Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/03/2002 RJanuary 3, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 3, 2002 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 8:33 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Joyceanna J. Rautio Kenneth L. Abemathy Lindy Adelstein Lora Jean Young David J. Wolfley Dwight Richardson Mark P. Strain NOT PRESENT: Russell A. Budd Paul Midney ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie M. Student, Asst. County Attorney Ray Bellows, Chief Planner, Planning Services Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 2002, 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 SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES- RUSSELL BLrDD 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS OF DECEMBER 11, 2001 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUD-2000-22, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., representing Pine Ridge Redevelopment Group, requesting a rezone from "RSF-4" and "C-I" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Goodlette Comers PUD for a maximum of 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses, for property located on the southwest comer of Goodlette Road and Pine Ridge Road, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.52+ acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) PUDA-20001-AR-431, Tim Hancock, AICP, representing Park East Development, LTD, requesting an amendment to the Founders Plaza PUD by updating the existing PUD for the purpose of including language that permits additional retail and commercial uses on parcels that exceed 150' in depth for property located on both sides of Golden Gate Parkway at the Santa Barbara Canal Crossing in Golden Gate City, Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) C. PUDA-2001-AR-1494,Cindy A. Penney, of PMS, Inc. of Naples, representing Kenco Development Inc., requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD to be known as the Richland PUD for the purpose of reducing the maximum number of dwelling units from 650 to 400 and increasing the commercial acreage from 21.8 acres to 25 acres for property located on the southwest comer of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 46 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) D. LDC Amendments 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOUR31 1/3/01/CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo January 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission in regular session for Thursday, January 3rd, 2002. Please stand and join me in pledging allegiance to our nation's flag. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next item on the agenda is roll call. Mr. Midney, absent but excused. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd, absent but excused. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio, present. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We do have a quorum. Thank you. Do we have addenda to the agenda that you're aware of, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On Item-- Agenda Item 8-B, that's PUDA-2001-AR-431, it's come to my attention there was an advertising error on this petition. And the petitioner and I have discussed this, and we request that this be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So that would be the January Page 2 January 3, 2002 17th meeting? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' We have a motion and a second; a motion by Mr. Abemathy, a second by Mrs. Young for removal of Item 8-B under public hearings to the January 17th Planning Commission hearing. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, just on a narrow point, in that particular packet, 8-B, I appear to be missing some information, so you might want to check that before the next meeting. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Since we're on that item, I'd like to address certain things that have come to my attention since I got back from vacation. One is the applications that-- some of the staff reports in your agenda packets may be missing some pages. And the reason for that is -- and not every planner does it the same way but -- or every application that we receive. Sometimes those pages are missing because those are pages that are informational. They have information on how to prepare and submit a traffic impact statement. Technically, they should not be part of the application packet and that because of the numbers -- sequential -- sequence makes you think that there's information missing. Really, it's just an informational part of that application. It either should be attached as an exhibit or given out separately and not attached. So I apologize for that confusion, but it's really not missing information on the application; it's just an exhibit that's not -- it's been removed because Page 3 January 3, 2002 it's redundant information. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you might be considering changing the -- MR. BELLOWS: Oh, definitely. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- format. Go ahead if you want to talk about that. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I discussed this with the-- Madam Chairman, and I agree that a revision to the application will occur. We will eliminate those informational parts of the application and just keep the necessary applicant information on the application, and that should resolve any of those problems with -- when you get an application in your agenda packet, all the numbers will be there, so you'll know nothing's missing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And we will continue this discussion under the chairman's report, some additional items procedurally we'd like to chat about. I also want to point out that under Item No. 9, old business, we'd like to specifically identify Item A, the ability of LDC updates and the codes, and that will be handled by Commissioner Adelstein under 9, old business. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can I add a couple things to old business? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Certainly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. We also have an issue of the meeting space. We talked about it a couple meetings ago, and I would like to find out if that was something we should seek further on-- further need of. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: For availability of office space; right? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. For the commission members. Page 4 January3,2002 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you said a couple. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The other item I think we can discuss under your chairman's report possibly. It's timeliness of receiving minutes for some of our meetings. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I've identified that under 4, the comment about minutes, under the approval of the December minutes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, so we can comment about the lack of minutes as well as the approval of the current ones under 4? Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I will be more than happy to give you the floor on that issue. Okay. Any other comments, addenda to the agenda or additions to the agenda? Okay. Under Item No. 4, approval of the December 6th, 2001, minutes, are there any additions, corrections to this particular set of minutes? Do we have a motion for approval? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So moved. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Commissioner Wolfley -- oh, excuse me -- Richardson, a second by Commissioner Young for approval of the December 6th minutes the way they are written and presented. Do we have any comment? No comment. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Same -- excuse me. Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. I want to make it abundantly clear that we're missing LDC minutes of the 14th of Page 5 January 3, 2002 November and the 25th (sic) of November. They have not been on an agenda that I have whatsoever. And I do know, from having checked with the court reporting service, that they fulfilled their contract and provided them adequately. Now I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. -- Commissioner Strain to comment, if that's what he's looking for. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's basically what I was looking for. And where that came about is we were given some additions, corrections, deletions, whatever you want to call them, to the LDC amendments as part of this week's packet. And in order to review those, I wanted to look at the minutes from the prior meetings to see what we had recommended or suggested. Well, I went through all my old minutes of all the meetings since I've been here. And, lo and behold, there's nothing on the LDC meetings that we had, and they were well over a month or more ago. So I don't know how we can be expected to check this kind of stuff without the backup we need from the prior meetings that should have been in our packages quite a long time ago. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And then if you were really enterprising and went to the Web site, you would have found that the last posted LDC minutes was from the -- I believe the 28th (sic) of October when we had our special meeting, so you couldn't even pull them off the Web site. So having done a little extra research with one of the staff members who's more than concerned that it might be her responsibility and no one clarified it for her, it turns out that we're going to try to identify what's happening in IT so that the minutes truly are available, because it seems to be a difference -- they haven't gotten over to the planning department itself. And there's also an issue -- and, Mr. Bellows, if you would follow up on that since Ms. Murray's not here -- of the ability in IT to Page 6 January 3, 2002 translate these into a Word document so that they print easily. So I think we have more than just the issue of what happened to the minutes. A, they haven't been posted; B, they're not in the format that staff can press a button and print them correctly. We need some more attention to this. And I have to agree with Commissioner Strain. It's very difficult to look through what we have that was presented to us without being able to go back and look at our discussions, which went on for hours, on the 14th of November and the 28th of November. Any other comments? Okay. Moving right along, Item No. 5, Planning Commission absences. Today Russell Budd is excused as well as Mr. Midney. And it would appear that I may not be here on the next meeting, the 17th of January, so I'd like to alert my vice-chair to his needed services. Any other absences that you're aware of?. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The month of February I will be out. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Month of February you will be gone. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And, Commissioner Young, you had mentioned before-- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I'll be away from February 4th through March 31 st. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we will have to work real hard to make sure that we have a quorum with two being absent, for sure, in February. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm on the hook for jury duty the week of the 17th. Surely a judge would excuse me to do the Lord's work in another pasture over here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You might have to use your skills to negotiate with them on that particular issue. Okay. Week of the Page 7 January 3, 2002 17th. All right. We are on Item No. 6, the Board of County Commissioners' report, the recaps for December 1 lth. Do we have questions or highlights from Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: I have no information to give you on the recaps. Everything should be in the information you have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No questions. Okay. Now we are at the chairman's report. As mentioned earlier, we seem to have some difficulty with getting adequate information in our packets, and this last packet certainly was illustrative of the difficulties that we've had in the past. And I want to comment that this board has made it very clear that we want -- when we have an issue of a PUD amendment, we must see the old document. For example, if it's been repealed once or twice, we really only need the most current PUD document to compare with the one that's presented in the packet. And that's a standard of this board. Care to comment, Commissioner Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And that has been mentioned at prior meetings. I know, Ray, you and I talked about some of the problems with this packet. And they aren't-- they didn't come from you; they came from your predecessor. You inherited them. It's unfortunate. One of the issues I had was with the Founders Plaza PUD that has already been continued, and that won't be heard today. The other one I had an issue with was the Kenco Development/Richland PUD. And your comments to me yesterday were that there wasn't extensive changes in the Richland original PUD to the new one. I got a copy of the original Richland PUD, and there are pages changed. The environmental issues have changed. The setbacks have changed. The square footage of allowed commercial is changed. And those are substantial. And I think that Page 8 January 3, 2002 for the benefit of this entire Planning Commission, every planning commissioner should have had the benefit of the old PUD to understand what was there and what is being proposed. Based on that and the fact while I may have had it -- and I was up late reading it last night because I didn't get it until late yesterday. I know the rest of this board probably didn't get it. And I would recommend that we ask to continue this particular hearing on that issue to the next meeting date. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, I -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Continue what? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Continue the Richland item, which is C on our agenda. I managed to pick up a copy when I went in to talk to staff about the inadequacies of the packet. And I, too, noticed that there were a number of changes and tried to make my comparison rather late last night myself, and I'm not comfortable with going forward. Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTE1N: I don't have a copy of the Golden Gate Master Plan either, nor have I ever seen one. And there's no reason we don't have them, but we don't. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other comments from commissioners? What do you-- those of you who may not have gotten these documents, what do you feel? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would certainly support continuing it until we get sufficient information to review. COMMISSIONER ADELSTE1N: So would I. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd like to move that we continue -- and I'll read it specifically-- PUDA-2001-AR-1494 till the 17th of January. MR. BELLOWS: If I may, Madam Chairman, can we defer the vote until this item comes up? There may be some mitigation that the petitioner may present to help explain the changes during this Page 9 January 3, 2002 hearing. I -- I don't think there's substantial changes that -- and in substantial, I mean it doesn't affect the compatibility of the project with adjacent properties. I read through Chahram's staff report, and I did notice some errors in there, but I think they can be straightened out during the public hearing of this item. And this would give the chance for the petitioner to explain the changes and those who showed to -- on this item to comment on it so we -- the petitioner can get their comments and make changes to the PUD document as -- if they feel and agree with the comments raised by the public speakers and the general public. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. From a procedural standpoint, at this moment we only have a motion on the floor. We did not have a second. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have now seconded. Okay. So -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Discussion on the motion? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain has moved that we postpone this item from today and move it to the 17th of January. We have a second by Commissioner Richardson. Discussion. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. Let me just reinforce that. This is not meant to -- anything against the applicant. I'm sure she or he -- she in this case -- has done an adequate job, though we don't have any evidence of it or don't have sufficient evidence of it. And I think we'd just like to make this point this way to highlight our concern collectively -- not only on this item, but all items -- to make sure we kind of sharpen up our -- our weapons here to give us some better material. And if the changes, as you're - may - - may convince us later on, are diminimous (phonetic), but we shouldn't be doing this on the fly at the meeting. Give us a chance to perform our function. So that's what we'd ask for. That's why I Page 10 January 3, 2002 support the motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I had a lengthy discussion with the county attorney, David Weigel, and he indicated to me that we, as planning commissioners, have a reasonable expectation of having all available and creatable information available to us so that we can make reasonable and informed decisions. And if that does not appear, then we do have the right, in open meetings, to discuss a continuation. And that's what has brought us to this point right now on Item C -- 8-C on the public hearings. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, is anything lost by honoring Mr. Bellows' request that we get to the root of this and -- and see whether this remedy is appropriate or not? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I mean, I'm tom between -- I respect the motion maker's feeling that he can't judge the issue on the basis of what he has, but I also respect Mr. Bellows' position that perhaps it could be clarified in some way. So I have no hesitation in supporting the motion later on in the meeting, but I'd like to give Mr. Bellows and -- and the applicant a shot at clearing all this up. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: From a procedural standpoint, we would have to open the public hearing for that and then possibly move for a continuance, just so that we're all clear on that. Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't know what they could bring out later. When I didn't have the old one in the first place to go over it, I'm not going to have it later on either, so I'm still stuck with the same position I had. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I could give you my copy. COMMISSIONER ADELSTE1N: Well, that's just a little bit late. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' It is. Page 11 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I -- myself, I can't see why we would rely on anybody but ourselves to make and review this information and to know that we've done a thorough job. And that includes other documentation that we've been missing for as long as some of the members have been sitting on this board. And I know that we've been working on getting ULDCs and items like that. My motion -- I would still like to continue with my motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any further comment? I call the question. All those in favor of continuance for PUDA-2001-AR-1494, the Richland PUD, say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those in favor-- excuse me. Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries unanimously. It has been continued to January 17th, 2002. And I strongly urge every petitioner in the office -- in the audience to please contact staff to make sure that you're comfortable with what they are and aren't giving us. That might be an extra way to ensure all the documents. Okay. With reference to the chairman's report, I do believe that if we take the time to look at the -- excuse me -- if staff takes the time to look at the application itself and rework its format so that the appropriate pages may be included and they carry through with the numbering system in our packets, that would help immensely, and then we don't have the confusion over what is or isn't there. And as long as we're at this particular point, when it comes to accuracy of the reports that we're given by staff, I'm going to suggest that maybe somebody has the job of editing these type of things that come forward. There is an example which I'm personally involved with and have stated on more than, I believe, three occasions as a member of Page 12 January 3, 2002 this Planning Commission for 26, 28 months, one of the items indicates a reference to the Utilities Code of 88-76. And I went back and pulled out my information on this, and I just want for the record, for the utilities -- the standards and procedures ordinance, that 88-76 was repealed as well as 89-23, 88 -- excuse me -- 89-32, and then also Resolutions 89-127 and Resolution 90-111, which basically was the collection of ordinances and resolutions for standard utility procedures. This was all repealed in 1997. And the ordinance that now governs is 97-17, and it has had an amendment since that time. But I just want to make sure that staff fully understands that this is a basic item. And when we see these type things come to us and we're familiar with it, it tends to make us wonder what else is not exactly correct in the staff reports. As you all know, we've had some difficulty with staff, and some people are not working there anymore. They were already understaffed before the terminations and resignations that have occurred recently, so we have to give our staff a chance to catch up. And if anyone wanted to go and look at Ray Bellows' office at this point, his desk is totally covered and the entire floor is piled with applications, documents, and all. And he's doing his best to work his way through it, but we don't have enough staff. We just had another person hired. So we have to be patient, but we also have to have adequate information coming to us. And I want to make sure that from now on a staff report does not include a utilities procedure ordinance that does not reference 97-17 and its amended forms that have happened later. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And that's just an example. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' Just an example; one tiny, little example, which makes one wonder what we're looking at. Commissioner Strain. Page 13 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As another item regarding information, I went through our county codes and ordinances to see what the duties and functions and powers of this Planning Commission were supposed to be and what they're supposed to be based on. And I want to read you-all one sentence, and based on that sentence, I'm going to ask that staff provide us with the things that we need. That includes copies of the -- any documents referenced like Growth Management Plans, ULDCs, and everything. Under functions and powers, it says, "The functions, powers, and duties of planning commissioners shall be, in general, 1, to acquire and maintain in current form such basic information and materials as are necessary to an understanding of past trends, present conditions, and forces at work to cause changes in these conditions." And in order for us to do that, we have got to have the documentation and the books that we need to do it with. And that means the ULDCs, and that means the Growth Management Plan, and the parts that we need. We have gotten the SIC code, and I appreciate that because that was very effective in looking at these most recent requests. But based on this information, I would hope that we could expedite getting us the rest of the information that we need. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And I'll be happy to coordinate that for the Planning Commission. I'm not sure you gave that previous request to Susan or to someone else, but I'd appreciate it if you could also let me know which particular items that you're lacking, such as the Golden Gate Master Plan and some of the other overlay districts that we have that would be helpful in your completion of your duties. I will make sure that we'll get you those copies. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we'll have further discussion on that when we get to old business specifically. Commissioner Wolfley. Page 14 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wanted to expand on what Commissioner Strain was saying. In light of the fact we don't have our LDC books as yet, if we could just get a copy -- when things are mentioned in our packages regarding some of those codes, if we could just get a copy of the page so that we could at least be on the same page, that would be -- MR. BELLOWS: And I would be happy to do that. And I'd also encourage each member to give us a call if you see an LDC page that you need or we -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sure. MR. BELLOWS: We'll get it to you right away. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any further comments on these issues I brought up in the commission -- excuse me -- the chairman's report? Okay. Moving right along to Item No. 8, advertised public hearings. It would appear that we have one public hearing, PUD- 2000-22, which is a rezone for Goodlette Comers PUD -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Disclosures. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- and that's not being continued. Therefore -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Disclosures. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I got to swear them in first. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those wishing to present testimony today on this particular item, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Now, disclosures on this particular item. I'll go first. I had a brief conversation with Attorney Bruce Anderson, who represents one of the property owners, Page 15 January 3, 2002 yesterday with reference to whether or not there were substantive changes to this item and whether or not we were going to continue it today. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY' I had a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold yesterday. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I had a conversation with them two days ago. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With reference to? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This -- this particular plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just in general, the types of subjects that you might -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTE1N: We went over the -- the PUD. This is the first time I had done that, and we went over it to understand what their position was. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any particular issues you discussed? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. We discussed the issue of the lake and my concerns about the traffic impact of this development. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I had a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich, and he -- particularly regarding the traffic impacts, and he sent me the -- faxed me the further information on the traffic impacts. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I had a telephone call from Mr. Arnold in which we discussed -- I didn't have the packet in front of me yet, but he discussed the fact that this was coming before the commission at this time. And the concerns that had been highlighted -- that he highlighted to me were concerns about the lake. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Nobody called me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I had a lengthy meeting with Wayne Arnold, who represents the applicant. We went over my Page 16 January 3, 2002 concerns. The staff report had indicated this is -- intensity's up to a C-3 use, and I found uses that were much more intense than C-3: C- 4, C-5 industrial. We went over those individual uses, and Wayne is going to be prepared, I think, to address those today. At the same time I had asked-- I talked to Ray Bellows and Marjorie Student about this particular one. One of the things that Ray was going to research is to see if it was advertised appropriately based on the fact that some of the uses were more intense than possibly a C-3. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And I did some research and also looked at the advertising. It appears to be advertised correctly, and there shouldn't be a problem, especially since the petitioner is willing to state on the record and make the changes to keep them C-3 uses. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I could disclose, also, that even though I did not get an opportunity to speak directly to Mr. Arnold or Mr. Yovanovich, I did attempt to return their phone calls, and they attempted to return mine. So we actually never got to discuss anything substantive about this particular public hearing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, while we're on this subject of ex parte communications, I happened to be up in Pensacola over the Christmas holidays. My niece just finished a term-- she's an architect -- finished a term on the Escambia County Planning Commission, and they flat out prohibit ex parte communications on the part of planning commission members. To me, for advisory boards, it's a bit -- to me, it's a bit of an imposition to have to hash these over when we're going to have a public hearing, the purpose of which is to hash these issues over. I think there's a great deal of merit to such a rule in our case. And I'll not force the issue today, but I think it's worth thinking about. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I would tend to agree with you. I think that would be a very good idea. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And in that case we wouldn't need Page 17 January 3, 2002 office space here at the county complex to meet with people. But we will take that under advisement and possibly even -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Of course, we may be getting -- going out of that business in the foreseeable future if the hearing examiner comes into being. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' And the foreseeable future is defined as four to six months for a couple of items, as presented yesterday in the Development Services Advisory Committee meeting, which I attended. So it's going to be a long process yet before we get to have a hearing examiner and that hearing examiner's duties are defined specifically. So we may want to follow through on your suggestion. No further disclosures? Mr. Bellows, you have the floor. MR. BELLOWS' Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm chief planner with planning services presenting petition PUD-00-22. This petitioner is requesting to rezone the subject 8.52-acre property from C-1 and RSF-4 to a planned unit development to be known as the Goodlette Comers PUD. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on the southwest comer of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. It's this long, rectangular piece. The subject site currently is partially developed. It contains single-family residences and a strip plaza zoned RSF -- property zoned RSF-4 and C-1 on the comer. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Comment, Mr. Bellows. Whomever might be listening in the back for technical assistance, none of our visualizers are actually coming on. If someone wants to come out and help us, like Katie. Oh, the court reporter has identified that Katie is not here. We'll punt. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is there a surrogate Katie? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is there a surrogate Katie? I can't even get color on ours. Page 18 January 3, 2002 You may continue. MR. BELLOWS: The master plan -- I'll show you a copy of that-- is broken up in three tracts: Tracts A, B, and C. As listed in the PUD document -- or the staff report, the intent is to create a unified commercial office-type PUD. The proposed PUD will have retail office uses and office space uses similar to the C-3 zoning district. We had discussed prior that the PUD document may contain some additional SIC codes that went into other zoning districts higher than C-3, but in discussions with the applicant, we are going to ensure that those are going to be all the C-3 uses. That was the intent of the application. Maximum building heights have been designed to be compatible with the existing development by limiting the commercial structures to a maximum height of three stories, not to exceed 50 feet in height. And that would be on the master plan, Areas B and C are limited to 45 feet in height. So the 50 feet in height would be on Parcel A, which is next to the hotel. There's a hotel off to the west. Lastly, there is an existing lake on the south portion of the project that buffers the residential community to the south that's zoned RSF-4. The petitioners will -- proposes to modify that lake to suit their development. It won't necessarily hurt lake views or buffer requirements that the lake currently serves. The project is consistent with the future land use element of the Growth Management Plan. It allows for office and commercial infill development on small parcels, 12 acres or less, within the urban mixed-use area and along arterial and collector roadways where residential development, as allowed by the density rating system, may not be as compatible or appropriate. And this is a highly traveled commercial arterial road on Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette, and the suitability of continuing residential development there is difficult at best. And the staff is supportive of that concept of Page 19 January 3, 2002 meeting the commercial infill criteria. The traffic impact statement indicates that the project will generate 4,908 weekday trips, 448 during the peak hour. This will not lower the level of service below its adopted level-of-service standard. Therefore, staff is recommending approval from a traffic standpoint. This petition was reviewed by appropriate staff for environmental concerns, and there was no adverse comments from environmental staff in relation to this project. I have been contacted by several staff-- or residential owners to the south. They had concerns about some of the uses and the -- and what would happen to the lake and the buffering from this project to theirs. The petitioner has provided an adequate buffer, landscape buffer. The project will be an upgrade from the current conditions of some of the structures in there, and I feel that they've met all the minimum requirements for landscaping and buffering. So this appears to be consistent with that criteria. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Bellows, did you say you had been contacted by residents? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's in addition to what might have been in the report and the file that Mr. Badamtchian had -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And how many were they -- were there? MR. BELLOWS: Approximately three calls. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Three calls. MR. BELLOWS: Some just left messages. One was able to get through, and I was able to have a nice conversation with them. But I don't think they have any real concerns based on the type of landscaping proposed. And the petitioner can go into more detail Page 20 January 3, 2002 with the type of landscaping. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One other question I had. Would you refresh my memory by looking at this map where that historical cemetery is along there? Does this property touch it or not? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That was another issue that was raised. And I'll zoom in on it. Across -- or the shaded area here is the possible location of an old historic cemetery that was along the lines of the creation of Tamiami Trail and Pine Ridge Road. It's purported to be the burial of some construction workers at that time. As you know, down the road a little bit, there's Rosemary Cemetery, which is a cemetery of some of the early founders of Collier County, and they were reinterred at that location. This particular site is not a marked graveyard per se such as Rosemary Cemetery was. These are unmarked burials, and it's outside this PUD project boundaries. They moved the PUD around it, so it's kind of outside of this project and not within it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Not -- Rosemary's not within it, and you're saying this -- MR. BELLOWS: This -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- cemetery is not within it also? MR. BELLOWS: This unmarked burial area is not within it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Unmarked burial area. Because I just sort of questioned the historical/archaeological impact statement indicating that it's outside of an area of historical and archaeological probability. But with -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How could it be outside of an area of probability when it's so close to Rosemary Cemetery, and we know there's something there? I don't understand that statement. MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to clarify that. I'm currently the coordinator for the preservation board, so I -- I have a lot of Page 21 January 3, 2002 experience with the preservation board. The county has adopted a series of maps, historic and archaeological probability maps. And all petitions when they come in, such as this one, is reviewed for the -- with those maps. So we check the property location and compare it to the maps. Those maps indicate areas of defined historic/archaeological probability. They're shaded areas. And if the project falls within the shaded probability area, the property owner is required to hire a certified archaeologist to do a survey and assessment of the site. This particular site is not within that probability area. There is an unmarked burial, but it has not been deemed to be historically significant at this time and, therefore, is not shown on our maps. So technically that statement is correct; it is not in an area of historic probability. That concern was raised with the applicant at the time of submission, and I believe they've made sure to exclude that from this application. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who does the deeming? MR. BELLOWS: We've hired a consultant. They prepared our maps. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I see. So they're looking for graves that go back further in time? Is that what they're -- MR. BELLOWS: They look at Indian burial mounds, archaeological -- other archaeological sites, burials. There's -- I don't believe there's adequate evidence of existing graves at this location, just purported. And that needs to be researched further. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just folklore. MR. BELLOWS: And through the preservation board, I'm sure that will be done. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a couple of questions. At one point in the PUD, there's talk about architectural Page 22 January 3, 2002 embellishment can be as high as 60 feet above whatever this mark is. So it would seem to me that buildings can present a mass of 60 feet, whether they're 45 feet tall or 50 feet tall, can't they? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe an architectural embellishment -- it would take the full massing of the building. I don't think that's the intent of it. But we can work with the applicant to clarify that language, and I agree that maybe that needs to be clarified a little better and defined what they mean by architectural embellishment, a spire, belfry. But I don't think it would be a massing of a wall to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The other -- the other area of-- of grave concern to me is the traffic along Pine Ridge Road. I travel that occasionally, and there are times of day where you don't travel it; you just sort of sit there, particularly when the school is letting out. The number of traffic -- the number of trips that this project will generate, of course, is exaggerated by the fact that it replaces trips that are already in existence. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: This Level of Service C that is assigned to Pine Ridge Road sounds to me like the same kind of inflation we have in grading in schools these days. If that's a C, that's a very liberal grade for it, but I'm sure there's some technical measures that it lives up to. But when you talk about a project not adding 5 percent to the total that is now there, I understand that if it does, all -- that doesn't say you can't do it; you just have to do some ameliorative things; is that right? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Basically we have policies in the Growth Management Plan, the traffic -- transportation element Policies 5.1 and 5.2, which basically state that the project cannot generate traffic that significantly impacts a roadway operating below its adopted level of service or projected to operate below its adopted level of service. This particular statement basically says there's a Page 23 January 3, 2002 significance test of what is a significant impact on the roadway. And the transportation element contains some language that 5 percent of the roadway's designed Level of Service C volume. So there's traffic volumes or levels from A to F, and there's defined volumes for each of those. So you take the Level of Service C, take 5 percent of that, and if that trip -- project trips exceed that amount, then that's deemed a significant impact. I'd like to point out that language has since been modified, and it's not quite the 5 percent of the Level of Service C anymore, but it's a similar concept of defining what a level -- significant impact is. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, the problem with all of this, to me, is that if you take this project in isolation and say does it add 5 percent to the road -- and does -- does the figure that you're adding this number of trips to, does that include Barron Collier's shopping center across the street? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I can speak to that issue too. When I first started here, I worked with the transportation department. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It sounds like you could have four or five 5 percent projects. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And what I used to do, when I did that review of the county a few years ago, was that we take the background traffic of all the existing projects, and we use that as a defined growth rate along the roadway. And we work with the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the MPO, the long-range planning organization. They provide us with traffic growth for each roadway segment based on historical trends they can see from traffic counts taken from a 1 O-year period, the past 1 O-year period, and they can define the projected continued growth of traffic volumes along that roadway. So we add that to the project traffic also to anticipate future build out conditions. So if this project was going to be built out in three years, we increase the traffic volume on Pine Ridge Road Page 24 January 3, 2002 from the current count by that average growth rate. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So the Barron Collier project is in this number somewhere? MR. BELLOWS: Supposedly, yes. In the traffic impact statement submitted by the -- I haven't -- this is Chahram's project, and I haven't read through the traffic impact statement to be sure of that. But our transportation staff has, and they have not objected. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Have you ever seen a traffic impact statement submitted by an applicant who said that the burden would be excessive? MR. BELLOWS: We have disputed claims from traffic impact statements submitted by petitioners and work with -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You do your own -- you do your own analysis. MR. BELLOWS: We review their work. And where there's insufficient information or incorrect information, we make them revise it. And Dawn Wolfe, the new transportation director, is one of the best at making them revise the traffic impact statement, that I've seen. She's very good at that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: My last question refers to the rezone findings, in particular No. 15. These are a series of questions that all start with "whether." I'm assuming it's whether or not. "Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use." And then we have this boilerplate answer that says, "This is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning decision." Why do we play this little game of setting up a straw man and then knocking it over? What do we gain by that? MR. BELLOWS: Well, this is-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is this written in stone Page 25 January 3, 2002 somewhere that you have to ask this question and answer it in this way? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. The Land Development Code has this criteria in there. And over the years, since I've been with Collier County, that particular question has evolved into this boilerplate language. And staff has numerous debates and discussions whether we should amend the Land Development Code to remove language that really is not pertinent to the review that's -- can't be defined. There's no criteria that we can judge to make this a workable review item, and that's -- hence, that's the way this language came. And this language has pretty much been in the staff reports for the last five or six years. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I know it has. And my point to you, Ray, is that if one is at all pressed for time and you start reading these questions and you see these boilerplate answers, you tend to skim over it and, in that process, may miss something that's -- that's of some importance. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. And-- and we have had discussions recently. We've -- if you've noticed, we've changed the format of the answers somewhat, eliminated the pro/con type format in these answers because it really is not a -- it was a response to previous commissioners wanting a little more staff indication of the positives and negatives. However, I think it was kind of a -- redundant, and it also got boiler plated. So we tried to summarize it, just to provide a summary. In some cases the summaries are freshly written because there is criteria that we can use to make that summary. This particular item is something that there's no way to provide adequate summary. So -- but -- and that's where we decided that maybe we'll amend the Land Development Code to eliminate these questions that we can't really answer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I realize you're busy Page 26 January 3, 2002 putting out fires now, but this certainly is a project that should be undertaken sometime when you have a little spare time, in the summer or whatever. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, that was one of my concerns about the statement with the historical and archaeological impact, that it would seem reasonable to me, having been a staff person before in other places, that knowing that there were some unmarked graves here and knowing it was very close to Rosemary Cemetery, that I would have at least acknowledged that and indicated that it wasn't an impact, and it wasn't on the maps. But for some reason, we've gotten into the pattern of such standard boilerplate answers that we, as commissioners, have to ferret out all sorts of information. And we should be able to read in the executive summary and find more detail or find more ideas that, oh, that's really not a problem, because we have to think through it. And I had a long conversation with John Dunnuck on Monday the 31 st about this particular aspect: What can we do to help staff find better ways to present the information? And let's put it in more English language rather than just planning jargon and that, you know, you try to give us a little bit better idea. And one of the examples, of course, was the Silver Lakes PUD long, involved adventure, because certain statements were missing, and we had to go elsewhere in ex parte communication to find out what the real problem was. And so that's another thing that may be coming down from above as Mr. Dunnuck changes to Mr. Schmitt, that they'll look at the staff reports and give us some more details that really relate to the project we're talking about. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. You make a good point concerning the -- the cemetery. I think maybe Chahram, when he did the staff report, was prepared that it was outside the project area, so maybe Page 27 January 3, 2002 that's why it didn't get into greater detail. If it was within the PUD boundaries, definitely that had to be addressed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And, see, you can almost anticipate that that was going to be a question from us. And sometimes that helps move these along a lot faster and then some of the public reading these and some of the professionals involved also, then, can anticipate what it is that we're concerned about up here, and it's on the record, and you move past it. Commissioner Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had a question in the Growth Management Plan consistency regarding the lake. Throughout here there seems to be -- well, on that part it says that the lake is going to be partially filled. Another portion says that it -- well, on the -- the -- I guess it's up there. It shows the lake to be filled or partially filled on the -- on the blueprint there and on our last page. And then under No. 16 of the rezone findings, it says that it's -- that the applicant is proposing to fill the existing lake on the property. And I just -- it seems to not be very consistent on what is going to happen with the lake. MR. BELLOWS: It's not completely filled, and the petitioner is here to -- and he has a map, and I believe he can show you the amount of fill that's going to occur. It's basically a reshaping of the lake. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, it just seemed as though it was left open to do whatever they wanted to do with it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Ray, are you saying that you don't do the traffic impact study; you just review it? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The petitioner hires a certified engineer or transportation planner to prepare a traffic impact statement. That's submitted with the application. And that packet is prepared and is submitted to the various review agencies from fire Page 28 January 3, 2002 department, transportation, environmental, down the line, utilities, stormwater management. They get the packet of information, either environmental impact statement, traffic impact statement. And those review agents review that criteria, and they respond back to the planner with any proposed changes to the PUD document. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How do you come to a number when there's potentially 32 different varieties of tenants that could go in there? If you took one, for example, of an insurance agency and instead of-- in that space you put a fast-food, sit-down restaurant. One would have probably 30 or 40 per day, and one would have 300 or 400 a day. And how do we determine which is going to be the tenant when they don't know who the tenant is going to be? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Basically the traffic impact statements reflect the highest and most -- the highest traffic impact uses, such as fast-food restaurants. The uses that are generally found in the C-3 district, let's say, are general retail. The Land Development Code -- or excuse me. There is a transportation trip generation manual that staff uses and that the consultants use. It's the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Manual, and they provide the trip generations for retail uses. They don't break them down, say, the difference between a book store and a -- and a hardware store, let's say. The retail uses are listed in there. And they, in some cases, do break it down for freestanding uses such as a hardware store, but they also have shopping center based on square footage. So the amount of traffic is based on the size of the retail facility, if it's a shopping center versus office. So all of that is in a manual that transportation engineers use when they calculate trip generations. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you indicating, though, that they take the highest traffic uses -- Page 29 January 3, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- of each -- MR. BELLOWS: That's right. So if they have a fast-food restaurant, then they have to show that as a -- part of their trip generation. If it's part of a shopping center, then it's integrated in the traffic impact -- trip generation for a shopping center. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Speak into the mike. Okay. Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Thank you. Aren't we upgrading our standards of road usage? I mean, isn't that in the works? MR. BELLOWS: Russ Muller with the transportation department shakes his head yes, so I guess -- he's involved with Dawn Wolfe in making those improvements. I believe they're -- as I recall in discussing this with Dawn Wolfe, that they are making amendments to the transportation element and the Land Development Code to make it so that it's more responsive to the current needs. And they will be modifying the level-of-service standards in that language. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: See, I'm very con-- I'm very much concerned that we're dealing with a total lack of responsibility from previous administrations so that our roads are seriously below standard. Even though they have widened Pine Ridge Road, as one of my colleagues said, with the accumulated use along the way and the fact that we are now talking about development impact according to today's standards, if we raised those standards to what I would consider an acceptable level for the future ... MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And that's a valid question. The -- I think it goes hand in hand with what's there now, the existing development on this site, and what it generates and the existing access points not meeting -- that may or may not meet the proper Page 30 January 3, 2002 turning radiuses that we require on a new development. So this gives the transportation department and our transportation engineers a chance, when they file for their site development plans, to put in the proper turn lanes and access. So that would also improve traffic flow along Pine Ridge Road, having proper decel lanes and turning lanes. So that's one factor that goes -- involved in this. The other factor is we have a currently developed property that generates a certain level of traffic, and the difference between this proposed amendment versus that and the benefits derived from improved access is something that staff takes into account in making its recommendation. And plus, as was discussed at several other petitions at previous Planning Commission, staff is constrained from going beyond what's currently in the Land Development Code and in the Growth Management Plan in relation to level-of-service standards. So we're kind of constrained. I know the transportation department is working at a fast pace to get those amendments in. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Well, Marjorie, if staff is constrained from considering future beneficial standards for adequate road uses, is -- are we also constrained from thinking about that? MS. STUDENT: I don't think that that's what Mr. Bellows said. I believe he said that what's coming before the commission will be some changes in the Comprehensive Plan and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance about how concurrency is looked at. So until those are in place, we can't really apply that to developments until -- we have to apply what the law is at this moment. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: So we are constrained. MS. STUDENT: Until it's -- until a new ordinance is passed. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the answer's yes. Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just on this narrow point, I Page 31 January 3, 2002 notice in the traffic circulation element that they talk about development phasing, and I thought that was perhaps the traffic department's input to perhaps feather this in a little better so it wouldn't have as much impact on our traffic patterns. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, I do not see that reflected in the development commitments. Perhaps I missed it. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. I believe Item -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It talks about access points on Item D on page 16, but I don't get the sense that that's a phasing which I put into context of a time line. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. We'll have the petitioner add that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So your question, Mr. Richardson, is, on the traffic issue, the phasing? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'm just making a list here to make sure that -- I know they're thinking too, but I don't want to miss these questions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Because I'm sure, as responsible developers, they're also concerned about putting their new tenants in a situation where they're going onto a roadway that it doesn't function properly, so I think it would be in their best interest as well as ours for the project to be phased in a manner that would have the least amount of impact. I hope I'm understanding the developers' interests. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And we'll let them talk to that issue specifically. Did you have something else you wanted to say about that particularly? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just want to point out to each of the commissioners, in your packet, in the PUD itself on page 16, traffic, Page 32 January 3, 2002 4.8F, as in Frank, that we do have the new language of the LDC and the access points with reference to the access control policy. Apparently that's an acceptable standard language now to this particular petitioner, even though it hasn't been finally approved by the Board of County Commissioners. It was explained to me by staff that when those type of situations are going through the process, that if a petitioner agrees to have that type of language included in their PUD in advance, that's acceptable, which does show that we're trying to work out the access point issues that Dawn Wolfe presented to us in the Land Development Code cycle that we just went through and that there is some flexibility and there is cooperation, apparently, with-- I thought, with the look on the face and we'll deal with this -- of the petitioner in their PUD document. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It does raise the question, though, and one of my concerns is, the number of curb cuts there are, the number of accesses. And we may just be puffing smoke here today because Dawn Wolfe has reserved all of that to herself. What can we do about it? I'm not even sure it's proper for us to be talking about it because it's -- it's her call. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, Mr. Abernathy, there is a statement on page 5, though, that says all committed road improvements shall be in place prior to the issuance of COs for each tract. And that's talking about the designed five driveways and connection to Pine Ridge and Goodlette-Frank Road. So it seems like that's the hook. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's right. But that's for Dawn Wolfe at the time of SDP. We don't see SDPs. We can't -- well, I think we could ask a developer to limit himself to, say, two right-out onlys on Pine Ridge Road, but what if Dawn thinks he really should have three? Where do you go from there? Anyway, Page 33 January 3, 2002 that's a rhetorical question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think I'll add 4.8, traffic, F and the LDC comments to something that our petitioner would like to address and satisfy us as we move forward. Do you have any further comments for us? Any further questions of staff, Mr. Bellows, at the moment? Okay. We'll continue on and let the petitioner present. Mr. Yovanovich, it's your mm. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. I have with me Bob Soudan, who's contracted to purchase a portion of this property and will be doing the self-storage that's referred to in the PUD; Wayne Arnold, the planner on the project; Dean Smith, who's the traffic -- who's a traffic engineer and can answer some questions on behalf of Mr. Hoover, who is ill. But Dean Smith can answer some of the questions you may have regarding traffic. Bruce Anderson's here. He represents Mr. And Mrs. Shepard or the Shepard parcels. He doesn't plan on speaking, but if you have any questions of him, feel free to ask him any questions. I feel kind of badly for Ray because he was asked a lot of questions as not -- and he's not the original planner on the project and doesn't have the background. That's why I tried to jump up and -- and tried to help him. I did that one time -- MR. BELLOWS: Please do. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. I did that one time for a colleague in law school, and the professor turned on me, and I swore I'd never do that again. But I felt like I needed to help Ray. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought he did all right. MR. YOVANOVICH: He did. He did considering he didn't have the knowledge that -- that Chahram had. Generally the overall overview of the project, Ray did a very good job. I do want to Page 34 January 3, 2002 mention that we did meet with the property owners to the south, the residential homes. And I know there's some inconsistencies in the staff report. And what you need to know is we don't get to see the staff report before it's published. We have no input into the staff report, so we don't catch what's being -- what's been reported to you in the staff report. There are some inconsistencies on what's going to happen to that lake. We have told the residents to the south that-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, there are. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have -- we have told the residents to the south that they should anticipate worst-case scenario, and the worst-case scenario would be the entire lake would be filled. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. That's pretty bad. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's the worst-case scenario, and we're going to take you through -- let me -- I want you to know that we're -- we didn't say that anticipated portion of it. But what the Planning Commission needs to understand, that that is not a lake. That's a borrow pit that is wholly within (sic) our clients' property and owned by our clients. They control that borrow pit. It -- it belongs to them, and it doesn't belong to the people to the south. With that being said, they have the legal right to that lake, and they have the right to do with that lake whatever they want to do with that lake. If it were to be developed as residential, they would have the right to fill in that lake. As you can see from the aerial that's up there, that is an extremely narrow piece of property. Over time -- and you will hear from one of our-- one of the original property owners who's part of this petition, that was a two-lane road, and she's moved and left the area because it's now a six-lane road. Now, she kept the home as an investment, but nobody -- if you've driven past there, nobody would really want their house that close to the road. I don't think anybody would really want to build a house under -- on that road at this time. Page 35 January 3, 2002 Your Comprehensive Plan recognizes that that property, as well as the property across the street, should be redeveloped from what it-- currently is there. And I don't think anybody can say what's currently there is what the people of Collier County want on that roadway. So what we've done -- and which is no easy task. We're talking about 11 different property owners who own all that property. We got them all to agree to a unified planned development to -- which meant they sacrificed. They gave up some -- some access they have to their property right now. There is going to be reduced access points. The rules of the game seem to change. We -- at one point we're told to show our access points on the master plan. Now we're told not to show our points on the master plan and that we want to leave that to a later decision with the site development plan. There will be a reduction in access points currently on Pine Ridge Road. It will be improved. There'll be deceleration lanes that will occur, which will get the traffic and reduce some of the friction. We're -- we're happy to address all of these concerns today, later, whenever is the appropriate time to address the traffic concerns. That's why we have Mr. Smith here. But what I wanted to point out, this is changed circumstances. This isn't the way it used to be. So also, on the commercial landfill, the language in the Comprehensive Plan -- I had some -- I represented a client who got that language into the Comprehensive Plan. It was some modifications. There's no -- there's nothing in that Comprehensive Plan that says it has to be C-3 uses. What it says is you look on a case by case and you look at compatibility as to the proposed uses. It's supposed to be -- and I'll read the language that's in -- on page 21 of the Future Land Use Element. But it discusses lower intensity office commercial development attracts low volumes -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Slow down. The court reporter does have to -- Page 36 January 3, 2002 MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Lower intensity office commercial development attracts low traffic volumes on the abutting roadways and is generally compatible with nearby residential and compatible development. The criteria listed below must be met for any project utilizing this subdistrict. The purpose of the district is to allow areas that have commercial -- in this case, on two sides; you have the Shepard parcel on the comer of Goodlette-Frank Road, which is basically industrial-type uses as not conforming uses; and you have a C-4 hotel on the other side -- is to look at what would be compatible taking into consideration those two types of commercial uses. C-3 has been generally bandied about as the lower intensity, but you look at the different uses to make sure that they fit within that lower intensity. So if there are some uses that you feel are more intense, even though they are in a different zoning category, they may be acceptable under the circumstances for this particular petition. And that's what we're here -- you know, anything that wants to come up and you want to talk about specific uses, we're happy to discuss regarding -- based on the intensity. But I don't think we're limited to C-3 uses anywhere in the Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: While you're there, Rich, could I just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- interrupt? And I know why you're saying this, but let me read you the first sentence of the staff report, and that's why I read-- that's why I focused on it. "The proposed PUD will contain three different tracts with a list of permitted uses allowing office and retail uses similar to the C-3 zoning district." Now, based on that as being put forth as what we were basing our review on, part of it, I then took that application and applied it to your PUD and found out that your intenses do go all the Page 37 January 3, 2002 way to industrial and some business park applications. And I can -- when we get into this item by item, I can tell you which ones are industrial, which ones are C-4, and which ones are C-5. That's why we got to the C-3 issue versus what's being used there. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciate that, and that's why I was just trying to clarify a little bit of the legislative history of the Comprehensive Plan, to hopefully-- because there was questions regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and I wanted to point out that what we're proposing is consistent with the commercial infill provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. That doesn't mean we still don't go through the analysis of the intensity. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My concern is that what you say is what you do. And if C-3 is what was said, then C-3 is what it shall be, and that's where I'm coming from. And if C-3 was put in by staff and not by you, then we'll discuss that as we -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what I'm-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- go through your presentation. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I'm trying to address is the issue of we don't write the staff report. We -- we submit a proposed PUD. It gets massaged by staff. And a good point is I looked so puzzled when you referred to a Traffic Condition F in the PUD. Well, I'm looking at my PUD, and there is no F. There's -- you know, we give a disk to staff now, and staff changes things, and they submit to you what they propose to be the PUD. Well -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Rich, isn't there some procedure by which you get to see the last draft of a PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you know, we -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: This is ridiculous. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're supposed to. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm seeing heads shaking no. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're supposed to. And I understand Page 38 January 3, 2002 the -- this is not your normal, normal procedures. There have been some changes that occurred and some -- some coordination. So we're -- some coordination issues. So we're working with them. We've looked at it. While you were talking, we've looked at it. It's fine. It's -- we understand that's what Ms. Wolfe and the transportation department wants. They want us to work with them on access points. And we've looked at the language, and we're okay with the language. I just hadn't seen it when -- when you had brought up Condition No. - - or Letter F in the PUD. So what I'm trying to point out is that we -- staff may say it, but it doesn't necessarily reflect our intentions. And I'm trying to clarify those issues for Mr. Strain as to where the staff report doesn't reflect what we submitted. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, then I'm going to clarify the fact that I was so impressed that you were cooperating, as the petitioner, to use new language coming through. And I just learned something new in this whole process about who does and doesn't get to read these, which harkens back to my particular idea of-- I've -- over the 2 1/2 years I've been here, I've found so many mistakes that there seems to be need for an editor, which right now we know there's not time hardly to even reread them. But that just completely surprises me that I would think you are cooperating because it's in the document that goes forward, and it's put in by staff and you don't even know it's there until you're standing in front of us. MR. BELLOWS: Madam Chairman, if I may, the petitioner has approved the language with staff previously. They were in agreement with this language. It wasn't a surprise to them. It was maybe a surprise that they didn't get a copy of the PUD document in adequate time, but staff does send copies of the revised PUD document to the applicant prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Due to the change in staff, there may have been a case where they Page 39 January 3, 2002 may not have gotten this copy. But the procedure is set in place that they do got get a copy of the staff report and the revised PUD document prior to these meetings so they can provide comment. That's the process. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would support staff, though, a little further in the sense that what we get in the way of a staff report is the basis for their recommendation. So they're going to make whatever they need to make in order to give their view, and that may not completely agree with where you're coming from, but that should be ironed out or highlighted for us as something we can work on at this meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what I'm trying to point out, is there's some things in the staff report -- and we did not get the PUD. There's a glitch. It's okay. I mean, we'll work through this. We understand the circumstances. The language, the concept was always discussed with us, and we were comfortable with the concept on access. We did not see the specific language. We've seen it now. And, yes, we have been cooperating. We just-- there's some glitches, and it's nobody's real fault in this particular case, and we'll work through the process. I -- it's very important to me and my client and, I know, Wayne and the other consultants that what we tell you is what we're going to get. We don't tell you anything in the staff report; we tell you something in the PUD document. So I'm pointing out -- I don't want to say I said it was going to be C-3 uses. We didn't say that. We gave you the list of permitted uses, and those are the types of uses we've discussed with the neighbors. We've discussed the lake issue with the neighbors. We've discussed buffering and berming and walling and landscaping as to, you know, what would the -- would the neighbors want in light of the Page 40 January 3, 2002 fact that they don't own the lake and that we own the lake and that we can -- we have the legal right to fill in that lake. We've had an environmental audit done of that lake because there were some concerns that this is really a natural lake. It's not a natural lake; it's a borrow pit. There is nothing environmentally sensitive about that lake. I know there's differences of opinion from the neighbors, but I can't-- they're not experts. You know, we've had an expert, Boylan Engineering, look at it -- not Boylan -- Boylan Environmental. I'm sorry. We've had that looked at. We've also had the water in that lake tested. There -- that lake is not good quality water, and we've -- and, you know, it's very poor quality. Now, we do know we're impacting some of the neighbors and some of the people who front on that lake, but overall what does this PUD do? It redevelops an area of Collier County that is not the most attractive area. What we're proposing to do -- and I'll enter this into the record and ask that it be passed down. Mr. Soudan is doing another project in Naples. He's doing it in the City of Naples, and you may have seen it in Saturday's paper. We're doing an indoor -- and that's on this portion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Tract A, is he not? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is Tract A, okay, nearest the hotel. This is the portion that's going to be the indoor self-storage, okay, storage suites. It is completely carpeted in the units, in the hallways. You pull your vehicle into an area; the door closes behind you for security reasons. It's manned at a desk so that people can come in -- it's a low, low intensity use. And it was approved by the city council and the City of Naples. And what I -- what I want to show you is we've committed that it will look like an office building. It's not your typical self-storage and it is on this portion right here. So for the record, this is the architecture of what's going to be in the Gateway Shopping Center, which is by the mall, okay, by the Page 41 January 3, 2002 high school. I would submit to you that that's a pretty -- pretty busy street, and the use of self-storage there in that particular case really greatly reduced traffic impacts in that area. So what we're proposing -- and I think that's a -- you know, a very nice looking building. He's done that in many other areas of the country that -- you know, Naples is, you know, a nice area, expects more from its developers than other areas and he's developed-- he's delivered on that. And your-- your staff has looked at the architecture, and we're working with your staff on making whatever changes they want to the actual architecture of the building. There'll be uniformity as far as the architecture on the site. There's not uniformity there now. Unfortunately, with the current circumstances on the property, if there's not a change, if we are not given a PUD to -- to make some changes, I don't know that there's another opportunity to get everybody together to do a uniform PUD and redevelop that area. I think what you have is what you're going to get if-- if we cannot work towards a redevelopment plan for that parcel. You'll hear from some of the property owners that it doesn't make any sense to rehab those existing structures or build new ones because they cannot get tenants who can afford to pay for that. It's not a high-end area for a residential development. It is commercial. I can also tell you that -- I do a fair amount of some eminent domain work here in Collier County, and I can tell you across the street, the county is appraising that property for purposes of eminent domain for the highest and best use being commercial. The county recognizes the changing conditions along that roadway, that it's not a residential area anymore. And that's what we're bringing to you, is a -- a redevelopment plan for that property. It's got commercial on both sides. We've -- we're consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We're -- as far as the infill, we're consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 42 January 3, 2002 As far as redeveloping the property, the Comprehensive Plan talks about redeveloping the property. We meet all the existing traffic standards. We have to apply today's rules, not tomorrow's rules, because for one, we don't know what tomorrow's rules may be. I mean, they go through a legislative process of being adopted. We've -- we've made some commitments to the residents to the south that we would put in -- Wayne will take you through it. There will be a wall with nice landscaping. It will -- the wall will be offset 5 feet on our side so that they, in effect -- even though they don't have legal title to that 5 feet, they, in effect, get a little bit bigger yard. They can-- we'll provide some landscaping on their side. They maintain it. We've talked to them about that. We have tried to be sensitive to the five homes we affect that front on that lake. Now, overall we think our plan's a better plan than what's there today, and it's been sensitive and -- with the property owners to our south, taking into consideration our clients' property rights and the right to develop their property. We think we're compatible. Wayne will take you through that. If there are specific uses, Mr. Strain, that you would like us to talk about maybe taking out or have some questions on, you know, Wayne will answer any of those questions. We haven't really heard any objections to -- we've not heard any objections to the storage. There's been some concerns about what other things may be there. That's what the list of the PUD does; it tells you what other things may be there. I can't tell you that I know that's what's going to be on B and C. I don't have a purchaser for that yet. I can tell you that it'll be whatever the uses are in the PUD, and that's the purpose of the PUD. I can tell you that Area A is under contract for this self-storage, and I've shown you the quality, through the architecture, of that self-storage. And with that brief-- rather lengthy, brief introduction, I'd like to turn it over to Wayne and reserve any -- Page 43 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Question of you before you do. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Question from Mr. Strain and then Mr. Abemathy before you walk away. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The -- who do you represent again? MR. YOVANOVICH: Who do I represent? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Who are you representing here today? MR. YOVANOVICH: I am the attorney for the PUD, which means I represent -- I'm the authorized representative of all of the property owners for the purposes of the PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So you do represent the Pine Ridge Development (sic) Group. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, which is listed in the application as to who those individuals-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I was checking, because I thought you had said you represent the gentleman with the storage facility, and I wanted to make sure you represent all the property owners there so that you're speaking for all of them. And then I heard Mr. Anderson is here, and is he on the same team, then, that you're on? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So you've got two people representing the group. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, he's -- no. He's representing some individual members within the group. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abemathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Soudan is the contract purchaser of all of Tract A? Page 44 January 3, 2002 MR. YOVANOVICH: All of Tract A. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many property owners are there of that? Five, more or less? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think it's five, and a portion of B as well. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is his storage facility dependent upon the acceptance of this PUD? Can he go ahead and do -- do his irrespective? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We have to rezone the property. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So you could rezone it as something other than PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: I could-- I guess I could come in and rezone it as C-5, but you'd get -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Whatever's appropriate for a storage facility. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But the -- I could, but the beauty of the PUD is you -- you get to dictate standards. If I went straight to C-5, you would be stuck with the standards within the Land Development Code versus being able to craft a PUD document that can impose higher standards. Like, what we're going to show you on the landscaping far exceeds code minimum. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Now, he has set the standard for architecture, so to speak, with this elevation that you've shown us. Are the other six property owners more or less acquiescing to or agreeing to those architectural sorts of standards? MR. YOVANOVICH: I haven't heard any objections from the property owners as to the architectural -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Of course, they're not going to develop it; they're going to sell it to somebody to develop. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the purchaser will be stuck with those standards as well as the landscaping standards and -- that we're Page 45 January 3, 2002 setting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But wouldn't he be thrilled to have those standards as an enhancement, not stuck? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think that that building's a very attractive building, and then anybody who purchases knows that they're going to have to meet a high standard. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I was just quarreling a little bit with your statement that this is the only way to develop this. It seems to me that the storage facility, Mr. Soudan, could go ahead and follow a different path and leave the others to their own devices. But I guess I've made that point. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, just perhaps -- does this fall under the new public participation ordinance? Where in the time frame did this -- MR. BELLOWS: No. This petition was submitted far prior to the public information meeting request, but the petitioner has held meetings to try to conform with that as much as possible. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I certainly applaud that. It's just that some words like commitments have been made to the property owners. And in our public participation process, those commitments then get brought forward as part of the permanent record and -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And so as much -- if we can replicate that as much as we can, it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We will. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you're not going to address the traffic phasing aspect of it; that's going to come from someone else? MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess we can, but at this point, you know, there's nothing from staff that indicates there's any need for Page 46 January 3, 2002 traffic phasing based upon the traffic we have. There's not been a request or a requirement. I mean, we are -- obviously we've got to put in our turn lanes and all the necessary improvements to make sure that each site is safe, and we're going to develop a safe project. I mean, nobody's going to go out there and develop something that is unsafe as far as people that are coming to their businesses. So we're -- I mean, we're going to do that as the natural course of development. I don't think there was any need for phasing, to address the concerns with the amount of vehicles generated from our project, raised by staff. And we've had many, many conversations with transportation staff regarding -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, this was an item that was put in by transportation, so perhaps transportation could speak to that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I'm trying to identify where it is in the PUD document versus in the -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The findings -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- executive summary. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Findings for the PUD on page 2, Exhibit B -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's staff. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- traffic circulation element. You know, they farmed that out to the traffic people, I presume. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is there someone from traffic that could speak to that? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I didn't want to lose that aspect, and I still want to talk more about the lake issue, too, before we lose Mr. Yovanovich, or maybe one of his other people will come up and Page 47 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Before we lose the lake, as it-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Before we -- I don't see transportation leaping forward. MR. BELLOWS: What section are you reading from again? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Findings for PUD, which is Exhibit B, page 2. That's after the rezone findings. Then you've got the findings for the PUD. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And it says, (as read): "Traffic Circulation Element, analysis of the subject petition conclude with a finding that with development phasing this petition is consistent with the policies of TCE." Is that your focus, Commissioner Richardson? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: My -- I think what they meant, if I may, is the fact that we're developing three different parcels with the intensity of uses getting less intense as you get closer to the comer. And I think when you're talking -- I mean, if you'll look at the PUD, you cannot put a self-storage on the comer. That's limited to A, and I think that's what they meant by phasing, as far as the development of the tracts. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Yovanovich, I am not an attorney, but to me, development phasing does not mean intensity. MR. BELLOWS: IfI may, Madam Chairman -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think I heard you say that. And I just don't want to be too esoteric on the words, but for the record, I don't agree with what you just said this says in front of me. MR. BELLOWS: Just a point of clarification. That language, I believe, came from Chahram, and I think it was his intent that each phase -- each tract be phased, that Tract A would come first and then after that -- I just had a previous discussion with Mr. Arnold. I don't believe he has a problem with keeping Tract A as Phase I, and maybe Page 48 January 3, 2002 he'd like to agree to that on the record. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We do need to clarify this because you can just tell by the heads going back and forth of the representatives that something needs to be on the record. And perhaps transportation wants to stand up and comment or not? Is it you who did this, or was it Mr. Badamtchian? MR. MULLER: For the record, Russ Muller. I'm with development services, by the way, not transportation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, you're not transportation. Darn. What happened to transportation? MR. MULLER: But we all play on the same field, and I like to CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I beg to differ. MR. MULLER: -- think of us as one. We are the county. I would guess that -- that Chahram put this in, and it probably has do with the different tracts. I don't think it came from transportation planning department as a request, and I think it probably has to do with Item D in your PUD as far as access points, existing and future. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Which is saying, "Until such time as Area C and the easternmost lot of Area B are redeveloped, all existing access points on Pine Ridge Road for these two areas shall remain as they exist on the date of approval of this PUD." MR. MULLER: Right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So the people out there have some idea of what we're talking about. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is Ms. Wolfe on vacation or out of town or-- MR. MULLER: No, I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: She just didn't want to come. Well, you know, perhaps this is, you know, a -- and I don't mean to overplay it, but we're just trying to sort out some of the Page 49 January 3, 2002 language problems here, because there is, you know, statements here that say there will -- committed road improvements shall be in place before CO. Now, that's pretty specific. You know, we don't usually get that kind of language at this point either. And we're talking -- and some sense that there's going to be some phasing, which suggests to us laypeople that perhaps traffic would be feathered in at a time when these other improvements were really going to be available. You know, maybe you can just let us go on and perhaps hear more about the project and what you plan to put there and maybe give us a better comfort level. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And, Wayne, are you going to speak specifically to this lake issue? MR. ARNOLD: I certainly will try to address it. I know you've mentioned you have specific questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because when we're talking about, you know, the executive summary versus what's in the document, I did want to focus on the document because that's what will control eventually because it will be the ordinance. Did you want to say something first, or should we let Mr. Arnold go? MR. BELLOWS: Just a point of clarification on the traffic issue. I had a discussion with Norm Feder. He's the transportation administrator. We will be sending them the staff reports for their reviews to -- just to make sure that the language contained in the staff report is acceptable to them. That wasn't the case with this one. This was before that agreement. But they will be getting the staff reports, for your future reference. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: As Mr. Abemathy just observed, I thought they already were getting the staff reports before they got to US. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the procedure technically is they provide us with the language, and it goes in. Now, whether it got Page 50 January 3, 2002 massaged with Chahram, I'm not sure of the exact sequence of events. Sometimes calls go back and forth, memos, and it gets pretty difficult to keep track of what all different changes occur when you're balancing 20-some projects at the same time. But Chahram has this language in here, and it appears to me that there was meant to be a phasing of the project. And I personally think that a phasing of Tract A first is a reasonable request, and I don't believe that it would cause a hardship on the project overall. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What appears to be in the PUD document makes sense -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- now that we've looked it over and read it out loud. Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor Engineering and land planner on the project. I'll try to go over just very briefly the master plan and its orientation and hit a few items that Mr. Yovanovich didn't. I'll show you the buffer plan that we've shown to the neighboring property owners to our southern boundary, and I will also try to address the lake issue. And I'd like to do that first, and then I know Mr. Strain had several issues related to the C-3 zoning. And I think between the newest supplement to the Land Development Code and maybe how the Comprehensive Plan's been interpreted, we can maybe reach a consensus on most of those points. So I'll move over here and start a little bit of that presentation, and then if you have questions, then we'll hit those too. Okay. As Mr. Yovanovich pointed out earlier, we have Areas A, B, and C. The indoor, climate controlled self-storage goes on Area A. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Is -- anyone in the back with technical, can they spotlight the Goodlette Comers map that Mr. Arnold is looking at? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Bellows has it up on his visualizer. If he Page 51 January 3, 2002 wants to possibly move it over or stand back so you can get the fuller orientation of it, I think the audience could follow along too. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, that's a little better. That camera doesn't seem to be moving at all. Do we have a staff member that could go back to talk to whomever's in technical to see if they could maybe listen and help? Thank you. Go ahead. MR. ARNOLD: First of all, the project area is about -- a little over 8 1/2 acres. It's a small infill parcel. Keep in mind we have almost a 4-acre tract on the comer of Goodlette-Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road that formerly was industrial, now zoned C-1 and has nonconforming use status that allows all those nonconforming uses to be interchanged in perpetuity as long as businesses are retained there. What you have is, under the comp plan, two scenarios that Mr. Yovanovich talked about. One is the office and infill provision that gives us one of the opportunities to come in and request the commercial zoning. The second is a policy in the plan that says this is a corridor that should have a redevelopment effort. So between those two policies, we're qualifying. And one of Mr. Abemathy's comments that I touch on was, why can't you just do the self-storage? And let me tell you what happens if we did. We can qualify one time to use the office and infill provision under the comp plan. If we came in and said the two acres adjacent to the Houlihans and the hotel site is our one and only time to use the office and infill, what you end up with is Area B, 2.78 acres, that is residential and forever, under your current comp plan, must remain residential. It has no provision for becoming a commercial land use under the Comprehensive Plan. We don't believe that is in the best interest of Collier County, to end up with a less-than-3-acre residential parcel that qualifies for three units per acre residential. That area is almost entirely encumbered by the existing lake area, which diminishes its Page 52 January 3, 2002 redevelopment potential entirely unless you want to go ahead and pay to fill in the lake that's a little bit over an acre to get three units per acre residential on the property unless you do affordable housing; then you can get up to 11 units per acre. But at that point we're still talking around 30 units. Not a high number considering the cost of filling the lake to make those numbers work. But anyway, that's the scenario we're facing, the one and only time we can use this provision. And, as Mr. Yovanovich said-- he's been working with all the property owners for almost two years now -- this was the opportunity to get all the property, the existing commercial as well as what qualified anyway for commercial, to come in as one unified plan, have common development standards, a common landscape theme, common architectural standards, etc. We think that, and I know that staff has felt all along, that is very much in the interest of Collier County and consistent with our long-term planning efforts. With respect to transportation, I know that I've personally had two meetings with Dawn Wolfe related to the project. I spoke with Ed Kant yesterday. We've spoken with county staff at development services over the last year, at least, on this project, and we're very comfortable. There are major intersection improvements that are occurring at Goodlette-Frank Road. They're putting dual left tums in. They're putting a dedicated right-mm lane in south onto Goodlette-Frank Road. Those alone are big enhancements to Pine Ridge Road. We know and we understand, because we've met with the staff, that they are expecting us to go ahead and put in mm lanes, as any other project is required to that generates certain volumes of traffic. So we will be putting in deceleration lanes. We talked about the number of access points right now being over a dozen on Pine Ridge Road, albeit many of those serving single-family homes. The Page 53 January 3, 2002 county's looking at this as an opportunity to have a unified look at how they treat access management on a quarter-mile segment of a very busy roadway, a big advantage. They're getting a relocated access point on Goodlette-Frank Road that moves it further away from the intersection, a very big safety enhancement for the county's roadway system. So we think those are very positive benefits. And Mr. Kant, the reason he called me yesterday was to remind me I don't have any full access to this site. We know. We have right-in, right-out-only access to these parcels. There is no left-mm movement out of this project. East Avenue, which has a full median opening now and a left-mm lane into the Shepard parcel, when they go ahead and redo the intersection improvements at Goodlette-Frank Road, they're bringing the dual turn lanes far enough back that the median opening gets reconfigured. There's no southbound left-mm movement into our project anymore. You have a left only into East Avenue, and East Avenue will only be a right out onto Pine Ridge Road. You no longer will have an ability to mm out of East and make a left and go east on Pine Ridge Road to the intersection. Those alone are big enhancements that the county's doing. We don't have any effect on those, but we have to live with them. And that's -- hence, one of the requirements that you see is the newly added language that says the county is going to be modifying access. We, at great length, have worked with the county, and we've yet to get their firm commitment, but looking at the opportunity to have a directional left into our project site that pushes it further down near Mr. Soudan's intended indoor storage facility. That puts it generally equidistant between the intersection and the left-mm facility that serves the Ramada Plaza Hotel further to our west. You can see it on the aerial photo. That appears right here. Our proposed access point puts it about here, in about the middle of that landscaped island that's Page 54 January 3, 2002 currently on Pine Ridge Road. So I just wanted to set that out as sort of how we've gotten to where we are today and how we've looked at this from the transportation perspective, the comp plan perspective. With respect to Mr. Strain's questions on the C-3, Mr. Yovanovich read the language out of the Comprehensive Plan that says nothing about C-3. I'm not exactly sure where the language came from in the staff report, other than I will tell you that your long- range planning staff says when the comp plan says you can have office and low intensity commercial, they generally said C-3 is that threshold of lower intensity commercial uses. It doesn't say lower intensity office uses. And I think that's where Mr. Strain had pointed out to me when we met that some of the uses only appeared in the business park district, for instance. They're nowhere else in our Land Development Code. A travel agent, for instance, appears nowhere else in our code, yet we've asked for one. We think that that's a pretty traditional office-type use that qualifies for what we want to do. I think that one of the other things that Mr. Strain pointed out to me with respect to those uses are that some of them don't appear in C-3. One of them was, I think, one of the medical facilities, and I was puzzled, too, yesterday when we sat down. And after I had a chance to look at the staff report that I received late in the day yesterday, I've looked at those, and our last supplement to the Land Development Code included all the health services under the C-1 zoning district. So those go all the way back to a C-1 use, and I think those start at SIC Code 8011 through something, and I can certainly look that up if you'd like a specific reference. But, for instance, that was one that was a C-1 use. I think there was another question related to lawn and garden and hardware category, and I find those two uses to be in C-2 and C- 3 after I went back and looked at the code. One of those was a Page 55 January 3, 2002 Supplement 12, which appeared to be one of the last changes that had been codified. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wayne, while you're on it, health service in C-1 is a conditional use for Sections 8011 through 8049. You're asking for health services for 8011 to 8099. 8050 through 8059, 8062 through 8069, 8071 through 8072, 8092 through 8099 are all C-4, from what my code is saying. MR. ARNOLD: And those uses, if I can get my -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One's a psychiatric hospital. MR. ARNOLD: And I -- I've spoken with Mr. Yovanovich and pointed out that there are a couple of those -- one of the other categories was educational categories, and it allows things like data processing school and vocational school and things of that nature. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, it does. That's one of them. MR. ARNOLD: Even though I think we're certainly justified under the code, because our real test is compatibility and transition -- and keeping in mind we have a hotel/restaurant that establishes the intensity to our west -- we're transitioning to, albeit, C-1 zoning that has an entitlement to C-5 and industrial uses. So what our test is, is really finding what's compatible between those two and to the residences to the south. And I guess what I'm here to say is if you have a specific issue with the compatibility of an indoor-type of vocational school or a data processing school or something, I think that we can commit on the record we would eliminate those specific uses. The same thing with the psychiatric hospital and others. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The problem that I have is that you've put in wide ranges. Number 6, depository and nondepository institutions, you've said everything in Groups 6021 through 6199. Well, 6011 to 6099 is C-1, but when you get to anything above 6099, which is almost -- I don't know how many elements -- it's all industrial. Now, you -- I think Richard said on the record that the Page 56 January 3, 2002 residents didn't oppose the uses you're proposing there. And if that's the case, then I really -- I'm not that concerned. MR. ARNOLD: I didn't mean to interrupt. I think Rich was -- I don't think he said they didn't oppose it. I think what he said, we haven't heard any specific reference to certain uses that they may oppose. I mean, this is really the public hearing opportunity for anyone who wasn't at the two informational meetings we held. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you're assuming that all the residents have these SIC books, and they were to look up those -- each one of those codes and then tell you if they had an opposition to each one of them; is that where we're coming from? MR. ARNOLD: No. But I did bring the book to the meetings we had. And one of the things I would tell you, the version I still have was sort of a strikethrough, underlined version that we dealt with where we had, for instance, deleted automobile dealership. We deleted hotels and motels. We deleted certain business services, like saw sharpening shops, that were, again, much -- part of a much broader group. And we had made those eliminations that are reflected in what you have before you today. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think this can be cleaned up. I don't -- but, I mean, I just -- when you put these broad ranges in, I think that's where the problem becomes because it opens it up to a lot. But the other concern I had is if staff's report stated that it's -- in staff's opinion, they were C-3 uses, then does staff's report or staff's opinion change in its findings based on revealing that these are up to industrial and even business park uses? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I can't speak to staff, but I can tell you that the list of uses that are in -- in the PUD document you have before you today have been in there for nearly two years. Staff has reviewed those at various levels, including your long-range planning staff that looked at these with consistency to the comp plan. We Page 57 January 3, 2002 made certain eliminations from the original list we started with based on the give and take with staff to this point. And what I'm telling you, if there are specific concerns such as a psychiatric hospital or some of those types of uses, we would make that elimination as well. I don't think it's sized appropriately for it nor anybody has told me that we're going to have a hospital use there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And, again, I mean, I'm just more -- my point of concern would be staffs analysis. Was it based on-- Ray, you didn't do the analysis, did you? MR. BELLOWS: No. Chahram did the analysis, but I believe the intent was that the majority of the uses were in the C-3 or similar category. The purpose of the PUD is to allow for, as was previously mentioned, a wider range of uses that you would normally find in one zoning district, such as the C-3. And that's why they're proposing the additional landscaping and mitigation. So personally, you know, I am not opposed to having a wider range of uses, but I would agree with you that a psychiatric-type use is not appropriate at this location. I would prefer, myself, to see more of a -- retail-oriented uses along with some professional office. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a comment here. I just want to make sure I'm clear. Commissioner Strain, when you're talking about the health services, you said from 8011 to something -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- were the categories. Would you give me that number again, please. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, it's quite a few. The -- from 8011 to 8049. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: 8049. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And then 8082. Those categories are all in C-1. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All right. Page 58 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And anything else that falls in between those I -- was found in C-4, and that's 0850 through 59, etc., like I said earlier. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And to follow the pattern of the PUD that we have before us, then there are absolutely no exceptions listed in No. 11, the health services -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- whereas previously, like in 7, they have the numbers, "except" -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- in words. And I think that's partly what the difficulty is here. And it's unfortunate we have to take this kind of time to walk our way through this, but we're going to need some comfort zone on how we're going to know what those exceptions are, and I need to have some comfort knowing what we're accepting, because you're making a commitment, standing there, to us to a psychiatric hospital. We may need to look through this a little bit when we give our court reporter a break, because she's been typing for quite some time. MR. ARNOLD: We can try to put that list together, if you will. I mean, I have the book in front of me, and if you want to hit the specific codes -- and some are very inclusive and some are -- are not. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It doesn't seem to me, Mark, that the planning -- Collier County Planning Commission ought to be scrubbing these uses at this point. That, I would have hoped, would have already been done between staff and the petitioner. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I -- I fully agree with you, Ken. It's just that staff had said they're C-3, and when they aren't -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Right. Page 59 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- and they're more, I -- I don't think we would be doing our job by letting it go through without correcting it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I agree with you, but hopefully we can mm the comer on this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: By the way, if we take a long enough break, maybe 15 minutes instead of 5 or 10, I could -- I got all my codes numbered, so I can bring them out to you guys, and you could take a look at them if that would help. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would probably be helpful, because I am concerned how these SIC codes show up and what they actually involve when you go look at a particular-- the code book and you look at what's in the zoning. I attended one of the first public community participation hearings on a -- an item that's going through in another area in North Naples, and it was absolutely fascinating the total misunderstanding of what could or couldn't happen with the zoning. And there were literally pages of documents provided. And I, on the fly, went through those and was still amazed at what could have been on that parcel and what people thought could be on that parcel. And it's -- it's very frustrating to have this kind of thing happen. So you can finish your additions. We'll do that at the break, which is going to have to be here fairly soon, but you can continue on with -- MR. ARNOLD: Maybe, if you'd like, I'll jump off this C-3 issue, and I'll move on, and we can come back after your break and deal more specifically with that if that -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Lake. MR. ARNOLD: I'll move on to the lake. I hope it picks up on the aerial, our property boundary along Pine Ridge Road. You can see the outline of the lake. There are five homes that front on the Page 60 January 3, 2002 lake that's on our property. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Front on or back on? MR. ARNOLD: I guess back on would be the appropriate term. Their -- their back yard abuts the lake back there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Big difference. MR. ARNOLD: That lake -- I think if you need somebody to attest to it, Mr. Anderson represents the gentleman who apparently dug the lake, so I think that without question we know that's a man- made facility. We have had an environmental analysis prepared. There were allegations that it's a wildlife sanctuary and that it's a wetland environment and things. We have a certified biologist who's done an analysis of that, already met with the water management district staff. They've determined that it is surface water. It is not a wetland. There's no specific vegetation there. There are no listed species obviously on the property. We don't have environmental issues with respect to the lake. I think the sole issue involving the lake is that we have people who have, for 30 years, enjoyed the view of the lake. I think if you ask your county staff personnel, any of these single-family home owners who own through this lake to their property line can qualify to go to the county tomorrow and get a clear and fill permit to fill that portion of their lake. What we have said -- and I'll make it real clear - - the conceptual master plan you have in front of you says existing lake area to be filled or resculptured. When this was originally submitted two years ago, it said that the lake area would be resculpted. When we started looking at this over a year ago, we said, "This doesn't work." You can't physically redevelop any portion of the western part of the site without affecting the lake. You can't do it for residential. You certainly can't do it for commercial, and we can't do what needs to be done to make this a viable redevelopment effort. Page 61 January 3, 2002 We made no bones about it, as Mr. Yovanovich said, when we went to the immediate neighbors: "Expect that the lake will be filled." It may be filled in phases. I can tell you that Phase 1 for Mr. Soudan requires about 50 feet of that width to be filled to support his indoor self-storage facility. That affects five total lots. The lake area encroaches onto a portion of three of those, and it would require some filling. That leaves an area of about an acre of lake that would remain that would have to be dealt with subsequently in a future phase. Whether it's Phase 2, Phase 3, who knows, because we already have development on Area C. So at some point the lake would need to be filled. We think we can do it today by going to the county with our permit application for clearing and filling by each of the property owners. We explained that to the neighbors. And obviously if you are backing up to the lake and that's the view you enjoyed, I wouldn't be too happy about it going away either. But we're looking at this on a little bit bigger picture than the five residences that are immediately affected, and that is trying to take into account something that the county is supporting. We know this corridor is developing. I'm not sure we'll ever have another opportunity to pull a dozen property owners together in a unified effort to try to make this happen. So we went out there, and we originally talked to them and said, "What would you like to see in terms of something other than the lake?" We showed them what the county minimum was which would be a 5-foot hedge and a tree every 30 feet and a 15-foot landscape buffer. They said, "No. We don't like that. What we really would like to see is a more physical barrier." We had quite a debate whether or not it would be a 6-foot-high solid fence or an 8-foot-high solid fence. I don't think there was clear consensus from the people in the room, but I think we said, "Trust us. We don't think you want an 8- Page 62 January 3, 2002 foot-high fence. Let us show you a 6-foot-high fence." So what we did, we created two images. We said, "Here's the proposed elevation of a building with a 6-foot-high fence, solid fence, and a tree every 30 feet," which is the alternate that the code would require. Mr. Soudan, who was paying for that analysis, said, "I don't like it." We said, "We don't like it, and we don't think the neighbors, when we take it to them and meet with them again, are going to like it either." So in him trusting us, we ended up putting a lot more vegetation in that landscape buffer, pulled the wall back enough so that you could have supplemental plantings on, let's call it, the residential property side, albeit on -- still on our property. We would offset the wall 5 or 7 feet and install some low level landscaping to help break up the fence. But the only difference we did here is inserted -- staggered cabbage palms about 10 feet on center into that picture. And obviously I'm not going to tell you that's at time of planting, because cabbage palms don't come at installation typically with their heads completely mature, but that's a little over a year out. And what you end up with are trees that -- I'd like to make a commitment on how high exactly they're going to be at time of planting. I think I'm safe to say that between 12 and 20 feet, because the price is about the same. But what I don't want to have as a commitment is that every tree is 20 feet because I'm not sure that's what we want either. But what we've -- what we've designed and showed them is 6-foot-high wall, still a canopy tree every 30 feet, supplemented on our side with cabbage palms -- or I guess I would say some similar material. I'd defer to someone, maybe Nancy Siemion, to help us craft the specific language because I'm sure there are like trees that maybe are just as effective or maybe even more effective. But we know that the cabbage palms are a very common tree to get, and it's Page 63 January 3, 2002 easy to make that commitment. So that's what we showed the neighbors at our last meeting -- I don't know, it's been a few weeks ago. But on our second meeting we showed them this, talked again about the lake, and I think that nobody could have left that meeting thinking anything else other than we had full intent to fill the entire lake. And, again, I would tell you that from a functional standpoint, it may have some remedial benefit for water management, but it was never dug for that purpose. It has varying depths. It's real shallow in some places. It's got a couple pockets that are deeper. It was never meant to be a water management lake. It doesn't have any easements around it for maintenance. It was never dug to the proper depths. It doesn't have the proper littoral shelves. It doesn't have a lot of things that are normally required to be a water management lake. So best case, if we were to try to use it, to satisfy it, it has to remain a hundred feet wide, which still gives us only about a 150- foot building envelope along Pine Ridge Road. And with a 15-foot landscape buffer, a 15-foot-wide deceleration lane, 60-foot double row of parking, and a nominal building depth of 70 feet, I'm into the lake. And I think that under that scenario, to try to maintain a lake that's a hundred feet wide so I can qualify to use it for my water management calculation, still doesn't satisfy what I need. And to provide them with anything other than the body of water that they're used to looking at probably isn't going to satisfy those neighbors either. You know, if they're looking at something that's 150 feet wide and it gets narrowed down to 60 or 80 or 70, I don't know that it has any real effect, and then I can't use that property for my own water management criteria because it doesn't meet the minimum size criteria that the water management district tells me I need. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How is your drainage going to Page 64 January 3, 2002 get to the canal on Goodlette from there? MR. ARNOLD: Probably we'll end up with a series of outfall structures that will go all the way across toward the rear of the property, an outfall. One of the things we've talked to the neighbors about was making provisions for accepting some of their yard drainage and either putting weep holes or catch basins along the fence, to go ahead and accept that water - that there may be some historic discharge back off their property as it slopes back, to go ahead and accept that into our system and take care of it. It's nominal at best. We've driven the area. We've looked at it. We've talked to the district. We've talked to the county staff. Practically speaking, our water management can be satisfied either by recreating some lake-type area on the site, or we could do it more as a dry retention area. And at this point, not knowing exactly what's going to occur beyond the westernmost 2-acre parcel, I can't tell you exactly how we're going to reconfigure it and deal with that. But we can certainly get to the outfall ditch on Goodlette-Frank Road. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wayne -- Richard, I don't mean to put words in your mouth again, but I think you said the water quality in the lake was not good. Nod of his head means yes. Is it polluted? Is it hazardous? Does it need remediation? MR. ARNOLD: It was tested by, I believe, the Collier County Public Health Unit, and it tested very high for fecal counts. And I think what's been told to me by our client is that it could be a combination of things. It's a small lake. It's not well aerated. You've got fish, ducks, other wildlife that obviously are utilizing the lake, but also there are -- may be some long-term septic tank leakage that's occurred that's also in there that would account for some of that. They said it's definitely not a safe condition for eating or swimming. Page 65 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I would assume that should you fill that lake, you would have to handle this poor quality water in a manner that doesn't cause us any public concern. MR. ARNOLD: I assume so, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Done. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Then since we're focusing on the lake -- and that would appear to be on page 15, 4.6 and water management, when I looked at this language A, B, and C, B and C tell me, just reading it as a casual but very interested observer, that the lake's still going to be there. It does not state in here that you have intentions to completely fill that lake in. It says in one place, "Permits may be required for filling in a portion of the on-site lake, cleaning the lake, and/or resculpting it." So, A, you would need some permits to do that, but you're only talking about a portion of it. You're not clarifying that, indeed, you may fill that whole lake. And then when you use C, talking about the setbacks, etc., that would lead a reasonably intelligent person who's reading this to assume that there's going to be some kind of lake back there. We may need some different language here if it becomes agreeable to allow you to completely fill this lake in. MR. ARNOLD: I would-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you agree? MR. ARNOLD: I would take responsibility for that oversight. When I sort of assumed responsibility for this, that would be an oversight, because a permit will be required in some form, whether it be Collier County or the water management district, to fill in any or all of that lake. And that would be the clarification, that we have to get the proper permits prior to filling any of that lake. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So that -- and it may be --"any" may become "all." Page 66 January 3, 2002 MR. ARNOLD: Correct. Any or all -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So make sure right now -- MR. ARNOLD: -- maybe would be the more appropriate reference. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- on the record that this Section 4.6, water management, B and C definitely need to have some new wordsmithing, and we may need to have an agreement on what that's going to be before we actually go any further when we approve or disapprove this particular PUD. And I hate to be so picky, but I've noticed lately that some of the things we think we did here at the Planning Commission level and the Board of County Commissioners think happened are not in these documents. MR. ARNOLD: That's one of the reasons -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It doesn't happen. MR. ARNOLD: -- staff now controls the disks that we've provided them and one of the reasons you saw Mr. Yovanovich being a little bit puzzled because, you know, we had not received that updated PUD document. So I have to apologize. What I'm looking at today -- I still don't have what you have in front of you. So I'm still looking at the last revision I gave staff, you know, six weeks ago. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you're the one who actually creates this document? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Then I'd like to admonish you, Wayne. You do know-- MR. ARNOLD: I take responsibility for that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You do know that under utilities Ordinance 88-76 was definitely repealed. So you get-- MR. ARNOLD: You'll be happy to know-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- my admonishment too. Page 67 January 3, 2002 MR. ARNOLD: -- that I have noted on the top of mine that I need to make sure that the staff rereferences Ordinance 97-17 appropriately. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And it's in your document. I want to make sure you understand that. MR. ARNOLD: It's now going to be staffs responsibility to modify it because they now control it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because I'm sure you understand how these things change; right? MR. ARNOLD: I do, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. Any other comments about this part? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are we referring just to the lake? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are we through with the lake? Do we want to catch him on a couple other things before he disappears? And we do need to take a break as soon as -- we want to finish with you, because I know we have registered public speakers. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me close this portion of the hearing by saying I think the lake is a nonissue. I think the property owner can fill it if he wants to if it's acceptable to the authorities that grant permits. Nobody's going to be able to see it anyway with a 6-foot fence. But even if there were no fence, it's their lake or their borrow pit. So -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And we might -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- that's it for now. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. And we may have some comments from the affected property owners that would like to put their thoughts on record. Okay. Are we through with -- MR. ARNOLD: I think I mentioned all I feel like I need to on the lake. I'd certainly entertain other questions and wait for some of Page 68 January 3, 2002 the public comment to address anything else that comes up. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And at this point in time, we are ready for public comment, as far as the petitioner's concerned. MR. ARNOLD: I thought we were going to go back and address some of Mr. Strain's C-3 specific issues. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: During the break. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're going to do that during the break. MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'd like to take a 15-minute break, let you-all talk quickly, and be able to walk through so we can get something on the record what we'd like to see excluded. And I also want to hear from the public out there, too, because they may have some thoughts on what they would like excluded or are concerned about, and then we need to at least talk about it in this open forum. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. The only other issue that I would touch on is something that Mr. Yovanovich already did, and that was the issue of this phasing reference that appears in the staff report. And I don't want to belabor the point, but I just want to point out that at no time have we discussed with the county staff a specific phasing schedule for the project. The level-of-service impacts to the roadway -- and I think everybody recognizes we have roads that have, at certain periods of the day, congestion on them, but we base them on average standards, peak day standards. The analysis has been done, not only in accordance with what the standards currently are. I asked Mr. Smith to quickly recalculate some numbers based on this new 3 percent threshold that Ms. Wolfe and her staff are working toward. We do not pass that threshold either. And on that basis I don't believe that the county staff would have any basis for recommending a phased schedule for what we're Page 69 January 3, 2002 doing. By the nature of what we're doing, we have a phasing schedule in place because we're intending that Area A will develop first; Area C is already developed and may be redeveloped. And I would -- I'm guessing that Area B may be the last to develop simply because it does have the challenge of the lake, and it's not at the comer, and it's not being done by Mr. Soudan. So that I feel comfortable saying, but I just wanted to go ahead and mention that. And, like I said, if there are other specific issues, Dean Smith from our office is here and can certainly answer them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. I -- I appreciate the additional information on the traffic. If it doesn't exceed the new transportation significance test, then I agree that phasing is a moot point and not really required. However, if they have an automatic phasing by the nature of the project they're developing, I'd like to see that incorporated into the PUD document. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And how many registered public speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: Six. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Six. Okay. Are we ready to take a -- at least a 15-minute break? Okay. Take a 15-minute break, give our court reporter's fingers a chance to rest and the gentlemen to negotiate about these SIC codes. We are in recess. Thank you. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're back in session. We are at the public hearing on the Goodlette Comers PUD. And I think we were going to take public comment, but you don't exactly look like public comment. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought what you wanted was for us to have an opportunity to look at the different items and clarify on the record -- Page 70 January 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's right. You were the representative to talk about the C-3 issue and the SIC codes. MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct. And we've had an opportunity to -- to look at the items highlighted by Mr. Strain, and he's correct, that not all of-- everything in the list is specifically C-3 or less. But keeping in mind that the C-3 is basically staff's wording and not ours, we have gone through, and we would agree that Codes 8062 through 8069, which are basically hospitals, should be eliminated from the list. And Code Nos. 9222 and 9224, which is prosecutor offices and fire marshal offices and the like, should also be elimited -- eliminated, I'm sorry. The remainder of those items, although they're not in the C-3 category, really are office-type uses, and we believe that those are appropriate in this area. It's kind of like real estate -- real estate agents, and those are types of offices that would remain, although not technically in a C-3 category. So we would hope that that would be enough clarification for the issues, and we'll make those changes to the document -- or make sure that staff makes those changes to the document. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I did write down, Commissioner Strain, in the 600 group -- or 6099, the depository and nondepository, did you discuss that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We looked at that, Commissioner Rautio, and we believe that that is -- that is keeping with banking institutions and would be -- are compatible, even though it's not technically a C-3 use. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we didn't miss that one detail. COMMISSIONER STRA1N: And my -- again, my objections were not to the uses as much as they were to the analysis that staff did to come up with the conclusion that this stuff was C-3. So if Page 71 January 3, 2002 staff's content with it at this point -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I read -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- I have no further comment on it. MR. BELLOWS: Pardon me. I read through the uses again, and the language that Chahram had in the staff report is that -- similar, and he said not strictly limited to. So I have no problem with the proposed changes eliminating some of those other uses and allowing the others. MR. YOVANOVICH: One other point. I did -- I did notice that during the break some information was handed out to the planning commissioners, and we were not provided a copy of that information. So I would request that we at least be given a copy. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The information was provided by Donald Clancy and other property owners -- Glancy and other property owners in the subdivisions south of Pine Ridge Road and east and west of Goodlette. Apparently that -- sir, you can't speak from the audience. It was provided, apparently, to planning, and it didn't make it into our packets, so we all have a chance to glance at that now. And just for the record, the information that Mr. Yovanovich gave us will be in the PUD Section 3.3, the permitted uses. Those are the changes we've discussed to make those clarifications when this document goes to the Board of County Commissioners in whatever form. Okay. Do we have registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, Madam Chairman, the first public speaker is Lori Stresen-Reuter. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The second one would be? MR. BELLOWS: Deborah Lawrence. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Be prepared to move up toward Page 72 January 3, 2002 the front. State your name and your address, please. MS. STRESEN-REUTER: My name is Lori Stresen-Reuter, and my husband Steve and I own the property at 1160 Pine Ridge Road. Our parcel is the west piece which abuts the Ramada Inn. In 1993 Steve and I purchased the duplex as is, as a part of a plan for our future retirement. As a self-employed contractor, Steve knew we had to plan for the future ourselves with no matching retirement plan from a corporation. We were attracted to the piece because of its vicinity to commercial property. By purchasing one of the eight rundown houses on Pine Ridge Road between two commercially zoned areas, we hoped the county eventually would want to improve the area by rezoning. In the meantime, Steve felt that improvements to the duplex, even at our cost, would not warrant themselves in additional rent because of the condition of the surrounding houses and the location of the duplex a few feet off one of Collier County's busiest roads. In August of 2000, one of the property owners contacted everyone in this area about rezoning and selling as a group. It has been amazing that this group, with all its very diverse personalities, have come this far the last year and a half. Other attempts over the past years have come, and they have failed. If this area is not rezoned now, I truly feel that future attempts as a group would fall apart and the area will deteriorate further. I also wanted to add at the end also, personally we had purchased a few acres and built our dream home a few years ago. And our house is L-shaped, and all the rooms face our swimming pool, and behind it is the woods. And although the woods do not belong to us, we have enjoyed them for a long time. And the stakes just have went up about a month ago, and it never has occurred to me to go over there and try to stop these people from building their home, although we have enjoyed their woods. And I would be Page 73 January 3, 2002 thrilled if those people came over to me and said, you know, "I'd like to make a barrier, a nice landscaping barrier for you" so that we have -- still maintain our privacy. But I understand with the lake. And I really wish in hindsight that we could have brought pictures to show you the condition of the homes that are on this -- in this area and the condition of the lake. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Any questions of the speaker? Next public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Deborah Lawrence, and after that Janet Glancy. MS. LAWRENCE: Good morning. My name is Debbie Lawrence. I'm -- moved to Collier County in 1969, and my husband and I purchased this property on Pine Ridge Road. It's the second lot west on Pine Ridge Road. It's the lot north of Lot 9. We came -- purchased the property in 1974, and at that time Pine Ridge Road was a two-lane road. On the west side of our property, we have, like, an easement that we can go out onto Pine Ridge Road, and we could go right or left at that point. Our children could play in the front yards. We could do lots of things that we -- that would never be able to happen today. During our stay there -- and we did move in 1989 -- the road was four laned; that was scary. It was six laned; that was very scary. And now the front door is approximately 20 feet from the road. I can't imagine living there now. They took the frontage from our property. We no longer have access. When they took the property and said that they were going to do the four laning, they said that our -- our access road, we'd be able to turn left or right there. That did not happen. We ended up having to turn right to go left, and then to come home we had to go left to come right. There are property owners that are backing out -- I wish Page 74 January 3, 2002 we did have a picture of what it looks like right now. There are property owners that are trying to back out onto Pine Ridge Road. It is a very, very scary situation. It's -- basically the six laning has ruined that property as a residence. It's a rental property at best, and it's not cost-effective for us to make it anything else. I truly can't imagine living there now, and I really would like you to consider what will happen if you don't approve the zoning. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Janet Glancy -- Don Glancy then Janet Glancy. MR. GLANCY: For the record, I'm Don Glancy. I live on Milano Drive. I've been there for 20 years, 34 years in Naples. We know what's happening here today, the presentation of the Pine Ridge Development -- by the Pine Ridge Development (sic) Group representing this proposal for a PUD. Our concern with this -- since most of that land is currently zoned residential, our concern is that rezoning it to commercial use is going to make an already dangerous traffic problem even worse than it is now. Whether traveling east or west, anyone who's been out there recently knows that the intersection at 41 and Pine Ridge Road, the intersection at Goodlette and Pine Ridge Road is disastrous. The people who are petitioning for the rezoning of this PUD want to remove the existing housing that fronts Pine Ridge Road, and I have absolutely no problem with that. I saw that coming when we moved there and they kept widening the road. And, as Ms. Lawrence said, now the road is pretty much in their front rooms. I didn't do that. I wasn't responsible for that. County planning, I guess, did that. But they want to remove those houses and fill in an existing lake behind there. Now, I've heard it called not a lake. Well, it's been a lake in Page 75 January 3, 2002 the 20 years I've been there. My kids and I have been fishing in it for that long. It is spring fed. We know that, had a diver take a look at that. And the -- there is a lot of wildlife. Perhaps the coliform bacteria there has something to do with the fact that there are ducks and turtles and snakes and fish and so on, an occasional gator, an otter once in a while. These developers, as I have suggested in the information I gave you, will also remove many mature, large-canopied trees from that area, including native species; scrub oaks, big ones, 24 inches in diameter, 40-foot canopies; other trees of at least 50 years of growth. And the established lake habitat would become concrete rectangles and paved parking lots. Furthermore, traffic added out there from yet another commercial center would make things worse. We know about the development that is coming on the northeast comer of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette, the development that's coming over there on the other side. We also know that there's a school crossing there. Just on Milano and Napoli streets just south of this lake, there are 31 preschool and middle school, elementary school children just there. That's -- I think it's going to make that situation even more dangerous if this particular thing is done. Referring to the lake as not a lake, I don't know how that becomes not a lake. I guess Norris Lake and Cherokee Lake and Lake Meade are borrow pits too, but they're -- they have water, and they have wildlife, and there's a wildlife habitat around them. This particular lake -- as I said, I lived on it for 20 years now -- it has never dried up, even in the worst drought. It has never been stagnant in the time that I've been there, so I have come to think of it as a lake. What we are recommending -- and it seems to be in keeping with what Collier County has said they want to do -- is that this land Page 76 January 3, 2002 be used as -- perhaps as a passive park. Keep the existing lake, keep the greenspace, have park areas there for people who'd like to go sit on the bench, take a walk. It would beautify the area, we think. It would not hurt the property values in the area, I don't think. And it certainly would ease the commercial access and the property -- or the traffic along Pine Ridge Road. We made a point near the end of the remarks I gave you that "Collier County has seen fit to preserve the sacred burial ground of pioneers moved long ago from their original cemetery near the site of Saint Anne's Church on Third Street in Olde Naples to Rosemary Center (sic) on Pine Ridge Road. The County has further advocated the preservation of a number of other graves along Pine Ridge Road between U.S. 41 and Goodlette Road." Now, Mr. Bellows' comments confused me a little bit. They are within this property area, but they are not within an inclusion? MR. BELLOWS: IfI may, I'd like to clarify. The PUD boundaries exclude the possible location of these unmarked burial sites. MR. GLANCY: Not within that boundary. MR. BELLOWS: Not within the boundary of the PUD document. MR. GLANCY: Where are they located? MR. BELLOWS: Outside adjacent -- let me show you again on the map. The reported location is in this comer of the intersection of Goodlette and -- and Pine Ridge. The PUD property line excludes that parcel. MR. GLANCY: And it will just be left as a -- MR. BELLOWS: As currently zoned, in its current condition. MR. GLANCY: Well, at any rate, if that is a concern, it's something that ought to be looked at, we think. Let me add this: As I said before, I have no quarrel with the fact Page 77 January 3, 2002 that the people whose property fronts Pine Ridge Road own the property that is behind them and that goes into the lake. Absolutely. I respect property rights, but I am concerned about the use of that property. If you go to the comer of 41 and Pine Ridge Road, at one time we were told there was going to be a medical center there, and that didn't happen. The medical center didn't happen. What we do have there now is we have an Eckerd's Drug. We have, from that point over, three restaurants, two bars -- a couple of them across the street from a church -- and several other fast-food establishments and strip center developments. I don't know how that came about. My only involvement with that was at one time to go before the county commission and object to their putting a sports bar up there across from the church. They didn't do that at that time. Later things happened that brought those establishments there. I don't think we need any more commercial development in that area. We think a park, a passive park -- we don't mean an active park with slides and swings and so on, but a passive park where people can go and take a walk, maybe ride their bike, sit on the bench and talk, walk the dog, play with the kids -- would be a much better use of that land than to put more commercial buildings there. We have been told about -- in our public meetings, we have been told what would happen as far as the landscaping of the PUD is concerned. But the only thing we know for sure is that one investor wants to put one building there now. We have no guarantee of what else would go there. We have no guarantee of any kind of what the buffer or the wall or the fence or what any of those things would be. We've heard all the talk. But those are pictures, and the reality could -- as we well know in Collier County, reality could be quite something different. I thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Question for the -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Glancy. Up here. Page 78 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: As I heard the presentation from the -- from the applicant, they suggested that this is what they would do. Now, let me just ask you. If, in fact, this was a commitment that's part of our record, would that be helpful to you in your consideration of-- MR. GLANCY: I certainly would be interested in knowing what it was going to be and when it was going to be. For example, if -- if the PUD -- or if the applicant for the rezoning change to build a storage place, if he is granted that, he can build his building and stick a wall 50 feet out into the lake behind my house. So I look at a wall here, and who knows what I look at down there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The idea of a unified development, though, under a PUD is that common standards would apply to the entire project, and that's part of what we're trying to address here. MR. GLANCY: I understand that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I'm just -- just wondering if those common standards -- let's just assume for the moment the lake is gone. If the common standards are applied, then what I'm hearing is a commitment from the applicant that this is what you would see as the development phases in, just what you're looking at there. MR. GLANCY: Yeah. And we were told-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I wonder what comfort level that gives you. MR. GLANCY: We were-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. MR. GLANCY: -- told that as well. Time? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. I said, "One at a time." COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: She was just cautioning me not to talk over you. Page 79 January 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Or you talk over him. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Glancy -- are you done, Dwight? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Two questions. The -- I like your park idea. I don't know how the county could buy such a park and pay for it, and I don't know if your group explored that, because obviously the property owner has a right to sell at a reasonable price. A park would be nice anywhere in Collier County; the more the merrier. The problem is the money to get -- MR. GLANCY: Particularly there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't disagree with you a bit. But I don't know if your group has explored that with the county commissioner representing your area to find out if that's even feasible, which leads to my next question. You were concerned about the uses that have ended up at the Pine Ridge Medical Center. I, too, brought that up during break. It was ironic. It's called the Pine Ridge Medical Center. There's no medical there, so obviously it went through under the guise of something else. MR. GLANCY: Yes, it did. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But in that light has anybody from your neighborhood sat down, as I tried to do today, looked at these uses, and had any conclusions as to whether you agree or disagree or have objections to them? Because I've been making objections, but I haven't heard anybody else, and I'm wondering if there's a concern there. MR. GLANCY: We are recently come to this. We're not engineers. We're not a company with lawyers. We are residents of the neighborhood, and we are sort of doing this flying by the seat of our pants. I don't even know right off-- and I wanted to ask about this -- your procedure for whether -- whether or not and when and Page 80 January 3, 2002 how this PUD would be accepted. I don't -- I'm not in county government. I'm not an engineer, builder, developer. I don't have the kind of ex parte relationship with you folks that they do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I mean, you -- MR. GLANCY: I would never have called one of you on the phone. I would next time, but I wouldn't have presumed to do that because I assumed that I would come before you with what I had to say, and they would come before you with what they had to say, and we would both be dealing with the developer and you. But I see that's not how it works. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're here to provide a recommendation to the county commission, and then they make a decision. And after their decision whatever they decide is what really happens. What I think this board tries to do is find a compromise, find a way that it works for all the parties involved if that's possible. That's what leads me to -- my concern is, where specifically are your issues with the uses? And if you haven't had time to do that, then I understand that that may not be something we'll get out of you today. MR. GLANCY: Well, my issue with specific uses I haven't given a lot of thought to because I don't know. We get one bit of information one time and another bit of information at another, as you have. I heard you going over the possibilities of a real estate office or a psychiatric office, which could be the same, I guess. Being a Realtor, I can say that. Anyway, if that time comes -- if the time should come that we are going to have that development, I certainly would want to make -- give some input. And I would get in touch with our commissioner, our new commissioner, Mr. Coyle. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because the time is now for this board, but the time still is coming up for the next board. And so you need to be prepared to do that by the time it goes to the Board of County Commissioners in whatever format it leaves here. Page 81 January 3, 2002 MR. GLANCY: Now, is this, then, the only meeting which we will have regarding this? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Unless this board votes to continue it or something like that, this -- MR. GLANCY: In other words, the decision will be made today. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Our recommendation will be made today -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Our recommendation will be. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. GLANCY: Well, I suggest that you look carefully at that drawing of that park and think about that use as opposed to more concrete and more parking lots and -- when you do make your recommendation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I did have a couple of questions. I just wanted to clarify for the record, your drawing here that you've given with the park and the lake, etc., does that include the full 8.5 acres that -- MR. GLANCY: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- we're talking about here? MR. GLANCY: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You wanted the whole entire area, not just the residential or the lake area. MR. GLANCY: Yes. Because you'd have an existing access where Pine Ridge Court is now. You would have access off Goodlette Road where the access is to the commercial property at that other end. There could be, then, walkways, parking, and so on around that lake from there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just want to clarify. Have you or anybody in your group approached any of these good people, Page 82 January 3, 2002 MR. GLANCY: the county there. We about the area, people where we live. We're that, but we do have a it seriously. property owners or their representatives, and asked them to purchase -- what it would cost for either you as a group to purchase or the county to purchase? What would the value of the property be to make it into a passive park? MR. GLANCY: Haven't done that, no. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Haven't done that. MR. GLANCY: As I say, we're late coming to this, and we've had two -- we had two meetings with the developer. And by the way, I needed to find out something about procedure on that as well. Before we had the meeting, I asked Mr. Arnold if there would be a representative from the county there, from the county planning. He said Mr. Batram (phonetic) -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Badamtchian. MR. GLANCY: Okay. -- would be there -- would have been there, but his wife was ill. And then the second meeting we had, he was not there or-- and no one else was there, I guess. He was not there because he was just not there anymore. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Didn't work for the county anymore. Yes. And so there was no representative from are residents, homeowners, people concerned concerned about the quality of life in the area not engineers, and we don't have access to all recommendation and hope somebody will take CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? It would probably behoove you to at least chat with the representatives, whether it's Mr. Arnold or Mr. Yovanovich, the attorneys involved, to determine what the value would be if this proposal goes forward as a PUD, our recommendation, so that you would have an opportunity to tell the Board of County Commissioners what your information is on that aspect. And I would suspect, with my background, that it's an Page 83 January 3, 2002 astronomical price because it is -- the highest and best use would appear to be commercial, and a chunk of it is already commercial with industrial uses already grandfathered in. So it may be beyond the reach of the county or your group to come up with money to purchase this as a passive park. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Madam Chair, I've been-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I've been advised that it's -- the price would be between 15 and $18 a square foot. MR. GLANCY: And you were advised by whom? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: By -- what the county's doing across the street is $15 a square foot for eminent domain, so this would probably go between 15 and $18 a square foot. That's a lot of money. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How many square feet do we have? I can't calculate that fast. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Eight and a half acres? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's a lot of square footage. And while -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'd like to get the applicant to get that on the record because that's something surely they know, and that would be helpful to all of us to know that number. MR. YOVANOVICH: Subject to negotiation of course, you're looking at about $8 million. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. At least now you have an idea, sir. MR. GLANCY: I happen to have that much with me today. (Several speakers at once.) MR. GLANCY: I thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you for your time. Next public speaker. Page 84 January 3, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: Janet Glancy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Now, you ain't going to disagree with your husband, are you? MS. GLANCY: No. MR. GLANCY: Not on this. MS. GLANCY: Well, initially-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: State your name and -- MS. GLANCY: My name is Janet Glancy. I reside at 1235 Milano Drive, Naples, Florida 34103, and I have lived there for almost 20 years. Initially, of course, when Mr. Yovanovich and Arnold and Soudan brought this possible PUD to our attention, I was thinking in terms of my own back yard, as most people would. However, since the first meeting, we did not have copies of the PUD. No one offered us copies of it, so we really did not know any of the specific details. We have tried on a number of occasions, as many of the homeowners in Sorrento Gardens and Westlake and Northgate Village and Country Club of Naples have tried, to contact people in the planning department. Evidently the planning department has been in some disarray, and we have not been able to contact people, as evidenced by the fact that you didn't get our packet. So really, we are coming to this process more than a little ignorant, so I hope that you will bear with me. When I began to think in terms of the project, I started thinking, however, more from a biologist's standpoint. I used to teach botany and marine studies at Naples High School. I currently teach and represent the laureate program and advanced placement English. That's one reason why I would very much like to see the PUD documents. I would like -- both my husband and I are wordsmiths of a sort. I would like to scrutinize the wording of the document before you make a recommendation. Page 85 January 3, 2002 But I began to look at it from a biologist's perspective, and I began to think in terms of the estuarine area of the Gordon River. I began to think in terms of the saltwater leading up to brackish and freshwater in the inner reaches going up the Gordon River. I began to think about the greenspace along Goodlette Road to the east, certainly going from the Pulling property up to The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, going from there to the significant botanical preserve at Caribbean Gardens, from there to the old Fleischmann property and now Bear's Paw Country Club which then feeds into Wilderness Country Club, a Hole-In-The-Wall Country Club, then Royal Poinciana Country Club, Country Club of Naples. And then as you follow up the corridor there, you have a chain of greenspace, and you have a chain of freshwater ponds and lakes. And you have a change of large -- a chain of large-canopied trees. And it seemed to me that our lake seems to be a -- call it a borrow pit, if you will, but it has been an established ecosystem for decades. And that follows into Pine Ridge Road and up Pine Ridge -- up north of Pine Ridge Road. And we have had otters and alligators. We have red-shouldered hawks, eagles, ospreys. We have turtles of all kinds: Painted turtles, soft-shelled turtles, snapping turtles. We have indigo snakes and banded water snakes. We have large-mouth bass that the children around the lake have caught, for as long as we have been there, of over 6 pounds. So it is a viable, living lake, not just a borrow pit. And, therefore, I think that when you -- yes, we have not had time to explore with the Florida Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Isaac Walton League, the Audubon Society, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida the options that might be out there. We have not -- as my husband said, we have come to this fairly late, but the community character plan, the Dover Kohl partners consulting firm technical memorandum, and other articles that we have read indicate Page 86 January 3, 2002 a trend toward passive parks and a trend toward trying to maintain greenspace. I'd like you to look at this -- well, you can see partly up on the monitor but over here as well. The people in Northgate Village and Country Club of Naples, Sorrento Gardens, Westlake, and the areas south of there have virtually become prisoners of commercial development. We have only two ways out of our area. If you go up to Pine Ridge Road-- and I invite you, please do go into the Eckerd's parking lot and into the parking lot that extends between Rosemary Cemetery, and you will find a traffic nightmare. Not only have -- do you find drunks stumbling over the graves of-- I'm sorry, but it's true -- that remain outside of Rosemary Cemetery in little plots of grass here and there dotting that, but the parking situation is horrible. The traffic is terrible. And if you look at this -- this aerial here -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All you need to do is pick up the microphone that's right back there, and you can talk and point to the map if you'd like. Turn it on. MS. GLANCY: There is at this intersection here no light. All the people that live in this area that try to get out in this traffic, because this is so short, take their families' lives in their hands every time they try to get out there or if they're coming across here and trying to get in here. The same thing is true on Route 41. There is no light. You go out Castello and there's no light. The traffic is barreling up 41 to that intersection at Pine Ridge Road. And the only way that the neighborhood is able to get in and out is by trying to brave that traffic, trying to sneak down an alleyway off Castello in order to get to a street that might have a light. And this -- to make this commercial is going to exacerbate a -- an already horrendous problem. This is going to be commercial over here. This is going to be commercial over here, but historically south Page 87 January 3, 2002 of Pine Ridge Road. And this is almost a dormant site. I mean, there's very, very little traffic that goes in and out of this site right now. The traffic situation will be unbearable for all the people who live in that neighborhood, for the school children who try to get to Pine Ridge and back, to the school children who go to Seagate, and for all the residents who live in that area. So you would not only be taking away greenspace, a viable wildlife habitat, but you would be creating a horrendous traffic situation. If any restaurants were allowed to go in there, any high traffic commercial endeavors were allowed to go in there, you would be doing a tremendous disservice to the taxpayers and the voters of that whole area of Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I do for the applicant when he gets up here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: When he comes up. Okay. So thank you very much. MS. GLANCY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next registered speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Connie Pinckney. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And is there one more? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And who might that be so they can move toward the microphone? MR. BELLOWS: Edward F. McCarthey. MS. PINCKNEY: Hi. I'm Connie Pinckney, and I live at 1120 Lake Shore Place in the subdivision called Westlake. I'm very plain speaking, so I will speak very plainly. I moved here from Atlanta seeking a-- a community of families with strong schools. And I purchased in the Westlake community because it was a very distinct community with a lot of families with a lot of kids, great school Page 88 January3,2002 districts. It was what I was looking for. I know that we're going to grow, and I know that traffic is going -- is a problem. I know that we've got neighborhood and community development plans that speak to that and set standards. I live on a daily basis -- my children go to Pine Ridge, and they've gone to Seagate and now Naples High too. I still have children making that trek through that traffic, and on a daily basis I use those roads. I think we need to revisit our -- as you're saying we're doing -- our neighbor community development plan because it would be insane to add more of a problem to what currently exists there. I drive. I have a 13 year old who crosses that street. It's a dangerous place, and it's not getting any better. I believe in the right to use your personal property and to sell it and to make a profit, and I certainly don't oppose those who have homes and wish to do that. When I said that I was plain speaking, one of the problems I had -- and I'm coming lately to this. I learned about this four days ago. When I hear the rhetoric and the ambiguity and the -- of the language here, I -- and I know the history in Collier County. The ambiguity is a license for anything to occur, and I've seen some of the horrors that have taken place in building when what we thought was going to happen was not at all what happened. I question it. I believe this ambiguity may be with intent. And I think one of the first things that I would like to see with your help is to limit the ambiguity and to limit what is going to occur here to make sane sense. We have a community character plan. It states that we're going to protect the integrity of places that I purchased into. We're going to build parks around such things. We've heard the worst-case scenario, which is the -- is the most likely scenario, in reality, with this development. I would like a continuance to investigate -- to see if there is -- Page 89 January 3, 2002 if we will follow up what the stated goals of the community character plan, if there is an $8 million possibility. There's development going all around Pine Ridge. This is just a drop in the proverbial bucket. I'd like to protect the integrity of the home and the community that I purchased into, that retains the character of Naples. I would like to have the opportunity to see if we can't have a park there and have the time and opportunity -- reasonable time and opportunity. I'd like to see if we can't have an opportunity to make the best-case scenario. If not, then I'd like to do the second best, and I need your help to set some sane standards here and to get rid of this ambiguous language that could mean anything practically could be placed here. And I see your -- and I respect your efforts to begin to do that here today. I don't think we can do the whole picture here today, and that's why I'm asking for a continuance to give -- I'd like to go to the Westlake neighborhood community. We haven't gotten this information. We haven't had a chance to organize a response. I'd like to have a chance to do that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'd like to respond to that. Tentatively this petition, in whatever form it goes if we didn't continue it today, would be before the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing on the 12th of February, so you do know that. Keep that date in mind. And you may wish to chat with some of the representatives and the property owners in between. And you could, you know, make an effort to get some additional information to the Board of County Commissioners with some of your concerns, because we have tried to make sure that the language in the PUD is much more specific, and that's why this particular public hearing has taken a lot longer than it would normally have. And we have -- I've made notes on what we're going to have to change. So we are trying to do part of that for you, because we have certain criteria that we have to use to make our decision, but I Page 90 January 3, 2002 certainly do understand your comments and your concern about how it's going to change the area and your involvement in the whole process. So I want to make sure that you are aware, and anyone else, the 12th of February's the next date. And between that time and now, some of these additional ideas can be discussed with the representatives and the property owners as well as the commissioners, the Board of County Commissioners. Does that help a little bit on that part? Because I don't think we're going to be -- I don't have a sense up here for a continuance at this point, which is your specific request. I didn't want you to think we were ignoring yOU. MS. PINCKNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got a question. The applicant has indicated there were a couple of meetings. And Mr. Glancy, I believe, said there were a couple of meetings with the residents. At those meetings did anybody inquire -- MS. PINCKNEY: I've never heard of any such meetings, so I'd like to know about-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, then you can answer my question. That was -- that's what I'm saying. So not everybody was invited, or did it -- I'll wait until the applicant gets up there, then, and try to find that answer out. MS. PINCKNEY: I'd like to hear their response too. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And staff could probably clarify that somewhat, too, because I think in Westlake you're much further down the road if I picture where you are. MS. PINCKNEY: Right. But I still use the same traffic outlets. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But so do I and I live in Victoria Park. I recognize the traffic comments that you made are very -- Page 91 January 3, 2002 MS. PINCKNEY: I can't get out; I can't get in. And I don't want to put my kid on his bike to go to school. MR. BELLOWS: Just a point of clarification. This project was submitted prior to the public information meeting requirement where we have specific notice requirements and procedures; therefore, no county staff was required to participate in any informational meeting. That was totally the responsibility and good volunteerism of the applicant and the petitioner to notify. It was not a requirement at that time of submission of this petition for them to hold these public meetings. They did so as a benefit to the citizens. So there is no specific notice requirement or distance for their meeting. The county has notified the people per our current code requirements for this particular meeting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you for clarifying that, which we are making changes. Next public speaker. MR. McCARTHEY: Madam Chairman, fellow (sic) board members, members of the audience, my name is Edward F. McCarthey. I reside at 94 Second Street South in Naples. I own a piece of property, along with Doris Lewis, at 1270 Pine Ridge Road, which encompasses two lots there backing up to the lake. I purchased that property approximately in the 1980s, middle '80s, with the primary intent that I foresaw that this property could go nowheres except for commercial property, you know, and to make a profit. So I've paid taxes on that, and I've paid taxes on the lake, and I've paid taxes on the improvements for that for X number of years. And let me tell you, it's very difficult to find someone of-- you know, that will pay the price for an investment to rent there as a residential property. So it cannot and it should not be left to the wills of a residential any longer. The property owners along the way there has a contract on this piece of property. And, as it was previously mentioned, I don't Page 92 January 3, 2002 foresee that these property owners are going to get together again. And we have a window here of opportunity to make something viable for the community to upgrade that area to something. Whether it's -- the individuals want to come up with the dollars to pay the property owners and buy their contract for a park, that's up to them. I'm here today to express my opinion in the hopes that you will give some viable reason -- to give you some viable reason as to why you should give full consideration for this redevelopment. You have heard our planners and our attorney tell you and show you some of the reasons why -- the property owners and the -- our attorneys have gotten together with the local area people behind us to -- to make this a very worthwhile project. There are a number of reasons why the property owners should receive the board's commitment and support, because it's going to benefit the community as a whole. May I suggest a few of the positive reasons for that. I think each and every one of you have traveled down Pine Ridge Road there and saw the eyesore that that particular area, from Goodlette Road to 41, has encompassed over the number of years. My piece of property has the driveway so close that the people have to back out into the Pine Ridge Road, so it can't stay there like that very much longer. And I suggest that redevelopment will only add to and enhance the continued beauty of Naples because that is a primary artery into the community, and we do need it upgraded, and I think our planners have developed a great plan for you. Approval will provide the safety for citizens of Collier County. It'll provide safety for our visitors who come to Collier County simply by getting rid of all the curb cuts that's in there now on -- on the south side of Pine Ridge Road. I mean, that's -- can be nothing except a fact there will be safety for not only the community and our visitors. And this could be accomplished, fellow board members, by Page 93 January 3, 2002 approving this PUD today with some of the changes that has been made. I've heard about the lake. I've paid taxes on that lake. It's our property. And as the planners has mentioned, we can go and get a permit to fill those in, but it wouldn't be viable for us to do that as an individual property owner. So that's why we all got together, the property owners -- and believe me, it was a hard task for getting 11 property owners together to come and get to this point that we are today. Believe me, it was a hard task. The lake behind the property, if you look on the surface, it's a beautiful lake. But it's not very deep, and it's not viable for our-- for the needs in the future. As I say, it's an eyesore. We want to get rid of that eyesore, and the property owners are willing to come together, and we've done that under a contract. And I submit to you today that we should approve and send to the Board of County Commissioners your approval of our PUD. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them if I can. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I did have one question. Are you familiar with the concept of whether your lake is a spring-fed lake or not? MR. McCARTHEY: I was told years ago that a guy by the name of Mr. Turner dug that lake out to build Pine Ridge Road in, so that benefited all the -- that benefited all the property owners in Collier County. It's nothing more than just a -- you know, a borrow pit. Where they've dug the land out, Mr. Turner did that. He dug that one up by the -- behind the bowling alley there also and used that, you know, the dirt. You know, back years ago they didn't -- they wasn't too concerned with the roads because, as you know, along even 41 they've -- you know, they've just filled over the potholes and made a road. So that's how that lake came about. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I just was curious if you, as an Page 94 January 3, 2002 owner of that lake, had ever been aware of that. Thank you. Any other questions? Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: This is just a flier. But looking at the map, I wonder if the homeowners' groups got together with you- all, could you possibly negotiate a price for that lake-enclosed-- MR. McCARTHEY: Anything's possible. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: -- octagonal -- MR. McCARTHEY: Money talks. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: -- which might -- would be a lot less than $8 million? MR. McCARTHEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just to summarize, I am a plain speaker too. I -- I did -- we met with the neighbors. We met with the affected neighbors, the people who fronted on the lake, and we explained the process. We explained that the purpose of the public meetings with them was to get their input. Now, some people are very strong-willed, and their input was, we'd rather it not change. Others accepted that there would be change, and there would -- you know, what we could do, we'd do to make the situation best. And people, some people, not everybody at that meeting, felt that if the lake had to go away, the wall and the increased landscaping was the alternative they chose. We've incorporated that. Others said they'd rather see it be a passive park. Well, you know, you've been around long enough, I've been around long enough. Every time neighbors come up and say, "We'd love this to be a park," and they want the county commission to come buy the property. We met for the first time November 5th. Mr. Glancy was there. Mr. Glancy never asked us for a copy of the PUD. Everybody who did ask us for a copy of the PUD was provided a copy free of charge Page 95 January 3, 2002 by Mr. Arnold. We had a second meeting December 16th to bring back the revised landscaping plans. Again, anybody who wanted information from us, we were happy to provide it and did. They're not new to the process. This process has been going on since November 5th. And we've given informational meetings because that's how Wayne and I do rezonings. We let people who know -- who are going to be affected what's going to happen. We don't do it because the codes require it. We do it because it makes sense to let people know what's happening and try to work out a situation, as Mr. Strain says, compromise and make it as -- as best we can for everybody, and we've tried to do that. We've not -- your traffic -- transportation staff has reviewed this petition. And I mean this as a compliment when I say this about Ms. Wolfe. She's very conservative. She puts us through very strict scrutiny in reviewing our proposed projects. We meet a much higher standard than past people had to meet. It's a tougher standard. We will still go through a site planning process with Ms. Wolfe and her staff to make sure that whatever is developed on that site is safe and has the minimal necessary cuts onto Pine Ridge Road to provide safe access. We'll meet that standard. It will be safe. I don't know where Westlake is. I don't know how close she lives to -- to this project. To say, well, I travel the roads, you know, I don't believe there's any direct access in Pine Ridge to a light. I mean, we all live with where -- the traffic is where it is. Your transportation staff has reviewed what we're planning on doing. They believe it's safe. They'll put us through a much stricter scrutiny when we do the site planning. It will be safe. We will have the obligation to build turn lanes, decel lanes. There are going to be -- as Wayne has told you, there are going to be improvements to the intersection at Goodlette and Pine Ridge Road. There's also going to be changes to Page 96 January 3, 2002 Goodlette-Frank Road where medians will close. So you have to look at all of the picture as to the traffic safety. We don't have any direct impact through their neighborhood, direct access through their neighborhood. We go to Pine Ridge Road and to Goodlette-Frank Road. We will have no left-hand turns out. We will have all right-in, right-outs. Your transportation staff will make sure it's safe, meets the county standards. We're obligated to do that. We know we have to do that. We believe what we have done is we've proposed a project that is compatible with the neighbors to the south, goes above and beyond the minimums required under the Land Development Code, takes into consideration the area we're located in, what currently exists there, and what our clients' legal rights are to use their property. And it is change. Nobody -- you know, we -- I can't get around it. People have enjoyed a borrow pit, a lake. Whatever you want to call it, they've enjoyed it, but they've enjoyed it at Mr. McCarthey's expense. He owns the lake; they don't own the lake. What we're asking for is the redevelopment of a site within our legal rights. I think we've met the strict burden of proving what we're asking for is compatible, and we would hope that you would vote favorably to make a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners. And if you have any specific questions about the project, we're happy to answer any more questions you may have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have one, but I'll let Mr. Richardson go first and then Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just the -- one of the issues that came up with the mature trees on this tract. And, of course, we all hate to see, you know, big trees torn down if it can be avoided. Sometimes it costs a little more to save a tree. I just -- I don't know the topography here. Can you give me any indication as Page 97 January 3, 2002 to whether that might be possible? MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, it's in -- I mean, I can't tell you specific trees that we definitely can save, but it's in -- you know, if we can save them and use them, we'll definitely -- we'll definitely do that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. So you'll put that on the record? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have three. Do you want to go before me? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. While we're in our-- while we're talking about trees at this moment, I'm not sure that it -- you didn't make the presentation, but Mr. Arnold did. I want to just clarify a couple things for the record in deference to, I believe it was, Janet Glancy, and I believe even Ms. Pinckney, the Westlake resident, mentioned. On your buffering requirements, which are in 3.4H 1, 2, and 3, to make sure this is on the record -- I hope you have the same wording that we do, but I can read quickly but slowly enough for the court reporter. The first one was a 15-foot-wide Type D buffer shall be provided along Pine Ridge Road with the landscaping as required in Section 2.4.7.4 of the LDC. Do you have that same statement? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because I want to confirm that this is what you have said and -- you and/or Mr. Arnold so that it's on the record and that they have some assurance that this is going to happen. A 1 O-foot-wide Type D buffer shall be provided along Goodlette-Frank Road, including along the west side of the off-site graveyard, with the landscaping standards as required in Section Page 98 January 3, 2002 2.2.21.5.1 of the LDC. This buffer shall contain canopy trees, the number of which shall be calculated based on a minimum spacing of 25 feet on center. All canopy trees within this buffer shall be in minimum -- shall be a minimum of 12 feet high at time of planting. That was what was stated, and I want to make sure that we agree. And Item 3, then, was southern PUD boundary buffering shall consist of a 15-foot-wide Type B, as in bravo, buffer. Those are all the things that you enumerated up here, and I just want to make sure that we do have the words in here unless we need to tweak them or refine them. MR. YOVANOVICH: We -- we will -- we need to refine the language to include the wall and the extra plantings that we've committed to. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The enhancements you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The enhancements we've committed to. MR. BELLOWS: Can you go over that one more time? MR. YOVANOVICH: We've agreed to a 6-foot wall, and we agreed to cabbage palms or the similar 10 foot on centers between-- Wayne, I know 20 feet was the upper end. What was the smaller end? Because we were going to stagger them. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think it was 12 to 20. MR. YOVANOVICH: Twelve to twenty feet. That's what we agreed to and that -- we need to revise that to embellish it to make sure that that's clear. And that will be the entire length of the southern boundary. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Southern boundary. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do we need to talk about the -- the composition of the wall? Stucco, is that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Precast, is that okay? I mean -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Some of those precasts look pretty nice these days. Page 99 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What color? Never mind. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I just asked. MR. YOVANOVICH: It definitely is -- can be -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It won't be solid. We're not talking about wood? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not talking wood. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Before I lose you, do we have any other questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: away. I've got three questions still. Oh, yeah. You're not going to get CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Go for your questions, but I just want to make sure that on this when -- whomever makes the motion, I have the areas that we will have to ask for revisions to so we can include those, at least in general, in this motion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Richard, the meetings that you had with the residents, you talked about this is going to be a commercial tract. Did you specifically get into the specific possible uses that would go on that tract? MR. YOVANOVICH: The only -- the only use I could commit to was the self-storage. I talked about in general it could be a bank. It could be a Walgreen's. It could be a restaurant. It could be offices. Did I talk about, you know, that -- absolute specifics? I did not. I talked about categories. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The reason I asked that is the Pine Ridge Medical Center certainly is not a medical center; it's anything but. And somehow that is extremely misleading, and it probably was presented as a medical center at one time, but it had all the similar uses that you have in yours. And I'm just wondering, in your presentations to the neighborhood, did the people understand what those numbers meant? Because until today I'm not sure you-all Page 100 January 3, 2002 understood what all those numbers meant, because we had psychiatric hospitals in there and all those kind of things, and that's a concerning issue. And I want to -- I don't know how far you explored it with the neighborhood and how much they understood what it is that could go there based on the ranges of those numbers. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I -- I did not -- we did not go number by number, Mr. Strain, but we talked about types like I just described them. You know, candidly none of us anticipated a psychiatric hospital there, so I didn't bring that up. I mean, that was - - you know, that was a number that found its way in there. But, no, I didn't talk number by number. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you added a lot of numbers in there. There's one that I wondered if you'd consider adding, and it's -- first of all, you said you'd sell the property at a negotiated price starting around 2 million. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't believe that was even close but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, it's not? Okay. Well, we're starting negotiations. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll talk with -- maybe one of the parcels. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I -- I have been surprised that the county commission, and pleasantly surprised, that they have purchased for large dollars some very nice pieces of property for parks. So that -- something could happen here, and I'm not saying it's not impossible (sic). On that premise would you be willing in your document to insert a use for community park as one of the permitted uses? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. I mean -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What would that number be? MR. YOVANOVICH: The county could do that at any time. Page 101 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I just thought it would be -- this would kind of-- if we go forward with this and that's one of the permitted uses, it allows the residents to explore that a little bit further with their county commissioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll be happy to add that as a -- as a permitted use. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, then my last question, which is a caveat to the first two, because of the unclear discussions you may have had with the residents in regards to what the numbers meant in the SIC code and the fact that they're willing to maybe figure out a way to approach their elected officials to purchase this park, would you consider a continuance for a period of time to further that discussion with them? MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners -- I mean -- I'm sorry -- Mr. Strain, I'd rather not. If-- if they bring a legitimate offer to us before the February hearing, we can talk about a potential continuance of the board meeting. But I've heard this too many times where they -- where people want to approach an $8 million purchase on behalf of the government, and I just don't really believe that that will ever come of fruition. But there's still an opportunity. There's six weeks before the Board of County Commissioners' meeting. If there's a legitimate likelihood that that could happen, there's time to -- to continue at that point. But at this point I don't think an indefinite continuance while they try to come up with $8 million is -- is fair to the existing property owners. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I had to ask, but I appreciate your comment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just have -- when I reviewed this -- the informational package that we got and the -- the PUD Page 102 January 3, 2002 master plan, what I flashed on was the comer in -- in Fort Myers of Colonial and Summerlin. There's a McDonald's there and all that and -- because it's right -- right in, right out. And I don't know how many times I've almost been hit by someone coming out of McDonald's trying to get over to the far left lane to make a U-turn to go west. I mean, it's almost an identical situation there. And -- and it just is a -- fairly frightening, as somebody had said, one of the speakers had said. And that's just what comes to mind. People are going to be jetting across there trying to go west all the time. And, you know, that's my biggest concern, is that traffic issue. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I may, remember, all these medians are going away, so nobody will be able to go west out of our project. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have had discussions with your transportation, and they're going to make us have an access point as far away from that intersection as possible so there is a safe distance for them to weave if they want to get to the far lanes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: With that traffic on there now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And it's -- I mean, that's your transportation staff. They're engineers. They go through the process. They understand the engineering principles, and they're going to move those access points to the maximum extent they can to make sure it is safe. And with the unified planned development, you've got a greater opportunity to do that. If this comes in separately, each individual parcel is going to have access, and you're going to be further constrained on how you can address those access issues. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Don't get me wrong. I think it's an eyesore right now, the whole three parcels, and anything would be an improvement. MR. YOVANOVICH: But what I was trying -- my point was Page 103 January 3, 2002 you get a better opportunity to deal with access and the concerns you're talking about if this is unified than-- than 12 or 13 separate parcels. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I agree. It's probably more dangerous now than it would be. But my biggest concern was that and the -- and the ingress and egress there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions here? I know Mr. Arnold was still flipping pages. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Looking for that code. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He's just looking for community park. MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess there's no code provision for community park. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, there isn't. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we'll have to write the words "community park" instead of-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. I've already looked that up. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You could have stopped him. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You could have told us. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I didn't know he was looking for it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: He normally ignores me. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I move we close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further public speakers here? We close -- MR. BELLOWS: We're closed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We'll close the public hearing. Okay. We've closed the public hearing, and our motion's going to Page 104 January 3, 2002 have to include specific items which I could rattle off now, whoever's going to make this motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'll make the motion, and you can start rattling them off. I make a motion to approve PUD- 2000-22, recommend approval to the county commission, subject to CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The revisions of the PUD: 3.3, permitted uses, one newly added item would be a community park; to 3.4, which is the buffering, the clarification of some of the landscaping as we discussed; changes to 4.6, which is the water management, a major rehaul of that particular section; and the last one would be 4.7, utilities, to correct the information with that particular ordinance. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Wolfley for approval of this -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You've got more? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you were, Madam Chairman, very, very thorough. You missed a couple of things we agreed to take out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I was going to bring up. I hadn't forgotten those. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're right. MR. YOVANOVICH: We agreed to take out 8062 through 8069 and 9222 and 92224 -- 9224, too many 2s. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're right. I had that over on this piece of paper and not where Mr. Abernathy made his motion. Thank you for clarifying that. So that is part of the motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Was there a second? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And there was a second. Do we have any discussion? Page 105 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. I -- as the motion maker, I'm sure some of the people in the audience feel like I'm sort of slamming the door in their face. When I went to see Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold yesterday afternoon, I expressed my concern about the traffic. I think the traffic is a valid issue. I think the road is already -- Pine Ridge is already a mess. And I explored with them the possibility, the viability, of putting some kind of walled town house or villa community in there. And they assure me that that's not economically viable, and I have to accede to their expertise on that. I'm very, very reluctant to put this in. I'm also concerned about the number of accesses out onto Pine Ridge. I don't find comfort in the fact that the county staff is going to approve these things because if you come out of Eckerd's or come out of the rental -- car rental place there, you take your life in your hands to get onto Pine Ridge. On the other hand, that's not the fault of these property owners, and they do have a right to develop their property. The county is of the opinion that it's best used as commercial. I think we walk a very dangerous path if we hold out to these concerned citizens the chance that the county is going to come up with $8 million to buy this. There's recent -- I can't disagree that the county has bought some parcels in the past, but in our -- in our field of endeavor, I'm reminded of the Palm River doughnut, which everybody agrees has some ecological values. There are wetlands. There are turtles verified in large numbers, all kinds of reasons why that might appeal to the county to buy. But, in fact, they've turned to the wildlife society and other people, private, to see if that can be done, and apparently it's not going to be capable of being done. So, to me, it's all regrettable, but it's all a part of the further urbanization of Naples and its environs. I think that rules that we have concerning traffic sometimes defy Page 106 January 3, 2002 common sense. When you can look at a road and see that it's crippled, to me, it's no answer to say, well, we have some formulas that we apply to that traffic and find that it's hunky-dory. As a matter of fact, it gets a C. So given those rules that we have to operate in, I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I -- I don't like the rules, but those are the ones I have to apply to the development. And as far as I'm concerned, applying those rules, it passes muster. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Additional comment. I'd just like to speak to the process. We do have this public participation ordinance which has been passed. And I somehow think that we would have been further along and have less involvement at a public -- at our public meetings if that process had, in fact, been applied to -- to this project. And I realize the applicant has gone out on his own and has made an attempt to replicate a portion of that process. But as I recall and remember the process, when it actually is, in fact -- and we're catching up with this train. I think a lot of these issues will be able to be fleshed out, and many more people will have an opportunity to be involved because of the notice requirements. And you'll have the documentation, and you'll have an opportunity to -- to, in a more constructive way I'll say, make your wishes known at an earlier point where it perhaps can be feathered in more gently. But, as Mr. Abernathy says, based on what we've got and what we've got to work with, I think we've pushed the envelope about as far as we can as far as a recommendation on up to the Board of County Commissioners. And if-- if in the meantime you can come up with any additional information, you know, be it to the purchase price or be it to any other modifications to uses or whatever, you know, I would encourage you to pursue that process. But I would stand in support of the motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further comment? I just want to say, too, that the public participation will change these types of Page 107 January3,2002 hearings. Specifically Mr. Bellows and I and a few other people in the audience had the enjoyment of attending one recently on a PUD that's going back through to have some changes, and it was fascinating to watch the people be involved and the understanding of what can and can't be done. And I think as the public understands these SIC codes and what can happen to a lake and this type of approach that we have here, better products will be made. And, of course, I have to agree with Commissioner Abernathy on the whole concept of the roads and what we can and can't do to the roads. But we definitely have met all the requirements, that I can tell, here to be able to go ahead and support this and move forward. As the chair I wanted to make sure that we did catch on the record the various changes, deletions which I missed, as well as the changes that need to happen to this document before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. I think you'll see more of this so that the words in the document -- forget the executive summary or the staff report, but the words in the document will reflect what is expected to happen, and they will be as specific as they can be. And in deference to the people here today, I wanted to make sure that that was understood, and that was part of my job. And I think we've made some significant changes, so you-all get those copies before this goes to the Board of County Commissioners and talk about it at that point. So I can support this motion. If there's no further comments, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Next stop, Board of County Commissioners probably on the 12th of February. Thank yOU. Page 108 January 3, 2002 The next two agenda items have been continued to the January 17th meeting, so that puts us at 8-A (sic), the public hearing on the Land Development Code amendments. Marjorie, do we need anybody to be sworn in on this? MS. STUDENT: No. It is legislative, and there's no need to swear anybody in, and there's no need to make any disclosures. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Marjorie, are you recommending this language for us to adopt? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Why do we have this before us? MS. STUDENT: Well, staff is the person that's going to present it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: ordinance. All we have is just the CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's just the ordinance. There's no summary; it's just an ordinance, which I find fascinating in itself. And we're having a conference here. MR. BELLOWS: Madam Chairman, it's come to my attention we have a problem with that camera up there, and we were wondering if we could take a little break so we could get a repairman on that camera or if you mind having him work while we continue. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It won't bother us. Let him work on it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, I guess we'll do that, Mr. Richardson. Thank you for speaking for me. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Sorry. I didn't -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How long will it take to -- five minutes, ten minutes? FEMALE SPEAKER: I have no idea. We'll have to get up there -- he has to get up there and see what the problem is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: He can go -- Page 109 January 3, 2002 FEMALE SPEAKER: He'll be very quiet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: As long as it doesn't interfere with the court reporter-- FEMALE SPEAKER: No, he won't. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- we can continue. FEMALE SPEAKER: Nobody will even know he's there unless you look at him. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, we certainly have been entertained by that camera on more than one occasion today and other meetings. So go for it, and we'll continue. Thank you. FEMALE SPEAKER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, I apologize. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's quite all right. I just wanted to point out that I thought I was Madam Chair. Mr. Bellows, you have a presentation for the Land Development Code information we have before us. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. Susan Murray asked me to present the Land Development Code amendments today. I guess the first one that we're going to be looking at is Section 2.1.15, prohibited uses and structures. This is Item 6. "In any zoning district, where the use list of permitted and conditional uses contains the phrase 'any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is consistent with the permitted uses and purposes and intent statement of the district' or any similar phrase which provides for a use which is not clearly defined or described in the list of permitted and conditional uses, which requires the discretion of the Planning Service Director or other staff as to whether or not it is permitted in the district, then the determination of whether or not that use is permitted in the district shall be made through the process outlined in Division 1.6, interpretations." Page 110 January 3, 2002 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What does Division 1.6 say? MS. STUDENT: Well, I -- I guess I can address it since Ray's pinch-hitting for Ms. Murray. But Division 1.6 is the provision that requires interpretations of land -- of the land code, and it's a whole process that you go through where you ask for a formal interpretation from staff. They give it -- notice is sent out to surrounding property owners. And if somebody has an issue with it, it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, and they bless it or they don't bless it. And if there's further problems, it can be appealed further. And, Ray, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Susan presented the idea that this was going to be presented to the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners, because this was an add-on, if you will, in this cycle. And that's why it's coming to you now in this format, so it can still get caught up in this cycle. And I believe that the Board of County Commissioners wanted to look at this as a conditional use. And I don't know if Susan has any notes to that effect. MR. BELLOWS: No notes. MS. STUDENT: But that's a recollection that I have from the county commission meeting on December the 19th. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The minutes -- or the summary we have of a commission meeting in December, there are two or three items where Bruce Arnold -- I mean Bruce Anderson or somebody else is appealing decisions that Susan made. Is that in a somewhat similar vein to this? MS. STUDENT: I think that what you're referencing is the -- is the -- has to do with the Blind -- what's called the Blind Factory. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Blind is one and there's -- MS. STUDENT: And this was to get at the situation created there because there was this language in the PUD document for that Page 111 January 3, 2002 area. And a planner made an interpretation of that language, and then it was given to the property owner, and they went out and -- they didn't go so far as to, you know, get the project built yet, but they did some things that in -- they alleged they did some things in reliance -- they alleged that they did some things in reliance on it that gave rise to the whole procedure that went to the county commission. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, the bottom line of this is that the planning services director doesn't rule upon -- MS. STUDENT: Right. We have -- and the reason that catchall language is there -- and I think we've had some discussion today that's instructive on that point. But when you do your list of permitted uses under a particular district, you can't think of every conceivable thing that might encompass. And, in fact, because of changes in technology and things as you will -- I mean, now we have computer stores, and maybe if you look at a real old PUD document someplace, you might not have computer stores in there because when that was approved you didn't do computer stores. So that catchall provision is in there to catch those situations where you couldn't have possibly thought of a use in the list that's there or just wasn't thought of but is comparable and compatible, and that's why that's there. So this is an extra safeguard to bring it through that interpretation process. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If somebody disagrees with the -- MS. STUDENT: And if somebody disagrees with it, they have a point of entry in the process. Is that a pretty fair explanation, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I'd just like to point out that's the typical language that many PUD documents have, too, that we've kind of borrowed that language from. And I'd also like to point out that the first Board of County Commissioner hearing did hear this particular item, and they preferred the conditional use process rather Page 112 January 3, 2002 than the interpretation process. That was their comment on this particular item. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's what I'm trying to clear. Are we talking about conditional uses process, or are we actually talking about this whole interpretations, 1.6. I'm confused. MR. BELLOWS: I think the intent is that instead of having it be -- go through a Division 1.6 or-- for the interpretation, official interpretation, that the use would, therefore, be considered a conditional use and then go through a public hearing process. MS. STUDENT: And I think what we might have to do, and I'm going to -- because the Board of County Commission meeting occurred just before the holiday. And I'm going to have to sit down and discuss it a bit, but we -- if this involves a change in the list of conditional uses, we might have to have some additional hearings, and we're going to have to sort that out. We might bring it through this time and then just do the additional hearings the next time to, you know, clear it up. But I would envision that -- as the board was envisioning this, that this language would find its way into the conditional use list, then, that-- and that would ensure that it would come before this body and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Or once we have the hearing officer, it would go there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And I just wanted to comment that I attended the Development Services Advisory Committee meeting yesterday, and this did come up. And Mr. Dunnuck made a presentation, and I, too, stumbled over the-- where is it going, conditional use aspect? Is it the interpretation? So I did look up the section. And I'm truly not clear on what the board is asking to be done, and I am even less clear listening to today's explanation than from what Mr. Dunnuck said yesterday. And I did bring this piece of paper with me just so I'd have an idea of what he was talking about. But I wanted to make it clear to the commissioners up here that Page 113 January 3, 2002 in this Division 1.6, it does have a Section 1.6.2 called "Initiation," and it says, "An interpretation may be requested by any affected person, resident, developer, landowner, government agency or department, or any person having a contractual interest in land in Collier County." So this is something that I have a feeling people are going to start wondering what's going on, and people in our public participation will understand this a little more and start possibly making some requests for some interpretations if they don't understand. And we'll need to be careful that we have a set of procedures that work through something that's not going to be really burdensome, but can be productive, to clarifications. MS. STUDENT: Well, in all likelihood, the way I would envision this happening is it would be the property owner, more than likely, that would come in because they want to do something with their property. And they may not have one of the uses on the list, but they think what they want to do is comparable to what is on the list and also compatible. So then rather than just ask staff to write them a letter, they would go through that -- if it went this route, they would go through the formal process. They'd pay -- there's a hundred-dollar fee-- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MS. STUDENT: -- hundred-dollar fee for staff to write them the letter as to whether or not what they propose is comparable in nature to that zoning district and whether it's compatible, because there's two aspects to it. And then if-- I think the notice is sent out to property owners within a certain range of where the subject property's located. So if any -- what the staff determination is -- and it's also advertised, I believe. So then people in the surrounding area have notice of what staff interpretation was as to that particular use, and then they have the ability to appeal that to the Board of County Commissioners. That Page 114 January 3, 2002 would be -- they would appeal staffs determination as to whether that use was comparable in nature and compatible to the Board of County Commissioners. So there would be -- if there was a problem with it and the public is notified of it -- so they would be notified -- then there is a process for them to appeal. In the conditional use situation, there would be a little enhanced procedure because you would have to have some meetings and-- with concerned citizens. It would come here, and then it would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And ifI may, they would have to go through the public information process, just like any conditional use would, just to make that use a permitted use via the conditional use process. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Insofar as this language that I guess we're going to be asked to approve or send forward, what you really want it to say is, in the next-to-the-last line, "in the district shall be made through the conditional use process." MS. STUDENT: Well, that's what -- that was what the board -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what they want? MS. STUDENT: That's what the board wanted. I think staff originally came up with the interpretation process, and it was presented to the board on the 19th. And it was explained to the board it hadn't been to the Planning Commission yet and they would get the benefit of your recommendation at the next hearing that they have on the 9th. But they threw out the idea that it be through the conditional use process. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I'm thoroughly confused as -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So am I. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- to why it would go through the conditional use process. I think there's some concepts that I must be missing or maybe the board missed. Page 115 January 3, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: Well, I think the concept is you have a use that's not specifically listed in the list of permitted uses. So, therefore, traditionally the current planning manager would make an interpretation; is this use permitted -- consistent with those other uses based on this language that you see here. Now we want to formalize that through the interpretation process. Outlined in Division 1.6, there is a specific process to follow. Instead of-- before we may have just written a letter saying this is consistent where there was no public input in the process. This provides for public input on that process. Now, the Board of County Commissioners, I think, determined that we want to take it -- they want to take it a step further and make it a conditional use process and go through the conditional use process, which requires even greater notification. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So, Commissioner Strain, since you have the book in front of you, the conditional use process is outlined in there somewhere and -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. I'll have to find it, but yes, it is. MS. STUDENT: Well, I can -- I can explain it, certainly with any additions. But what happens is there's a public participation process now because of the changes that just went through in early fall. Then it goes -- excuse me -- to the Planning Commission, and you make your recommendations. And there are four criteria that you look at in making your recommendation to the board, and that's consistency with the comp plan and the Land Development Code; adequacy of ingress and egress; compatibility; and noise, odor, and glare effects on adjacent properties or, I think, maybe even other properties in the district. And those are the four criteria that you look at in making your recommendation. As you recall, you have the finding of fact sheet where you check those -- each member checks those off and sends it to the Page 116 January 3, 2002 Board of Zoning Appeals. Then the Board of Zoning Appeals makes the final decision on the conditional use. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it makes perfectly good sense to me. If you have to go through the conditional use process for a listed conditional use, why shouldn't you go through it for one that isn't even listed? It seems to me there's a certain symmetry there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we want to change "Division 1.6, interpretations," to something that-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Through the conditional use process, period, would seem to me to give the county commission the warm feeling that we agree with them, which kind of-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And they can come up with the division -- MS. STUDENT: MR. BELLOWS: language. MS. STUDENT: MR. BELLOWS: MS. STUDENT: the record. Yeah. I believe it's -- isn't it 27 -- is it 275? I can't recall offhand, but we'll find that It's 274 or 275. The intent is -- Mark, if you've got it there, you can put it on COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 2.7.4. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: 2.7.4. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll rent out my ULDC to the rest of the members on a periodic basis. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mine's -- I'm still trying to fix mine. Thank you. So then as an observation here, are we going to find ourselves in a situation where there's a whole new category? No. We wouldn't. You'd just come through as a conditional use, and you'd have interpretation, interpretation, interpretation, like three of them. You'd have a conditional use number to them. Page 117 January 3, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: I think for an example, if a zoning district allowed for a list of retail uses but it didn't include, say, psychiatric facilities and the petitioner thought there was a similar use in there, that he would then file for this interpretation that -- instead of amending the zoning district to allow for that use, he would go through this appeal process -- or interpretation process and ask for staff to make an interpretation; is that use permitted based on being similar to other uses listed in that either PUD zoning district or C-1 through C-5 zoning district? Now, we are proposing to do that through a conditional use now. So we would have that petitioner take that particular use of a psychiatric center and go through the process for that particular site -- so it would be site specific for that property -- and go through a conditional use. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it wouldn't be engrafted on the list of conditional uses. MR. BELLOWS: No. We're just providing language in the Land Development Code that allows for an interpretation of the use not specifically listed, to go through a public hearing process so everyone has an ability to comment on that particular use. Could be a hospital, could be a hardware store. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do I see something happening that -- with the last one we just did, then, for the health services, the way the numbers were listed, you assumed the span of numbers were there. And the number for the psychiatric hospital fell in that, so my interpretation is that it's in there if we had approved it that way. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So then -- did I hear you say then -- MR. BELLOWS: But the opposite is true. Now that we took that out and they -- somebody ten years from now wants to put that Page 118 January 3, 2002 use in that PUD and those SIC codes aren't in there but they have similar, maybe, health center uses or medical office uses, they may try to make that link. And the only process we would have would be this process that we're proposing today. So you either would make that property owner go through a conditional use to get that use on that site or go through the appeal or interpretation process. MS. STUDENT: They have another option. They could ask for the land code to be amended to put it specifically in there too. MR. BELLOWS: That's true too. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And what I think is fascinating, then, is there's a corollary to this. Anybody that's looking at a PUD and permitted uses and they want to be concerned as a property owner adjoining or someone close -- nearby, they're going to have to understand these SIC codes and probably focus on whether you exempt them in the early part of the process, kind of like we didn't do today. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the -- in a way that's true. But, then again, this is a catchall and creates a process for those uses not specifically mentioned. So if there was a use that didn't get discussed through the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners meeting that it turns out the property owner wishes to have or some other property owner or lessee of a site, there has to be a process where staff can make a formal interpretation. Now there's - - right now we have had letters without going through a public process and created all kind of controversy, and we wanted to avoid that as much as possible. So we have several options. As Marjorie outlined, one is amending the code either C-1 through C-5 to allow for that use or make an interpretation process where the petitioner appeals or makes (sic) an official interpretation and goes to the Board of County Commissioners for a determination whether that use is appropriate at Page 119 January 3, 2002 that location. Or a much better way, in the view of the county commission, at least on their first hearing, was maybe through the conditional use process, which has a more defined set of review criteria. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And this would not handle the situation, in theory, where you have a PUD that's got the listed uses and they have the codes and it covered, say, for instance, a C-3 and a C-4, if there's a code for a C-5 that's not in there that they want on that PUD, that doesn't apply to this -- this is not how you would try to get that C-5 code into that PUD; right? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. But-- MS. STUDENT: It wouldn't be comparable in nature. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That's the key here, this language that says "any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses." So the list of uses within that PUD, if it is deemed comparable in nature, then he doesn't have to go through a PUD amendment to put that use in there. But the county commission says, "Well, you don't have to go through a PUD amendment; we'll make you go through a conditional use to get that use in there." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do you want action on any of the individual items or-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We don't-- MS. STUDENT: I think that's -- I don't think that's necessary. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Or do we recommend and find consistency with the comp plan? MS. STUDENT: At the -- when you make your motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And I just want to do this because I've been in construction entirely too long. The gentleman that is fixing that camera over there is not standing on an OSHA- approved standing device. It makes me a little nervous. I would Page 120 January 3, 2002 hope that we have something around here other than that device to do his work. Enough said, in case he falls. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The power's still on, too, so --just kidding. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The next item is Section 2.2.3 of the estates zoning district. This is basically a scrivener's error-type process from a past LDC amendment where it inadvertently said the site must be 20 acres in size for earth mining. It really should have said the site area shall not exceed 20 acres. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We didn't ask that question? MR. BELLOWS: It may have come up through -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You know, maybe -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: That's all right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was going to say maybe that was part of that whole ranting and raving I did because we didn't have the person here the first time around to talk about the earth mining, but I think that was one of the thoughts that came through somewhere. But now we've fixed it for sure. MR. BELLOWS: That's it. I think it was from that first go-round. Okay. The next on the list is Section 2.2.12.1. This is the purpose and intent section of the commercial professional district. This section deletes some language for the purpose and intent and replaces it with the language -- I don't know if you want me to read through the entire list or -- do you have it there? But basically we're putting in a new definition of-- (as read): "The C-1 commercial professional office district is intended to allow a concentration of office-type buildings and land uses that are most compatible with, and located near, residential areas. Most C-1 commercial professional and general office districts are contiguous to, or when Page 121 January 3, 2002 within a PUD will be placed in close proximity to, residential areas and, therefore, serve as a transitional zoning between residential and higher intensity commercial zoning districts. "The types of office uses permitted are those that do not have a high volume -- traffic volumes throughout the day which extend into the evening hours. They will have morning and evening short-term peak conditions. Market support for these office uses should be those with a localized basis of market support as opposed to office functions requiring interjurisdictional and regional market support. "Because office functions have significant employment characteristics, which are compounded when aggregations occur, certain professional services shall be permitted to provide convenience to office-based employment. Such convenience commercial uses shall be made an integral part of an office building as opposed to a singular use of a building. Housing may also be a component of this district as provided for a conditional use and as further provided to meet the goals and objectives of the office and infill commercial subdistrict provisions of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan." COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman, we probably could have read this ourselves. I'm wondering if we could just save Ray the effort and just tell him if we have any objections to it and expedite this whole process. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And I would just sort of suggest from an editor's viewpoint that you eliminate the word "close" in front of "proximity," because that technically says "close closeness," because that's what proximity means. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. I'll make that note here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And in the first sentence, "profession" should be "professional." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, you're right. It should have an a-1 Page 122 January 3, 2002 on it. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The next one is Section 2.2.13, commercial convenience district, C-2. This added that language. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any comments? MR. BELLOWS: If you've read it, do you have any comments? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't have any comments. MR. BELLOWS: The next one? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next one. MR. BELLOWS: Is Section 2.2.14, the C-3 zoning district, strikethrough and underlines. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. BELLOWS: Okay. Any comments? Acceptable. Section 2.2.15 -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The thing we just approved would be a commercial intermediate district then, wouldn't it, except it's a PUD? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And that was the intent of-- just a sidebar on that one. The PUD document did say, under general purpose of intent of what that was, is intermediate retail, which is the C-3 detail. That's, I believe, where Chahram got "similar to C-3." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's a good observation. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The next one is Section 2.2.15 1/2. It's the heavy commercial district, C-5. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I thought we had -- MR. BELLOWS: Did I miss one? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Four. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: C-4. MR. BELLOWS: 2.2.15 is the C-4 then. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. We're all shaking our heads yes, so you can move on to the next one. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The next one is the C-5. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: 2.2.15 1/2. Page 123 January 3, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: That's it. And that's it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Looks good to me. So we actually need a motion to accept these that refers to the consistency with the comp plan? MS. STUDENT: The motion would be to recommend approval to the board and, as part of that motion, a finding of consistency with the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I so move. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Commissioner Strain, a second by Commissioner Abernathy to approve these amendments -- excuse me -- recommend approval of these amendments to be consistent with the comp plan and forward them. Any questions? MR. BELLOWS: And does this include the recommendation that it be -- the first one, 2.1.15, be via conditional use? you COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Yes. Any discussion? All those in favor say conversations with Jody. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. We are now at Item 9, old business. Commissioner Adelstein, have the update. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I had many I won't go into what they were. Page 124 January 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And Jody is? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: From the -- in the planning commission office where I was told by -- that's the woman I was told to contact. MR. BELLOWS: She's the community development services administrative -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What's her title? MR. BELLOWS: Administrative assistant for planning services. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The down -- the bottom line is yesterday I got notified that they are being shipped today, five of them, and that they will be in her office by Tuesday and that I will be called that they're there, and we'll make arrangements for them to be delivered. Also, on the date of delivery, she's ordering three additional copies. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: LDC? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's only eight so far. Am I not getting one? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's nine of us. Mine is -- as Marjorie just pointed out, my supplement -- this is not an updated version. I'm running off an old one I-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I was told that there were only eight needed. Now, I can make -- when I talk to Jody Tuesday MS. STUDENT: Mr. Budd may have one. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd should have one. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Budd may have one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy has one. I have one, Page 125 January 3, 2002 and I -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That one's out of date. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: He wants a brand-new one. Well, I've done the torturous update on mine, and I think I'm going to be pretty accurate, so eight will work. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know mine, as of today, is not accurate. Marjorie actually pointed out some supplements I'm missing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Then I might have to have Marjorie look at mine also. Okay. So eight we know of for sure. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Eight will be here. We know they're going to have five of them here by Tuesday. I will stay on it to make sure that the additional three are ordered and delivered. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And those -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- five come to you, to Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The people who don't have anything at all. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Wolfley. Nothing at all. Okay. And, Mr. Richardson, you do have -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- at least some format of one. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. Very good job. We should have assigned that to you two months ago. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Another comment on old business? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, yes. The meeting space was the Page 126 January 3, 2002 next item, B -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- that Commissioner Strain brought Upi COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that may not be necessary if I could bring up another issue. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go for it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And it's Ken's suggestion to take a look at Escambia's -- County's way they do ex parte communication. See, when someone calls and wants to talk about something being presented, I feel obligated that we have to give them the time. However, if it was just outlawed altogether, it sure would make things a lot smoother. MS. STUDENT: I think what we're going to have to do, there's a state statute that allows for it, and the prior direction that we had was to go forth, and we did, with the resolution in 1995. I'll talk to Mr. Weigel about how he wants to proceed. I don't know if there may be any problem with the Planning Commission not taking any, but if the Board of County Commissioners wanted-- I don't know if that presents a problem, so I will need to discuss it with Mr. Weigel. And, you know, we will get back with you on that. But my concern is that as part of an entire process -- say, for example, you have a conditional use, and you-all don't do ex parte on the conditional use, but it may -- I don't know what the wish of the Board of County Commissioners may be. But I have a concern that if it's "no" here and something else further up the line, do we have a problem? I don't know if we have a constitutional problem with that or not. That's -- those are things I need to discuss with Mr. Weigel, but we'll certainly take that -- I will do that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What was the resolution in '95? Page 127 January 3, 2002 MS. STUDENT: Yes. It was -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: To open the process or -- MS. STUDENT: What happened there was a state -- there was a case out of Dade County that involved a variance, and there was an ex parte contact. And the Court didn't say that ex parte contacts make the thing void. They said it creates a presumption -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. MS. STUDENT: -- that it was tainted. And what you have to do is go through another hearing and so forth. So the State of Florida came up with legislation on this that provided that a local government could allow the ex parte with some safeguards, and that being the disclosures. So at the time the county -- what the county decided to do -- and it was a resolution passed by the Board of County Commissioners -- was that they would do the ex parte -- allow for ex parte with disclosures. And then in that resolution -- and I believe in the -- I don't know if the state statute -- state statute probably says something about advisory bodies too. But that was made applicable to the advisory bodies in the resolution as well. So my only concern-- and I need to discuss it with Mr. Weigel -- is if we change part of the process, are we somehow bootstrapping it onto the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Zoning Appeals process? Do they want to go there? And those are things that we'll have to discuss, but we'll take it under advisement. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, point out to Mr. Weigel that we're a volunteer advisory board, not even paid a dollar a year -- MS. STUDENT: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- and the county commissioners are paid handsomely to hold fewer and fewer meetings. Page 128 January3,2002 MS. STUDENT: I understand. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It seems to me you could distinguish between the two, where a person has a greater right to approach his elected representative than he does some bunch of advisory committee volunteers. MS. STUDENT: No. I understand, but we want to look at -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: First of all, see if the majority of us want to go that way. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And, Madam Chair, if I just might supplement that, I was struck by one of the comments of the public today saying I didn't know we could talk to you. I thought that we were -- you know, couldn't do that. And that may be a perception that's out there that, you know, maybe we should honor. In -- because it does -- the way the process is now, my feeling is that it gives the developers an unfair advantage in the process. You know, that's just my perception. MS. STUDENT: Well, that's the idea behind a disclosure, because if you disclose with whom you spoke or got a written communication or an e-mail or whatever and the substance of it, that gives the other individuals an opportunity to rebut. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, it does and it doesn't. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's only a partial remedy, really. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's a matter of timing and impact and influence. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I agree. I feel that if they -- they have their secretary -- they've got my telephone number. They have my e-mail number, which the general public doesn't have. And when the secretary calls and asks me to set up an appointment time, I feel morally obligated to do so. I think we'd be better off if we abolished Page 129 January 3, 2002 it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Plus the -- just recognize now that the other side of the shoe is here -- the other side of the shoe -- is that it would put more -- it will put more pressure on staff because what -- part of what we're getting from the applicant is information that we're not currently getting from staff or that we have to ask questions about. And I think if we really remove ourselves from the process -- and I'm not fighting that -- then I think staff has a higher responsibility to provide us information that would allow us to do our job. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And staff would have a higher responsibility to have someone in a supervisory capacity review and make specific comments to include what we need in the PUD -- I mean in our executive summaries. And I will harken back to the Silver Lakes example -- probably will not give up on that one for a long time -- because it was somewhat distressing for me to go to the opponent's attorney to find out that the storage issue was the big issue. And we need to clarify some of those types things, probably in our executive summary, or have a way to summarize what it is that the people are objecting to as they come in. It's more of a burden on staff, but I also understand that with the public participation, that any comments and commitments and that done at those public hearings will come, in some form, to us in writing, possibly side sheets or that type of approach, where we can actually review what it was they were talking about. And I'm telling you, that could be very creative on the part of staff to try to interpret what some of the comments are, having experienced that one public participation public hearing just recently. It's going to be a fascinating effort to be able to do that, but it'll at least help us know what those issues are. MS. STUDENT: Well, I will discuss that -- discuss it with Page 130 January 3, 2002 Mr. Weigel and report back at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think we have a consensus. MS. STUDENT: This is an important issue, an important legal issue. So we just -- we want to thoroughly look at it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, how about asking Mr. Weigel if, as a matter of policy, the county doesn't want to change that '95 guidance, cannot we, as individuals, make an individual choice not to engage in ex parte? MS. STUDENT: I'll consider that aspect as well. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I believe he's already on the record on that. When we had the ex parte discussions, he said you could do it or not do it. But if you do it, you've got to disclose it. But he left it up to us to do it. But I think we were looking for more of a uniform approach to this if we could. MS. STUDENT: And what would happen, the resolution would have to be changed. We'd have to have the Board of County Commissioners change the resolution. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Easy. Easy. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further comments on this, under old business? Item No. 10. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One other -- one other old business. Sorry. I did find out the minutes from our ULDC meetings, our hearings, were sent to IT very shortly after they were -- after our meetings occurred. So they've been there for quite some time, which means it's not -- I'm wondering how we get them. Ray, if you know. MR. BELLOWS: Get the minutes -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Before you answer -- MR. BELLOWS: -- from the last ULDC? Page 131 January 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Before you answer, Laurie Oldham is working very hard on that because they're supposed to be e-mailed to, I believe, Susan Murray, and they had not -- that had not occurred at all. And so Susan is the point person, I believe, and then she has to say, okay, download or print, whatever, and that's part of the problem. The 28th of October 2001 was the last LDC that made it even to the Web site, so they're way behind in it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's important that -- if we're going to keep following up things, we need to have those minutes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we'll keep that -- when the agenda is made for this next time, under old business please put A as the availability of the Land Development Code. We'll have a further update on that. And B would be the process for getting the LDC minutes. And hopefully they'll show up on the front part of the agenda under approval at the January 17th meeting, which approval is Item 4. But if they don't -- actually, even if they do, to get the explanation of how that process works so we don't have this in the future, can go as B under old business. Commissioner Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, another item under old business just occurs to me. I did make arrangements for the personnel pack for each of us, that is the application that each of us made to serve on this august body, and that was said to have been forwarded to Ms. Murray. Now, I realize with the holidays and stuff, we've got -- but perhaps, Ray, you could check on that and see if that packet might be made available to the members. MR. BELLOWS: Sure. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Moving right along. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: New business. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: New business now. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't have, for example, the Page 132 January 3, 2002 Golden Gate Master Plan, nor had I heard of it until we went through this particular PUD. I don't even know what to ask for because I don't know what's available, and without it, I was curtailed on this last PUD. These things that -- when we come in new, you know what is out there for us to have; I don't. But I do feel that I should be given the equipment to do the job I've been asked to do. Now, I could have used this this last weekend. There are others that'll come up in the future, I'm sure. Ray, is it possible for you to put together a list of what a commissioner should have and then make arrangements for us to get it? MR. BELLOWS: Well, I'll discuss it with Susan Murray. We have a list of the Growth Management Plan items that's easily download -- transferable to the Planning Commission. The ability to get it -- because some of it's quite large, and that may take some time. Hopefully it's not as long as it takes to get the LDC, but that's -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTE1N: Some of us won't be serving that long. MR. BELLOWS: -- handled through the comprehensive planning department. MS. STUDENT: I think what's needed is not the whole -- the adoption notebook is probably what's needed, and I thought the Planning Commission had that. They should have had it. It's available in house from the comprehensive planning department. MR. BELLOWS: That's what I was about to say. The comprehensive planning department, we can get a -- the adoption notebook, but there's larger volumes of it and more specific detail, but maybe the adoption notebook -- MS. STUDENT: That's the support document that DCA looks at to see if the goals, objectives, and policies, and the adopted portions are based on data analysis. And unless a planning commissioner had a specific question as to the background of a Page 133 January 3, 2002 particular part of the comp plan that's adopted, that's available there. I don't think we need to get that whole set. I think the adoption notebook is -- should be sufficient. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: And, by the way, for the record, the Golden Gate Master Plan is an element of the Growth Management Plan, just to put that on the record. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've -- so that would work. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. No more new business? Number 11 is public comment. I see only staff left out there, so there's no public comment. No discussion of the addenda for No. 12. So I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So moved. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. But it is in the adoption notebook. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:01 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN Page 134 January 3, 2002 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 135