In effect, site-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: SDP is going to be the trigger? MS. WOLFE: We are anticipating, with the changes to the Land Development Code, that the adequate public facilities will be determined at -- at site development plan stage rather than being issued with building permits because it's kind of late to be making that determination when people are going in, pulling their building permits. They've put a lot of extra time and effort into it. Zoning is a time at which you make some consistency determinations; however, that doesn't guarantee you absolute rights that you're going to get your adequate public facilities certificate in order to move forward. We are moving to change that so it's not at building permit, but it's no later than site development plan. One thing that is currently already in place is that site development plans, if they have a significant amount of traffic -- that's a thousand vehicles per day or 100 vehicles in the peak hour, peak season -- are required to do a more detailed traffic assessment. And through that process when they submit their SDP, it shows that Page 124 November 1,2001 we, at a minimum, need them from their entrance to Vanderbilt to have four lanes out there in order to maintain acceptable operations. That would be a condition of their SDP. Those mechanisms are already in place in the Land Development Code but don't come into play until we know specifically what is requested. The zoning allows us somewhat more general. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought the zoning was the point at which those determinations were made, not the SDP. MS. WOLFE: No. And, for example, under commercial zoning we indicate they can have up to a certain square footage, but we don't know exactly what it is that they may be putting in. For instance, a McDonald's has a higher trip-generation rate than sit-down restaurants do, and they have to be evaluated differently. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I got you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions, comments? Ms. Murphy (sic). MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray for the record. I would just -- it looks like you're getting ready to take a vote. Just -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We haven't closed the public hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We haven't closed the public hearing. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We just want to make sure everything gets on the record. MS. MURRAY: When and if you're ready to take a vote, I just need you-all to be sure -- if you're voting against the project, you need to clearly state why you oppose the project. If it's consistency, problem with the Growth Management Plan, I'd appreciate that you elaborate a little bit as to why you feel it's inconsistent, which element you feel it's inconsistent with. We need to convey that to the Board of County Commissioners. As well as it is part of the record, Page 125 November 1,2001 and it is part of your requirements as a board to elaborate on those findings. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Bellows, you're standing there. Would you like to make a couple more comments? MR. BELLOWS: Just a -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Quick comment and then we'll have to make a quick break. MR. BELLOWS: Just that when you do make your motion that -- and if it is for approval, that you stipulate again the additional -- the additions you want to be made to the PUD document. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I couldn't hear that. MR. BELLOWS: Any additional stipulations or conditions of approval that this Planning Commission would like to see added to the PUD document, I'd like it restated. A lot of things have been promised here, and I just want to be clear on what the applicants need to-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. If I close this public hearing, do you have enough tape to do that? Okay. No further comments? I close the public hearing. Now, what's the pleasure of the board, but we will have to watch the court reporter to get some more paper in here and take a short break. What's the pleasure of the board? Public hearing's closed. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to have-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, I'll step into the breach, I guess, and make a motion to approve the PUD amendment, whatever -- is it an amendment or a -- recommendation of approval of the Petition PUDA-01-AR-834 subject to the following -- well, whatever staff stipulations there are; plus, on behalf of this commission, that the east tract be limited to 288 dwelling units; that the 60 units attributable to the west tract either are forfeited as -- as housing units if church, child care, or school are built there, Page 126 November 1,2001 or they can be built at the rate of four dwelling units per acre in the west tract. Further condition, that at the -- that the petitioner agrees that at the time of submission of a site development plan for the second phase, he will be bound by code requirements in existence at that time. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Budd to approve this particular PUD amendment document, being amending the Bucks Run with the three specific items outlined. MR. WHITE: Madam Chairman, I just want to make sure that we have on the record that the motion would include, if you will, by the inclusion of the application for the bonus density, a, quote, recommendation on that as well. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Was that not covered in -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought it was implicit, but I'll make it express. MR. WHITE: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Explicit. Okay. The bonus density for affordable housing. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, discussion? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was just going to say, what discussion do we have, and do we have to change tape? We're going to take just a two-minute break here. Don't move. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're ready. Okay. Mr. Richardson, you have the floor. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just in terms of the motion -- motioner and -- I would also like to see staff review the transcript for any other commitments that the developer has made to make sure that they are appropriately reflected. Page 127 November 1,2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll accept that. I'd like to just make a couple of comments about this. I'll be very brief. A lot of people have disavowed that this has anything to do with affordable housing. Obviously it has everything to do with affordable housing because were it not for the affordable-housing density bonus, we wouldn't be here. You can't build this many units on that tract of just ordinary housing. So it's -- affordable housing is warp and woof of this whole thing. And I don't think -- it's not in the record, or maybe it's inferable from what Mr. Mihalic said, but it's a fact of life that we have a tremendous deficit of affordable housing. All you need to do is drive up from here to the airport in the morning and see that you're sort of a lone ranger going north, and there are hundreds and hundreds of cars coming south containing people who work here but can't afford to live here. So I think we need to construe these rules in a liberal way to accomplish a goal that's been stated by the county commission and one which I wholeheartedly support, and that is to increase our housing stock of affordable housing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain, you go first in your discussion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. In hearing all this discussion today -- and it's something that I did say to the applicant yesterday -- I thought their PUD was equally vague, as some people have expressed. I also believe it to be incomplete, and the documents that have been presented to us to make our decision on has been -- have been acknowledged as incomplete. Those same documents today have been acknowledged to be inaccurate. I don't believe the density is supported by Division 1.4 of the ULDC and Section 2.1.2 of the ULDC. And also, we've received something passed amongst us that says "For the Record." If this is for the record today, it's 18 pages we have not had time to digest. Page 128 November 1, 2001 So those are my concerns that this condition -- I shouldn't say condition of approval. Those are my concerns against approval of this particular amendment. (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I really respect and appreciate all the hundreds of people who have come out here. I have a different perspective from you-all. I've lived and worked in Immokalee for the last 17 years, and on a daily basis I spend time with the kind of people who would be moving to Bucks Run if it's approved. There's hundreds of people who are here, but there's hundreds of people who are not here, and those are the working families, the husbands, the wives, and the children. I think the tone of this meeting would be vastly different if there were 50 percent of the people in here children. And even though they're not here in this room, I think that the commission should take their desires into effect, as we're taking your desires also into effect. These people are going to be of different age from most of the audience, different race, different ethnic background, as well. The families that we're talking about, many of them live in Immokalee, and they face an hour or an hour and a half commute every day to go to and from work because there's a lack of affordable decent housing in the Naples area. And I know many of these families. Immokalee has become a bedroom community for Naples. The people who live there, most -- many of them work in the coastal areas. And, in effect, what we have in this county is segregation of the people who are working versus the people who are living in a different part of the county entirely. And I wonder, do we really want that? Do we want our community to be that segregated? In just the three meetings that I've attended here, we have approved hundreds of housing units on these same crowded roads Page 129 November 1, 2001 that we're talking about, but there's been very little public comment against the approval of those units. Is it fair for people to want a willing labor force to work on the golf courses, in the restaurants, in the hospitals, maintaining the yards, but to want those people to remain distant from their own neighborhoods and schools? I personally know many of the families in Immokalee who have moved up from dilapidated, overcrowded housing into better affordable housing, some of the things that have been constructed, some in Immokalee and some in other places. And I can tell you it's good for the parents, and it's good for the children to have a better place to live. And it's also good for the whole community because when one part of the community gets an improvement in their standard of life, it's good for everybody. Affordable housing is attractive and it's clean. It allows the parents to feel safe when they go to work and for the kids to have a better place to come home to. This board has to respect the desires of the people that are present, but we also have to think about what's best for the county as a whole. And there are many people who are not represented because they're not well organized, and I'm talking about the working families and the children. I work in a medical center in Immokalee that serves many of the people -- the type of people who might move to Bucks Run, and I've had times when I've been able to tell people who didn't have a place to live, "Hey, you can go over to Sanders Pines" or "You can go over to Farm Workers Village." And it feels good to be able to give them that kind of an alternative that I know will greatly improve their quality of life. Just one more thing. About the traffic, if the work force is closer to their place of work, this will take a lot of pressure off the main traffic arteries. So although there will be more congestion in the immediate area, there'll also be somewhat compensating release of some of the traffic where people are having to drive long distances Page 130 November 1, 2001 on the main arteries. And someone else made the point about the parks, that there wouldn't be enough parks in this area. A lot of these places where the people are living now they don't have parks either that are close by. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other comments from commissioners here? Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Although I may not be as lengthy or eloquent as my two bookends, you know, we do have some affordable housing going in across the street, approximately 200 units. I just can't help but feel that this is premature. It just -- (Applause) COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I -- I just feel that-- there was a discussion about CO'ing when this thing got four laned. I would be in full approval of that. And I'm afraid I just can't support this particular project at this time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson? Okay. Being no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor of approving the petition as outlined with the stipulations and the density bonus, the various items that have been clearly stated on the record, say aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. Page 131 November 1,2001 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. The motion carries 7-2. Thank you very much for your time and effort here today. We want to take a brief recess to break. Your next action will be before the Board of County Commissioners, and I would strongly recommend that you meet with the developer and his representatives. Thank you again for your time and enthusiasm. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'd like to bring the meeting back to order for just a couple minutes here. MR. WHITE: Ladies and gentlemen, order, please. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. What is the pleasure of the board up here? We have a couple more items yet on our agenda. A couple of them appear to be long, and I think we're going to probably have to break for lunch. So unless there's some real compelling reason not to break for lunch, I believe we need to do that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are you buying? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mass exodus to the Subway. Two o'clock? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'd say we can come back here right at two o'clock; is that fair? Okay. We are in recess for lunch. Thank you very much. Be back here at two o'clock. (A lunch break was held from 1:03 p.m. To 2:01 p.m.) (The proceedings recommenced with Commissioner Young not present.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are back in session again for the Collier County Planning Commission. I believe we are on Page 132 November 1,2001 Variance VA-2001-AR-1295, a 3-foot variance with reference to the Collier County wastewater facility. 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: Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Before I get into the presentation, I'd just like to make a correction on the agenda and the resolution that's attached to your staff report. The variance in question has been changed to a 3-foot variance instead of a 7-foot variance. Originally the application when submitted, based on a conversation in the preapplication, made a misunderstanding that there may have been an after-the-fact variance also included in this; however, that's not necessary. The property is a side yard setback, so no other setback variances are required. So I want to just make it clear that we're requesting a 3-foot variance from the required 30-foot side yard setback to 27 feet, and that's what your staff report reflects currently. And I have -- based on that change in the resolution, the attached conditions of approval have been modified to reflect that. As you may recall, this is the Collier County wastewater reclamation facility. The conditional use was approved just last month for this site to allow for an expansion from 8 million gallons a day to 16. This petition is a result of that approved petition to allow for an expansion. This is a proposed sewage holding tank, sludge holding tank, No. 2. And, as you can see on the conceptual site plan, this is Warren Street, the entrance into the site. You come in, there's an existing sludge holding tank. The proposed addition comes out to this point. Due to the location of existing structures, it's kind of forced into the side yard setback 3 feet, thereby request -- the applicant is requesting a 3-foot variance. Page 133 November 1, 2001 The review criteria contained in your staff report, I think, is pretty specific in that there is some unusual circumstances. We have a county need to provide this use. The need to provide this additional capacity necessitates the expansion of the sludge holding tank. The only place to put it is -- will result in this encroachment. We can't make the tank smaller in order to make the capacity of the rest of the system work properly. Staff has not received any letters of objection for this variance. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was just curious that you did any calculations on the -- a mathematical calculation with reference to the loss of this 3-foot variance and the size of the tank. I mean, I'm just curious. Maybe the petitioner can answer that, because you're saying that you can't do it for the -- MR. BELLOWS: That was just the information that I had received. I'm not -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. All right. And I think someone else has a couple other questions. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Did I understand you to say that the petition -- I mean the resolution has now been changed to substitute 3 for 7 and 27 for 23? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That was something else I had. Do we have any other questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: On this latest condition that you just passed out, Ray, it said any other encroachments will require a separate variance. I guess that goes almost without saying. MR. BELLOWS: That's just -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are you telegraphing that there are some other-- MR. BELLOWS: No. That's standard. We put it in all Page 134 November 1,2001 variances. It's just an assurance that there are not -- if they do depict something different on the site plan, that this is not an approval for that. (Commissioner Young entered the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? I'd like to hear from the petitioner. MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane. I have here today Thomas Wildes (sic), the operations director for the public utilities division. I also have Dr. Jerry Taricska from Hole Montes & Associates. He's the designing -- one of the designing engineers on the project. He will be happy, probably, Madam Chairman, to address your question better than I can. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. DUANE: Let me just do one little housekeeping matter here. First, Mr. Bellows -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Duane, would you pull that down just a little? MR. DUANE: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're not picking up quite enough. Thank you. MR. DUANE: We're deleting Item B on the conditions of approval. MR. BELLOWS: That's what I handed out to them. MR. DUANE: Okay. Very good. Thank you. I have a number of exhibits and graphics I can go through, but I think Ray has pretty much covered it. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I did want to say that, having read this staff review, if I voted against this, I'd be voting against motherhood, apple pie, America, and sludge. You truly were very creative in the choice of the words and all that were here. So it was, like, heavens, Page 135 November 1, 2001 you know. I don't really support variances too often, and I certainly don't want to create a problem that -- Collier County having to pay more money of our taxpayers' dollars because we're going to go from 8 million gallons a day to 16 million at this facility. But truly the verbiage here really made me wonder if I could say anything negative. I did want to ask just one little question. The other ones were answered. Who actually owns the Royal Palm Golf Course at Lely? What homeowner association has that? It certainly wasn't obvious from all the other item -- people listed here who that belonged to, and that's their maintenance facility. There's -- somebody has to be in charge of it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That's the adjacent property owner. MR. DUANE: We notified the Fairway Villas Homeowners Association, the Tanglewood 1 Homeowners Association, the Lely Club Property Owners Association, the Lely Civic Association. And we've had ongoing discussions with them through the history of the expansion of this plant letting them know as our plans move forward, so they were provided a notice and copy of this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's why I was just curious as to really which one of those groups spoke for the Royal Palm Golf Course. And I was not clear on that, and apparently it's not readily clear to you either. MR. DUANE: I -- other than the four associations we noticed, I'm not sure I can answer your question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's probably not really totally relevant, but I just wanted to make sure that we didn't overlook a particular association or some group that wasn't making themselves readily known to you-all. But when it comes to the sewer treatment plants and sludge facilities, they usually make themselves known. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And all property owners within 300 Page 136 November 1,2001 feet, including those property owners associations, would have been notified anyways through our advertising process. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MR. WIDES: Commissioners, just for the record, Tom Wides from public utilities. We have had a series of ongoing meetings, as Bob has mentioned, with the homeowners. And I believe it's the Lely Golf Community that, in fact, owns that facility, and we have had discussions with those folks. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. And I did have the question about a mathematical calculation on the size of the tank versus if we didn't give you this variation. What would we lose? MR. TARICSKA: Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Taricska with Hole Montes. No calculations -- I haven't done any calculations to determine if the volume -- how much volume would be lost. But what we'd probably want to look at is not -- it's the shape that was presented in the first design and makes this shape important for the second design. The rectangular shape of this tank here is -- what we do in this -- in this tank here, we aerate the sludge in order to keep it from settling out. So if we were to have to cut 3 feet off here and -- or try to change the shape over here to make it fit, then the effectiveness of the aeration wouldn't be as good. So it would suit the operators better if we didn't have a strange shape here. We could try to cut it off some more and reduce the volume, but then we would have to redesign the aeration part of it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that would affect whether or not we had-- could expand to 16 million -- MR. TARICSKA: It wouldn't give us as -- some would say as much horsepower here to handle this. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So to speak. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So to speak. Okay. Any other Page 137 November 1,2001 questions? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. Is there any anticipated other variances going to be required? MR. DUANE: No, there are not, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any other-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's no traffic impact, so I don't have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And please do move your microphone towards you now. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. With no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? Someone make a motion, please. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I make a motion that we approve Petition No. VA-01-AR-1295. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Strain and a second by Mr. Budd for approval of this petition. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. We are on PUD-2001-AR-881, a Salvation Army PUD amendment. All those wishing to give testimony today please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 13 8 November 1,2001 (The speakers were sworn.) DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a PUD amendment for PUD -- as we call it, Salvation Army PUD located on Airport Road, comer of Airport and Estey. What they are doing is they are -- they have purchased 0.73 acres of land adjacent to the property there, and they're adding it to the PUD, which is basically somewhere in here. It's a small strip of land, and they are not proposing any new uses for that land. It's just being added to the PUD. That's change number one. Change number two, the PUD has this commercial tract along Airport Road which is 0.55 acres, which used to be C-5, then it was rezoned to PUD to allow for a thrift store. Now both sides of this property is developed with car dealerships, and they are amending the PUD to allow one additional use, which would be car sales and display. They have a lease agreement with Morande Kia to take over this half-an-acre site and add to the dealership. Those are the two changes to the PUD. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What's in that little slot there now? Is that a car rental place? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: In here? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: On Airport. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, sir. There's nothing. It's -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You said there's car dealerships on both sides. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: On both sides of it, and this -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, who does -- the car rental, who's property is that on? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The car -- okay. There is a car rental place -- there's a car dealership in here and a small building there with a car rental place. And, again, most of it is car dealership. Page 139 November 1,2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And the piece on Airport is vacant? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The piece on Airport Road is vacant. I have a picture -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's pretty vacant. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- which will show the property is between this fence line here and this fence line here. As you can see, there are a few cars parked, but it's supposed to be a vacant piece of land. I have another picture which would show basically the property is between this fence line and this fence line here. This is the -- this is the land in question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further questions of staff?. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. In your report, Chahram, you mentioned that they are not proposing any new uses for the additional parcel. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The additional parcel is currently zoned as RMF-6. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is zoned RMF-6, and it's a small -- basically it's a small piece located right there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On their site plan, they reference that, and I'm trying to find -- reference that area now as being residential, slash, community facility areas. Is that correct? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are calling it residential community facilities. They have developed some housing units for-- I believe it's for unwed mothers or something like that, and they are planning to build a chapel. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that's kind of where I'm heading. If the -- if they say in the statement that they're not planning Page 140 November 1,2001 to change any of the uses or add -- not proposing any new uses for the additional parcel -- the additional parcel is currently zoned residential -- and then they change it to the PUD reference as a residential community facility, under those permitted uses, they could put multifamily dwellings, adult day-care centers, child day-care centers, noncommercial recreational facilities, community centers, churches, chapels, houses of worship, caretakers residence. And I'm just wondering if it wasn't -- how it was advertised. Are we doing a rezone here? I mean -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are doing PUD to PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. So has it-- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does the neighborhood realize the potential that could be on that parcel? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: We basically advertised as a rezone from PUD and RMF-6 to PUD for the Salvation Army. And I talked to some of the neighbors around it. They know. And what I meant by they are not proposing any new use for that, I meant any additional use that wouldn't be in the PUD already. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And has there been any objections from anybody in the neighborhood? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Chahram, the .55 acres that's currently a commercial strip, is that a functioning business right now? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. It's a vacant piece of property right now. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is this proposal, then, to Page 141 November 1, 2001 take that property in addition to this .73 acres of the car dealership and make it all car dealership? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, sir. The car dealership's going to be just on this comer here, and the additional land they are adding is in here, to the current location. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the .73 is the one you pointed to first? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: .03 (sic) is in here on Estey on the west side of the property, northwest. And the car dealership is on the southeast side of the property. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But I understand you to say that the .73 is going to be made -- or has currently -- is going to have an arrangement with Kia to continue to function as a car dealership? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: .55 is the lease agreement function as a car lot. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. I've got them backwards. What this is leading my question to -- and perhaps it'll go to the applicant. This is Salvation Army. They are a tax exempt organization, 5013-C, etc. Is it your understanding that they intend to take a piece of property that's in Collier County that's presently commercial and convert it into -- and continue it as commercial but take it out of our tax base as a result of their-- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: That -- there are court cases, actually, that a tax-exempt charitable organization, when they have a property, if they use it for charitable uses, it's tax-exempt. And once they have a commercial enterprise, it's no longer a tax-exempt property. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It is no longer a -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Is no longer a tax-exempt property. There are churches which own office buildings and shopping -- strip plazas, and those cannot be claimed as tax-exempt properties because Page 142 November 1,2001 they are income-generating properties. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So I should have no concerns that this is going to be taken off the tax rolls as a continuous -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. You-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- commercial operation. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe you should have no concerns. And I didn't mention this in my staff report because it's not a land use issue, it's a tax issue. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I could generalize that it has something to do with the welfare of the community by taking money away from our tax base, but that may be a stretch. But perhaps the applicant can speak to this. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right now it is part of the Salvation Army, so right now it is a tax-exempt property. By building a commercial enterprise on that property, it's going to be back on the tax roll. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. And we will have that as a commitment? MR. HOOVER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Bill Hoover representing the petitioners. If I recall -- I believe you guys are heading in the right direction, and I think the agreement in the lease is that if-- this was intended for a Salvation Army thrift store, which they -- which they've never built. And it's sort of like cutting in between the two Morande car dealerships, and they're tight on room. So they basically just want to put cars over there, new vehicles for sale, and that may well put that back on the tax base where it's a taxable thing. And if I remember right, they told me that if that happened, Morande Kia would pay the extra in the rent. MR. WHITE: Madam Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Page 143 November 1, 2001 MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. The purview of that decision-making is with the tax collector's office and it's based upon what happens on January 1 of any particular year and the use that's made of that property according to the statutory criterias evaluated, for the large part, by the property appraiser's office. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's not something -- MR. WHITE: I think it's something -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- we can ask for a commitment. MR. WHITE: You can certainly ask questions about it and entertain a discussion on it, but I'm not sure that it's a proper basis for decision-making one way or the other, but we're certainly glad to provide the information. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But if the applicant volunteers that -- the information to us, that's helpful to us in a general community sense. MR. WHITE: Whether they volunteer it or not, I think you have the right to ask for it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any other questions right now? Chahram, I would like to point out on page 3 of our staff report under the utility and water management section, before this goes forward to the Board of County Commissioners in whatever form, please double-check the citation for the Collier County ordinance for water and sewer, how -- if that's a current number. I think it's way out of date, and it's part of the programming that's in somebody's word processing machine or computer that hasn't been changed. So please make a note of that. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'll double-check. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. Do we have a presentation? MR. HOOVER: Bill Hoover, Hoover Planning again. The -- I can tell you what they plan on doing on the new piece of land. Page 144 November 1,2001 They've -- already have an engineer under contract and a architect. They're putting a chapel up there, so that's the only intended use, as far as I know, for the new piece of land. And you probably know most of the Salvation Army's built out. So we've got essentially two pieces of land left here, and one would have a chapel, and the other would have new vehicles for sale. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Did we have any other questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: One of them's going off the tax roll, or the chapel is, and the other one's coming on. MR. HOOVER: Yeah. They just -- because I think it had a duplex on there which was not very nice. I'm not sure if they got that down or they're going to be taking it down very shortly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I make a motion we approve PUD-2001-AR-881. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Strain and a second by Mr. Adelman (sic) to approve this petition. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Quick comment. My approval -- my statement of approval is based on the representations that have been made by the applicant and by staff. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And I was going to say, do we have any -- we have a motion and a second on the floor. Do we have any discussion? That was the discussion. Anyone else care to add their comments? Page 145 November 1,2001 Okay. those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) Hearing no further discussion, I call the question. All Those opposed, same sign. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. All right. We are at PUDA-2001-AR-1404, an amendment to the Silver Lakes PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Disclosures? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I haven't sworn anybody in. One second. All those wishing to speak today and provide testimony please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I believe it's necessary to have some disclosures. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. I met with the representatives of some of the homeowners, Mr. Belanger, and then Attorney Tony Pires. We discussed some -- they discussed some of their concerns with the proposal here today. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I had a telephone call from Mr. Pires relative to this application. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I had a meeting with Mr. Joe Belanger and Mr. Tony Pires at their office, and we discussed a variety of issues, some of which I had brought up myself. And just for the record, Mr. Belanger is a property owner, member of the homeowners association board. And he's also the cochair of the transition committee, so he had a lot of interest in exactly what was going on. And Mr. Pires is the attorney for the homeowners association. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had a discussion with the Page 146 November 1,2001 same two individuals. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No further disclosures? Okay. There was something I was going to ask. All right. Chahram. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a PUD amendment to the Silver Lake PUD. Basically what they are trying to do is -- this is the extent of the changes. They have a park and travel trailer area which was 26 acres. They are reducing it to 24. They have a residential area which is staying the same, a conservation area -- I'm sorry -- recreation area changing from 97 acres to 78 acres; conservation area increasing from 3 acres to 26 acres; and the buffer area, reduce it from 5 to 3 acres. This is the extent of the changes to the PUD document. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And these are after-the-fact changes? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Some of them are, yes. I will explain them. This is the existing PUD document, PUD master plan. As you can see, they have a preserve shown here, small preserve shown here. And they have a residential tract -- actually, it is a travel trailer tract, TTV tract, in here. What they have done, they built a golf course over most of these areas, and they have -- building department has also issued a permit for a person to build a -- what's called a residential unit on the TTR-- TT -- TTRV tract somewhere in here. Basically I show it to you in here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Did you say there's a building permit issued? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Issued and -- yes. So the extent of changes are change this small tract in here from TTRV to residential; make this as a recreational tract -- since they already built a golf course, make this recreational tract. The golf course is already there. And in exchange this top portion -- this large tract here was shown as recreational tract. They are making most of it conservation. They are Page 147 November 1,2001 keeping around 8 acres of it as recreational tract. Most of it is common conservation tract. The way this happened was a few years ago we did not have SDP requirements for golf courses. They just did construction plans, so the planning department did not get involved with the construction of golf courses at that time. Since the Deltona line is somewhere in here -- that's the Deltona line, and our environmentalist was supposed to be here to explain to you what that means. If you have a question, he'll be here shortly. He's here. And the permitting agencies, Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District, they did not claim any jurisdiction over preserve areas south of the line. So that's why they have the supplement south of the line. South of the Deltona line they did not claim jurisdiction over wetlands, and wetlands could be removed. That was a supplement done by the original developers, Deltona and Army Corps and South Florida Water Management District. So, therefore, Army Corps and water management district, they did not have any jurisdiction over-- they didn't claim jurisdiction over these two preserves that were shown on the master plan, and that's how they were able to basically build a golf course on the preserve. Now, they've -- they have removed some lots from here. They want to put them over here. They are not increasing the number of lots. They are just relocating them. A portion of these lots, they will be north of the Deltona line; therefore, Army Corps claims jurisdiction over that land. And it's my understanding that in exchange for that, Army Corps basically asked to have a preserve or conservation area over this portion of the PUD. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do they have that permit yet? That's one of my questions I hope you're going to address very specifically, in the last e-mail I sent you. Page 148 November 1,2001 DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah. I have the -- they don't have the permit as of yet. They will -- I talked to Dwight Nadeau yesterday after I received your e-mail, and according to what he told me, the permit will be issued shortly. It's imminent, but they don't have it as of yet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I have your questions here. I was going to go over them. This project was reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council, and they unanimously recommended approval since this area was within the Deltona supplement and they are adding acres of preserve to the PUD. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Did you say because this area -- and you just pointed down here -- was in the Deltona settlement area? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: area, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: DR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is within the Deltona settlement I thought you just said it wasn't. No. Anything north of this line is not. Any -- everything south of it is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You had me going in the wrong -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's the exact opposite of what you just said. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- direction. You had me going the wrong direction, Chahram. Apparently I was not listening close enough. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. You heard right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So you have now -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You heard what he said. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You have just now said that -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is within the Deltona settlement Page 149 November 1,2001 area. The Deltona settlement line is somewhere in here. Anything south of it is part of the Deltona settlement; anything north is not. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: your earlier presentation. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: page, on the same drawing. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. And that's not what you said in I'm sorry. Okay. Now I'm at least on the same Okay. The EAC reviewed this, and they unanimously recommended approval. However, the EAC was advertised under PDR and not a PDA. So to make records clean, we decided to go back to the EAC, which they're going to hear it next CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: DR. BADAMTCHIAN: And that's the only reason that -- That's the only reason. Basically our staff report is going to be the same. Exhibits are the same. Everything is the same. The only changes basically are these four numbers. And we told them about these numbers, and we showed them the map, and they unanimously recommended approval. And you had a question about lot sale status. He's going to address that. And you also had a question about the storage area. This PUD master plan has a note here in storage area. Storage is basically permitted as accessory use -- not as a permitted use, as a accessory use to the PUD -- throughout the entire recreation area. And -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Let me read the question just so everybody knows what you're talking about. My Item No. 2 was as far as the executive summary, the storage issue, why was there no mention of the issue of relocation of the storage site on the 40-acre tract in the executive summary? It appears to be a major issue to the property owners, which came up in my meeting. Moving the main location from the back of the property to the front of the project seems significant to me. And that's why I wanted to clarify. Why -- Page 150 November 1, 2001 why did -- why did I have to go to a meeting to find out about the significant storage issue and not-- did not find it in my packet? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: It may be significant to some people, but storage is permitted throughout the cons -- recreation area. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So anyplace -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Anyplace within the recreation area they are permitted to have storage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: By whom? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: By the PUD document. The PUD document says accessory uses within this area. Within the conservation -- within the recreation area, one of the accessory uses is storage to be used as an accessory use to the permitted uses within the park. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Like we learned on a PUD that came in here a couple of weeks ago, when there's a change to a site plan that affects the people there -- I think it was the Marco Shores PUD. When you're moving an area like a storage area from out of view, where it is now, to a place that's blatantly in view of residential people that are living there, that's a significant change. Why wouldn't it have been mentioned and brought to our attention? Because, I mean, it is a -- it is quite a deviance from what they're showing here. I mean, they're showing a lake now. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Master plan -- it is not a site development plan. It's not a site plan. Master plan is more or less a conceptual plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But Marco Shores had to bring theirs in for a change two or three weeks ago, and the same kind of thing here. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They -- if they had an area in the PUD document that said this is the area you're going to have the storage Page 151 November 1, 2001 and they are moving that tract, yes. But the PUD document says -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But it shows -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- within the con-- within the recreation area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But it shows the storage on the graphic master plan, and that's the plan that this board says was the relevant document in the other case. I don't know why it wouldn't be in this case. If the storage area on this one is shown graphically as an exhibit and attachment in that northeast comer and it's no longer going to be there, that seems to be a significant impact on the residential people living there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: comment. I believe Ms. Murray would like to MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. I think probably it was just a miscommunication or misunderstanding in terms of-- our interpretation of it was that the storage area was to be located anywhere within the recreational area, and that probably just wasn't made clear on the master plan and the old PUD document, as it was written. We try to write them a little bit more clearly and better these days. And unfortunately, I guess it wasn't clear to the residents, and staff didn't think it was a significant impact in the terms of our understanding of that. And, you know, it's -- it's brought forward now. And I think we just need to, you know, go ahead and move forward with the understanding that the storage area is going to be relocated. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: they had to move the storage. Basically by making this conservation, And the storage area, according to the PUD document, could have been anywhere within the -- within that recreational tract. Staff received several letters of objection from neighbors - from people living within the PUD. And the main question they bring up Page 152 November 1, 2001 is that this commercial storage or commercial ministorage development -- which the PUD does not allow that. It is not a commercial PUD. It is basically RV park. And this is not a commercial tract. This tract is a recreational tract within that RV park. So whatever uses they have in here must be accessory to the park. They cannot have uses that are open to the general public. It's reserved to the people who reside in the park, basically tenants of the park and lot owners of the park. They have the right to use it, and nobody from the outside. And that -- I believe there -- there was this rumor that a miniwarehouse is going to be built and it's going to be somehow open to the general public. And that's what started this -- opposition letters that I received, because they all mentioned the exact same thing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I haven't quite finished all my questions, but Mr. Adelstein, I'll defer to you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm confused. You got conservation area, and you got -- you talk about recreation area. Are you talking about them being the same place? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, sir. From here to here is conservation. From here to here is recreation. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: New proposal? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is the new proposed master plan. Under the old master plan, the entire tract was recreational. They had no conservation here. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm with you now. Thank yOU. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: was the ownership disclosure and clarification. You're welcome. Okay. And one of the other questions Who are the Page 153 November 1, 2001 owners -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: anticipate your answer before DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: They are-- -- of the property and -- Chahram. I'm sorry. I'm going to say it one time. Do not we finish the questions. Sorry. As I was saying, who are the owners of the property; and are there more than two of them, as listed in the documents; and are these persons all officers of Conquest Development USA, L.C., the entity listed as owner? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: According to the notarized affidavit I have received, there are only two owners. And I talked to them, and they confirmed that yes, there are only two. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You've answered my second question on the storage. The permit issue, what are the status of the state and federal permits, and are they issued, and what are the effective dates? Can you answer that, or do we have to wait for the petitioner? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I think Dwight can answer that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We'll wait for him. And then the Item No. 4 was reality versus compliance. Clarify the statement in our executive packet. This amendment is intended to make the PUD document and master plan to agree with the improvement on the ground, end of quote. Does this mean that the reality on the ground does not comply with the PUD document; and if so, how many items are not in compliance with the legal PUD requirements for the project? Are these inconsistencies subject to code enforcement action? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. The PUD master plan, as I told you, showed preserve in here, preserve, and in reality there's a golf Page 154 November 1,2001 course. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: So it's a preserve versus a golf course. And also showed a residential area here, road going to the cul-de-sac there. And in reality there's also a golf course there. Part of the golf course is there. So -- and, as I said, one permit was issued in error by the building department, which was built, and this minor change is going to take care of it. And beside that, I think everything else is according to the master plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And are any of these inconsistencies subject to code enforcement action? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. Because, as I told you, at the time they built the golf course, we did not require site development plan for golf course; therefore, staff did not review the construction of the golf course, planning staff. And since 1996 or '97, I believe, we are requiring all golf courses to go through site development plan. Before that they were exempt from it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And how do you exempt a golf course when you actually have a PUD document that you would think from a master plan someone designing it would know where to put that golf course? I'm missing something, if there's some relationship between some degree of review and SDP for a golf course versus someone who understands what the document represents. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe what they did, they went to the agencies, state and federal agencies, and they were told that since this is within the Deltona area, they don't claim any jurisdiction over wetlands or preserve area, and that's how they were able to clear most of it. And basically they moved some dirt, and they made it into a golf course. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I guess that they would not claim any jurisdiction over our PUD document either, would they, the Page 155 November 1,2001 federal or state? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. PUD document they -- they don't really look at it, I believe. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Apparently. And I guess one of my last questions -- actually, there were two, and Mr. Nadeau's going to answer the question on the lot sales and why the information seems so out of date. The other one was, as far as the application, my question is please clarify why four phases only have preliminary acceptance and what specific tasks or events must be accomplished or occur to receive final acceptance for those. Can you number them or tell me why -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah. I had a discussion with John Houldsworth about that. It appears that the inspectors went there, and they had some problem, minor problem, with the catch basins and the way they were built, and they are fixing the problems. And according to John, it was not a major thing. It was just minor mistakes, and they were in the process of fixing it, and they should get the final acceptance soon. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we're only talking about improperly constructed catch basins that holds up four different final approvals? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: been going on? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's what I was told yesterday. And do you know how long this has I don't know. Don't know. Maybe the petitioner could help on that one. That's the end of my questions. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have to leave. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have to leave. Okay. We do have a quorum still. Thank you. Let the record reflect that Mr. -- Commissioner Midney has departed. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got some questions, Madam Page 156 November 1,2001 Chairman. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question. Staff is kind of caught in a time warp on this particular application. And I would expect that if we had a similar set of circumstances in the current time frame, we would have a series of either variances or new PUDs or code enforcement actions. But because of the history of this, we just have to try to catch up with where we are. The facts are that we have people that are living there, and they're feeling impacts by whatever it is that the applicant is now wanting to do. And one of the sore points seems to be this storage area moved because of its isolation now and closer proximity to the people, were it to be moved. Can you describe to me what the storage area is for, what it -- function it performs in this PUD? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a request from the audience to speak more directly into your microphones for everyone to be able to pick it up. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Under Section 5 of the PUD document, commons, slash, recreation area, under accessory uses it says customary accessory uses or structures incidental to recreational areas and, comma, or facilities including of-- including structures constructed for purposes of maintenance, comma, storage, including RV storage, comma, recreation or shelter, with appropriate screen and landscaping. That's all it says. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the answer to my question is that that's what it's currently being used for, or is this an intended future use? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is what they can use it for. Basically they can only use it for RV storage and storage incidental to recreational areas and facilities. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I haven't been out there. Page 157 November 1,2001 Can you describe to me what size building this is? Is it a three-stow building, one-stow building? What is it? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They don't have any rec -- any buildings there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, it talks about structures, so I just need some guidance as to what it is we're talking about here. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. The PUD document talks about structures. They basically -- they can have a maximum of 15-foot high structure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: there now. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: But you're saying there's no structure There's no structure there. This area was -- under the old master plan, was supposed to be a lake. But the conservation area -- basically most of it is being used for conservation. This smaller recreation area, that's all that's left. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do believe Mr. Strain has another question or two of staff. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. I'm trying to figure out where to begin. In the lower left-hand comer of the revised master plan, you're showing a water feature in Tract CR. There's, I believe, a storage area there right now; is that not correct? I drove by there yesterday, and it looked like there was a storage area there, and I'm wondering why it isn't now shown on this plan. Is that another omission on the part of the applicant or -- not a building. It's a fenced-in yard. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The storage area in here? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Down in that lower left- hand comer, there's a bunch of trailers and a fenced area that looks like it's being used for storage. And I am just wondering why that's not brought up today, as well, as another change. But, I mean, if you Page 158 November 1,2001 don't know about it, Chahram, I understand that. You're certainly -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't recall seeing that. But the PUD document allows storage areas within the recreation tract, and this is a recreation tract. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. They wouldn't of-- okay. I'm just-- they showed the storage area in the previous PUD document with a specific location, and I was wondering if one -- they should have shown it on the revision. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: On the revision there are no storage areas shown. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And to back up into a further discussion on the preserve area, you had mentioned that because of the Deltona settlement agreement, that the Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida really didn't -- weren't too concerned about those areas. And I understand that. I've worked with the Deltona agreement for six years now. But in their PUD they specifically address those preserve areas as being preserve areas, and the PUD is their -- the applicant's agreement with Collier County. And I understand why the Corps wouldn't care and why South Florida wouldn't care. But it seems to me if they're in violation of their PUD, then they would have known that when they applied for the permit to build a golf course there. Anybody that owns property knows very well if a preserve area is on their property because it's virtually useless to them. And it seems to me that we ought to -- code enforcement ought to be -- at least be looking into this in regards to the way the PUD's formatted for that area. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The thing is since we didn't review a site development plan, we didn't know, planning services didn't know. They brought this up with us saying that "We built a golf course here and this is preserve, so I'm trying to amend the PUD to Page 159 November 1,2001 accommodate that change." That's why we did not start the code enforcement case. However, should this PUD be turned down, this request, then we have to start code enforcement case and make sure that they comply with the approved PUD master plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The PUD that they -- that is approved for the project currently references that the project shall be platted in accordance with the subdivision regulations in tracts as shown on the PUD tract map. They further go into saying that an SNP will be required over the entire PUD and must be submitted for approval in accordance with county subdivision regulations. So when these lots and the roads and everything in there were put in for their construction plans, wasn't-- was an SNP over the entire site submitted then; and did that SNP, do we know, show these preserve areas? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is an SNP -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Could you please use the microphone? I'm having a terrible time hearing you. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry. I was looking at the map. There is an SNP. But, as I said, this predates most of us, and I couldn't figure out how these things happened, but they happened. They are-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You know, and I'm certainly not blaming you, Chahram. I'm just trying to find answers. I'm -- I'm puzzled as to how this got this far like it is. That's the point of my questioning, is trying to figure out if there's more out there that I -- that might help clarify it. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I tried to investigate, but I went to our records and trying to see what happened. I just couldn't come up with a good answer. Things happened in the past, and that's all I can say. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Page 160 November 1,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions at this moment of Mr. -- or Dr. Badamtchian? I believe petitioner has a few things you'd like to enlighten us on. MR. NADEAU: Yes. Good morning (sic), Commissioners. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, RWA. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're going to have to get right into that microphone. It's not picking up well. MR. NADEAU: Good morning (sic), Commissioners. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, RWA, representing the applicant in this Petition PUDA-2001-AR-1404, Silver Lakes. With your indulgence I'm going to make a short presentation, and then there is going to be a -- a presentation by our environmental consultant that will explain the Deltona settlement agreement area as well as the permitting endeavors north of that settlement agreement area, and then Mr. Cuyler will stand up and address some issues as well. The proposed amendment, as Dr. Badamtchian described, is that we're going to increase the conservation tract from 3 acres to 26 acres and reduce the development area by 2 acres, redesignate some RV development area to recreational residence or residential, and the net result is an increase of 2 acres of open space over the entire site. Now, the PUD document does need-- have to be amended because the land use table within it would not accurately reflect the new PUD master plan, should it be approved. This is the reason for the change in the actual application. The original application that was submitted in February -- it was subsequently revised in, I believe, it was September -- September for -- to include the one page of the PUD document. There are no -- there is no intention of increasing any of the dwelling units within the develop -- within the project. And, again, it is -- the reason for the request is to update the PUD master plan to reflect the existing seven phases of development as constructed on the property. Also, the Page 161 November 1, 2001 proposed changes will allow the final phase of the project to be developed. Are there compliance issues? Yes, there are. The reason for those compliance issues we don't know. The project is ten years old. The review procedures were different, and they evolved based on the politics of the day. And I can tell you that rather than focusing on culpability of who did this, maybe we should focus on the resolution of it so the residents of the park can enjoy the lifestyle that they're accustomed to in the park right now rather than going through a potential compliance issue, which I don't think that any of the people in the room want to see. Now, is there opposition to this request? Yes, there is. I think there is. But if I can quote from a letter that may be read into the record tonight -- or today -- and this -- this is coming from Mr. Belanger and Mr. Dechelis (phonetic), who are the cochairman and chairman of the Silver Lakes Ad Hoc Transition Group. And I'm not going to read it entirely out of context. I'm going to read it -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let's hope not. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just a little bit. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just a little out of context. MR. NADEAU: Actually, the members and the residents of the transition group do not oppose the concept of what Conquest is applying for; however, we take a position of looking down the road to see what effects will come about from these changes. That's a valid concern, and we support that concern. The developer, should he choose to put a nonresidential storage opportunity in the western portion of the site as proposed to both the water management district and the Army Corps of Engineers -- currently there are no plans that have been submitted to Collier County for a site development plan -- that would be a surface RV storage area that primarily will be grassed. There will be Page 162 November 1,2001 approximately a 5,000-square-foot maintenance building where there will be some impervious surface for parking. I am authorized to commit to any reasonable buffering, setback requirement that the residents may desire, that you may desire. And, really, with that, I don't believe that there's any significant issues. Yes. We do have a tier of lots -- if I may. Yes, we do have a tier of lots that were the RV lots that -- with the consideration of the residents, potentially during the construction of Phase II-C and Phase II-D and F, they were feeling that maybe we should move these tiers of lots. And our Fairway No. 2 would be a little bit wider, and there wouldn't be a safety issue, because it is a fairly narrow, nine-hole, chip-and-putt course. The first two, the 1 and 9, were constructed in the first phase in the commons/recreation area. As you can see, the brown is the commons/recreation area throughout the project by which those common uses, water management uses for lakes, recreational facilities, recreational facilities, the clubhouse, the hurricane shelter. It's all constructed in the commons/recreation area. So they decided we'll pick up those lots, and we'll go ahead and show the county a final phase. And I believe it was Phase II-E where these lots would be going. And that infrastructure to support those lots would fall below the Deltona settlement agreement line, and permits wouldn't be available. The county does have documentation of those lots being proposed into the commons/recreation area. We understood that we needed to amend the PUD document to reflect that the lots would go up in here, and we needed to have our South Florida permit documents as well as an Army Corps authorization to construct the two-thirds of the lots, put the pads in for the RVs. We're taking 3 acres of conservation area, preserve area, that was not jurisdictional to Collier County, South Florida, or the Corps at the time of construction. I cannot tell you why the administrative Page 163 November 1, 2001 procedures at the time didn't reflect construction plans being in areas not designated for commons/recreation use. But the residents do enjoy that golf course, and they want to continue to enjoy that golf course. So some people may agree with me, but I feel like I'm on their side. I want to help them. I will -- I'm authorized to allow this Planning Commission to provide for some reasonable setbacks, buffering should a storage -- RV storage facility and a small maintenance building for the park to be located in the westerly portion of the property. Now I'd like to let Mr. Butler explain a little bit about the Deltona settlement, what the status of the permits are, what the mitigation costs are going to be, those sorts of things. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just wanted to ask you if you agree that it's only a matter of incorrectly constructed catch basins that have kept the final acceptance for those four phases. You don't have that? MR. NADEAU: Yes. I do have an engineer from McAnly Engineering who is the engineer for the property, and he tells me it is only the water management holdup for the final acceptance of those referenced phases. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And just out of curiosity, does he know how long the time frame has been that this has been going on? You're going to have to come to the microphone and state your name, please. MR. PARKER: Yes, ma'am. My name is Shane Parker with McAnly Engineering. I'm an engineer on this project. I took over in the middle of the project, and I do know that the Phases D, -- B, D, E, and F are the last phases to get final subdivision acceptance. They have worked in the process, and they do have final water and sewer approval from the county. And they've been working in between construction of the other Page 164 November 1, 2001 phases and during the off-season when most of the residents are gone, trying to fix the boxes. I do know the boxes -- we have narrowed the punch list down to particularly B, D, and E, and we just got a few boxes to check. And if everything's good, then we'll be performing an inspection next week. And then if everything goes good, we'll be writing a letter to the county requesting an inspection. And then it'll be up to the county to inspect. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And it's been going on for just how long, out of curiosity? MR. PARKER: I'd say about a year and a half. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Year and a half. MR. PARKER: But, now, that's only for some of the older phases, like D. And then E came along later, and then F was about a year ago that it got its preliminary subdivision acceptance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's going to satisfy me, as an underground utility contractor, for the moment. I just -- thank you. That's all we need to beat that one up on for now. MR. BUTLER: Good afternoon. Ian Butler with Butler Environmental. I am an environmental consultant for the applicant. The status of the South Florida Water Management District and Corps of Engineers' permits, we've been in permitting for the better portion of a year. The public notice for the Corps of Engineers should go out next week, meaning that they have a complete file, they're satisfied with proposed mitigation, the proposed site plan. We had a meeting with the water management district last week also. They have a submittal from me they need to review. It's my understanding, though, that any items that are left are small. The mitigation numbers, verbally at that meeting and in subsequent phone calls, have been agreed to. It's just a matter of paperwork, from what I understand. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And are these almost-ready permits Page 165 November 1,2001 dictating to the property owner where the storage facility goes? MR. BUTLER: Yes. The first-- the initial application to both agencies represented the storage unit on the west -- excuse me -- on the east side, which is where -- right there. After further review the district required -- or suggested that we move it to the west because it would allow for a larger, more contiguous wetland area and that the eastern portion of the proposed 40-acre site isn't -- is a higher quality wetland than which is on the west. So as a result of that suggestion, we moved it to the west. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Is there -- Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You mitigated the wetlands in the west; is that correct? MR. BUTLER: That's correct. And in addition, the layout that you see right now, the site has -- or the 8-acre commercial area is actually smaller now. The agencies required a buffer along the northern strip in an attempt to eliminate secondary and cumulative impacts to off-site wetlands. So after we submitted everything to EAC, that development pot has actually shrank. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you have been allowed to do mitigation. MR. BUTLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That you're acknowledging. Okay. On the right side of the site plan where the storage area used to be and where there currently is a bunch of piled up concrete and disturbed areas that seems to be more important as a wetlands than the left side that is undisturbed, you're adding Tract A, which is homes that currently do not exist. If you were to put that tract there and the storage area was behind those homes, I would assume that would be detrimental to the sales of that development. So you're moving the storage area to the west, putting it in front of existing homes that you've -- that have already been sold. Is that what is Page 166 November 1, 2001 happening? And maybe you're not the right person, but maybe Mr. Nadeau can address that. MR. BUTLER: That would be a -- yeah. That would not be me. The environmental -- the environmental criteria are what moved the storage area from the east end to the west end. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you did it so you could mitigate. So if you mitigate on the left, you can mitigate on the right. I mean, you can mitigate either way. MR. BUTLER: Again, it was merely an environmental issue to move it to the west. Existing homes and lots weren't part of the criteria for where it should be located. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Nadeau, do you have an answer to that question that I asked about why you would put the storage area in front of existing homes when you have undeveloped and unbuilt homes on the right side where the existing area is, and those people buying there would know what they're buying in front of?. MR. NADEAU: The answer to that question truly is environmental. We were proposing to have storage on the east of the site, the initial application. However, as a result of a district request for additional information, they mandated that if there were going to be any impacts to that wetland, that 37-acre-ish wetland lying north of the Deltona settlement agreement line, that it would be more appropriate in the impacted areas along the western boundary of the property associated with 951. It was not a planning decision. It was an environmental decision. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When you approached those agencies about this, did you tell them that you already had disturbed the area on the right substantially? MR. NADEAU: I was not involved with the permitting, so I would have to defer to the environmental consultant. Page 167 November 1,2001 MR. BUTLER: Ian Butler again. Would you please repeat. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When you approached the agencies and they made an evaluation on where the most -- best wetlands were, did you tell them that the wetlands on the east side of the property were filled with concrete and chunks and disturbed properties and bush-hogged or bulldozed? Did they know that? I mean, because -- MR. BUTLER: To the -- to the best of my knowledge, I don't know the significant -- or how large that area is. I do know and they are aware that there is piled up concrete and that there is some machinery that is parked there at certain times. Again, they're looking at the overall aspect of this, the entire site. The west -- a good majority of the west half of the proposed project site is old ag land that has a series of furrows, and the vegetation is not native. There's a lot of melaleuca. There's a lot of primrose willow in there. As a result of a water management and Corps permit, the remaining conservation area, including the disturbed area you're talking about, will be in a conservation easement and -- which will be under the cri -- success criteria for either restoration planting, bringing it back to what it was prior to ... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Did we ever clarify how large this concrete and -- this supposedly very valuable wetlands that's got concrete and things parked on it now, somebody made a decision that that was more valuable than the ag furrows up front. Is that what you're telling us, from South Florida Water Management? MR. BUTLER: Yes. That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And how big of a -- an area is this? We're talking about disturbed wetlands that are prime quality. MR. BUTLER: To my understanding -- and the last time that I had seen that area it was -- there had been no clearing conducted. It was a matter of a couple vehicles being parked and some -- again, Page 168 November 1, 2001 some concrete being stacked there. It was not -- there was no excavation. There was no trees being -- that were knocked down to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And how long ago was that? MR. BUTLER: Six, eight months ago. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any other questions at this moment? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was going to ask -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, Mr. Abernathy. Go for it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: South Water-- Southwest -- South Florida Water Management District, do they mandate what you have to preserve and what -- what you can put your recreation on, or do they -- somebody used the term "suggest." Do they have the authority to absolutely mandate it? MR. BUTLER: Well, they -- they don't have the authority to mandate where you put it, but they have the authority not to grant your permit based on what you're proposing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That would be pretty close to mandating. MR. BUTLER: As close as you can get. Right. Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The tract that you've referred to on the top left, the tract, I guess, shown as CR. I've heard it referred to in two different ways. It's recreational on the master plan, yet I've heard the environmentalist talk about it as being commercial. MR. NADEAU: No, no, no. It's not commercial. It's commons/recreation. It's common areas where infrastructural improvements, where recreational facilities, where these ancillary- type uses to the park may be developed, commons/recreation. CO Page 169 November 1,2001 tract, conservation or preserve. AR is the residential, and Tract A is the RV lots. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So his reference to it as being commercial was just a misstatement relative to the -- MR. NADEAU: Yes. You can call it a misstatement. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't want to call it anything. I want you to tell me what it's -- how it's going to function. MR. BUTLER: If that was what I -- what I stated, it was a misstatement. I was not referring to it as commercial. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I make them all the time. Mr. Nadeau, would you just flesh out a little bit for us what your plans are for that site? I know you've talked about a building for maintenance and some RVs. But I'm -- I'm really interested how it's going to function in this community. Are only the people that live there going to have access to this because it's part of this PUD, or is it going to be an off-site, commercial operation or what? MR. NADEAU: The PUD provides for accessory uses for the exclusive use of the residents of the park. There are ancillary commercial uses that are permitted both in your Land Development Code as well as in this PUD. There are no current plans to submit a storage facility to Collier County for site development plan review. However, there is intent shown by virtue of the fact that a storage facility was identified on the district and Corps permits that were applied for to allow the final phase of development of the lots. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you don't really know right now what's going to happen or -- MR. NADEAU: Well, I believe that it's pretty much up to the approval of this PUD -- this PUD amendment. I cannot get in the mind of my developer. I do know -- I have been told -- there are no immediate plans to submit something to Collier County for site development plan review. Page 170 November 1,2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, if something were submitted, it would be covered under this revised PUD. MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. It would. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So -- MR. NADEAU: And it is currently permitted there now because it's commons/recreation designation now. And I believe there was a comment made -- access will only be taken off of Silver Lakes Boulevard. There will not be secondary access off of Collier Boulevard. Yes, it is accessory to the development. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abemathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How do you tell one group of permitting authorities one thing and another group another thing? In other words, if you've got a building -- a 5,000-square-foot building that you've told the water management district about and the Corps of Engineers about, why do you not tell the county? MR. NADEAU: Because we haven't submitted for our site development plan. That's really the only time the county would find out about it, although it was depicted in the environmental impact statement attendant to this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And then we just don't see anything in it-- in our executive summary. Okay. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I questioned that. The answer they gave me is when you go to the permitting agencies, they want to see the highest impact that you can have on that property, and that's why they showed that. They told me they have no intention of building what was shown. It was, like, in excess of what they will be building, if any, and that was just to show them the maximum impact that they may have on that parcel. MR. NADEAU: And if I just might correct Dr. Badamtchian, it's not a matter of intent. There was intent to build storage there. We had to show that rather than -- future phase there is an intent to Page 171 November 1,2001 build a storage facility. Whether or not it actually is constructed, I believe, is up to the developer and the results of this public hearing as well as the Board of County Commissioners' public hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is this recreation area that's an ancillary use to the park, is it accessible from inside the park? MR. NADEAU: It is accessible via pedestrian ways. As far as vehicular access, no. There is a water managements berm that separates those lands to the north of the Deltona settlement agreement so that those historical waters just stay on the north side of the park. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How do you get vehicles in there? MR. NADEAU: We don't have any access to -- no vehicular access at all currently into lands north, that 40 acres -- that 37 acres north of the settlement agreement line. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought it was for storage of RVs. MR. NADEAU: No. We -- well, it could be for storage, but we are not proposing to submit anything to Collier County for -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: For a building or for storage. MR. NADEAU: Currently not. But if there were -- if there were going to be storage proposed, it would be accessed potentially off of Silver Lakes Boulevard in some location within this area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Outside the gate? MR. NADEAU: No. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Inside the gate. MR. NADEAU: Inside the gate, because it is for the exclusive use of the residents and guests of the park. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Nadeau, before you depart and we start listening to other -- the public comment, the one last question on Page 172 November 1,2001 my e-mail I was trying to get details for, it seemed odd to me that you submit a document on the 31 st of August with information on the lot sales and who owned and that type of a thing from the developer as of the 22nd of February, and I was looking for a little update on how many people owned the lots at this point. That was one of your items listed in-- MR. NADEAU: Yes, it was. After Mr. Cuyler speaks, I will talk with the developer. I can tell you that when I made the application back in February, this PUD monitoring report information was available to me. So I just transferred that existing information into the application for this PUD amendment. So the information from the PUD monitoring report was imported into the application itself. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In August? MR. NADEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In August. Okay. All right. That clarifies part of that. So I would like to have some clue of where we are. MR. NADEAU: I will check with him right now. Mr. Cuyler would like to make a few comments. MR. CUYLER: Good afternoon. For the record, Ken Cuyler. I first of all want to make it clear for the record that I normally don't travel with crowds. I just -- it just happens to be one of those days. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's the first day in November, and they are here for you. MR. CUYLER: I've been retained -- was retained rather recently to address any legal issues with regard to this petition. I've gone over it, and frankly, I don't see any legal issues at this point. Primarily it's environmental and planning in nature. I have advised boards in the past sometimes when I get asked questions, the best answer is we are where we are. And with regard to the compliance Page 173 November 1,2001 issue, I'm sure there's a number of people that perhaps wish things had been done differently in the past, but we are where we are. And if you look at what would be necessary for compliance if there were an enforcement action, for example, I don't think the residents would be happy with what the developer would have to do in terms of going back to what was there. So it's something that perhaps didn't work out as well as it could have, but we're -- sometimes we're just left with those situations. With regard to the storage, it's environmentally driven. I know a number of you, Mr. Strain in particular, deals with agencies constantly. A number of you do development. And when the agencies tell you what they want, you tend to listen. So I think that "mandate" perhaps isn't the exact word, but it probably is pretty close. I will reserve any other comments. I understand that an attorney will speak to you on this issue. If anything comes up, I'd like to reserve some time to address those if you wish me to. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And just -- just for your understanding, Mr. Cuyler, when I read the executive report and it outlines five different things that this PUD amendment is going to take care of us (sic) for here today and it clearly states that the changes are related to environmental permitting requirements and I don't have anyplace where I can find those environmental permitting requirements -- there's no information in here to tell me what it was that required that -- and then I go to a meeting and discover that the homeowners are somewhat upset over the issue of the storage and that's not in my document either, it's difficult for me, as a reasonable planning commissioner, to make decisions on what's presented to me. That seems to be inadequate. And we went through that earlier today, but this is very clear that it -- it's just not here. MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. I hope some of that has been Page 174 November 1,2001 filled in. And if we can add anything to it, of course, we would like to do that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And I do believe that some of the -- perhaps some of the people that are here will be able to clarify for us what's actually on the ground out there with reference to the wetlands and that type of a thing if-- since I haven't taken an opportunity to go out and look at it. MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. We're interested in-- in them articulating what their concerns are, too, so we can address those as well. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because I think we do have a number of areas of agreement here for this. But when someone says it's our intention to do X and Y and then it was the intention of the PUD documents to do very certain things and obviously the master plan was not followed, there was a major intention there. So I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to protect what the document says, what we're asking it to be changed, and what the property owners have every reasonable expectation at this point. MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. NADEAU: And in response to your request regarding the number of lots that remain to be constructed, it is only those 38 lots that are requested to be above the settlement agreement line now. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And so every -- all of the lots have been purchased, and it's just a matter of constructing? MR. NADEAU: I cannot say that all of these lots have contracts on them. I don't know that. But these are the only remaining lots that are to be constructed. I believe that there are contracts or sales that are throughout the phase, and it is probably one of the last phases, that being Phase II-F or something possibly in Phase II-E. But the only lots remaining to be constructed are the 38. Page 175 November 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And that makes sense. But I guess the sentence that we were all looking at at one point in time was the word that the travel trailer park lots had been sold and so much number had been sold, and that was the information you had given us in February. And I thought it was useful to have an idea as of today, or at least the end of August, how many of these people really own here, and are we talking about just a few things that need to be sold again. Because you've got a lot of homeowners then or property owners that are interested. MR. NADEAU: I'm going to send my client out to the hallway and probably put him on a cell phone and see if he can get some information out of the park, because we don't have that information available. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's what I'm looking for. How many homeowners are we affecting or how many property owners are we affecting at this point in time? And this is really outdated information. Thank you. MR. NADEAU: I -- I will say that we do have 53 letters or signatures of support for our proposal, and I'd like to offer them to the commission as well as the clerk or Susan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. NADEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think it's time to have registered speakers. MS. MURRAY: Yes, Madam Chair. We have five registered speakers. The first one is Anthony Pires followed by Joe Belanger. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: While you're coming forward, Mr. Pires, you should probably wear a big symbol of the Naples Pier on you, and your name would get pronounced forever on out correctly. MR. PIRES: For the record, Tony Naples Pires. Tony Pires, P- i-r-e-s. I know Barbara, and I'll try to talk slowly, Barbara. Page 176 November 1,2001 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Or else I would get rubber bands or other devices thrown at me. Court reporters have been known to do that. Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, you've listened very intently to the presentation by the applicant and his representatives in this particular issue. I may ask the indulgence of the chair and the Planning Commission to go beyond the normal five minutes only because I think a number of the factual issues you have raised can be addressed by myself and Joseph Belanger. And in this particular instance, I'm representing Joseph Belanger; and in this particular instance, Joseph Belanger is a property owner within Silver Lakes RV Park. Now, in this case I think this Planning Commission is always driven by facts. What are the facts? Do we have the most pertinent, relevant facts applicable to a particular issue? In order to do that, normally you would have a number of speakers present their particular knowledge of the facts. And I think it's also a hallmark of this particular Planning Commission that you look for public input. And I believe any attempt to prevent relevant facts from being provided to this board does a disservice to the commission; does a disservice to the Board of County Commissioners, to whom you make recommendations and advisory decisions; and to the public as a whole. And your query is, why am I saying that? The reason why is I have a letter from Ken Cuyler I received yesterday at quarter to five via facsimile that basically says if anybody in this park is up there and objects to this petition, we're going to sue the tar out of you guys. I quote -- he quotes a section of some covenants and private contractual agreements allegedly in the deed restrictions and in the covenants applicable to Silver Lakes. I have copies for the record. (As read): "Accordingly," says Mr. Cuyler, "any of your clients Page 177 November 1,2001 that accepted a deed within the Silver Lakes development voluntarily submitted themselves to this provision. Accordingly, the developer hereby demands evidence of your client's consent, in writing, to the Developer's Petition PUD-2001-AR-1404 as required by Section 13.06 of the Declaration. Be advised that if any such property owner fails to provide consent, in writing, such person is in violation of the Declaration and covenants. Further, if any such property owner, or anyone on their behalf, formally or informally objects to the Developer's petition, after they have contractually obligated themselves to consent to such petition, they will be considered in violation." The last sentence of the letter, "Be advised" --"Please be advised, however, that the Developer reserves all rights to pursue all available remedies, including damages, against any property owner who violates these contractual obligations. Be advised further that damages, in this case, would be -- entail extremely significant monetary damages." I can tell you there are a significant number of the residents of Silver Lakes here today, and property owners, in attendance. I'll make a copy of this for the -- if I may. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Would you have -- the property owners please raise your hands. I want to see -- and you-all sat through Bucks Run. MR. PIRES: And, as I mentioned, I'm representing -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We could have put one of you on one side and put out in the hall -- okay. Thank you. MR. PIRES: As I mentioned to you, I'm representing Mr. Belanger, and he will be providing some additional facts. We'll try not to be redundant, repetitive, or reiterate things. And he's doing so at great risk to liability -- potential liability. We think that this is an -- is offensive to what this Planning Commission tries to achieve. And I think from the issue of facts, the most amazing aspect of this Page 178 November 1,2001 whole application is as to the facts. The fact that they wish to make a change to correct the situation in the southern end about those lots, we are in agreement. There's no problem with that. The fact -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go slowly. I'm going to write this down. MR. PIRES: This proposed change is -- represents the lifestyle that they have been accustomed to, as Mr. Nadeau mentioned, because the golf course and the golf course holes are in this area. So to place these lots that were initially planned to be here (indicating), up here (indicating), is no problem. To correct the issue with regards to a golf course being in these preserve areas, which is the lifestyle, to paraphrase Mr. Nadeau, to which they have become accustomed, is no problem here and here. To correct the issue with regards to the lots and trailers in this area -- because that permit that was issued and that needs to be corrected in this area -- is no problem. A couple issues where there might be problems -- and, again, I think it's important for facts to be known to this Planning Commission. And I'll treat it as facts. I'm not going to treat this as objection for fear that Mr. Cuyler may sue my client. Fact, the site plan, master plan, shows storage area. Fact, the master plan shows a lake. Fact, the PUD in Section 2.3(A), project plan and land use tracts, the project master plan, including layout of streets and general depiction of land use, is illustrated graphically by Exhibit A, PUD master development plan. Section 2.3(B), areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit A shall be constructed lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof-- if I may, with your indulgence. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You may. Unfortunately, it's going to beep at you until she pushes the button. Continue (A discussion was held off the record.) MR. PIRES: 2.3(B), areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit A shall be constructed lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof may be Page 179 November 1, 2001 constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes, and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the same general configuration and contain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Where does the developer propose to put a storage area? Lake (indicating), which would violate, I would contend, the fact-- the provision of 2.3(A) and 2.3(B) of the master plan. Now, the developer has taken various positions with regards to what is intended and not, and I think you've heard some of that twisting during some of the presentations. I have some materials I'd like to make part of the record that, again, are facts. The applicant has stated in his petition as part of the rationale, in a correspondence from Dwight Nadeau -- which is the cover sheet on this package -- of August 27th, 2001 -- and I've underlined it for assistance -- "The purpose for this amendment is merely to depict the current development pattern as it has been permitted through its seven platted phases" -- which is correct -- "and to reflect the intended last phase of development as it has been permitted" -- past tense, existing tense -- "with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District," not a fact. Right after that are the existing site plans and then an e-mail from the staff of South Florida of October 9th (sic) where I inquired as to the status of the South Florida permit. October 19th, status: Under review. Mr. Butler, who's the biologist for the developer, advised that there was a recent meeting with South Florida. That's correct. That was October 25th, status: Under review. Army Corps -- I have an e-mail from Army Corps. As to status, no permit has been issued. Again, Mr. Butler was correct -- or Mr. Nadeau -- with regards to that. They're planning on posting a 30-day public notice clock next week. No permit is issued, in other words, for Army Corps or South Page 180 November 1, 2001 Florida, contrary to a two-month-old representation in the PUD submittal. Unfortunately, this representation was carried through in the staff reports, including that of the EAC. Okay. Slow down. Thank you. Thank you for not throwing any rubber bands at me, Barbara. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: She can't type that fast to throw and type. MR. PIRES: Additionally, from a standpoint of fact, if you go through -- once again, what are the facts? October 3rd letter from Tim Hains, who's an attorney for the developer, to Joe Stewart is in line with what Mr. Nadeau was saying, that "my client advises us they have no present plans to build the storage facility." "Since there are no plans to build, there is no decision as to where the facility will be located." "However, there are no plans to request a building permit." Then I've also attached correspondence to South Florida of October 5th from lan Butler, the biologist, that says please see the enclosed drawing and PUD documents for more details as to the location and size of the storage area. This is the storage facility that is proposed in this area, which is designated "lake" under the master plan. And if you recall the language in 2.3(B), that's to be a lake for intermittent shallow area. I would submit to you that's (indicating) pretty detailed for a storage facility that's not proposed or planned. That is the area -- 5,000-square-foot building, 201 spaces submitted to South Florida on October 5th as to what is proposed. Now, I don't know how accurate they're being with South Florida because I think Mr. Nadeau said, well, we tell them, and we actually don't mean it. But that was submitted on October 5th, and South Florida has the stamp on that particular document. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now, would you say that that's an Page 181 November 1, 2001 intent? MR. PIRES: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you call that drawing an intent to do something? MR. PIRES: Absolutely. And, once again, that's an area where the lakes are. What I also find interesting is the representation -- if I can use the visualizer and stand over here for a moment. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Remember, you don't have to talk fast. We'll give you time. Not walk, I said talk. MR. PIRES: The applicant has indicated that the higher quality wetlands are in the eastern area. The applicant, upon inquiry, I think by Mr. Strain and others, was asked, what is in the area that was designated as storage? This is the -- again, the higher quality wetlands as represented by the applicant. And in the higher quality on the visualizer -- do you have it? Thank you, Chahram. That's in the higher quality wetlands. These were taken two days ago on October 30th. Here's another photograph, and you can see the water standing. This is two days ago. And obviously some vegetation has been removed. This is another photograph taken October 30th of the area that is generally indicated as storage area on the original PUD master plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you have any idea, Mr. Pires, about the square footage that we're talking about here, how large of an area? MR. PIRES: No, I do not. Mr. Belanger may have some more, and he may also have other indication as to how long it has been there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And how -- MR. PIRES: Also, there is a-- it looks like a diesel storage tank of about a thousand gallons in that same area. These are all being Page 182 November 1, 2001 made part of the record. Again, the diesel storage area, and you can see the project to the east. And this is taken to the north showing some of the vegetation in the area. But, again, this is in the area that is indicated as being storage area, and it's been there at least two years. There's a dirt road going to that. MR. WHITE: Not to interrupt Mr. Pires' presentation, Commissioner, but-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, there you are. MR. WHITE: Here I am. I'd ask that if he can, proffer who took those photographs, whether they fairly and accurately depict -- MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. I will. MR. WHITE: -- etc., so that if they're becoming part of the record, that they be admitted as evidence, if you will. MR. PIRES: Mr. Belanger will testify that he took these photographs on October 30th, and he will testify that they fairly and accurately depict what they purport to represent. And so I think with regards to this particular application, this board is asking for facts. This board is asking for candor. The facts are that -- what the remedial actions that are requested by the PUD amendment were. They maintain, again, what the community has been accustomed to as far as the amenities. The issue with regards to the storage area, again, the storage area is depicted on the PUD master plan in the northeast area. It's been utilized as such. The -- there are lots in the northwest area that currently is designated as lake. That's where the proposed storage area is currently desired to be located in. There are lots there. Those people will also be here today. And they are, once again, coming here to exercise their rights, even though there is that correspondence from the developer saying don't you dare talk about this. We think this board needs to have all the facts. It's not an issue where they're opposing the developer, even though there may be a desire by the Page 183 November 1,2001 developer to have an all-or-nothing opposition. If the developer was truly candid with wanting to take the remedial action necessary, all of the items requested in this amendment would be appropriate except for that one wherein this proposal to put a storage facility in the western side. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So, Mr. Pires, are you saying, then, that you agree with, I guess, each of the items you listed as fact except for the change for the storage facility? MR. PIRES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's the only thing that you're suggesting that your client is majorly concerned about? MR. PIRES: That's correct. And if Mr. Cuyler thought there were no significant issues, I wonder why he dropped that hammer on me yesterday at quarter after five. MR. CUYLER: I'll be happy to explain that when I -- MR. PIRES: One of the questions -- in response to the questions you were asking about the infrastructure, the Phase B, D, E, and F plats, Phase B plat was recorded in September of'95. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me? MR. PIRES: The Phase B plat-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: '95? MR. PIRES: Phase II-B plat was recorded September of'95. The Phase II-D plat was recorded November of'96, I believe, and II- F, November of'99. Those are the ones, I think, indicated as having preliminary acceptance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I think your photo showed possibly a leftover manhole structure, and a couple of those items on there to me looked like they could be leftover catch basin parts. MR. PIRES: I may characterize them as debris being stored in a wetlands area. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It would look like it's debris being Page 184 November 1,2001 stored. MR. PIRES: Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for your consideration, indulgence. And we ask that you make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think Mr. Richardson would like to-- -- ask you a question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you, Mr. Pires. I'm, frankly, not interested in cat fights between two lawyers, okay, so just to get that on the record. Let me see if I can characterize your position, because I'm not sure it came across to me properly, and you can correct me. You like the changes that have already been made which were in violation of the original master plan but that this action would -- would legitimize, but you want to retain the portion of the old master plan that has not yet been constructed, meaning the lake. You'd like to have the lake there because it's called for, and you'd like the storage area to stay where it is as it's shown. And I guess -- though I don't know that I've heard you mention it -- that you would not like to have the tract on the upper left-hand side brought into the picture. MR. PIRES: For clarification, as indicated, the improvements that were made -- you know, the golf course, which is over some of the lots, the people -- that's in place. The people have become accustomed to that, and they've purchased with those in place. They purchased with this shown on the site plan, but they purchased with this in place. And they have no objection to these lots basically being relocated up to here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. MR. PIRES: There's no problem with that. And the golf course was built-- this was to be a preserve, and that's in place, and that's on Page 185 November 1,2001 the ground, and that's acceptable. But they also bought with the storage area in this area. And they don't need-- necessarily need to have that lake there, but not the storage area in this location. And for clarification also -- I'm not sure if it was clear - the access to the storage area is before the gate. It is not after the gate. It is before the gate. I'm not sure if Mr. Nadeau accurately or succinctly addressed that issue. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Inside the gate. MR. PIRES: No. Outside the gate. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They said-- Mr. Nadeau said just the opposite. MR. PIRES: I believe you'll hear from Mr. Belanger it's in this area. In this area there's a lift station right here, I believe -- and Mr. Belanger can address that -- and a panel controlling the irrigation system, which is after the gate. This is the -- where we believe the proposed entry is. It's just before the gate or outside the gate. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: West of the gate. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So what is your bottom line, Mr. Pires, at this point? What are you seeking from us today or a remedy or -- MR. PIRES: From Mr. Belanger's perspective -- because, once again, I'm representing him in this issue today because of the threat; he's willing to take that risk -- is that the petition as submitted with -- be recommended for approval to the Board of County Commissioners with the exception that this Tract CR be over in this area and that there (indicating) to here (indicating) be conservation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. PIRES: That would allow the storage to be in this location on the eastern side as originally depicted on the master plan. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you sort of put him between the rock and the hard place if the South Florida Water Page 186 November 1, 2001 Management District won't let him put the storage there. MR. PIRES: We'll work with South Florida and Army Corps and -- to assist them in that particular endeavor to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Enlighten them or-- MR. PIRES: No. Assist them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. MR. PIRES: One other interesting aspect, as Mr. -- Dr. Badamtchian indicated, EAC is hearing this again next Wednesday. We've had a biological report prepared since the time -- we weren't part of the August 7th because we were not notified of the August 7th EAC, even though we had been involved with staff and the developer. And I don't know if the EAC's recommendation will be the same as last time. It may, and it may not be, based upon the data and the report that we have from the biologist that the property owners have retained. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Pires, what does your biological statement say about those wetlands? MR. PIRES: Well, the statement says that -- first of all, that the data site utilized -- with regards to the hydrology, may need to have new hydrology tests done because of the water table pipes in that area; that the quality of the wetlands is equal on either side, basically. The biologist recommends that the area of impact not be 8 acres, but be 3 acres and that it be located in the eastern portion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. (Applause) MS. MURRAY: Joe Belanger followed by Joe Stewart. MR. BELANGER: Good afternoon. My name is Joe Belanger. I'm on the board of directors for the Silver Lakes POA. I'm also Page 187 November 1,2001 elected as the cochair of the ad hoc transition committee as a voice of the homeowners of Silver Lakes. I stand here today under threat of law -- of a lawsuit, and I open my arms to that lawsuit and welcome and remind the lawyer that they can't get blood out of a stone, because I have nothing. The people in the park have been -- have not opposed the changes proposed on the PUD plan except for the location of the storage area. Every one of us in the park from day one -- and I've been there since 1993. When we bought in, we were told we would have a nine-hole executive golf course. Today their fliers still advertise a nine-hole executive golf course. We were told that this was going to be nature trails and nature walks with a -- with possibly a lake. We find out today they want to put in an 8-acre storage area. And if you look at this, I looked at one thing, and that's a commercial storage area. Now, we don't have any objections if they were to put the storage area where it is originally depicted, here, on the original PUD map. They already have an entrance into that area, as you're seeing by the pictures depicted by Tony Pires. Okay. They have that entrance there. It's a fenced-in area already. It's just below the lots. The lots start a little ways above that, that entrance. And we feel that it would be a lot more honest to the people coming in our lovely community -- and we do have a lovely community, and we have some of the best people in the world in that community, and I can answer to that on a personal note. I feel that it would be a lot better if the developer was -- was to put the storage area where it was originally designed. And then when he sells his lots, at least the incoming people would know what they're buying into. We knew what we were buying into, and we don't like to have it changed. Now, we've worked with the developer since January, since Page 188 November 1,2001 February. We've tried to come to compromises with the developer at several meetings -- Mr. Chahram (sic) was part of that meeting -- one of those meetings -- to no avail. They want -- they want everything or nothing at all. I asked the developer the other day at a meeting he held with the homeowners if the ruling came down that he could have everything except for the storage area in the west portion of that grounds, would that be acceptable to him, and he said, "No. I'll withdraw my petition." I don't -- well, that's -- and I think had we not received that fax last night -- because I held a meeting with my people last night and asked them not to get up, not to submit their names, and let I (sic) take the -- the blunt (sic) of that fax as a lawsuit. They don't need that stuff at this point in time. I think had they -- had that fax not come in last night, you would have had them lined up knee-deep in the halls ready to speak and saying the same thing as I am saying right now. I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we have a question. (Applause) COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Question, please. I'm just curious. I'm not sure nothing at all would be such a bad resolution of this. What am I missing? MR. BELANGER: Well -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You said -- you're representing that you've been told that they might withdraw the application. That would mean that all of the amenities that are there would continue to be there. The only thing that would be missing would be moving that Tract A up for the pads up on the north side, but the rest of it would remain open just the way you've got it, you know, nature trails, so forth. Page 189 November 1, 2001 MR. BELANGER: Well, I think we have to cross that bridge when we get to it. Right now we're not at that bridge, and personally I feel it would be a foolish move on a developer to tear up a nine-hole executive golf course. It would deter -- deter the fact -- the -- the -- the selling point of the park, and I would -- I would probably assume that a lot of us would move out of that park and -- and -- or file a lawsuit on fraudulent inducement of sales. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But perhaps you're misunderstanding me. I didn't mean that we'd go back to some sort of enforcement action. I would just say that whatever -- as somebody has mentioned, whatever is -- has happened has already happened. If we left it the way it is -- I'm not talking about going and tearing anything out. Left the way it is, it seems to me you've accomplished most of what you desire, that is no new storage area up in the front left and the storage area where it is. The only question would be about the location of that Tract A pads. MR. BELANGER: If-- if you were to rule that the developer could have everything that he is asking for except for the location of the storage area, which we would like to see in the east track (sic) and not the west track where they propose to put it, that would be acceptable to every one of the homeowners in this park. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. BELANGER: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just want to make sure that it is your -- MR. BELANGER: I knew there was coming one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- to make sure that it is your testimony that you've been told that the developer would tear out the golf course? MR. BELANGER: I believe that most of the people in this room that were present at that homeowners' meeting when I put my Page 190 November 1,2001 arm around the gentleman and asked him clearly, Ted, would you accept a ruling of a partial settlement without the -- without the -- without the storage area, could you accept that? He said, "Definitely no. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So he would not accept it, but did he go on to say that he would attempt to -- MR. BELANGER: He would withdraw his petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just withdraw his petition. So we don't have testimony that says he's going to tear out anything. MR. BELANGER: He has made -- let me clarify something. In a lot of the meetings that we talked to -- homeowners' meetings, okay, and board meetings, he kept telling us that that 40 acres is his 40 acres. Okay? That's his 40 acres. And if we want to do anything with the 40 acres, that we have to purchase it for $2.2 million. He does not agree that that 40-acre track belongs to the density of the park. All right? Now, in discussion with that, he has told us that if he cannot put a storage area in that area, he's going to come back and tear out -- in a letter that he wrote to the homeowners, he stated that he would be forced by you people, by the Planning Commission, to tear out the golf course and revert back to a putt-putt golf course. That's in writing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm not sure that that's what we would be looking to do. MR. BELANGER: I -- I didn't say you were. I said that's what he said. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think Mr. Adelstein -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He -- he answered the question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Answered the question. Dr. Badamtchian, do you have some other clarification from staffs point? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: When I started my presentation, you Page 191 November 1,2001 asked the question about the enforcement, if we have a code enforcement case on this. And it's going to be up to the code -- code compliance department, code enforcement department, to decide what they want to do. I -- it's possible that they could take enforcement action and require them to comply with the PUD master plan as it's approved today. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But couldn't one of the actions it would take is to say let's sit down and work out what is reality and not reality and resolve it, kind of like we're doing here today? That was the impression that I got from the executive staff summary that was written. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The owner of the property must agree to that. We cannot force that -- we have an approved master plan, and they have not built according to the master plan. It's like having a building permit and not building according to the building permit. So either they amend the master plan, or they comply with the master plan. And as long as the developer of the property doesn't ask to change those things to what's on the -- on the ground, the development's in violation, and code enforcement action may be taken. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. But wouldn't there be some connection or relationship to the number of lots that have been sold, that there are now individual property owners and that, perhaps, the developer doesn't have full control anymore? Isn't there a relationship? Maybe I'm missing something. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: County attorney can answer this question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. White, that goes to why I was asking what the current ownership matrix is of this particular PUD, because if we get into this horrendous, antagonistic battle of what is and isn't and what did or didn't happen, isn't there some responsibility Page 192 November 1,2001 that the property owners have, now that they're owners, to help resolve this issue? MR. WHITE: I believe you're suggesting that they may need to be added, if you will, as coapplicants? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm really not sure. I don't quite understand how the developer can be this adamant about ripping out something because he's got a problem but that we have agreement on, what, four out of five issues here. And is there not some relationship to the number of people that actually own now and have responsibility, or is it totally under -- the PUD totally under the developer still? MR. WHITE: One of the hallmarks of PUDs, of course, is unified control. But I think when you get to an amendment like this, it may, indeed, be an issue that needs to be addressed by the applicant. I don't know that it was something that staff analyzed or not. I can't give you a simple legal answer. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Can't give me a legal answer. So when it comes to the developer, obviously he applied because he wanted to make some changes. He wanted to comply with what the reality on the ground is. And the homeowners went along with him, but there seems to be a major difference of issue. If-- MR. WHITE: I'm not sure how the, quote, lots are owned, if it's in fee simple, if they've received warranty deeds. There's -- what I'm saying is there's no simple legal answer because there's a lot of factual issues out here that I have no information about. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I guess maybe -- that was one of the reasons that I definitely wanted to know how many people actually owned. And do they have some stake in their community, then, that they have to be responsible for what the finish of this PUD is? MR. BELANGER: Madam Chairman? Page 193 November 1,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MR. BELANGER: The figures that you asked for from Mr. Nadeau earlier I just gave to Mr. Nadeau. He has those figures of how many lots have been sold in the park. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And then that might help me ask the question again. MR. BELANGER: I believe we're at approximately 87 percent. George, correct me. About 87 percent ownership. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And so Mr. -- MR. WHITE: There may be aspects in there or restrictive covenants, for example. I mean, there's obviously one provision in there that seems to be pretty draconian in terms of-- but those are the conditions under which those folks bought. And there may be other ones in the restrictive covenants, for example, that say that they will not object or that they will agree to go forward with any application. And that may be, indeed, the very provision that Mr. Pires was making reference to in the letter from Mr. Cuyler. So, you know, like I said a moment ago, there are a number of facts out there that make it difficult to give you a simple legal answer. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And from a factual standpoint, we don't have control over those deed restrictions. MR. WHITE: Well-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's not part of what we get to hear here today or rule on. MR. WHITE: Typically the government's not afforded a right of enforcement for those types of restrictive covenants. As a matter of fact, our Land Development Code typically indicates, as do many others, that there is no right of enforcement under the deed restrictions unless it's expressly granted. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Wow. Do we have any other questions here? Page 194 November 1, 2001 I think we have additional speakers. MS. MURRAY: The next speaker is Jerry Strauss -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you, Mr. Belanger. MS. MURRAY: -- followed by Joe Stewart. MR. PIRES: Madam Chair, if I may just speak with Mr. Belanger. I don't know if Mr. White wants Mr. Belanger personally to verify the photographs or-- MR. CUYLER: We'll stipulate to that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MR. STRAUSS: Madam Chairman, my name is Jerry -- it's Jerome M., really, but I go by Jerry-- Jerry Strauss. It's S-t-r-a-u-s-s. My wife would have been here. She had to leave to -- I'd like for her to be here because we both moved down to paradise together from Indiana in 1995 when we bought our property at Silver Lakes. And on the little brochure that they handed out to share a dream with them, and that was what we were going to do, is share a dream. And we bought -- and I can show you where -- on this map where we live. We live right -- right in here, right about the end of this Tract CR, this point. And we bought -- actually bought three lots. We bought three lots. We bought those from the developer. And we also bought a home from the developer because the developer sells homes, and we bought the concrete pad and all the rest that was built by the developer. And all of this was very important to us for the privacy that was afforded us by that 40 acres that was behind us. And were it not for the representation to us that that would be a nature preserve, wetlands, walking paths, we wouldn't have bought there. Those are facts. That's why we bought there. Now, there are others in this audience that bought there, our neighbors, for the very same reasons and would testify just exactly as I had testified if it were not for Mr. Cuyler's letter last evening, Page 195 November 1, 2001 because they were prepared to do that. And I can tell you -- I could give you the names of those persons. I'm hesitant to do that. And I could tell you there are at least -- almost every neighbor of mine, almost every one except one I can think of down that strip, bought on that representation, that there would be nothing built, that that would be a wetland. There was a wetland, that there would be nature trails, and so on. And one of the other things I -- Mr. Pires asked me to bring to your attention is that in Conquest's recent letter to the -- and this was dated, I guess, the -- let me get the day of this letter. This is something that was sent out by Conquest to all the owners of the park. This was sent out by Mr. Bridgett. He states this, and I quote: It has been suggested by members of the Collier -- now, remember this was sent out by the Conquest -- by Conquest, and with this letter was a form for everyone to sign showing that they had no objections to the petition before this group. It has -- quote, it has been suggested by members of the county -- Collier County planning staff that if the PUD amendment, paren, map change, is not approved, they would have no alternative other than to enforce the original map, end quote. Now, we bought on the representation -- we're not golfers, but I love being in that park, and I love the fact that it has a golf course. And these other people bought on a representation that there would be a nine-hole executive golf course, and that is still being handed out today, this very day. This is an enormous threat to these individuals. And when they received this letter, everyone was panicked. We've been panicked about this development behind us. They're panicked about the golf course. But all of us are ready to accept every part of the petition that's before you except the only thing we ask is that that piece of development that is in the west, the storage area, be moved back to Page 196 November 1,2001 the back in the right area where it was originally, PUD, on the east half-- east side of the property where it's originally placed. And that's the only request. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No questions of this gentleman? We have another registered speaker. MS. MURRAY: Joe Stewart followed by Robert Murrell. And that's your last speaker. MR. STEWART: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. It's been a long day. I'll be brief. I promise. My name is Joe Stewart. I represent Mr. Jerry Krauss (sic). Mr. Krauss indicated on the map where he -- where his current home is. And what he didn't tell you is that when he bought his property, he had -- he didn't tell you he was a lawyer, and he had included in his contract a specific provision that said the storage area would not be moved from its current location, which would adversely affect his property. I corresponded with the developer on this very point sometime in September, and I got an interesting response from them. The response is included in the materials provided to you by Mr. Pires. And I know this board is not interested in -- it's a letter dated October 3rd. And I know the board's not interested in cat fights between lawyers, but I'm sure that the board is interested in the applicant's being truthful with this board. I wrote down, I believe, verbatim what Mr. Nadeau said, which was there is an intent to build this storage facility. Now, reading from this letter from the developer's lawyer dated October 3rd, I see in three places where they indicated there is no intent. Of course, if there was -- if there is no intent to construct a facility, one wonders why it is that they're requesting a change. But verbatim from the Page 197 November 1, 2001 letter, my client advises us they have no present plans to build a storage facility. Another quote, since there are no plans to build, there is no decision as to where the facility would be located. Another quote, however, there are no plans to request a building permit. We received another letter from the developer's lawyer and -- (Unidentified speaker with inaudible question.) MR. STEWART: Certainly. It's in the materials. October 3rd. Is it -- did you-all find it in your package? Because if not, I have it here. (Several speakers speaking inaudibly.) MR. STRAIN: It's not the same lawyer that's sitting here in the audience; is that what you're getting at, Ken? MR. CUYLER: Correct. MR. STEWART: Okay. Well, then I'd like to address a quote from the developer's lawyer who is in the audience. I also wrote down what he told you folks. Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Before you go any further, we're talking about an October 3rd letter signed by a Timothy Hains of Quarles & Brady? MR. STEWART: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we were looking at the right letter. MR. STEWART: It should-- those quotations should be underlined. Okay. Moving on to the current representation, what Mr. Cuyler told you-- and I believe I wrote this down correctly -- is, quote, we are interested in the residents articulating what their concerns are. Now, to me that seems to be absolutely contrary to the attempt to chill statements by the residents before this board. Now, there was a-- there was a discussion of this draconian covenant that was pointed out the last -- in this correspondence. I Page 198 November 1, 2001 question truly whether the developer included that covenant in there as some type of an escape hatch which would allow it to make whatever type of representations orally or in contracts concerning the development of this property, and then later on do an about-face and rely on that provision. Quite the contrary. Most of the times when courts look at provisions like that, they try to enforce provisions so that they make sense. And the only way that I can make that provision make sense is that, sure, the residents would agree to representations -- to requests by the developer for zoning changes, like most of the zoning changes they've requested, as long as they are not contrary to specific representations they've made by the developer's sales representation -- representatives and in the written documents. Any questions? Those are all the comments that I had. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Do we have another registered speaker? MS. MURRAY: Robert Murrell is your last speaker. MR. MURRELL: My name is Robert Murrell. I'm with Samouce, Murrell & Francoeur. We also represent Mr. Belanger today as well as representing the ad hoc committee for the issues. Most of the issues have already been discussed, and obviously I won't go back over those. I would like to add one additional comment that -- Mr. Strauss had read from the letter from Mr. Bridgett from Conquest Development, and I'd like to complete that paragraph. And it was in terms of where -- when he suggested that it was the planning staff-- that the PUD amendment change, if not approved, they would have no alternative other than to enforce the original map. And it continues, if this happened, we would be required to recreate conserva -- recreate conservation areas, eliminate golf holes, and construct the last lots where originally planned. This would Page 199 November 1,2001 destroy the golf course. As developers of Silver Lakes RV Resort and Golf Club, we do not want this to happen. So we have here a representation from the developer that he, too, doesn't want this to occur; and yet we also have the threats that have been made that if the approval isn't granted to everything, that it will be removed. Again, Mr. Belanger has indicated his desire that all the items be approved except for the movement of the storage facility. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I want to make sure, you are an attorney; right? MR. MURRELL: I am an attorney. I am counsel for-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just want to ask you a basic question. As the chairman of the Planning Commission, I don't really think that I have a category of responsibility called therapist, but there sounds from the testimony here today that we have some huge animosity occurring in this particular development. We, as commissioners, have enough information to make a motion to determine what we're going to do with what we accept. And I hear you say that there's only one big issue, which is the storage, the two tracts switching-- MR. MURRELL: Correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- and that there seems to be no way to discuss this and come to a conclusion. I mean, we could say, as a Planning Commission, that, gee, thanks for all the testimony. This looks good. We have this one issue. But there's the aspect of the environmental permitting agencies saying something different-- MR. MURRELL: Correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- which would create a problem. But you, as an attorney, can you act as a therapist, provide some sort of way to come to a reasonable conclusion here? MR. MURRELL: We -- we have certainly tried to do that. We've tried in the past and have, from almost the beginning when Page 200 November 1,2001 these things were presented to the ad hoc committee and to the unit owners at Silver Lakes, indicated immediately to the developer that we'd approve everything except the storage facility, and we'd, you know, like to work on trying to get the storage facility moved to the east side and that we were available and would be ready, willing, and able to work with the -- the agencies in terms of whatever we could do to try to convince the agencies that the best place to go would be on the east side. There are -- there are additional factors in play. Every week more factors come into play. There's already a community, as we've seen in the pictures, on the east side of-- of that area as well. So, I mean, the community comes back to it as well as -- you know, the acreage north of the 40 acres is also, you know, probably going to be developed reasonably soon. So, I mean, it's not like we're going to have a wetlands that's going to extend forever and forever. But, you know, we stand ready, willing, and able today to work with the developer in trying to bring that about. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: See, I've been on this board for two years. Normally when we reach a position like this, they're -- everybody's willing to cooperate. That's partly why we have a public participation element now. And people are afraid to speak up, but we've got a lot of facts in front of us that -- I know where I'm heading toward, but I'm not sure that's going to solve the problems here. I'm really not. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Stewart (sic), as I recall, there was testimony that that preserve area is north of the Deltona line; is that -- do you agree with that? MR. MURRELL: Most of that is north of the Deltona line, that's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, why did the south Page 201 November 1,2001 water -- why are these jurisdictional -- we were told that they did not exercise jurisdiction over things south of the line. Well, why didn't they exercise jurisdiction over the area north of the line back when this whole development started? Do you know? MR. MURRELL: I do not know that. I wasn't involved in the process. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Did the original PUD have this storage area in the eastern area? MR. MURRELL: Yes, sir, it did. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Had a storage area? MR. MURRELL: Well, it's just a -- it was a small square area right there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right. Now, can the South Florida Water Management District -- that was in the original PUD. Can the South Florida Water Management District -- and, Mr. White, I'd like your input on this as well. Can they come along and say you've got to move it out of there? MR. MURRELL: I think it's more -- I would agree with what Mr. Nadeau said before. I think it's more of they may not permit you to place it where you would like to place it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's already there. It's been there. MR. MURRELL: Well, no, sir. I don't think it -- I think as to South Florida, it is -- I don't know that it is there, and I think that's one of the issues. I think the petitioner could probably -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's not a storage area. It's just a junk pile. Is that -- is there is a difference? MR. MURRELL: Yeah. It's -- it's marked on the PUD as a storage area. I think, again, it's part of the cross matters that we have between the different governmental agencies. It's shown on the PUD as being the storage area, but I don't -- I do not believe that South Page 202 November 1, 2001 Florida ever granted or has given permission for a permit for a storage area to be at that spot. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, why ask the South Florida Water Management District? If-- if you're content to leave it in the eastern area, what are you asking them for? What are they being asked to do? They're being asked to move it down to the west. MR. MURRELL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: To sanction that. MR. MURRELL: That's correct. And we would like to go back in with the developer to ask South Florida to move it to the east -- or to leave it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Leave it in the east. MR. MURRELL: To leave it in the -- to leave it right where -- where it is and where it's being used. That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Abemathy, at the time a PUD is submitted, South Florida usually isn't involved in any review. So the PUD could show anything it wanted to, subject to South Florida's final review when they go in for a building permit. When they go in for an SDP at the county, the staff at the county at some point would ask for their South Florida permit now that they've actually applied to do something, and that's when it would show up. The debris that's out there I don't believe was ever applied to be there. I think it just -- it just is there. I don't think -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's just there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. I think that may be where the confusion is. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. White, do you have a comment on Mr. Abemathy's? MR. WHITE: I believe you've reached the correct analysis and conclusion. Page 203 November 1,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, a light bulb has kind of turned on for me about this. I've been trying to figure out why there's such an arbitrary and capricious position being taken by the applicant -- that's my assessment -- and the only answer I can come up with is that it must be big bucks in putting it -- this area over on the -- (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Cuyler. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Let me finish. If this is truly a dollar issue, then it seems to me we might have some grounds for you to negotiate, to work out some sort of financial arrangement that would resolve this issue. I mean, if just moving things around isn't -- I don't -- from what I'm gathering, is not going to solve this problem because the applicant, as I'm reading it, the testimony, is intent on making some dollars out of a new use in this area. And perhaps there could be something the homeowners could work out that would offset that financial loss to him and leave things the way they are. MR. MURRELL: That has certainly been our concern. I mean, we've had two major concerns. Number one was since it is an accessory use, we felt like what better accessory use than when it -- where it was originally planned, where the road was cut for it, and where it was set. We also became very concerned as -- as the -- as it appeared that the entranceway into this accessory use is going to be outside the gate, and certainly that led to our concerns and, I think, the letters that the staff has received in regards to it being a commercial activity. You know, you put everything together-- number one, moving it; number two, the fact that we agree to everything else in the amendment, and you add that with it being an entrance outside of the Page 204 November 1, 2001 gate -- and it doesn't really appear to be an accessory use. And then that's going to be simply a code enforcement nightmare, potentially, down the road. But I think-- I think you've hit it exactly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Wolfley, did you have a question for him or -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because I want to get Mr. Cuyler back up here and ask him a couple questions. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's where I really have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. MURRELL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Do -- we have no further registered speakers? MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Cuyler, you may have some comments to make -- MR. CUYLER: I do. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- but I certainly have a question or two. Why don't you make a comment or two, and you may assuage some of my concerns. And if not, I'll ask you my questions. MR. CUYLER: Okay. Mr. Pires didn't point out -- if-- if I, as an attorney, have been accused of writing a -- what has been perceived to be a threatening letter-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Draconian. MR. CUYLER: -- a draconian threatening letter, I don't have the opportunity to do that very often. I'm not a litigator. But, yeah, I -- I wrote a letter. I -- last time I looked, I had a client to represent, and my client's getting a little tired of some of the rumors that have been floating around. And one thing Mr. Pires didn't point out -- and I put in my letter, first of all, that CCPC doesn't have jurisdiction of Page 205 November 1,2001 deed restrictions. It's not an issue that I was going to raise at CCPC. And secondly, we knew that public participation was important. We normally welcome comments of the public, but it's possible to contract your right to speak away. For example, if you sign a nondisclosure agreement and you contract with someone on a nondisclosure agreement and then you stand up at the podium and say "I have a constitutional right to say anything I want to say," then go get a lawyer, because you're going to get sued. Under these circumstances there is a provision in the deed restrictions, and it says -- and if the attorneys -- if Mr. Stewart doesn't think it's viable, then, you know, tell him to advise the people to stand up and talk. But there's a provision in the deed restriction that says by acceptance of this deed, the -- you are on notice that the developer may be making changes to his plans; and if we ask you to consent to those, you will do it. So I sent a letter saying that, you know, that provision exists. I told Mr. Pires in my letter I wasn't going to raise it at the CCPC. As Mr. Stewart said, I said I was ready to hear what the comments were. I saw Mr. Pires sitting out there. I knew they were going to be talking. So, you know, I was interested in what they are saying. Let me also say that Mr. Pires indicated I said there were no issues. I didn't say there were no issues. I said there were no legal issues. And, as you have seen, there are no legal issues. And, as a matter of fact, as the chairman's pointed out, 80 percent of this has been agreed to, and we knew that there were no issues for most of this. It has turned out to be the -- the storage that -- that is the issue. With that, I'll answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, then, may I ask you my therapy question? MR. CUYLER: Sure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I pretty clearly see that 80 percent of Page 206 November 1, 2001 this is agreed to. What is it that is keeping your client and you, representing him, from saying yes? Look at all these people that own property here which, you know, they're here, and they have an interest. Sure, they have a deed restriction, but what is the key element that says you don't want to negotiate or give this up? I -- can I understand that? Do we have a therapy here? Because, I mean, I think I know what I'd like to see a motion come through, but where are we? MR. CUYLER: Let me say this, and then I'll let Mr. Nadeau address it. But let me put it the way that I would. In order to cure those elements that we've discussed have been agreed to, that is those things that were not in compliance with the PUD -- there are certain ratios of land uses on that map, and the ultimate end to those has to be certain percentages. What the developer basically has been forced to do -- although he could have built the storage area, under the PUD, anywhere in that area tomorrow, subject to permitting. The county could not stop him from putting that anywhere he wanted to at the top of that diagram. That would be a jurisdictional issue in terms -- that's my understanding. Somebody can correct me if they're (sic) wrong, but he could do it today, any time. But he's been forced into designating or limiting the area within which he can build it because the conservation area that's now shown is the makeup for those other areas that are no longer preserve and on the map. Now, that -- in answer to your question, why has he designated those 8 acres instead of the other 8 acres, there's two answers, one of which is the jurisdictional agencies have indicated they want to see it at that end; and the second answer is he's the client, and that's what he decided to do. And, you know, in terms of anything beyond that, I don't have an answer. But I'll be happy to have Mr. Nadeau stand up, and he may have some additional comments for you. Page 207 November 1,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ken. MR. CUYLER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I guess the essence of what's being said here is that there never was an established storage area at the east. There was some dropping of stuff there, but -- but in order to have had a storage area there, they would have had to go through some permitting, would they not? MR. CUYLER: Correct. And remember, what we're talking about is -- I mean, Mr. Pires made a big deal of-- of the diagram. That's what you're talking about with some kind of storage area. I mean, you'll have slots, and they go -- trailers go in there or rec vehicles. And, I mean, the fact that somebody dumped some concrete and -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Slag pile. MR. CUYLER: Right. I mean, that's -- it may be referred to as a storage area, but it's not what we're talking about. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Nobody was storing anything there. MR. CUYLER: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But isn't this on a master plan, and that's usually something that we and other people can rely upon? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It was never -- MR. CUYLER: Yes and no. The answer is it may be on a master plan. But there's specific language in the PUD -- and it's in most of the PUDs that you look at, and you've probably all seen that language and are familiar with it -- that says this is a conceptual drawing. The developer's not bound to it, and you know, it may go there or it may not go there. It will be in general conformance with that master plan, but that's not a site plan. Page 208 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think the master plan is an exhibit, an exhibit that was approved at the time this PUD went through. Just-- MR. CUYLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I keep -- MR. CUYLER: It is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I keep going back to this same meeting we had with a different client -- or a different applicant a few weeks ago who argued just the opposite, successfully, of what you're saying, that the master plan locks everything in. You're here saying it doesn't. And-- MR. CUYLER: Well, it-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- I'll be curious to see what the county attorney thinks of it. MR. CUYLER: Frankly-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would too. MR. CUYLER: Just my comment, it does and it doesn't. I mean, it-- it locks -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now, that's a clear answer, Mr. Cuyler. Thank you for that -- MR. CUYLER: I tell you what. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- elaboration. MR. CUYLER: I served for (sic) county attorney for ten years. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Even if you did-- MR. CUYLER: I can tell you it does and it doesn't. I mean, it does in a sense. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: county attorney as well, Mr. Pires. you -- MR. CUYLER: attorney. I think your competitor was a -- a So I think between the two of I think he was only an assistant county Page 209 November 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You've all been trained through the same system here. But I think -- were we not talking about the Marco Shores and that master plan, and we -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you remember that discussion? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- went through -- I mean, we were so careful about getting some little -- the language on the master plan when you don't normally put language on a master plan. And we were being represented that what was here was -- you could rely upon it, and they were here to change that PUD master plan versus the PUD document that had all the text. So I'm -- I'm having a little trouble with this, more than I should. MR. CUYLER: A lot of times you've seen master plans that have different variations in specificity, but a lot of times you'll just have tracts of land that have residential, commercial. And when you come in to develop that, as you know, you -- there's usually language in there that says if we have to move the roads a little, if we have to rearrange things -- you know that you're generally approving X number of units. You know that you're generally approving a certain size piece of property with certain uses that's going to interact in a certain way, and there's traffic that's going to operate in a certain way. But when you talk about a storage area for a recreational vehicle park, it's something that's usually not high on the radar of what a county commission would be worried about or a planning commission would be worried about, and that's usually left within the development. In this case because of a number of things that have happened, it's -- it's become an issue for you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But I would suggest to you it would be high on the radar of all those people who have in good faith purchased out there and are sitting here today talking -- or not being Page 210 November 1,2001 able to talk to us because of some draconian approach to deed restrictions, that they have some expectation to rely upon what this legal document is. And I, as a planning commissioner, should have some expectation that changing this one item from the front to the -- excuse me -- the back to the front, that's pretty significant. And that's not just like moving something around a little bit. That's pretty significant. And I think Mr. Adelstein has a -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: One more question. Are you -- are you saying you have no knowledge whatsoever of this developer making a -- a separate commercial enterprise out of a storage building off site at that property? MR. CUYLER: I have no knowledge of that whatsoever. And let me tell you something else. I have no knowledge of what Mr. Stewart indicated. And I'm not saying he's -- he's not correct. That was a correspondence that went back and forth between the real estate attorney for the developer, but I had no knowledge of that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm sorry. We have Mr. Wolfley. I'm somewhat baffled here. Go ahead. Mr. Wolfley first and then Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: May I ask a -- you were -- I think -- for one, how many units are in Silver Lakes? MR. NADEAU: We have 400 RV units and 160 recreational residences. And to continue, if I may, to respond to Chairperson Rautio's request, we have 160 recreational residences. 144 have been sold; 16 are left to be sold. There are 400 TTRV lots; 357 of them are sold; 43 are left to be sold. And of the 38 that are remaining, they are also included within that 43, within the 43 RV lots that remain to be sold. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we have a lot of property owners that are almost ready to take over a homeowners association. And if Page 211 November 1,2001 the developer and the property owners were talking to each other, we probably wouldn't be here so long today. MR. NADEAU: Possibly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because they must have some rights as -- as owners in this particular PUD that they bought into. But thank you. That clarifies quite a bit for me. I appreciate that additional information. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Can I just finish? MR. NADEAU: Commissioner Wolfley, would you like to continue? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. You were asked-- well, for one, Tract CR, that is to be used for what, one more time? MR. NADEAU: I will read directly from the PUD document -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Please. MR. NADEAU: -- if I may. The purposes of this section is to set forth a development plan and development standard for the areas designated as CR, commons/recreation, on Exhibit B. The primary function and purpose of this tract will be to provide access and aesthetic -- aesthetically pleasing open areas, passive/active recreational areas, hurricane evacuation shelter facilities for recreational/residential uses, and areas intended for-- to satisfy the residents' basic needs for a quality recreational opportunity. Any recreational, social, administrative, or maintenance facilities which may be indicated on the PUD master plan, Exhibit A, shall be considered conceptual, and a placement of such facilities as may be indicated on the PUD master plan shall be considered nonbinding. Except in those areas to be used for water impoundment and principal or accessory use areas, all natural trees and other vegetation, as practicable, shall be protected and preserved. Page 212 November 1,2001 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. And then you were asked, were you aware of this plan that's on top of your two plans, this -- this thing for the storage facility, this design? MR. NADEAU: I was aware that there was a plan submitted to the permitting agencies. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MR. NADEAU: I was privy only to it through the EIS document. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I believe you were asked a question of where the entry of that was going to be -- MR. NADEAU: That is correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- and if it was off Silver Lakes Boulevard. MR. NADEAU: That is correct. Having no knowledge of where the access point is shown on this -- I see an access point shown on the plan, but I did not have any knowledge of the relationship of that access point with the gate. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That it was actually outside the gate. MR. NADEAU: That it was actually outside the gate. So I will accept responsibility for not knowing that information. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. It just tells me that it's really not for the residents, is what it looks like. (Applause) COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, I felt-- I felt like all the way along here that we were being led down a path, and then all of a sudden, it got right out from under us and saying wait. But all the consultants said one thing, and now some facts show another thing. And that kind of makes me feel, I don't know, abused. MR. NADEAU: Well, I have talked with the developer, and the developer said that the access point -- if the gate needs to be moved, Page 213 November 1, 2001 the gate will be moved. It'll be -- this is for the exclusive uses -- use of the residents at the park. It says it in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One more question. How many sites in this storage -- how many areas for parking and things are in there? Can you tell the -- MR. NADEAU: The plan says a total of 201 open storage parking spaces. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 201. MR. NADEAU: Yes. MR. CUYLER: Is it clear that the PUD requires it to be accessory to the development? It cannot legally be used for commercial use unless the petition -- a petitioner comes in under a separate petition to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to allow it to be used as a commercial use. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Unless they come in to ask for it. That's what you're saying. MR. CUYLER: Unless they come into the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commission -- well, I don't think any of us can represent what the future's going to be, but the question is, is that being used -- is there any way that can be used for a commercial use? And the answer's no. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Then what are we doing here, Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: What we're doing here is that the developer -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That was a rhetorical. MR. CUYLER: Oh. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm sorry. I'm losing my sense of humor. I believe Mr. Strain has a couple of comments, and he may need Mr. Cuyler, and he may need Mr. Nadeau. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Nadeau, can you tell me how much land is north -- in acreage -- north of the Deltona settlement Page 214 November 1,2001 line? MR. NADEAU: Yes. It is 37.31 acres. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And your PUD is 146 acres, is it not? MR. NADEAU: That is correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Twenty-five percent of the PUD is 37 acres. And you brought up the PUD, so why don't we mm to page 8-10, Item J. Prior to final site development construction plan approval, demonstrate that 25 percent of the viable, naturally functioning native vegetation on site will be retained. MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Now, if you take 8 acres out of there for a storage area, how are you going to retain 25 percent of that site? MR. NADEAU: There's other areas on the property where -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you've already filled them with a golf course. That -- that would not be naturally functioning, native vegetation. MR. NADEAU: Not -- I won't take exception with your comment, Commissioner Strain, but there are areas on the property that are allowed and are vegetated with native vegetation. And the provisions of the Land Development Code provide for the planting of native vegetation to comply with that requirement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you've got viable, naturally functioning native vegetation that isn't in that green area that's on that plan; is that right? MR. NADEAU: Yes, that is correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Also, on that same page I, the project's plan is to be brought to the attention of the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve manager for review. Have any of these changes been signed off by them? Page 215 November 1,2001 MR. NADEAU: The -- under the original Deltona settlement agreement, the Rookery Bay National Estuary and Research Reserve was signatory to that agreement; however, they were to be noticed of all development in the area of Deltona settlement agreement. A letter was provided, and there was no response. However, I do not have the documentation at hand with me. They are in the offices of McAnly Engineering. But I did send the letter, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? I think we have a staff person here who I do not recognize, so please clarify. And are you trying to answer some environmental aspects? MR. LENBERGER: Yeah. I can answer two of those questions. Stephen Lenberger, environmental specialist for planning services. As far as the preservation requirement, 25 percent, that would only pertain to the section of the PUD outside the Deltona settlement area. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: And the figures here -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Previously it was 60 percent and then -- now it's 25? Is that your understanding, open space? MR. LENBERGER: It's -- I'm not talking about the open space; I'm talking about the native vegetation preservation requirement. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Native preservation. MR. LENBERGER: And according to what they have submitted, 69.5 percent of the native vegetation on the northern portion of the property outside the Deltona settlement will be preserved, so that exceeds the preservation requirement of 25 percent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, how do we know that that justifies the area outside the Deltona settlement agreement? I mean, I understand what the agreement says, but the PUD didn't-- didn't specify that. Page 216 November 1,2001 MR. LENBERGER: Right. Those are -- we've had interpretations from the planning services director in the past that the preservation requirement for lands identified as developable in the Deltona settlement have been already mitigated for because there's a lot of preserve areas within the Deltona settlement area. Okay. You asked a question about Rookery Bay. Rookery Bay has been given a number of the plats when they came in for those different portions of the property. I think it's subsequently notified me that they had no further comments to issue over this project. We have not -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Have they -- do they know about the current changes being -- MR. LENBERGER: No, they do not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They do not. Okay. MR. NADEAU: If I may continue, there were still a couple questions that were outstanding. It appears by those pictures that there are construction debris in the northeast comer of the project site. I don't know -- I have not seen this debris, and without a clear delineation of where that settlement agreement line might be -- I don't believe that the line is staked -- that debris could be north of the settlement agreement line, which will be remediated under the permits that Butler Environmental are pursuing, but it also could be south of the line. I don't know where that debris is. And then finally, in addition to preserving the 30-plus acres -- excuse me -- about 28 acres of those lands north of the settlement agreement line, the applicant is also going to have to pay -- this is verbal right now from the agencies -- an additional $330,000 for mitigation credits to allow the development, as proposed, for the final phase. Yes, there was a lake shown on there, but the original developers, Misty Harbor, who did -- who did the original PUD, they approached the agencies, and they were told categorically you will Page 217 November 1,2001 not get a permit for that lake there. Now, as far as conciliatory response to the potential storage facility being located on that approximate 8 acres -- because there have already been a request by the agencies to have an additional 50 foot of continuous -- contiguous conservation easement for this permit to be successful. That has no effect on this plan. We can create a conservation easement over this tract, CR, and be recorded, and you wouldn't be able to put any of the commons/recreation uses in there. If Mr. Strauss is -- his lots are in this area in here, I believe he indicated. We would be more than happy, then, to provide at least 25 feet of additional setback for the grassed parking area. And if he wishes, we would put up some visual barrier, whether it be some type of landscaping, whether it be a concrete fence, wood fence. I don't know exactly what it would be, but our petitioner is willing to work with the park. They -- they asked for the storage. And we tried to put it on the east, but the agencies are telling us it's got to go on the west. Now, if-- there might -- you might be able to get a permit, but there may be -- to put the storage on the east, but it's going to certainly cost a great deal more money to put it over there. Why not spend some money and buffer not only Mr. Strauss's lots, but anybody's units that are there now? If I were to offer a 25-foot setback from the Delt -- from the berm area, would that be acceptable to this commission? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Dwight, I'm still troubled over this storage area question. When did people start asking for a storage area? How long ago? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Could we -- do you still have tape, Barbara? Do you still have tape? MR. NADEAU: I'm getting an indication that it was Page 218 November 1, 2001 approximately five years ago. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Has that eastern -- has that eastern area that was marked for storage on the original PUD ever served as a storage area? And by asking that, I don't think piling some slabs and some odds and ends -- it's certainly not land -- not residents' storage, if it's storage at all. Has it ever been used for storage? MR. NADEAU: To my knowledge, no. And I think I'm getting confirmation from some of the folks in the audience. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, that's fairly critical to me. You're not -- you're not moving a storage area. You're establishing a de facto storage area for the first time. MR. NADEAU: That is correct. However, there is some maintenance opportunities that are being utilized in the commons/recreation area in the southwest corner of the property. There are some RVs stored there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. That doesn't change? MR. NADEAU: Well, if we get it up there, we probably would move those units up into the -- up into the northwest-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. NADEAU: -- probably. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We're running into a technical problem here, and she hasn't had a break for over two hours and 45 minutes. So are we through with talking to Mr. Nadeau at the moment? I think Mr. Pires wanted to make a comment. Are we through with Mr. Nadeau for now before we close this public hearing? Go ahead Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, I'll be brief. Just one minute, if I may. As to the storage areas, there are areas in the southwest area -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Page 219 November 1, 2001 MR. PIRES: -- down in here currently being utilized for storage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Stop. Do you have any paper left, Barbara? (A discussion was held off the record.) MR. PIRES: I will be one minute. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. PIRES: There's a storage area where RVs are stored at this area right now, and it -- by the clubhouse. Also, what I find interesting is that we've had months, months, months of opportunities for meetings, including we had a meeting with county staff. Now all of a sudden they're trying to come to the table with issues that could be discussed more appropriately in those settings as opposed to trying to shove this down our throats. And as to the entry being before the gate, Mr. Nadeau knew that in July when we had the meeting because we expressed that as a concern. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think we're going to have to call a short recess here. We have no paper. We're going to take a five-minute recess. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are back in session again. I think we finished up with the last registered speaker. We finished up with the last questions. Are there any other comments or questions from anyone who would come up from the public or the petitioner, from any planning commissioner? Do you feel comfortable with me closing the public hearing? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Having no further speakers, we close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, I think Page 220 November 1,2001 we've heard a good deal of information, some of it a little confusing, but I think some good things have surfaced as a result of the dialogue between the applicant's representatives and the other parties. I think there's a real opportunity for the parties to get together now, particularly as it relates to the -- one of the latest proffers which has to do with the buffering between the proposed area for the storage and the rest the -- the rest of the community. I don't think that's been sufficiently explored to see if it could be worked out and be satisfactory to all parties. So I would offer a motion to continue this hearing until a date certain to be advised by staff so that the -- to give the parties an opportunity to resolve that remaining issue. So instead of having it 80 percent complete, we could have it a hundred percent complete. So I offer that motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a second for-- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Richardson and a second by Mrs. Young to continue this petition to a date certain with information provided by staff for that date. MS. MURRAY: It's just a reasonable amount of time for the parties to get together. You know, we -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Four weeks. MS. MURRAY: Four weeks is acceptable to us. If we go beyond that, beyond five, then we have to readvertise, and there's a problem with that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It would be 30 days. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Where would the four weeks -- what -- the calendar is buried. MS. MURRAY: That would be your first meeting is December, and I'm not sure of the exact date. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The 6th of December would be our Page 221 November 1,2001 first meeting. We don't have one of our informational meetings on that date? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's greater than 30 days. MS. MURRAY: As long as it's not beyond five weeks, we're -- we're okay, so that should work. And we still have room on our agenda for that, so we can do that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's just five weeks. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It is five weeks to the day. MS. MURRAY: Five weeks and one day? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: To the day. MS. MURRAY: To the day. Then that's acceptable. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So staff doesn't oppose the motion? MS. MURRAY: No. MR. WHITE: I -- I don't believe the staff has the opportunity to do so. MS. MURRAY: Thanks for asking, though. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When is it scheduled to go before the county commission? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's scheduled to go end of November, right after Thanksgiving week, the 27th, I believe, it is. But -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: DR. BADAMTCHIAN: the board in December. 29th. 29th? No. Excuse me. 27th. I'm sorry. 27th. But that's fine. We can take it to MR. WHITE: Is it on the agenda for the 27th yet? Has it been placed on the-- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is, but it hasn't been advertised. MR. WHITE: Very good. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we have a motion and a second on Page 222 November 1,2001 the floor. Is there any further discussion about this continuation? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. I'm opposed to it. I would hope they would work out their differences between here and the -- and the Board of County Commissioners, whichever way we signal our feelings on it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd kind of rather finish the job, just continue it to get it done, if we can get it done here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other further comments? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm -- if there's a possibility of it working out to the benefit of those homeowners, I'm in favor of that. If there's not going to be any movement on the part of the applicant, then I would have no reason to go forward. But, I mean, right now there's -- maybe there's some possibility the applicant would consider moving that area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, this applicant does not exude the milk of human kindness by the (inaudible) every vein, so it would seem to me the prospect of looking down the barrel at the county commission and having gone through what he's heard today would be a more substantial impetus than coming back and retreading the whole thing with us again. That's just where I -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Abernathy, they can get hurt even with a BB gun, though, so that's what -- about what I'm offering there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think we should go ahead and just vote on it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We're -- I'm going to call the question. No further comments? All those in favor of a continuation of this petition for Silver Lakes to a date certain, being the 6th of December, say aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 223 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have one dissenting vote, Mr. Abemathy. Motion carries. It's continued to date certain September -- excuse me -- December 6th. Please get together and talk to each other and come back. Thank you. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. If you'd clear the room quietly, we still have agenda items here to consider. And the hour is getting late, and it's into the dinner hour. So we are now on -- Item G was continued, so it's H, CU-2001-AR-371 which is a conditional use, I think, 'T' or "L" in a zoning --"A" zoning district. All those wishing to hear -- 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: Thank you. Dr. Badamtchian, you're ape DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. This is a conditional use for an earth mining activity to be located at the comer of King Avenue. Known also as Brantley Boulevard, and Garland Road, approximately 2 miles east of 951, 951 being here, and it's almost 2 miles east of 951. There is a major golf course, Hideout golf course, in here. And basically what in here they are trying to do -- they have 20 acres, a little bit more than 20 acres, and they are trying to dig a lake slightly under 3 -- 13 acres for a private Page 224 November 1,2001 fishing lake. And basically -- in my staff report, unfortunately I made a mistake of saying the access will be provided via Friendship Lane. I should have said via Brantley Boulevard. Page 2 of my staff report there's a typo. It is agricultural surrounded by agricultural. The only minor issue -- the only problem or issue is that they have to haul the dirt off site to Brantley Boulevard, to 23rd Street Southwest, all the way to White Boulevard, and from there to 951. That's the only issue that staff can see. Beside that, staff recommended that no blasting be allowed. However, applicants are requesting blasting, and our code says if you are within 250 feet of a house, you cannot do blasting. So they are coming off the map that shows where they can blast. They are two or three homes within the -- like, the neighboring properties, on neighboring properties, and they have come off the map that shows the areas that they can blast and they cannot. And I believe yesterday they had a meeting with the neighbors, and they explained that to them. And they agreed that they will be allowed to blast for three weeks only, and that's going to be the extent of blasting. And basically the off-site removal of dirt will take approximately a year. After that it will become a private lake for fishing purposes. They are in compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Plan since earth mining activity was exempted from the final order, and they are in compliance with all other requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff recommends approval subject to staff stipulations. We also recently adopted a -- new excavation requirements, the criteria. They are bound by that. They will comply with it. And I can add another stipulation to say that they have to comply with that requirement, but I don't think it's really needed because it's the code, and they have to comply with it. Page 225 November 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Chahram, then your Exhibit C, page 1 of 3 on the conditions of approval for this, one of the items, I think it's 3 -- yes -- talks about the hours of operation 7 a.m. To 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Did we not change that to 7 a.m. To 5 p.m. And Monday through Friday in the new ordinance? So that's -- that right there has to be changed. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: We -- we change it. These were written a few weeks ago. I change it to comply with the requirements of that ordinance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you would change that specifically? I will change it, of course. Okay. And then the question there is No. 4, this conditional use shall expire 18 months after the date of issuance of the clearing permit, and you're talking about a 12-month operation. I'm not sure I understand the relationship between the 18 and the 12 months. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are saying they're going to do it in 12 months, and what we are proposing, to give them a window of 18 months to finish it. In case they are not done within 12 months, not to come back here, ask for an extension. So we are asking them to finish it in a maximum of 18 months. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But you say that's a stipulation, to limit this activity to 12 months during -- in the -- on page 4 of our executive summary, so I thought that we need to clarify whether it's a specific stipulation and then an expiration. Is there some difference because of the language? I just want to make sure we're clear on this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The applicant in his response, by the way, is saying he only needs six months. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They said they need only six months. But I was reviewing a traffic study, and in the traffic study, they are saying 12 months. Page 226 November 1,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, then how can you have one stipulation that says 12 months, and then in the back over here you're giving them 18 months to expire the permit; is that correct? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: It -- let me -- I'm sorry. It should say 18 months. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: On page 4 of the -- Page 4 should say 18 months. Okay. I'm not sure I accept that, but at least we'll get those hours of operation and days of operation corrected. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: We'll fix that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions of Dr. Badamtchian? Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Well, I'd just like to follow up on what the chairman said. If they say it can be done in 6 months and you have stipulated 12 months, why are we then advancing it to 18 months? Why not just stop at 127 DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I was worried that they may have problem with permitting and -- which may delay things. We may have, I don't know, hurricane, something that may delay. I just wanted to give them six months to make sure that we are not going to have problems in the future and we don't have to come back and ask for a six-month extension. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MS. MURRAY: That's up to you-all. I mean, you can certainly recommend something different. If you feel that 18 months is too long and you are more comfortable with 12 and you can state your reasons why, you're certainly able to do that, and we will convey that to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We'll ask that of the petitioner. Page 227 November 1,2001 DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They're saying 12 months is okay, so we'll change this to 12. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You think 12 months is okay. State your name for the record, please. MR. ROBAU: Yes. My name is Emilio Robau, and I'm with RWA. I'm one of the principals in the firm. And, sure, 12 months, I think, was our original thought on this anyways. It can be done quicker. It can be done in three months to a six-month period. But, you know, 12 months give us -- gives us a little bit of flexibility depending on market conditions, etc. There is a good need for fill dirt, so we'll hopefully be able to get rid of it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you're familiar with the hours of operation and that type of thing -- MR. ROBAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- in the new ordinance. MR. ROBAU: Yeah. And that can go on a little bit more. I just read the ordinance, as a matter of fact, the night before last. And -- and I did not catch what you had caught, Ms. Rautio, you know, with regard to that, but we're okay. We want to build a fishing lake, essentially. And, you know, we want to be, you know, good neighbors, as I think Hideout has been with the neighborhood out there, and we want to mitigate any impacts that we have. If you'd like, I could just give you a quick presentation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be fine. Then we have a public speaker. MR. ROBAU: Right. As I said, my name is Emilio Robau. I've been representing Hideout Golf Club since the -- beginning the course about four years ago. At that time they had bought some other properties surrounding this area in order to buffer the course and in order to provide some red cockaded woodpecker habitat, which they purchased as part of their permitting process. And part of that Page 228 November 1, 2001 process -- some of the buffer land that they purchased they wanted to build a fishing lake on. And this is truly a fishing lake. This is not-- it comes under the procedure of getting a conditional use and a -- you know, a commercial mining operation because we have to get rid of the dirt because as you see up here -- I think it's outlined. What we want to leave is we want to leave the lake in an undulation -- undulating fashion with all the native vegetation around it and all the trees. It truly was -- there's a select membership group over there that likes to go fishing. They would basically walk from the course to the fishing lake. These individuals have apparently done this in other areas of the country, and this is going to be a rather sophisticated operation. They're going to stock the lake. There's going to be aerators and so on and so forth. Another reason that I had to go to commercial excavation is I had to go 20 feet because apparently the fish like a deep hole somewhere in the lake. And so there's -- it's going to have a lot of littoral zones. It's going to have shelter for the fish, and we've got to have a deep hole. And so because we didn't want to keep the dirt on site because, as you see, it would -- to stockpile the amount of material that would come out of there, we had to get rid of it. And because we wanted to go 20 feet to get into a hole for the fish, we -- we're into the, you know, commercial mining excavation, which is really not the intent. I mean, after you pay the impact fees and the contractor excavates, and you know, you do the blasting required and so on and so forth, you know, it's not such a profitable venture when you're talking about a very small operation like that. The economy of scale that kicks in when you do real mining operations isn't there. So the real intent of this, I want to reiterate, is a fishing lake. And, quite frankly, when I started this, it sounded really simple. But Page 229 November 1,2001 almost a year later, red cockaded woodpecker reports, environmental analysis, and so on and so forth, this has become quite a complicated process. And I hope this is coming into the conclusion of it. And I'm not going to waste a whole bunch more time, but I'd like to go over a couple things just to get it on the record. The property, as well as all properties abutting the subject property, are in the agricultural zoning district. As Chahram has said, this is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and, you know, all the other activities that have been occurring in this part of the county. The reason we need it to be a commercial is because we need to get the material off site. We need to go 20 feet in the holes. Ingress and egress from the site will be off Brantley Boulevard, then 23rd Street Southwest, and down to White, then down 951. We'll get rid of the fill as close as possible to the site as we can. It's in our best interest. A year is fine. That's what we originally -- in our preapplication meeting when we met with Ron Nino, who was originally assigned to this project, he said that a year would be something that we should do, and we agreed with him at that point. Operating hours, we're going to do whatever is consistent with the -- with the ordinances in effect. That's fine too. And the one thing that -- I had a public meeting, I guess, with the -- even though we didn't have to, we had a public meeting with the neighbors. I think one of the neighbors is here to express some concerns about blasting. I don't want to steal the winds from her sail, but we had a public meeting on Tuesday night. The blaster was there. I was there. Moe Kent, the owner's representative -- he's the managing partner of the golf course -- was there, and we had, I don't know, about maybe 16 or so people, more or less. And we tried to explain to them the process: That we would clear, the blasting operations would take about three weeks. Beyond that, that we were going to -- we explained to them the truck traffic Page 230 November 1, 2001 that would occur and so on and so forth. I think we stated to them -- we didn't want to sugarcoat it, you know -- that the blasting for a three-week period might be a hearing nuisance and that kind o_f thing. The truck traffic would be there. But after a period of a year, what they would be left with at the end of the day was basically a -- a fishing lake. I think there's a caretaker residence that will be on there, and that's the most. And it'll be left as you see it up there, ail the surrounding property and native vegetation that we own, and that we would -- you know, we'd leave the trees and so on and so forth. They asked a couple of things. They're concerned, so I just wanted to make sure that, you know, I told you everything they told us. They wanted to know if there was any impacts on the wells, and 20 feet is not deep enough in that area -- I've looked at the soils report. I was part of the other development. We had a hydrological report on that. That's not deep enough to get into the lower Tamiami Aquifer, which is about 55 or 60 feet deep. They were concerned about the truck traffic and, you know, rightfully so. And we told them -- they were concerned not only about the volume, but they were concerned about the speed. And I think as the meeting progressed, their concern turned more towards the speed of the trucks and the children in the area and so on and so forth. The good thing about this, it's a -- we're going to have one contractor actually build this, and I think they're going to use it for other of their projects within a certain radius of-- of the project. I'm not sure exactly where the dirt's going. I provided an exhibit to transportation giving a potential of the dirt going all the way to the county line and all the way down to 951, I believe. But we tried to mitigate some of that concern by telling them that we would really bandy that the contractor kept really close tabs on the speed and the operating of the trucks. And I think to a certain extent, you can tell a truck, you know, if you're -- if you're caught, Page 231 November 1,2001 you won't come back here again, speeding. And we also told them that we would be notifying the sheriffs department to try to get some increased patrols during the initial part of the excavation, which kind of conditions people to slow down. And then thereafter if we need to -- you know, because once the sheriffs department is out there with the blow dryer pointing at you, people have a tendency to start, you know, slowing down. And if that wanes, you know, you get them out there again, and that's how you do that, plus constant monitoring by the contractor. We also agreed to clear a small area on the comer of Garland and Brantley that would provide a little bit better sight distance, which they wanted. Blasting became -- was -- we had a lot of conversation about blasting. The blasting contractor went over, you know, the blasting ordinances and a whole bunch of science and square root-type equations about how far they needed to be away. And I'm not sure, you know, honestly speaking, that we alleviated -- you know, everybody's happy that it's going to be blasting next to their home -- actually 350 feet or so away in accordance with the ordinance. But we did take the opportunity to explain to them that there's preblast surveys and that the county comes out and monitors and that, you know, if any of-- any damage is proven, that the contractor's liable for that. We really need to blast. This becomes extremely uneconomical if we can't blast. The rock there varies in 2 to 4 feet, and we have areas in the lake which we're going to designate as no blast zones in order to keep our buffer from the adjacent properties. So really we agree with everything that staff has written in the staff report, the standard transportation stipulations, the impact fees, and you know, all those things. The one thing that we really would like to have is the ability to blast. And we talked to the neighbors. We tried to explain to them what-- you know, what blasting is about. Page 232 November 1, 2001 It's done pretty commonly throughout the county. We're not asking for anything else here on this agriculturally zoned property that your ordinance already allow (sic). I think Chahram was really cautious in putting that stipulation in. And we went out and tried to meet with the property owners to get them to allow us to blast. And I think at the end of the meeting the conclusions were that -- and I'm sure we'll have some more comment, but that the conclusions, at least the way I saw them, was that yes, it was going to be a nuisance. We were going to have a pit operating out there for a period of a year. But the neighbors have seen the property increase in value due to Hideout, and they were relatively happy with the kind of relationships they've developed over the past three or four years, and they want to continue that in the future. So that's really all that I have as part of my public presentation. And I've given Chahram a memorandum of the meeting, and I'm going to send it to all the people that attended. I don't think I've left anything else. If there's any questions, please feel free. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just have a quick one. This is a -- a golf course with no -- no homes and -- MR. ROBAU: No. This property -- actually the golf course is separated from this property. Here's the course. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. MR. ROBAU: Here's the property. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MR. ROBAU: They own parcels around here. I can't quite show you which ones. I'm not quite sure. They've been purchasing them over the past four years. And this is the property that we're talking about, so they would walk here to here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: They would get done playing 18 holes and then walk over and fish, so this is for them, for the -- the Page 233 November 1,2001 equity owners only? MR. ROBAU: Well, it's -- the petition's in the name of Hideout Golf, Limited, but I believe that there's only three or four individuals. Maybe other owners would go out there, but I know there's three or four that are really interested in this. I don't know how to answer that beyond that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So these guys just want to get together and build their own fishing hole. MR. ROBAU: Just -- just like they wanted to get together and build their own golf course. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think they want to dig their own fishing hole. MR. ROBAU: And stock it and put the aerators in it and, you know, feeding stations and so on and so forth. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one question based on something you started out -- MR. ROBAU: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- in your discussion. You said that there were going to be numerous members of the golf club possibly wanting to fish there. The application that you submitted says the owner of the subject property wishes to develop a private, 12-acre fishing lake on site for the enjoyment of his family. The lake will be private and not open to the public. Are you saying that's not exactly the way it is? MR. ROBAU: Well, the way I understand it is a private facility. I don't know honestly if they're going to open it up to 250 members of that private course. I think that it is two or three individuals and their families who desire to do this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In your application it was very specific, the enjoyment of his family. And that, to me and maybe to Page 234 November 1,2001 the rest of the members here, reads a very low profile. MR. ROBAU: It is. And I believe there's one and -- two individuals, and they're listed right under Hideout Golf Club, Limited. Those three individuals, I think, are the ones. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So we're -- our approval of this then, in your mind, would not signify this gentleman and his family or this lady and her family. It would be any number of people. MR. WHITE: Madam Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MR. WHITE: It seems to me that the petition is one for a conditional use for earth mining. And what the, quote, unquote, long term or permanent use is may be something that's allowed in the zoning district. I'm not sure we've broached that issue as part of what the staffs presentation has been. And -- and if we need to in order to address Commissioner Strain's concern, then we ought to. But I'm just trying to keep the discussion confined to the actual application. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I understand what you're saying. But I'm wondering if we knowingly now have been told that this is going to be used for a specific use after it's dug and it's being dug for that use, is that something we should be considering? MR. WHITE: I don't believe so. The only thing I believe that's before you today is the petition for the conditional use to do the earth mining. I don't believe that the, quote, subsequent use is one that's either impermissible or anything like that in the zoning district. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If it wasn't in the package, I probably wouldn't have brought it up. But since it was there, I thought it was relevant. MR. WHITE: I always appreciate commissioners making inquiries and -- and wanting to know all the facts and the law that applies to a particular project. But unless I'm mistaken -- and staff should feel free to correct me -- I believe that the subsequent use for Page 235 November 1,2001 recreational purposes is one that needs no further approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe that's correct. Thank you. Do we have any other questions? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: At a hundred thousand dollars to excavate, it's going to cost something like a thousand dollars a fish, isn't it? MR. ROBAU: Well, that's not including the price of a 5-pound bass from day one, so I'm not quite sure what that's worth. But it's really intended to be a very low-key, private lake. Whether other members are out here or not, I can't tell you. It started with a couple of people for privacy reasons. I'll just leave it at that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And we want to focus on the earth mining aspect. Do we have a registered speaker? MS. MURRAY: We have one. Kay Kulever (phonetic). CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I do believe she's been waiting all day since 8:30. A good civics lesson. MS. KLUEVER: And that it has been. And by the way, my name is Kay Kluever. And it's spelled K-l-u-e-v-e-r, so it's very deceiving. But this has been an education today, and I've learned to really respect you guys a lot for putting up with all of this and listening to all of this. But my concern -- when you look at the map-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: If you don't talk too loudly, pick up that microphone that's right there. MS. KLUEVER: This is our property right here, right here. And we have a concrete building here. The back two-thirds of this is shop. The front half is all housing. Here is our dream home that we've been working towards since '93 when we blasted our lake, and we went through all of this. So at the same time, I do have an idea of what is going on. But they were very gracious and had a lovely meeting Tuesday night for all of us. But naturally, I haven't even got Page 236 November 1, 2001 to move into this yet. I was hoping for Thanksgiving, but now it'll be Christmas. And then to turn around and have this blasting so close, I'm worried, and I'm sure you can understand. I'm following it as closely as I can. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can I just ask a question? Let me -- I'm not sure quite what your position is. You're concerned. I heard that. Are you objecting to the blasting taking place? MS. KLUEVER: Well, they tried to tell me that I'd hardly feel it, but I would hear it. And at the same time, I'm so close I don't know how that's possible. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I'm sure you're going to hear it and feel it too. But I'm -- I'm just asking whether you're asking us to put additional stipulations. Can you think of anything else that would be helpful besides not doing this project? MS. KLUEVER: I -- I think as a whole the project would improve the appearance of the comer. And at the same time, they've been very good neighbors, and I'm not about to try to make the poor neighbor, but I want to make sure that I'm covered and they do any repair to my home. I don't want to have any problems. Okay? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Now, to that point can the applicant speak to any liability issues here? MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, we also have staff here to talk about our excavation ordinance and blasting and -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be good. MS. MURRAY: -- that if you would care to hear from them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We had a little sidebar over there and-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: She specifically asked whether you -- if you caused damage on her property, would you handle the liability? And that's -- MR. ROBAU: Well, that's -- I think that's part of the program. Page 237 November 1, 2001 We do a preblast survey that we have to go out to, you know, residences within a certain distance and videotape, take photographs, and so on and so forth to establish the baseline condition. Once that's done, after blasting's completed, if there's any complaints, we compare that to what they actually have out there. And the blaster's got, I think, a $5 million liability program for that type of occurrence SO... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I'd like elaboration from staff on the -- the blasting aspect of it with our excavation ordinance. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon -- or good evening. Stan Chrzanowski, development services. I -- I only have -- you know there's a blasting ordinance as well as an excavation ordinance. There are two different ordinances. The blasting ordinance has all the rules that Emilio said about the -- the 150 times the square root of the charge is the distance that you have to do a preblast survey for. You're not allowed to blast within 350 feet of a house. He's right about all that. There was only one thing that I heard that caught my attention. Did you say your house is under construction? MS. KLUEVER: Yes, sir. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. You're all aware that concrete during its initial set -- right after you pour it, it goes through an initial set. It's very weak. And then, like, 24 hours later, you start getting up to 90 percent strength and whatever. During that initial set, if you do any blasting, you could cause damage that's not visible for a while afterwards. So you're going to have to do some coordination. MS. KLUEVER: This is what I was concerned with. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. It might -- but it -- generally our charge -- our ordinance has been stiffened up so much over the last few years that when they're blasting now, we get a lot of blasting complaints, but I don't see much blasting damage. We get a lot of complaints. People don't like the noise. They don't like the -- you Page 23 8 November 1, 2001 get more vibration from the average thunder clap than you do from one of our blasts. But there -- that would be my only concern, that if they're pouring concrete and they have gotten a slab poured in the morning or something poured in the morning and this blast goes on, like, three o'clock, you could get some cracking that you don't see for a while. But these guys are professionals. They know that. MS. KLUEVER: Right now we're at the point where the tile is going on. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You probably won't have problems. MS. KLUEVER: I just -- you know, I'm concerned for what comes up afterwards. I'm sure any of you would be if you were in that situation. So I just wanted to make sure that we were covered, so that's what-- I've been just listening. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's always one of the hard parts, is concrete during -- if it's not cut properly in proper lengths, like a sidewalk, if it's not scored properly -- all concrete cracks from shrinkage. It's hard to tell from -- if a sidewalk or a driveway cracks, whether it was not scored in time. That'll be up to the preblast survey and the blaster and other engineers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How soon do you anticipate commencing blasting? MR. ROBAU: We're scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners when, Dwight? November 27th. It's going to take us probably -- we don't have to go to the district, Stan. This is no wetlands, one of those unusual sites and so on and so forth. It's less than 40 acres. So it's probably going to take us a couple of more months to get a site development plan approval and an excavation permit. Between now and then, we can also gear up the contractor. So February-ish, I think. And just as an aside, I used to work for a testing company my Page 239 November 1,2001 first year out of school. Concrete is supposed to reach 70 percent of its compressive strength in 28 days. The rest of it is asentotic (phonetic). It continues to cure forever. So I think that we're past that risk zone. But we have promised to the neighbors that even if they're outside of the zone where we would typically have to have some sort of a study done, if they had any concerns, we would include them in the preblast survey. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? Do we have any additional speakers? MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that we send CU-2001- AR-371 to the county board-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I second the motion. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: -- with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With all staff's stipulations. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: With blasting or without blasting? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: With. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The way it has -- staff recommendation is no blasting. But if you want blasting, what I would like to get is a map where they can blast and where they cannot and have it as an exhibit to the PUD document -- PUD -- I'm saying PUD. I'm sorry -- the conditional use resolution as the areas that blasting is allowed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mrs. Young, restate your particular motion. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I forward -- I move this motion subject to a recommendation for a conditional approval, subject to all staff stipulations. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Except blasting. Page 240 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Except for the blasting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mrs. Young, a second by Mrs. -- Mr. Adelstein to approve this petition. MS. MURRAY: Pardon me. Does that include the 12-month limitation? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It includes the 12-month limitation and fixing the hours of operation, etc., that we spoke about earlier. All that's included. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. We have one last item on the agenda for public hearings. That would be PDI-2001-AR-1317, an insubstantial change determination to the San Marino PUD. Okay. 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' Madam Chairman, if I may, everyone can pass down their conditional use forms when they're done. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, that's right. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with current planning. The petitioner is Kevin Higginson. He's representing Southem Marsh Golf Club. They're requesting an amendment, an insubstantial change to the PUD master plan for the Southern Marsh Page 241 November 1, 2001 -- or San Marino PUD. Excuse me. It's been a long day. As you can see, the subject site is located on the east side of County Road 951, and is south of the Forest Glen of Naples PUD to the north. This is a golf course residential community, and they are requesting a slight change to the roadway that -- that emers the PUD and the location of some of the preserve area boundaries within the PUD. In your staff report, you have both the original currently approved master plan and the proposed master plan. I've kind of highlighted in color here the changes. Basically the road used to follow along the property line. Now it jogs around this preserve area that's incorporated here. It originally had kind of a preserve area that wasn't in a very viable condition, and they've relocated the -- all the preserve areas in a more viable area up here. This is a better condition for preserving these areas. Staff has not seen any reasons to recommend denial for this change, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: See no reasons for denial, so you want to recommend approval? MR. BELLOWS: That's it. And the Planning Commission does recommend approval of this one -- or does approve. Excuse me. MS. MURRAY: They have the final authority. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: One other thing I'd like to point out is there'll be a slight change to the master plan that you have there. The little location map has a slight -- a little error on it. This little location map, the actual site should be in the section down below. And Mr. Higginson will provide me with a corrected one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ray, on Item C in your Page 242 November 1,2001 analysis, the question is, is there a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, so forth, of more than 5 percent. Well, since you've got an increase in the preservation area, it seems like that would have been a -- a way to answer that question instead of this circuitous there is no proposed decrease in preservation in excess of 5 percent. That almost sounds like there's something, but it ain't 5 percent. You know, you could turn it around and say there is no decrease; there's an increase. MR. BELLOWS: You're correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, that is not related to the insubstantial issue? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I basically try to reflect the question better that way, but probably the easier understandable way is as Mr. Abemathy said. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would it be substantial if it -- would it be substantial if you increased it by 50 percent or-- MR. BELLOWS: No. It's only the decrease we look at. They can increase all the preserve area they'd like. It's probably, from that condition, a benefit. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You have the floor. MR. HIGGINSON: Good evening. For the record, my name is Kevin Higginson. I'm a professional engineer employed by Coastal Engineering Consultants, and I represent Southern Marsh Golf Club, LC. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the reason we're here is during the South -- South Florida Water Management District environmental resource permitting process, some changes were made to our site plan to minimize impacts to the on-site wetlands. So we've had to make some adjustments, one of which, as Ray -- Mr. Bellows mentioned, was to realign the entrance road, and the other was to shift some of the wetland preserves around to make the -- the large contiguous wetland to the east a larger area that South Page 243 November 1,2001 Florida was more agreeable to. And as we came forward through the SDP preapplication meeting, it was pointed out to us that that did not match up with the existing PUD master plan. So that's why we're here, just to sort of do some housekeeping and clean up our PUD master plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Goodness. Clean it up. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have a question, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This all sounds commendable to bring everything together. But I'm wondering -- you know, we've had a lot of PUDs go through that we never see again, and then suddenly they pop up sometime later and there's been a whole bunch of changes made that we didn't know about. Is this an example of what we might look forward to in the future more often, that is as other jurisdictions take a look at this and make changes, that they'll come back to us so that we can have a chance to pass our hands over it? MR. BELLOWS: I think it's a valid point. Especially when you're dealing with other jurisdictions that have authority over a development of land that this county doesn't control, such as South Florida, then, yes, if there is a change that affects the PUD document, it would have to come back to this board. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That has not always been the case, though. It seems -- it doesn't seem that that's always been the case. We often don't know what the -- they don't have those permits in hand when they come to us. MR. BELLOWS: That's true. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And if there are substantial changes -- well, if there are changes that are a result of that-- that dialogue, you're now saying if it-- if it changes the Page 244 November 1, 2001 physical PUD documents that we have, that is the way things are put together and contiguous and so forth, that it would come back to us? We could expect that to happen? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the reason this came back, it was my determination that there were enough changes to the conceptual master plan that I would not feel comfortable letting a site development plan go through with it not being consistent with the currently approved master plan. So it was my determination that he should come in for this PDI. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we need to check with your comfort factor then to answer that question. MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's a call in many cases when there are slight changes to a master plan. And we heard one earlier today. One person's opinion may differ from another, and it's really up to staff to be diligent to make sure that when there are changes by other jurisdictional agencies that they are reflected in the master plan. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I, for one, would like you to err on the side of keeping us informed. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: And we thank you for your diligence. MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome. MR. HIGGINSON: Yeah. Thanks a lot, Ray. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further questions here? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: I'm happy to say no registered public speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Having no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I make a motion we approve PDI- 01-AR-1317. Page 245 November 1,2001 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Strain and a second by Mr. Wolfley for the approval of this particular petition for changing the current master plan known as Exhibit A attached to the PDI resolution. 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. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. MR. HIGGINSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are on old business, and I believe -- I guess this might be new business, but we spoke about e- mail use before, No. 9. Mr. Weigel, I noticed you came back to join us at this late hour. MR. WEIGEL: That's right. Wouldn't leave without you. I had Pat -- I told Pat before lunchtime to give me a call if I had to be called in from lunch to speak to you at the end of your meeting today. And I was in the elevator when the phone rang, but I was on my way down to check up on you in any event. Thanks for letting me come back to chat briefly about e-mail. As you know, our county attomey office is still chomping at the bit to give you considerable discussion on Sunshine Law, Public Records Law, the ethics laws, as well as ex parte communications. I know you know a lot about that anyway, and it would be somewhat redundant. But at the same time, the refresher course is something we'd love to do. In regard to e-mail, and e-mail between commission members particularly, our advice to all advisory committees and the Board of County Commissioners is keep it to a minimum, e-mail between Page 246 November 1, 2001 commission members. Is it absolutely illegal? No. In fact, it is utilizable in the sense that you can send one-way e-mail from one commissioner to another or one commissioner to all the other commissioners. But you don't want a response, and you don't want to solicit a response because once you get into response and if it pertains to a matter that may foreseeably come before you or has come before you in the past, then you have what is considered by law a meeting outside of the sunshine with the three requirements of reasonable notice ahead of time, adequate public facility, and minutes being taken. It all sounds pretty simple, but our advice to the Board of County Commissioners again and again is keep the unilateral, the one-way e-mails, to a minimum if possible. Never solicit a response. If you receive such an e-mail, think at least twice before responding. And in the case of a committee such as this one that has a staff liaison, if you have the question go to your staff liaison if at all possible and make he or she be the one to send a blanket e-mail informing the rest of the commissioners, that way you've gone the extra mile, and I think you'll avoid trouble in almost every instance. I may -- I hope I've addressed maybe the current issues that you have. I certainly will entertain any questions now at this late hour. It's far later for you in your day than it is for me in my day. I had an easier day, I can tell you. But I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Weigel, just -- then there is no prohibition, as you would understand it for our contacts with staff on any subjects? MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely not. It's only between committee members that you run into the Sunshine Law problems. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can you just briefly say what we should be doing relative to contacts with applicant Page 247 November 1, 2001 representatives or members of the public? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I think, Mr. Richardson, you take us into the area of what we call the ex parte communications. And you are no different than the Board of County Commissioners, that in regard to those items, the typical items that people are sworn in to testify to that are considered quasi-judicial -- and you certainly have that charge before you to make quasi-judicial decisions -- that you must, in fact, by law identify on the record at the time that the matter is taken up, make an individual disclosure of the ex parte communications that you've had. Now, what we glean from reading the attorney general opinions and the case law is that more disclosure is better than less. I would far prefer that you tell with whom you had such communications. It doesn't matter whether they approached you or you approached them. The important thing is to indicate that you've had a communication with this person, that person, X, Y, Z, etc. It's also important for you to disclose and be able to put into the record any mail or other correspondence-type of communication that you received in regard to the decision matter before you. If you receive e-mail, if you receive hard copy transmittals, or if you can convert your e-mail into printed copies, you can submit those into the record. We advise the client, all committees that we've spoken to with our Sunshine Law discussions, keep a file of the records and things that you get from a public records standpoint; but also bring to the committee meetings those documents, exemplars, maps, drawings, sketches, things that you receive from advocates both for and against the issues that are before you and submit them to the record, and the court reporter will make them part of the record of this proceeding. They'll always be there. Now, why is the law in place in the first place? It's to give those persons who wish to review the matter further in the decision-making Page 248 November 1, 2001 process to know how you and what you have received in your own decision-making that you make individually and then, ultimately, collectively here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. And, Ms. Murray, would you please make sure that a memo goes around to all your staff of the clarification that Mr. Weigel just gave us, that staff should be the source of the information when they respond to an individual commissioner so that that's totally understood? And that way it would probably facilitate everyone's understanding of some changes that happen that we question when we're reading our executive summaries, like we did this time. MS. MURRAY: Yes. I'll do that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are we subject -- as advisory board members, advisory committee members, are we subject to any criticism for declining to engage in an ex parte conversation with a petitioner or opponent of a petition? I know the commissioners -- county commissioners do it for political reasons. Obviously, they should be reachable by their constituents. But should we be involved in the same sort of running -- going through the mill twice, so to speak? MR. WEIGEL: That's a good question, and the answer is, from your county attorney, no. You would not be subject to criticism from the county attorney for declining to do so and keep all of your decision-making, to the extent that you personally, physically can, within the confines of the meeting room. That makes it so absolutely in the sunshine that there can be no question whatsoever. The disclosures that you make are pursuant to county policy resolution, applying state law and case decision, and we think you're protected in doing that. Page 249 November 1,2001 And we have advised this Board of County Commissioners and you through the years that you may, in fact, have these ex parte communications, as we call them, as long as the disclosure is made. The disclosure is made to avoid you individually from having personal civil liability. And you don't work these long hours to put yourself at risk to have, for convenience, heard someone outside of the meeting room pushing an issue no matter which side he or she may be on. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Without disclosing it. MR. WEIGEL: Well, without disclosing. But even with disclosure the fact is the disclosure makes it legal within the sunshine, but is it -- is it the process that works best for you in your own decision-making? If the answer is yes, what you're disclosing is that you have received information, that may or may not have assisted you in your decision-making, outside of the meeting arrangement which the law, quite frankly, hopes that you will utilize. They want -- the law -- the Sunshine Law wants you to be in -- in regular noticed public meeting to the full extent that you can. And from that standpoint it's certainly facilitative for you, as individuals, to receive information, open your mail, have, even, meetings with people outside of these -- outside of these commission meetings. There's no question there's certainly efficiencies achieved and information that may be passed, but the law wants you to disclose how you received that information and how -- and to that degree how it may, in fact, assist you in your decision-making you make on the floor. That's -- that's what that record is supposed to tell the observer, that the decision that you're making today, or whatever meeting day you have, is based upon what you heard at the meeting that very day and the discussions that you had with other people outside of the meeting and information, physical information, that you've received also. It's -- it's legal as long as you make the full ex Page 250 November 1,2001 parte disclosure, however. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? Under old business I would just like to mention that I thought we were going to get a current list of all commission members and their e-mails. I didn't see one at my place, but I have a very nice set of Emergency Medical Service Advisory Council up here. MS. MURRAY: I don't know where that came from. I -- I may have that in my blue folder. And I would ask that you also stay. You have a lot of paper to sign. And, Commissioner Abernathy, I have a question to ask you after the meeting. And I have two NAICS books. A couple people mentioned they did not get them. I'd like to get rid of them. Thanks. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How are we coming along on the LDC books? MS. MURRAY: I -- she told me a month, and that was two weeks ago, so I'm going to say it's another two weeks at the most, hopefully. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. No further old business? Is there any new business? Any public comment? No public comment. No discussions of the addenda. If there's no objection, I move that we are adjourned. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second the motion. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:57 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Page 251 November 1,2001 JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 252 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION November 13,2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 JERRY NEAL 950 ENCORE WAY NAPLES, FL 34110 REFERENCE: BD-2001-AR-1182, CARMIGNANI, WAYNE Dear Mr. Neal: On Thursday, November 1, 2001, the Collier County Planning approved Petition No. BD-2001 AR- 1182. A copy of Resolution No. 01-25 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questiOns, please contact me at 403-2400. Ross Gochenaur Planner II RG/Io Commission heard and Enclosure CC: WAYNE CARMIGNANI Land Dept. Property Appraiser J Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- 25 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-1182 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 29-foot extension of a boat dock /rom the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 49-foot boat dock facility in an "RSF-4" zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Jerry Neal, representing Wayne Carmignani, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 27, Isles of Capri Unit 1, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 41, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida be and the same is hereby approved for a 29-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 49-foot boat docking facility in the "RSF-4" zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. 3. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2001-AR-1182 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Donethis [ d'T dayof ~,}0q] ~ ~:~2,~r-- ,2001. ATTEST: JOHN M. Interim Ad] Communit~ Services rNNUCK, 1II inistrator Development and Environmental Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDg~ JOYCE~NNA J. RAUTIO, ~HAIRMAN Matjo~[ 1~I~ ~tudent Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2001-AR-1182. RG/Io COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION November 13, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Ben Nelson, Jr. Nelson Marine Construction, Inc. 10900 East Terry Street Bonita Springs, FL 34135 REFERENCE: BD-2000-27, Norm Alpert Dear Mr. Nelson: On Thursday, November 1, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-27. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-26 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincer/~ Ross Goccl~naur Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000-27/RG/lo Enclosure C'- Norm Alpert 1819 Princess Ct. Naples, FL 34110 Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics ~ Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643~6968 www. co.collier, fl.u~ CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- 26 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-27 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public heating after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 15-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 35-foot boat dock facility in a PUD zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Ben Nelson, representing Norman R. Alpert, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Bayfront Gardens, Lot 22, as described in Plat Book 14, Page 114-117, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 15-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 35-foot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-27 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this [ ~ day of ~ (5~J ~ ~' ,2001 . ATTEST: JOHN M. D~CK, III Interim Admi}iistrator Community Development and Environmental Services COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA JOYCE~NNA J. ~UTICI, CHAIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: arjoRik M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/B D-2000-27/RG/Io 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION November 5,2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS KEVIN L. HIGGINSON, P.E. 17595 S. TAMIAMI TRAIL, #102 FT. MYERS, FL 33908 REFERENCE: PDI-2001-AR-1317, SAN MARINO Dear Applicant: On Thursday, November I, 2001, the Collier County Planning approved Petition No. PDI-2001-AR- 1317. A copy of Resolution No. 01- 27 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Principal Planner RB/Io Commission heard and Enclosure CC: SOUTHERN MARSH GOLF CLUB, L.E. Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) v'~ Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fl.us PDI RESOLUTION NO. 01-27 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER PDI-2001- ,AR-1317 FOR INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE SAN MARINO PUD FOR PURPOSES OF REVISING THE MASTER PLAN FOR MODIFICATIONS TO A PORTION OF THE PUD MASTER PLAN TO REFLECT THE ALIGNMENT OF THE ENTRANCE ROAD AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PRESERVATION AREA ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public, and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission is authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to grant insubstantial changes to PUDs in accordance with Subsection 2.7.3.5 of the Land Development Code of Collier County, and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of approving PDI-2001-AR-1317, for insubstantial changes as shown on the revised Master Plan (Exhibit 'A') for the San Marco PUD, Ordinance No. 2000-10, for an additional entrance road and modified preserve areas for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.7.3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled and the Commission having considered all matters presented, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Kevin L. Higginson, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Southern Marsh Golf Club, L.E., be and the same hereby is approved for making the noted minor design changes to the San Marino PUD having the effect of revising the Master Plan (Exhibit "A") to allow for the addition of an entrance road and modifications to the preserve areas as authorized by the San Marino PUD. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number PDI-2001-AR-1317 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 1st day of November ., 2001. COLLIER COLLIER PLAlX COLLIER~~UNTY, FLOI 5G COMMIS SION JOYCEA~A'J: I~,AUT ~), CHAIRMAN TEST: ~ Jo~n M. Dun~uck, ~I Interim Administrator Community Development and Environmental Services Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Matjorieql~/l. Student Assistant County Attorney PDI-2001 -AR- 1317/RB/Io CE 951 (125' R/W) (COLLIER BOUL[VARD) CHARLES V. BENTON, PhO SAN MARINO EXHIBIT "A" t t f t 1 1 t