Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/17/2002 RJanuary 17, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NAPLES, FLORIDA, JANUARY 17, 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 8:32 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth L. Abernathy Russell A. Budd Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Lora Jean Young David J. Wolfley Dwight Richardson Mark P. Strain ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Susan Murray, Chief Planner, Planning Services Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 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. IND~UALS 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 MATERIAI.~ 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. 5. 6. 7. 8. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL BY CLERK ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA - DISCUSSION CONCERNING NEW MEETING DATE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE "FINAL ORDER AMENDMENTS". APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 20, 2001, MINUTES PLANNING COlVIMISSION ABSENCES- $OYCEANNA I. RAUTIO BCC REPORT- NONE CHAIRlVIA~S REPORT ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS CU-2001-AR-1225, George L. Vamadoe, Esq., of Young, vanAssenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., requesting Conditional Use #20 of the Agricultural District for a "Sporting and Recreational Camp" located approximately three quarters of a mile west of S.IL 29 and approximately one mile south of Oil Well Road (C.IL 858), in Sections 19 & 30, Township 48 South, Range 30 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reis. chi) and; ST-2001-AR- 1226, George L. Vamadoe, Esq., of Young, vanAssenderp, Vamadoe, & Anderson, P.A., representing Barron Collier Companies, requesting a Special Treatment Development Permit in the A-MHO-ACSC/ST District for a "Sporting and Recreational Camp" located approximately three quarters ora mile west of S.R. 29 and approximately one mile south of Oil Well Road (C.R. 858), in Sections 19 & 30, Township 48 South, Range 30 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Barbara Burgeson) Bo CU-2001-AR-1255. Donald $. Murray, AICP, of Communication Development Services, Inc., representing Collier County Emergency Management Services, requesting Conditional Use 13 of "E" Estates for an Essential Service Communication Tower, as specified in Section 2.6.35.6.3 of the LDC, for property located at 95 13~ Street SW at the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. and 13*~ Street SW, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 9, in Section 8, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUDA-2001-AR-431, Tim Hancock, AICP, representing Park East Development, LTD, requesting 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) (CONTINUED TO 2-12-02) 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 fi-om 650 to 400 and increasing the commercial acreage fi-om 21.8 acres to 25 acres for property located on the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 46 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) VA-2001-AR-1442, Kirk Sanders, requesting a 2.3-foot after-the-fact variance from the required 1 O-foot rear yard setback established for accessory structures to 7.7 feet for property located at 1139 Sperling Avenue, further described as Lot 14, Block B, Sperlings Subdivision, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Coordinator: Fred Reischl) VA-2001-AR-1526, Kraft Construction Company, Inc., representing Diocese of Venice Catholic Church, requesting a 6.5-foot variance fi-om the required 30-foot fi-om yard setback to 23.5 feet for property located at 5225 Golden Gate Parkway, in Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) VA-2001-AR-1564, Bill Potter, of Potter Homes, Inc., representing Bill and Kristi Grigsby, requesting a 6.5-foot variance fi-om the required 25-foot rear yard setback to 18.5 feet for the principal structure and a 7-foot variance fi-om the required 20-foot rear yard setback to 13 feet for a pool and enclosure for property located at 390 Willett Avenue, further described as Lot 8, Conners Vanderbilt Unit 2, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) H. PDI-2001-AR-1276 (SM) Brad C. Hedrich, of Hedrich En~neering, Inc., representing Meridian Land Company, requesting an Insubstantial Change Determination to the Madeira PUD Master Plan to move the location of the community's recreation center area from the northwest corner of the project to the southwest corner of the project; to create additional preserve and lake areas; to reconfigure the internal site circulation; to reconfigure internal lakes; and to designate the location ora neighborhood park for property located in Sections 13 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Susan Murray) OLD BUSINESS - LDC MINUTES - NOVEMBER 14, 2001 AND NOVEMBER 28, 2001 2 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 1/I 7/01/CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo January 17, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I would like to call the meeting of Thursday, January 17, 2002, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Please rise and join me in reciting the pledge allegiance to the flag. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I will call the roll. Present. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Abemathy is present. Here. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain. The next item, addenda to the agenda. The first of those will be the election of new officers, since our chairman has resigned. I'm the acting chairman, since I'm the vice chairman. Apparently, we passed an election cycle last October blindly ignorant of it, so we are overdue to have an election. We will do that immediately. Do you have any other addenda to the agenda, Miss Murray? MS. MURRAY: Good morning. Susan Murray, current planning manager. I do. I have received written requests from the petitioner for Item H -- that's the Madeira PDI -- for an indefinite Page 2 January 17, 2002 continuance. So I advise anybody in the audience that is here to hear the Madeira PDI it has been continued indefinitely. I would also like to remind you that Item C, PD-2001-AR-431, regarding the Founders Plaza PUD has been continued to 2/12. So if anybody in the audience who wishes to speak about the Founders Plaza PUD, that has been continued to 2/12/02. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ms. Murray, is 2/12 a regular commission date? MS. MURRAY: I don't have a calendar in front of me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We have one. I have one here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's a Saturday -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have got it as a Tuesday; that's why I questioned that with Ray on e-mail, and I haven't got a response yet. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. It was -- the numbers were transposed. It was the 21st. Does that coincide with our calendar? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure that's what your intent was. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Indefinite continuance, that maintains -- maintains its filing. They don't have to refile or any of those things? MS. MURRAY: Well-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It has to be readvertised, I assume. MS. MURRAY: It depends on the length of continuance, so if it exceeds the statutory requirement for advertising based on the length of its continuance, it will be readvertised appropriately. I think the petitioner is just deciding how they want to handle the situation. I know you were familiar with the situation because you heard it last Page 3 January 17, 2002 time. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We shouldn't be concerned with it this morning, I don't suppose. MS. MURRAY: And-- I don't know. Patrick, do they need to take action to continue that to indefinitely? MR. WHITE: Not anymore so that -- I'm sorry. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White -- not any more sure than they otherwise would, for example, with respect to Item C. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Item C, we are told it's been continued. H, I suppose, is an application for indefinite continuance. Can we have a motion to continue both C and H for whatever effect that may have? COMMISSIONER BUDD: So move. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any discussion? All in favor. Opposed? Carried. Now, we are going to have some discussion about the final order amendments, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: Do you want to do your elections first? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. We can do the election first. In the past we have nominated a chairman, and then a vice chairman and secretary; those are the three officers. We have also done it as a package, if you will, where one person nominated all three so a person considering that slate would understand the relationship between the three parties to the deal. My own preference is if somebody has a slate of three officers to nominate, I would be interested in hearing that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a slate, Mr. Chair, I would Page 4 January 17, 2002 like to recommend. I would like to recommend you as chairman and Mr. Budd as vice chairman and Ms. Young as secretary. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I will second that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other nominations? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I like it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We will close the nominations. All in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER BUDD: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Hold your applause. Now, are we ready to talk about the final order amendment? MS. MURRAY: Yes, sir. MR. LITZINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman-- congratulations -- and commissioners. For the record, I'm Stan Litzinger, comprehensive planning manager. The reason I'm here to speak to you this morning is it's come to our attention that you will not probably have a quorum for either of your regularly scheduled meetings in February, either on the 7th or the 21st. This creates somewhat of a conundrum, if you will, because as you are all probably aware we are in the final phases of completing what has been over a two-year process of public hearings for the transmittal of their final order amendment for the rural fringe assessment area. We are in a position due to our deadlines that we have more or less sworn ourselves to with the governor and the cabinet and the folks in Tallahassee that we cannot afford to lose a month, but we cannot go forward unless we have a public hearing before our local planning agency, which is you folks. To do that we need a quorum. So what I am here this morning to ask and petition that you do is make a commitment to have a special meeting on either the 6th or the Page 5 January 17, 2002 13th of February, which are both Wednesdays and on which. Days this room is available because there would be a large crowd. Also, that we have a commitment that we have at least five commissioners present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You are telling me something that I don't know, and I don't know it's a matter of record. Is there -- what is the source of your information that we wouldn't have a quorum on the 7th and the 14th? MR. LITZ1NGER: Because of the resignation of Ms. Rautio, we thought it might be a good idea to poll all the commissioners -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. LITZINGER: -- along with those two dates. And, true enough, we only have four commissioners committed to both the 7th and the 21st of this date. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can we poll them again while we are here? MR. LITZINGER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Midney, are you going to be here? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Both days. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I won't for the 21st, I will for the 7th. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'm the opposite. I will be out of town on the 7th, and I will be here on the 21st. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's two for each. I'm here for both. That's three for each. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I will not be here for either. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I will be here for both. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's four. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I will be out of the country for both. Page 6 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will definitely be here for both. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's five. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You have a quorum. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We definitely will have five on the 7th. So we can advertise for the 7th. Those here on the 7th raise your hands. (Commissioners raised hands.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You are locked in forever. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do you want to do the 21st while we are at it and get it on the record? MS. MURRAY: Please, that would help me. (Commissioners Abernathy, Strain, Midney, Adelstein, and Richardson raised their hands.) MS. MURRAY: Five for the 21st. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: for the December 20th minutes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just a different five. Moving right along. Approval So move. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anybody have any a corrections or additions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Carried. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, are we going to discuss the other minutes today? There were two other packages sent out. I know they are not on the agenda, so I'm -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes, they are on the agenda. Page 7 January 17, 2002 Down at No. 9. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: On the back page? Yes, sir. Old LDC minutes. Didn't see them. Okay. We have covered Planning Commission absences in our own way here. BCC report, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: There is none enclosed in your packet. I was MS. MURRAY: yes. hoping to, actually, be able to hand out to you the LDC amendments or get them in your packet. If you were here early this morning, you saw me run them up to the clerk's office. So I would like to hand out those -- or have them mailed out to you, the final ordinance, and then discuss it for the next meeting. I don't think there was anything of interest to you that happened at that last board meeting, a couple of minor petitions that were approved consistent with your recommendations. Nothing else. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In accordance with our recommendations? In accordance with your recommendations, CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Next item is the chairman's. Report. I have none. So we will move to the advertised public hearings. Any member of the public who wants to address us on any of these issues should fill out a slip that you will find out on the table in the passageway and give them to the planning department representative, Ms. Murray, sitting beside the court reporter. MS. MURRAY: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I was just handed a speaker slip for Item H; that is the Madeira PUD. Mr. Murphy, I announced earlier that that item has been continued indefinitely, as well I had sent you an e-mail to that affect. Page 8 January 17, 2002 Again, if there is anybody here to hear Item H, the Madeira PUD, it has been continued indefinitely. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Murphy, do you hear that? MR. MURPHY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Fred, all persons wishing to testify on the matter now in hearing should raise their right hands and be sworn. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. The court reporter swears. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I can do it. (All parties sworn.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do we have disclosures? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Me. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ex parte disclosures to be made as to this item. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I had a brief conversation. With Mr. Vamadoe prior to the beginning of the meeting. He was describing some of the aspects for this request. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anyone else? MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a conditional use and a special treatment development permit. The location, as you can see on the visualizer, is in rural Collier County. In the southwest comer of the intersection of State Road 29 and Oil Well Road, which is also County Road. 858. The closest landmark, if you will, is the general store in the northeast comer. And this is a little further south on 29 from that. The subject of the conditional use and ST permit is a 38-acre parcel. The area controlled by the petitioner is over 4,500 acres. The property is outside the urban designated area. However, the use is not one of those that is prohibited by the final order. The underlying zoning is rural agricultural, and there is also a Page 9 January 17, 2002 mobile home overlay -- and that is not of concern as of today. It just allows a mobile home can be put on an agricultural property. And there is also a ACSC/ST overlay, area of critical state concern/special treatment. And that's the reason for the ST development permit that is also being heard today. And on the visualizer you can see the approximate layout of the 38 acres, basically, designed to avoid having any wetlands on the site. That is why the unusual configuration. You can see in pink the cabins and the hunting lodge in the center there. There will be a -- road access from State Road 29, and, again, that is also across the petitioner's property. This was heard by the Environmental Advisory Council, and they recommended approval 7-0; one member recused themselves because of business with the company. And the one question that came up at the EAC was regarding fencing. The petitioner has stated that they are in talks with the panther refuge to the south, and they will conform to the request of the panther refuge for fencing that will keep out poachers but will allow panthers to cross. The staff recommends approval of both petitions. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Fred. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The line that says, "Area Critical State Concern, "which site does this fall on? Or which part is in the critical area? MR. REISCHL: Okay. If you look at the visualizer again, I have that line in yellow. The south portion is within the area of critical state concern. The north portion is outside. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do we have any independent knowledge about the lack of wetlands in this area? MR. REISCHL: Barbara Burgeson is here, and she wants to Page 10 January 17, 2002 address that. She is our senior environmental specialist. I have been informed the petitioner has an environmental consultant that will address that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No. I said, do we have any independent knowledge of that? As we have heard in the past, we often get applicant's representative saying what the applicant whats them to say. MR. REISCHL: I have not been on the site, but Barbara has. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. I did a site visit with Todd Turrell of Turrell & Associates about a month and a half ago. There are wetlands immediately adjacent to the boundary of the property on the east, which is why there was a stipulation added. The last stipulation in the resolution states that, "In lieu of providing the South Florida Water Management District determination, the petitioner agrees to provide a minimum of 25-foot buffer from all conditional-use boundaries adjacent to the wetlands. "And that is for The -- the reason for that is because the wetlands are all off site, and in order for me to determine that they are not impacting the wetlands, they would either have to approve jurisdictional wetland determination, which may take them a few weeks or months to do, or the other option is that we would normally require a minimal of 25 foot -- 25-foot setback from the wetlands minimum 15. If they provide that 25-foot setback from the property boundary, then they are assured of being at least 25 foot away from the wetland boundary. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Might we expect, then, that this boundary line will change based on the in-field conditions as they find it? MR. REISCHL: No. The legal description is -- will be approved as part of this conditional use. That will stay the same. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we can be assured that Page 11 January 17, 2002 is all upland land? MR. REISCHL: According to what was submitted to us, yes. Again, even if there was some wetland within there, they will still have to maintain 25 feet from those wetlands, if the jurisdictional line shows otherwise. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the boundary could stay the same, but then the application will be deficient in that there might be wetlands within the property to say that there are no wetlands? MR. REISCHL: I don't know it would be deficient, but, yes, there could be wetlands shown -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. I will say inaccurate. MR. REISCHL: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, what else can this land be used for? Can it all be planted with citrus or ag? MR. REISCHL: Agricultural uses -- there are-- because it is area state critical concern, that is one of the uses -- is that agricultural uses are also limited, and ACSC could be used for one house or one mobile home for every 5-acre parcel. There are some individual parcels in the area. As I said, all under the same ownership. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Richardson, are you finished? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Fred, as a planner does it strike you as a bit of anomaly in this district you can build one dwelling unit for every 5 acres, but if you call it a lodge and cabins you can build 14 of them? Isn't there something a little askew about that? MR. REISCHL: Well, what they are doing is clustering. Because, as I say, they own-- it's over 4, 000 acres. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So they are using all of that-- Page 12 January 17, 2002 MR. REISCHL: In one 38-acre parcel, basically. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You did not make that clear. That counts against them elsewhere on the property then? MR. REISCHL: That's right. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Varnadoe? MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe representing the property owner, Barron Collier Investments Limited. Also here today to answer questions are Blake Gable of the Barron Collier Company, Domenic Amico, and Stephen Basado of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, the planners and engineers on the project, and Tim Hall of Turrell & Associates, who are the environmental consultants. The landowner is proposing a neat little project, private hunting and fishing club in the rural ag areas that you have heard. Although hunting and fishing are allowed uses in the area, conditional use is necessary for the lodge and related facilities. Conditional Use 20 in the Land Development Code with ag district is 40 and recreational camp, in which this falls. As the SNAP has indicated, the site is 38 acres, and I will direct your attention to this aerial photograph. This is 858 here (indicating) and State Road 29 here indicating). The site in question is here (indicating). Mr. Richardson was asking questions about the area of critical state concern; that line boundary is right there, sir (indicating). As you can see, we could have located that camp completely outside of the area of critical state concern, but there is no need to do it since we meet the mandates of the area of critical state concern, which merely state you cannot alter more than 10 percent of the site, and you can't have a pervious surface on more than one-half of that 10 percent or 5 percent of the site, so we are meeting that. So that's not a concern. As far as what's allowed in the area of critical state concern, that Page 13 January 17, 2002 really does not restrict usage. It really restricts how much of the site you can alter. To correct something that Mr. Reischl said, agricultural is totally exempt from the rules of area critical state concern. So this whole area could be turned into agricultural use. What we have done here is -- you can see this is a blowup of this area right here (indicating) on this aerial. We have sited the site outside of this hammock here (indicating), which is a hardwood hammock which has this typical mixed hardwood uses in it -- some wetland, obviously, in there. We kept the cabins all outside of that, main lodge outside of that, but also site -- pushed them up against that hardwood hammock for aesthetic reasons and also to provide vast views across this to the west and southwest. The property is bordered on the south about this line right here (indicating) by the Florida Panther and National Wildlife Refuge. We have been in contact with them, and they have no objection to our request. In fact, we are working on matters of mutual interest with them. The 38 acres is going to be used for the main lodge building up to 14 cabins. Accessory buildings, we're going to have a welcome building out in this area here (indicating), parking here (indicating), and access into the site will only be on foot or by golf carts, trying to get that traditional rural setting for this use. The project was designed to limit the impervious surface and provide a natural setting in keeping with what we think is a very traditional use in a rural setting, which is a hunting lodge. You can see the site is somewhat remote. The excess will be via -- we had two alternates here -- via existing farm roads, some of which are improved and some of which have not been greatly improved. You can also notice the manmade lakes that have been there for many years dating back to when 29 was constructed that Page 14 January 17, 2002 will be used for the fishing activities on the site. The major activity is going to be quail hunting, which will be a managed activity, and we do have our state permit for that. As Fred has said, the project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, the rules and regulations for the area state critical concern and interim amendments to the Growth Management Plan that are in place. While we go through the rural assessment, they are also consistent with that. The EAC recommended unanimous approval -- I will not take much of your time up. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them. I think this is a neat little project and one that is allowed in the rural ag area and does and will keep this 4,800 acres in pretty much its natural state for the forseeable future, which I think is the reason the environmental audience has not been here to object -- either at the EAC or this meeting. The reason the EAC gave unanimous approval is because it does -- to some it's a lot better than turning it into ag. I will be glad to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Varnadoe, help me picture the operations here. I'm just not familiar with how this sporting club will work. We have been reading a lot in the paper recently about swamp buggies and the difficulty of getting in and out of certain areas and restrictions. Do I picture this in wetlands sense in any -- how will people be transported around? Do they walk or take a swamp buggy or what? MR. VARNADOE: Probably not swamp buggy because most of your bird hunting is on upland areas, not in wetland areas. Typically hunting in this area is done with bird dogs and usually transported to an area, probably by jeep, and then from there it's hunting on foot. If you are familiar with North Florida and South Georgia Page 15 January 17, 2002 hunting, they do it from wagons with mules, but I think that is kind of out of place in South Florida. I think over the existing farm roads by vehicle and then on foot, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. One other question. Are you going to have a caretaker on site? Is that planned? MR. VARNADOE: That is the current plan. Whether they will be there 24 hours a day or merely during all hours of operation, that is yet to be decided. But, obviously, there will have to be a manager or caretaker. That is one of the reasons for the outbuilding is to have a place to store guns and have a meeting place with the guides with the dogs and that type of facilities, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One of the concerns, of course, raised by staff is that this would not be used as a transient facility? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. Mr. Reischl and I have discussed that. I think when you see the remote location, the fact that you are going to be getting there over shell roads, and then you -- I have a welcome station, and you get in a golf cart to go -- I don't think the facility lends itself to a transient lodging facility, which is one of the things that is prohibited in this area during the interim amendments. We said if there are any rationale restrictions, the Planning Commission or the staff would like to place on that, we will be happy to do it. But it's just one of those things that the planner came up with without really looking at the site, because I can't imagine anyone traveling down 29 and then a mile over dirt roads and getting into a golf cart to spend the night unless he has other activities in mind. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions? Any member of the public registered to speak? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? Page 16 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Make a motion -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: Chairman, I would like to make a motion we recommend approval of Petition CU-2001-AR- 1225 and ST-2001-AR-1226 to the Board of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and second by Mr. Strain. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. Yes, sir, Mr. Midney. I thin -- to me it sounds like an excellent use of private land because it gives the owners an incentive to keep it in its natural state, and also they will be addressing the exotic plants. It sounds to me like a good idea. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other? Call the question. Call those all in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Motion carries. Please fill out your conditional-use petition forms and pass them in. Next item, CU-2001-AR-1255, communications Development Services, Incorporated. All of those wishing to testify on this matter stand and raise your right-hands be sworn. (All parties swom.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any disclosures as to this item? Yes. I spoke to. Chief Peterson once since the last meeting, and I spoke to him briefly in this room prior to the last meeting concerning this issue. Our discussions centered around the use of the fire station's existing tower in that same location instead of adding an additional tower. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other disclosures? Page 17 January 17, 2002 Okay. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with current planning staff. This petition was presented to you a couple of meetings ago. It was continued to allow the petitioner to obtain additional information as to the use of the fire district tower. That information has been included in your packet. Staff is recommending approval, and I would be happy to answer any questions which you might have. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question for the county attorney, unfortunately. This tower was in an area that has another one across the street from it, and there is a library on the corner, which is another governmental service. I believe the sheriff's department is or is going to be out there, which is another governmental service. According to our essential services they can be placed -- they can place towers for their use anywhere. And I believe that if you were Nextel or a communications company, and you weren't an essential service, you would have to put your tower in a properly zoned area. The way the code is written it seems that we've got a loophole that allows private companies by buying zoning to be able to put a tower anywhere they want under the guise of essential services. The fire department has an existing tower that is not completely utilized by essential services. It is utilized by private companies. Does the county have any mechanism, such as eminent domain, to force those private companies off of the location or the existing company that could be used by EMS, sheriff, library, county -- or anybody they want so we can maintain just one tower for essential services when it's needed for essential services? MR. WHITE: My understanding is that the typical means by which you acquire the rights to use your antennas on a tower is Page 18 January 17, 2002 through contract. And I believe it may be that there is an interference with those contracts, rather than the typical notion of property rights against real property that eminent domain is utilized for when there is, quote, taking by. The government. So I would be concerned that we would be crossing the line from real property law to contract law and maybe doing something that was impermissible in terms of interference with contracts. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So we can take someone's home for putting a road through, but we can't take an antenna of a tower to put an essential service in its place because of a contract; is that what it boils down? MR. WHITE: I think that's a fair statement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Abelstein. COMMISSIONER ABELSTEIN: Is there no space available from 145 feet to 165 feet on that present tower? MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. The information that was presented by the applicant indicates that there are no existing space at the height on the existing tower that they need. Otherwise, it would acquire additional towers to be built for EMS in order to have the system operated. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The petition states that there is nothing at 145-foot level. It doesn't state that there is nothing above that up to 165-foot level. It seems to me the higher they go the better transmission would be anyway. MR. BELLOWS: Their response was the 165-foot tower located at the fire station across 13th Street to the east of the EMS station was looked at by EMS, but that tower did not offer the height that EMS. Needed. The fire chief determined that he needed 145-foot Page 19 January 17, 2002 space. The space above and below that level is not available. I have also -- the -- the applicant has also tried to obtain a written letter from the fire chief during the public hearing on December 20th to determine what issues were involved-- about other locations in the height. And it turns out that they really don't have the space at the levels they really need for optimal efficiency. It really has to be at that 145-foot mark. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Has anybody reviewed the contracts of the parties that are presently on that tower? MR. BELLOWS: I would have to defer to the applicant on that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm aware many of the contracts given out clause if the county needs the area. MR. BELLOWS: The applicant -- the petitioner is here from EMS. MS. FLAGG: For the record, Diana Flagg with Emergency Medical Services. This is a flagpole that is planned for the front of the station. In terms of the contract, that is a contract. Relationship between Golden Gate Fire District and the people that are on the tower on Golden Gate's Fire District's property. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Have those contracts been reviewed to see if there is an out clause in any one of them at the level necessary? MS. FLAGG: I don't have that information. We have to ask Don Peterson, who is the chief of Golden Gate Fire District. But I think the county attorney would like to comment. MR. PALMER: Yes. My name is Tom Palmer, assistant county attorney. I have reviewed all of these contracts. They are leases. Nobody in private enterprise has any right to get on a tower on a essential service site except to the extent agreed to in the lease. Therefore, these things could be wholly owned and used only by Page 20 January 17, 2002 governmental units; sheriff, United States government, what have you. The rights that these private people have the tower are as agreed to. In most cases they put up these towers. They pay the money for the tower. They turn the title over to the county. The county gets free use or other governmental use. And they reserve in those agreements the right to sublease or allow licensees, technically -- they are called licensees on the tower. That essentially gives them an opportunity to pay back themselves the capital cost of putting up the tower. There are no out clauses. For example, it does not say that you can get on there but except if a governmental entity comes by later and needs your space, that you will either have to get off the tower or get down to a lower level on the tower, assuming the lower level will meet your needs for a radio wave point of view. Therefore, there are no outs. These are rights to the extent that the subleasee or the other Has. Sometimes they enter into five years. Sometimes they are renewable five and five and five. They are all individual subagreements. But there are no out clauses that we can -- can effectively bump them if we feel a subsequent need to utilize their space. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do we realize at that 145 level that there is a -- the lease is coming up, or what the status of that particular lease is? MR. PALMER: The lease on the now existing tower? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. PALMER: I understand that there is an occupant on there under an existing lease, and I don't know it's term. But I understand the tower at the fire station, there is an occupant on there actually utilizing at this time under some specified term agreement. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But we don't know what the Page 21 January 17, 2002 term is? MR. PALMER: No. No, I don't. I would speculate it would be a minimum of five years, because of capital expenses they have to put a structure at the ground, coaxial cable up the tower, and there is quite a lot of capital expenditure. People don't normally want to do that unless they have a guaranteed minimum period of time that they are going to be able to stay on the tower. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: How many years has that tower been in place? MR. PALMER: I don't know. I think that's a relatively new tower. I have so many of these that they get mixed up. I think that tower has been there less than five years. The fire people can tell you more of the details on that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: On the face of it, it seems like it's mutually advantageous to have somebody else pay for the tower and everybody gets a use. The downside I get from Mr. Strain is that we have a proliferation of tower. Is that the evil? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That is my concern. This is a residential area, and towers are supposed to be -- I believe it's a C-4, if it's private use. And under the guise of essential services because a private company can more or less pay for a tower, we think that is a great freebie, and it almost gets allowed anywhere in the county. I mean, I don't see any in Pelican Bay. I mean, why are they getting off in Golden Gate Estates? It doesn't make any sense. MR. PALMER: Well, if they can only go on essential service sites, they have got accessories or reasonably affiliated with an already existing -- this is an affiliated essential service tower, which is what this case is. It has to be -- the essential service feels it already has to be there; the fire station, the police station, and the governmental entity. These things -- there are stand-alone essential services. This is not one of those, because we are putting this already Page 22 January 17, 2002 on a facility that is in and of itself an existing essential service station. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: If I understand you correctly, there are no out clauses in the current lease agreements in place. Would it be possible, considering the potential approval of this petition before us today, that it be an added requirement that an out clause be included in this new proposed tower that should a sheriff or some other yet unknown critical essential service come in, that they would have a priority position on the tower? MR. PALMER: Well, right now we have the right to utilize -- in fact, the ordinance requires that the governmental purposes on the tower be 51 percent -- at least 51 percent governmental; that leaves the residual of 49 percent available to the extent that someone applies in a private sector to get a leasehold interest in the section not reserved to the government. Are you saying if somebody gets on there on a five-year subagreement that another governmental entity comes about, they can bump those people? COMMISSIONER BUDD: That's about -- yeah. That's what I'm asking. MR. PALMER: That's legally possible. Whether or not that would be workable from the prospect of somebody that wants to come on on essentially a short-term terminable agreement might nix the value of the tower on the marketing standpoint a great deal less. Because, essentially, like a person on a airplane, you don't know whether you have a ticket, and you could be bumped out. It means people would be more reluctant to come on that tower in a status that they can be bumped out, because a layer need is perceived by the government. The way to do that if you want to have that reserve yourself is to Page 23 January 17, 2002 build a tower yourself and reserve it 100 percent to yourself and use it as needed. That could be reserved for years. It may be many years before the total capacity of the tower is exhausted with occupation. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Do we know who is the tenant at the 145-foot level? MR. PALMER: I don't know myself, but certainly the fire folks know. They entered into a contractual relationship with that entity. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to know before we get into voting on this. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Strain. Do either of the county attorneys know if impact fees could have been used to pay for this tower if it entirety if the -- it was deemed necessary? I mean, a lot of the reason why these towers are happening like they are is because we like these free offers that we are getting from private companies. Just out of curiosity, since we do have impact fees for EMS and we do have impact fees for other essential services, could the impact fees pay for those towers? MR. PALMER: I think that -- this is a capital improvement. If it's necessitated by growth, I do not believe that-- depending on its uses for -- obviously, some of the uses is going to be EMS. I believe a certain percentage of this tower, at least, could be funded by EMS impact fees. If sheriff is going to use part, perhaps part can be used by sheriff impact fees. It's a question of, No. 1, is it driven by growth, and, No. 2, is it the kind of capital improvement that is susceptible to lawful expenditure of a given impact fees. We have eight types of impact fees in the county -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. PALMER: -- and they are limited, of course, to particular types of capital improvements. Page 24 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think you can understand we are a little considered about these free offers that we are getting. There are always strings attached to it. The strings we -- on the fire department we didn't realize, collectively, from the county until after it happened, and now we need other space and we have to go with another free deal. MR. PALMER: Well, what could be done, of course -- and I don't have the details on the fire station, but they could have reserved the highest portions of the tower specifically for governmental uses where there would not be an election to allow the private enterprise on the highest part of the tower; that can be done. I don't know the private enterprise in that particular case got the best site on the tower. But that's a question of negotiations between the fire people and the private entity that is on that tower. But the county itself does not approve the subleases. Once the county approves the lease between the county and the fire department, they do not come in for subsequent review approval. They, essentially, enter into those subagreements, and they are the contract administrators of those subleases. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Palmer, do you know if is it being done here? Has EMS been reserving the top parts of the tower for future essential service like you thought -- MR. PALMER: Well, certainly in this tower they are because they need the top 145 feet. Then the question is whether or not the next band would be available to private enterprise or that would also be preempted to governmental use. That can be in the lease. I don't remember if the lease has these specifics. But right now for sure the EMS is getting the top section. We can put in the lease the governmental use will be from a certain height -- 110 feet above or above and all private uses will be below that; that is not an Page 25 January 17, 2002 uncommon provision in these lease agreements. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I can picture the Tower, 51 percent of it we would have liked and 49 percent they would have? MR. PALMER: And you can do that on the vertical, if you wanted to. You could say the governmental uses are the top 51 percent and the private use shall be below that, depending on the needs of a particular private enterprise applicant. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You had an open question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The only question I have is I would still like to know who the tenants are on that lease and when those leases are up. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ms. Flagg, do you know that? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. That is a private contract between the Golden Gate Fire District and the people that they have signed a contract with to put on their tower. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The fire chief is not here? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's public record, though. You mean it's private but it's public record, so you could get the lease? MS. FLAGG: I personally don't know that information. Both his -- what he made clear was that he already has leases -- signed leases with his people that are on his -- the flagpole that is planned for the front of our tower, we have a lease that has already been approved by the board. This -- this purpose is just to get your approval to put the flagpole up from a permitting standpoint. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Basically, I'm personally opposed to have too many towers. If there is space on the fire station that can be made available for this purpose, I would like to see that done so a new tower does not go up, so we don't have these flagpoles Page 26 January 17, 2002 going up on four buildings. MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir, I understand that. We did after the last meeting at your request talk to Don Peterson, Chief Peterson with Golden Gate, and he indicated that he does not have space on his tower at the height that we need, and he has contracts for the spaces. I don't know how many of his people are private, and I don't know how many are government. I do know the ordinance requires, I believe it's 51 percent be for government and the balance be for private. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think where we are coming from is that, okay, we acknowledge the testimony that there is a contract in place on the current Golden Gate fire district tower. What we don't know is -- that tower is slightly less than five years old, and it's a five-year lease. If that lease may expire in 30 days or in 3 months, we are going to look like a bunch of dopes that we approved a complete new tower and, in fact, that space will be available in an extremely short amount of time. And I think. Mr. Adelstein, where he's coming from-- and I share his concern -- is making the decision without the information if such a fact might exist and we don't have that information. MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. If I can just summarize for you that Chief Peterson has advised he has contracts on those locations, but more importantly how this whole project came about and why it is essential services is the purpose of this flagpole is to provide a piece of a wireless network system for the EMS department so that we can provide hard-copy dispatch to the medic units when a 911 call comes in. The reason it has to go -- this flagpole -- and we have to be at 145 feet is the -- it's a wireless. It's point to point line of sight to the other stations. If we -- if you all do not recommend approval of this flagpole, then we are going to have to put a flagpole up somewhere else to get that transmission across. The purpose of this whole thing Page 27 January 17, 2002 is to provide hard-copy dispatch to the paramedic units. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't think anyone is disputing the need. You took us through that last time. We all agreed. You are doing a good job and all of that. What we are trying to do is our part of the job is to find out if there is some other way to do this that is more economical in total in terms of the number of flagpoles that we see that are proliferated. For instance, you say it has to be at 145 feet. Technically, could it be at 147 feet? Could it be at 150 feet? Could it be some other space higher than that and still satisfy your needs? MS. FLAGG: Well, as it is entered into the record that if this flagpole does not go in, we would have to rework the project and put one or two -- or more flagpoles somewhere else to make the project work. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Excuse me. We still have not given up on there being a possibility of a space on that other tower. I just want to try and find out technically whether it's required to be at exactly ! 45 feet on the fire tower, for instance, which is not available, or if we can find out that there was space available or soon to become available on the fire station tower that was higher than 145 feet, would that satisfy your needs? That's the question. MS. FLAGG: If there was space on the fire tower, that would certainly satisfy it from line of site. But the other component of this and why this is such an important project for EMS is because we are trying not to use any tax dollars to put this project in place. By putting this flagpole up, they are paying $35,000 up front to allow us to put the wireless project in place. In effect, we are going to be able to provide hard-copy dispatch to EMS units county-wide, and it's not going to utilize any tax dollars. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You are describing the free nature of this to EMS. I guess we are still on the side that says Page 28 January 17, 2002 maybe we can get it free also on the 51 percent that is available to -- for critical uses on the fire station tower. MS. FLAGG: Except that the difference there is that Nextel is giving the tower to the county for ownership, and Nextel is paying $35, 000. If we put the antenna on the Golden Gate tower and completely rework the plan, we would still have to figure out how to come up with $35,000, and our only option would be to go to ad valorum or potentially impact fees. That was something that impact fees are already preplanned for other projects. But, again, the advantage of this project is that we went to the board, explained to them that EMS needed a wireless network system, and we had come up with a way to provide hard-copy dispatch to all the units without costing any tax dollars. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is it your statement then that if we obtain the 145-foot level on the fire station and that didn't cost us anything -- because we own that tower also -- MS. FLAGG: No, sir, we do not. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The county does not own it on the fire station? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. The fire station is a separate government. They come to the county for approvals, but they are not part of Collier County. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: They are a governmental entity, though, aren't they? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And they would charge our county if we put that up on the 145-foot level? MS. FLAGG: They are -- Mr. Abemathy, they are a governmental entity, and we don't know if they would charge us. I would hope not, but we don't know. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Let's assume for the moment of this discussion that they would not and we were able to put your Page 29 January 17, 2002 equipment at that height. Would your system then substantially work as it was planned to at no cost to you? MS. FLAGG: Technically, yes. However, we would still be lacking the 35,000 to put the system in place. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They are actually paying for our system also; is that the answer? MS. FLAGG: This flagpole provides the revenue to put the system in place, correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I thought the thirty-five was to erect the flagpole. The thirty-five is cash payment? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. MR. PALMER: What it is is prepaid rent. They are prepaying the rent so we have cash on hand. They are going to rent this tower. It is going to cost money. sum prepayment of rent. together. What they are going to do is make a lump- They have the money to put the system CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: A lot of this discussion is somewhat circular and doubles back to a lot of things we said at the last meeting. I thought we would have every chapter, verse, footnote, fact that could possibly bear on this brought to us today. Now we don't, and I don't know how long we can spin our wheels on it, to tell you the truth. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, what specifically is it that the commission needs to know? Is it the name of the specific leasee on the tower at the 145-foot level? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's what one member wants to know. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And the contract. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In other words-- MR. PALMER: We can find that out. That is public record. We can probably call the fire station if somebody is available and Page 30 January 17, 2002 find these facts in a matter of a few minutes, as long as the person that knows these facts is there and has a copy of the sublease. These are very simple matters, factually. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I used to be a commissioner with the Golden Gate Fire Department, and I know you can call them and get the information. But I would want to rely on a county attorney or a legal professional to review that contract to see if it has a termination, under the terms of the termination and deadlines. I wouldn't trust staff there to do in regards to legal means. I can tell you that from experience. I would rather see a legal professional do that interpretation. So could you -- do you have a copy of the contract that you can review, and we can hear the rest of this later today? MR. PALMER: I have never seen the sublease agreement. I don't think we have that. We have seen the basic lease agreement. We can have it maybe faxed to us, and I can look at it very quickly and see if it has any kind of a bumper provision in it; that would take a matter of minutes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would the Chair consider a short continuance on this? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think we can put it back until you come back to us until you are ready to talk about it. MR. PALMER: All right. I can try to contact them immediately and see if we can't have this information faxed to us. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We will just move on to the next item then. MS. FLAGG: Thank you. We will be back to you if-- pursuant, of course, if we can get ahold of Chief Peterson. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's see if we can resolve this today. It's obvious that this commission as a group is loathed to approve another tower without being satisfied that there is absolutely Page 31 January 17, 2002 no alternative to that. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, you-all don't have final approval. Again, you are a recommending body. You can always opt to recommend denial, or the petitioner can, you know, request a continuance again and come back with the information if the county attorney's office can't provide it for you at this time. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I recognize we are just recommending, but we would like to do it on the basis of all the facts that we can marshal. MS. MURRAY: I understand. That's just an option to consider. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I encourage the commission to make a motion to continue until later in the agenda. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I so move. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any discussion? All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We will revisit it sometime later today. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, before we move too further on to the next item, is there any other particular piece of information that the commission at this point sees may be necessary in order to make a recommendation in this matter? I don't want to get us down the road and-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Then redo it. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: It seems to me that we have just been going over this week everything that we discussed last time. What we are trying to ascertain is, can EMS get the proper frequency on the tower that is standing and is it possible. If so, when? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I find -- excuse me. I'm sorry. I find it that 145 cannot only be a magic number. I have been Page 32 January 17, 2002 involved with these before. And if you get above a height, a sight-to- sight, you are probably a little better off. I don't understand why the 145 or 155 cannot do. Yet it bothers me that I cannot get a definitive answer to that question. MS. MURRAY: I think that was answered. I think the only remaining answer is whether or not there is a lease that is going to terminate in the near future that might make that space available. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not only for 145. Let's say 150 or 160. MR. MURRAY: I think Miss Flagg says she needs 145 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This flagpole is 165 feet high. MR. WHITE: There could be potentially interference issues that arise from the location of the antenna at any other height regardless of whether it's better on a site-to-site only. That is based upon my prior experience with similar issues. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which brings up -- I think we also requested back on the 20th, I believe it was, that we see some sort of frequency allocation due to the potential interference. All I see that is new here is a letter dated January 9 from a David Quinlen of Nextel that says that it should not cause significant interference. Well, "should not" is hardly strong enough for me. I have been involved in an awful lot of "should not" statements and it usually is. So I would like to see a frequency allocation chart for the people that intend to go on there and the ones from across the street. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Are we ready to move on to Agenda Item D? That is PUD-2001-AR-1494, PMS, Incorporated, representing Kenco Development. Any -- all persons intending to testify on this matter, raise your right hand to be sworn. (All parties sworn.) Page 33 January 17, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any disclosures? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have quite a few. I spoke with the applicants agent PMS, Inc., and we discussed -- she described to me the concerns that she saw with -- the last time it was brought forward to us concerning the -- some of the inappropriate things that were in the report versus what they had intended to submit, so I think hearing it today was probably a good idea. Also, we discussed my concern over some of the commercial uses that were to be applied for, and I suggested she relook at those commercial uses strongly. I also spoke to Marjorie Student and Ray Bellows in a conference call concerning delaying the last meeting because of the lack of sufficient information. I have various e-mails gone back from Dawn Wolff and I. Dawn's department had not reviewed the final package in this case. They had just gotten it, I believe, on Wednesday or maybe Tuesday, from what I see in her e-mail. I'm not sure how much transportation -- she did have some comments from transportation regarding some of the uses not qualifying pursuant to the traffic impact statement that was done. And I have an e-mail from a Mr. Ardenhalt from the Pebblebrooke Lake Subdivision. He asked that his e-mail be submitted to the record. Is that okay ifI do that, Mr. County Attorney? MR. WHITE: I don't have any objection. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Who do I give it to? MR. WHITE: I believe the court reporter. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Other disclosures? Mr. Wolfley. Page 34 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. I spoke with Ms. Bishop as well regarding the uses and -- within the Pebblebrooke community. And also I may have to abstain due to an appearance of conflict of interest with the applicant. My question to Mr. White is, would my abstention would that-- should I or should I not comment throughout the -- MR. WHITE: If your intention, Commissioner, is to abstain voting because of a conflict-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Potentially. MR. WHITE: -- a potential conflict, you still have the right to participate in the discussion on the matter. You just must abstain from the vote. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Other disclosures? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I spoke with Karen Bishop. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, sir. I spoke with some residents of Pebblebrooke; Jerry Brusso, Craig Haas, and Jeri Buehler. I also spoke with Karen Bishop, the owner's agent, and received an e-mail from Russell Ardenhalt that was submitted to the record by Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER YOUNG: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I received an e-mail also. No other disclosures? No. Mr. Richardson, anything else? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I received an e-mail. I didn't realize it was on this one. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I did too. While we are on this subject of disclosures, ex parte communications, Ms. Student advises me that the county attorney in response to our question about ex parte communications has reiterated his earlier advise that each of us as individuals can decide not to engage in ex parte communications, Page 35 January 17, 2002 period. So that being the case, I'm going to take the county attorney up on it. Henceforth I do not intend to engage in ex parte communications on matters pending before the Collier County Planning Commission. And I invite each of you do whatever your desires are in the matter. I don't think you need to make it a matter of record. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, current planning staff. The petitioner seeks to rezone the subject site from PUD to PUD for the purposes of amending the Richland PUD. The purpose is to reduce the number of dwelling units from 650 dwelling units to 400 dwelling units and reducing the residential acreage by approximately 3.2 acres and increase the commercial tract by the same amount. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on the southwest comer of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. This is currently a development -- or PUD that is currently under development. We have a copy of the currently approved master plan. As you can see, the existing commercial tract comes in and is predominantly oriented in the -- down. Along the frontage of County Road 951. The proposed change to the master plan increases the commercial tract by 3.2 acres along the southerly direction shaded in this cross-section area, resulting in the final master plan to look like this (indicating) with the commercial tract here. This is an existing subdivision being developed to single-family subdivision. There is requirement by transportation to provide an interconnect from the residential portion into the commercial tract. This would allow residents within the development to access the commercial portion without having traffic to head on to County Road Page 36 January 17, 2002 951 and back out -- back into the commercial tract there. That would really drastically improve traffic circulation at that intersection. The petitioner has not requested any changes to the list of currently permitted commercial uses within the PUD. Those will remain the same. The future land use elements indicates the project's located within an activity center. This is the future land use map (indicating). As you can see, it's located within that activity center, which is the place where county encourages commercial development. So this particular commercial tract is solely -- wholly within this activity center and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan for a wide range -- full range of commercial uses. The transportation review indicates that there was an estimate done by Chahram Badamtchian concerning the possible difference in traffic growth. His estimate was that the project could -- this proposed amendment could increase traffic by 3,750 trips. That's an estimate based on the increase of square footage possible with this additional acreage of approximately 75,000 square feet versus the reduction of dwelling units. However, it should be noted that this estimate may be -- not taken in all the factors, such as reduction of trips due to the interconnection of the residential tracts to the commercial tract, which would reduce the traffic volume coming in and out of the PUD. So we have a revised traffic estimate that indicates that, in fact, there may be a slight decrease in traffic as a result of this petition based on the reduction of dwelling units and interconnection of this project to the commercial. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The report said there was an increase. MR. BELLOWS: The environmental review by staff indicates that the subject preserve area, as you see here (indicating), will not be encroached upon by the change in the master plan. They have Page 37 January 17, 2002 recommended approval. The staff has had discussions with many of the residents within the community of Pebblebrooke. Some of the concerns raised by the residents was the interconnections to the site may cause a lot of traffic in front of their homes, and they were concerned about the landscaping between the two projects. The petitioner also had a public meeting with the residents there, and I think there was some agreement as to how the landscaping and buffering and the gated entrance into this commercial tract should be handled. And it's my understanding that some of the agreements that have come out of those meetings with the residents included-- if I can show you on this one particular map, this is the location of the interconnect into the commercial tract (indicating). The county's planning staff is recommending that the gated entry occur approximately 20 feet north of this tract boundary line to allow for any stacking of cars to occur on the commercial tract and not on the residential tract in front of these lots here. We also are requiring additional landscaping and buffering, a wall along this tract line to help buffer this commercial from the residential units. Staff is recommending that that stipulation be added to the PUD document. Staff has received three letters in support of this petition from residents within Pebblebrooke, and I have received one complaint, basically, because of the location of the gated entry into the commercial tract that would be on their road in front of their house. They prefer to see that interconnect on the other road. I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ray, before we get to substantive questions, let me ask sort of a housekeeping and procedural one. This item is denominated PUDA -- so forth. Does that not connotate a PUD amendment? Page 38 January 17, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. PUD is amending -- we are amending an existing zoning district, the Richland PUD, but we are amending it through a rezone process of repealing the old ordinance and crediting a new ordinance; so technically it's a PUD. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Going PUD to PUD. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That becomes a PUD amendment. Really, you are scraping the old PUD. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. But-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You are not amending it. MS. MURRAY: Technically, I will agree with you, Commissioner. It should read, "PUDZ, which is the acronym for PUD to PUD rezone. In effect you are amending the PUD but -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But the way you do it -- Ron Nino taught us so well -- was to go from a PUD to a new PUD. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Then my question is, if this is a PUD rezone, should we not have the findings necessary to support a PUD as a part of the package? MS. MURRAY: Are they contained in there, Frank? MR. BELLOWS: This was intended to be a PDA. It's a process -- yeah, the PDA, we're amending an existing zoning district, and it's minor changes. We have a strikethrough and underline. It was just a housekeeping method of going from PUD to PUD. So therefore there was no need to do the findings for rezone because that was already done when the project was rezoned. We're not re-inventing the wheel. We are basically making minor changes to the existing zoning district. The changes were minor enough it was determined to be a PDA. Now, there should be some question whether this should be a Z or an A -- it's my understanding -- and I have been here 12 years -- that we do it as a Page 39 January 17, 2002 PDA. It's just a form of convenience that we repeal the old ordinance for the new ordinance. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It seems to me that the questions that you have to answer for a PUD, the answers might be different considering all of the changes that are made. MR. BELLOWS: The changes aren't to the uses of the land. The uses still remain the same. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MR. BELLOWS: It's just switching acreage around and reducing dwelling units. So those conditions were already reviewed and approved by this board and board of county commissioners. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, let's get to substantive. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, would that argue then that we can ask no questions about anything except just what you consider to be insignificant? MR. BELLOWS: No. As previously stated to this Planning Commission, any PUD amendment whether it's PDZ -- repealing the ordinance or PDA, amending and just repealing the old ordinance with the new, it still opens up the entire PUD document for review, and it's distributed to all of our review agencies, and they look at it as a new zoning action too. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In that spirit, then, was this -- does this subject to the public participation process since it's a brand-new PUD? MR. BELLOWS: This petition was submitted prior to the adoption of that ordinance, so they did not go through the public information process as currently adopted by code. However, the petitioner has on their own accord held public information meetings to make up -- since they submitted prior to that ordinance being adopted. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, we don't have Page 40 January 17, 2002 any record of that; that's part of the public participation process or any commitment-- MR. BELLOWS: This was in the works prior to the adoption of that ordinance. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This change in the traffic impact is kind of curious because the document that we have says there is going to be 3,750 more weekday trips. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I don't have any other information, except what you have given us verbally, that this number may be a lesser number or may be even be a negative number. MR. BELLOWS: The applicant has their traffic consultant here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No, I'm wanting to hear what the county's traffic people have to say about it. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And I believe we have Dawn Wolff here to answer specific questions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That would be helpful. MS. WOLFF: Dawn Wolff, transportation planning department director. We did review a specific transportation impact statement provided by the applicant's consultant. We required some modifications to it to include additional detail. They will be increasing the overall traffic. We were not included in that specific write-up, which was referenced that Chahram had calculated the number and had since been recalculated between Mr. Bellows and the applicant's consultant, Mr. Jarvey, on that. The specific change in the square footage area, I believe that is contained in the information, although I cannot attest to it since did I not see the specific numbers that Mr. Bellows was referring to. I am assuming based on the fact they were confirmed with Mr. Page 41 January 17, 2002 Jarvey and we found that there traffic impact statement was sufficient and consistent with the requested applications, that those numbers would be consistent with their impacts on the system. It is greater than what was previously approved. However, with the board's direction from the December 18th meeting and the commitment to make improvements within a 3-year time period on both Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road within the impact area, they were deemed to not have created a significant and adverse impact on any of the roads based on the current growth Management Plan policies and procedures. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ms. Wolff, I'm sorry. I didn't catch the number. MS. WOLFF: I don't have that specific number right here, because I was not afforded the opportunity to put those numbers together for you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is it a number higher than 3,750? Is it less than 10,0007 MS. WOLFF: It's less than 10, 000. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's your considered view that the condition of 951 and Immokalee Road are such that they can handle that much more traffic before the improvements are actually made? MS. WOLFF: I didn't make that specific statement. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Cannot say that, no. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But I would like to hear some assessment on your part. MS. WOLFF: Based on the level of evaluation that we are allowed to do because of the information that we have at the time of a rezoning application, which is extremely general, the evaluation is made on what potentially is a presumed level of impact for a maximum land use of that area. Page 42 January 17, 2002 We were provided a square footage number of 231,000 as a total commercial square footage with some reductions in the residential units. We allowed some compensation and reduction of the difference between what had previously been approved as the commercial total square footage, which was 125,000, and the reduction of residential units to come up with a net new traffic number. We did allow them, because we are requiring -- since this is a singular PUD project. It's a mixed project. It's supposed to be -- to have circulation throughout that it includes an interconnection to the residential portion. We did allow for a partial reduction in external new trips from that commercial because of that interaction between the residential trips that they wouldn't be going out on the major road system. So there was some allowance for that. If this is built in the next two years and becomes active, will it have a significant impact on the roadway system before those road improvement go in? Yes, obviously it will. However, we are required under statute and under our Growth Management Plan to consider the capacity that will be created for projects which are committed for construction within a three-year time period. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Did you read Brent Batton's article in Monday's Naples Daily News about the three-year grace period? MS. WOLFF: No, I did not. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's instructive. He claims that the county chose the most permissive of the three options available and in that a catch-up period of three years is allowed, and the county didn't have to do that. The state gave some choices that you could make. If what he says is true, then, perhaps, some of us might want to go back and take a look at -- at the Land Development Code inasfar as how permissive we really want to be at this stage of the Page 43 January 17, 2002 MS. WOLFF: Actually, it's not the most permissive. The statute allows for five years for the local plan. Only three years for the state plan. The county has chosen through its policies and procedures to be consistent with that which is allowed for the state program, which is to only consider the three years, because of financial availability, because of priorities which may need to change due to changing traffic patterns that aren't necessarily specific to development patterns that allows us the flexibility to address issues that may arise beyond that three-year period. If we go all the way out and commit ourselves a full five years, we are really pegging ourselves into a series of absolutes and leaving very little room under our revenue availability to make any adjustments which need to be made to address additional new system deficiencies -- ones that may come on line that aren't necessarily specific to new project development coming on line. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But some more restrictive option. Five is the least restrictive. Three is next. What is the -- if you wanted to tighten up, what is the option? MS. WOLFF: The county could have the option of anything which is within the current fiscal year capital program. Some areas of the state have been that restrictive. However, we would still be forced under statute to recognize three years of the State's program. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ms. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Brent Batton says, "Instead of using the three-year window, a county can elect to count only facilities that are actually built. That would effectively slow development while roads, drainage systems, and so on catch up." So we could change our concurrency law to that effect. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If he's right. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Is that right? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It is the newspaper, after all. Page 44 January 17, 2002 MS. WOLFF: I would not speak to saying if that is or is not correct. I don't have that specific statute in front of me to say that that is absolutely correct. I believe we would be in a legal situation to say we would only presume that level public facility availability is -- has many definitions, and what is legally sustainable. I believe -- I think Patrick could support me in the fact that I think that could put us in a situation of not really meeting the intent of the Growth Management Plan. However, I will not speak to that in regards to what Mr. BaRon's article states. I did not review it. I have a tendency not to. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here, here. MS. WOLFF' But the fact is that there is current policy onboard in regard to what and how we may address it. Yes, staff is currently reevaluating what thresholds are and will be coming forward with Growth Management Plan amendments, as well as Land Development Code amendments in regards to determination of adequate public facilities. Yes, they will all be drastically different than what is there today, and that is consistent what we spoke with the Board of County Commissioners about during our late November and December meetings with them in regard to AUIR. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Could we then maybe -- staff could do some intensive study on the possibility of reviewing and revising our concurrency -- MR. FEDER: For the record, I'm Norman Feder, transportation administrator. What I would like to point out as Dawn mentioned, we are looking at a number of things, very significant things. Modifications of that whole provision that is annual update into the report and our concurrency management system 315 of the Land Development Code. One of the things we will look at is the issue -- and we are already looking at our time frames. But as Dawn pointed out, the Page 45 January 17, 2002 State has a three-year time frame. They provide for five years. Collier had already gone to three. The option of whether you go to a lesser time frame and what the implications of that are and how much it meets your needs versus many of the other things you are looking at are things that we are looking at right now. We will be bringing issues back by mid March based on direction, if that's what we are given from the board, the 22nd to set up a specific schedule for next round of land development changes. There are a lot of issues we brought forward. One we brought forward to you with PUD, provisions with access management -- that is already moved forward. But there are quite a few other things we are looking at. As Dawn points out, there are issues we have to look at, and we have to weight those back and forth. We will do that in a public forum and obviously seek your input on those before they go forward. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, just to close up, my last little thought with both Dawn and Mr. Feder -- perhaps, there is -- back to the incident case here which is, perhaps, there is a way we can find a middle ground here. I wonder if you would be kind enough to craft or consider crafting a development commitment that we could give to the applicant to consider that they would not bring on line this additional commercial capacity, which is creating extra traffic, until our growth facilities are in place. It would be, in effect, a denial of COs until that would occur. MS. WOLFF: That is something within the purview of this commission to make such a recommendation that no COs would be issued until such time as there is availability of the capacity of the multi-laning of these roads. It would be somewhat similar to what was imposed upon a PUD in November. I believe it was in regard to a phasing of it. Perhaps a phasing might be considered upon that. Page 46 January 17, 2002 As we said, our program identifies a design construction phase in the next fiscal year to start. Such construction would start within a three-year window to meet our obligations. The condition, as I said, might be such that they would only be permitted to construct but not receive certificates of occupancy until the capacity is available. Which in this case, such as Immokalee Road is not yet fully completed, but the capacity is available, you won't say, "Until such time the contractor turns it over to us, "but there is some -- there is a difference between. Being done and done done with some roadway projects. You have a couple of months sometimes of cleanup, but you have the capacity available such as -- Pine Ridge Road has been open for awhile with multi-lanes on it but which are not completely finished with it. That would be an opportunity that allows the capacity necessary improvements. One thing that I would like to point out, though, is that we do have a couple of other phases and stages that we will be having them address when they come in. When they come in with a site development plan, when that site development plan requires them to do a specific site traffic assessment with the particular land uses they are going to be putting in, we are going to be looking at things like how much -- how many access points do they really need, what kind of access points do they need, what kind of geometry do they need, what kind of impact in this particular instance, what kind of impacts are they going to have at that intersection of 951 as it exists today, and can they fully function with it prior to those improvements coming on line? We may make limitations they can move forward, but not CO at that time as well. So there are a few triggers in there yet. And if the direction is followed in regards to concurrency and some reason the project was not yet built within the time it needs to be and the capacity is not available when they come forward, Page 47 January 17, 2002 someone else can come along after them and be on faster track and consume all the capacity under a checkbook method they can come in and need six lanes before -- under an extreme situation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: MS. WOLFF: On this case-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Dawn, back on this case. I'm asking on this case, as our expert in this area, craft that language for us to consider including. At least from this commission's point of view I would like to see that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question for you about the traffic circulation elements significant test of 5 percent impact. You say that projects have less than 5 percent increase, then it's acceptable. How do you take into account the accumulative effects of many different projects having less than 5 percent? Because what we see when we drive down that road now is that's a very busy intersection, and there is a lot of traffic delays there and also danger because of the congestion there. MS. WOLFF: The cumulative impacts of the -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. You have 5 percent. Each one can contribute up to 5 percent extra. What about the cumulative? That does not address all the cumulative effects of all the ones that have already impacted the road and all the ones that may that may be less than 5 percent. MS. WOLFF: We are addressing that through our traffic impact statements in regards to we don't just let them say, "We have X percent background growth in there. "We are also requiring them to look at other projects which have come into the pipeline as well, and they have to consider the guy up the street who has already just gotten his approval for his 5, 000 units, he had to add those into his background trips as well in determining whether or not -- whether they are -- 5 percent is not the issue here. Because, yes, in point of Page 48 January 17, 2002 fact they are 5 percent, the problem is they are not adverse. They don't create a deficiency based on the committed road improvements that we have in our program. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But where is the math for that? When I read the reports, it just says it passes the test because it's less that 5 percent. Where do we have a documentation about the prior impacts to the road so that we can address where we are at? MS. WOLFF: As stated previously, I did not make those statements in that write-up. I did not have a participation in what was written in your staff report. What I can tell you is that part of the submittal as they provide -- and they provide a lot of documentation and backup that is not necessarily included as part of the package that you see before you because of the level of technical detail that is supposed to be more technical staff to do, but this is the traffic impact statement that was provided to the county for review and evaluation along with supplemental analyses as requested of the applicant in order to make it a complete submittal for review. In it is included increases in the background traffic for the duration of the build-out as well as other projects which would be consistent with that time frame. All I can tell you is that we are doing a better job at getting the projects that are coming on line and their representative to be more inclusive. We are not letting them come in one after another and everyone using the same baseline number. We are watching that. It is not something that is necessarily included such -- as I said, this thick document-- in each one of your packages for each. Individual review. What is contained in your staff summary report was generated by another staff person. And so I cannot speak to how those numbers or statements were made. MR. FEDER: Let me add, for the record -- again, Norman Feder, transportation administrator. In addition to requiring in the Page 49 January 17, 2002 traffic impact study that they look at background traffic, taking into account other developments that has already been approved, part of what we are looking for in change is we are looking in moving changes and going to checkbook method -- I know that you have heard that terminology -- but basically what that means is that every time one is approved it becomes a debit to that basic service volume remaining capacity out there. Once we go to that process, we will be in a lot better shape to specifically identify to you link by link what that remaining capacity is, what this new development is asking for under that capacity, and therefore what the balance in the checkbook will be after that. The other issue that you asked us to craft relative to that, we can work some language. Again, also on that issue you have a five year -- we are working on three years, we said here, in the county consistent with the state's, but there is also the issue of whether or not that is when you are programmed for approval, which is typically what has been looked at in the past or when you anticipate your construction will be basically open and that capacity available, which is a different statements -- which is another year and a half out further. There is a number of things that we are going to look at there. But in answer to your questioning, I think Dawn pointed out we are not allowing them to do the traffic impact statements now as we look at them without looking at that cumulative impact based on the background traffic that they start off with an analysis. And the 5 percent rule, we are looking at some modifications there as to test the significance, you can have, basically, a smaller project that always comes in under 5 percent every single time and still have significant impacts. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think Mr. Strain is straining to ask a question here. Page 50 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I have quite a few questions. I will try and keep them short. Page 1 of the traffic impact statement, which I know the rest of the commission did not receive too, shows that there is going to be a shopping center use. It's called LUA-20. It's calling for 231,000 square foot, and it says it's going to be built in the year 2003, which is a year from now, not three years from now. So the impact is going to be a year from now. Dawn, I think -- I know you have read the synopsis that I did on the zoning issues. Can you tell me if shopping center LUA-20, the calculation included used by that designation included used car dealers, boat dealers, gas dealers, drive-in theaters, movie theaters, shooting ranges, bowling alleys, motion picture theaters; items like that? Because that's what -- if we approve the commercial uses that are asked here today, that's some of the uses that could go there. MS. WOLFF: Those uses that you listed off, there is only one in there that I can say is consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the trip generation manual handbook's definition for Land Use A-20 Shopping Centers, and that would be movie theaters, but that would be indoor movie theaters, not drive-in movie theaters. The other land uses should be calculated under a separate trip generation rate and are not consistent with the definitions contained in that normally accepted manual in regard to trip generation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What about hotels and motels? MS. WOLFF: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Based on that then, is the TIS -- I thought you previously said the TIS was acceptable. Is the TIS now acceptable, because if they get approved today with those commercial uses and they have a TIS that references an LUA-20, what is it that we are approving? MS. WOLFF: The land uses that are inclusive of that series were not explicitly identified in regard to the traffic impact statement. Page 51 January 17, 2002 It was identified as a shopping center. To a great degree we try to rely upon the professionalism of those who are submitting these applications in providing us what is contained in the application for approval and consistent with that application for approval. The additional land uses, some of which you have read off, such as used-car dealership, boat dealership and the like, have independent land uses and trip generation rate that in some cases are higher than that of a shopping center. A shopping center is generally a consortium of multiple-land uses, which can include a supermarket, storefronts with post office facilities, dry cleaners, tax preparers, and the like. If you take and look at the trip generation as individual land uses, they are going to vary widely. A shopping center rate tries to average them, and it's how you apply that shopping center rate is really dependent upon what your ultimate design and layout is, which is -- since we don't have that level of specifics at this point -- this is just a range of uses. The intent is to identify as shopping center uses, yes, several of those uses which you have stated would be inconsistent with it being explicitly a shopping center would have different rates. Some of them twice as much as what would be a shopping center, but if you have an equal balance, they tend to average out for what would be a shopping center rate. If, for instance, you have a supermarket, which is your primary square footage, it has about a three times rate of an average of an overall shopping center, and therefore it skews your actual trips coming out of there. That is one reason why the specific details of how you access circulation, requirements off site need to be left until the site development plan stage. We try and deal with the best information that we have. I would agree that certain of those land uses should not be considered as part of-- as being consistent with the application that was prepared and submitted to the department. Page 52 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's kind of the bottom line I was wanting to hear. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Dawn, when doing the traffic study that we did that -- was it taken into account not only the increase in commercial but the decrease of 250 units in residential? MS. WOLFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I have got a question relative to this square foot of commercial space. I'm looking at the PUD document dated 9/11. It has the strikethroughs and underlines. It's clear under project density that the maximum gross leaseable floor area is no longer 150, 000 square feet -- that has been struck through. And maybe you can clarify for me, I couldn't find anywhere where it says what the new commercial square foot area is in the documents that we have received, which would somehow seem to be relative to the traffic input. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We will have the petitioner place that back in. Really, because the traffic impact references certain square footage, the PUD document should be consistent with that. We will request that that number be placed -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: The PUD document, if I read it correctly, is silent on that issue and does not cap the commercial space. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The documents just -- base the density based on the acreage of the commercial area and the required setbacks and parking requirements dealing with the size of the structure. The older PUDs was a strict square footage limitation. But given the nature of the traffic concerns these days, we will request the maximum square footage be placed back in the PUD document. Page 53 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What will that be? MR. BELLOWS: Prior to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. What will that be? What square footage are you going to request? There is 231,000 in their TIS. Is that what you are looking for? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Whatever their proposal will be based on the traffic study. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The traffic study that Dawn has said is inaccurate for all the uses that they have applied to use? MR. BELLOWS: Well, based on the square footage. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, I have some other staff questions, if we are through with traffic, which is a fascinating subject and one that we hopefully go through many times. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm interested, Ray, in your assessment of the substitutions to the county subdivision regulations. I'm -- of course, I was not around when this originally went through, so I'm happy to have an opportunity to look at it as a brand-new PUD. On page 6-6 of the PUD it says things like you waive the requirements for a 1,000 foot maximum deadend street. Now, I thought There was a reason we had that as -- for instance, was a fire and safety reasons, not to have long cul de sacs. MR. BELLOWS: This is currently approved in -- the PUD was approved prior. That is not what they are requesting now. This is an approved condition. It was already approved. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Why? MR. BELLOWS: Why was it approved at that time? We'll have to pull their staff report at that time to find out what was discussed. This is an approved condition. This is not what they are requesting now. And the subdivision is mostly built that -- the Page 54 January 17, 2002 Pebblebrooke single-family subdivision is nearly built out. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You are saying -- MR. BELLOWS: This is an approved condition; that why this is an amendment to the PUD. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Wait a minute. We have been through this. It is not an amendment to the PUD. This is a new PUD, and we have a chance to look at -- and all the agencies should have within the organization had a chance to look at it. If you are saying this is an as-built condition, then we are, in effect, providing cover for them to let these conditions stay in; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Given the fact that the subdivision is built, yes. The subdivision was built consistent with this condition that was approved prior. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we are to take on faith there must have been some good reason that that happened in the past, even though it's against the county subdivision regulations? MR. BELLOWS: It went before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. It was approved. Preliminary subdivision plans were approved and built and constructed to these standards. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anyone else? I do think, Mr. Richardson, there may be two issues there. One of them is whether PUD to PUD reopens each and every item of a prior PUD. Mr. Nino used to try and convince us that that wasn't so, but I don't think the law supports that. I think we can go back. But in this case it's moot because it's already built. So two issues. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I would remind you you have six registered speakers, as well you have not heard from the applicants. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Are we ready for the petitioner? Page 55 January 17, 2002 MS. BISHOP: Good morning. My name is Karen Bishop. I'm an agent for the owner. I'm not going to give a presentation, but I will try and address some of the things that I was hearing, specifically the traffic issues. When you look at these traffic statements, they do them as if everything is completed and in place at one time. There is an absorption rate that goes through this. For instance, this project was zoned, this PUD was created in 1990. The first person didn't move into this place until around '97. So you are looking at a seven year-- even though at that time the traffic impact statements says, here is how many trips you are going to have, it's seven years before the first person has moved in. Right now we have approximately 200 residents living there now. So out of the 350 units that will be left in there residential, only 200 of them are currently living there. The commercial, which was -- as I said, the first PUD was 1990 was not finished until this year. It took 11 years for that commercial to be utilized. So you are looking at phasing of sorts just because of the market. That comer will be an activity center at sometime, fully operational, hopefully, a lot better shape than Pine Ridge and Airport, but that is what it's destined for there. But I dare say that it doesn't pop up instantly. You are going to see a phasing just by virture of rents and markets -- and even right now the Publix shopping center is not at full capacity. They have plenty of spaces that are available for rent. The master plan, the commercial master plan itself all through our existing documents -- when you put these things together, you try to anticipate what your needs are going to be. You try and anticipate the acreages you are going to use. All through these documents are verbage that says approximates, that the final lines will be determined at final permitting and platting. If I were to change uses -- Dawn Wolff now is looking to have Page 56 January 17, 2002 each applicant at SDP level do another update of TIS, so that gives you -- if I said there was going to be 200 single-family in a certain area but then I change my mind and I make it 200 multifamily, then that traffic statement changes. I would have to update that each time that I make those kind of changes at the time of permitting, at the SDP or platting level. The current commercial acreage includes 2.75 acres of right-of- way that we have dedicated to the county. Essentially, even though it says 25 acres, 2.75 of that is right-of-way that belongs to Immokalee Road and 951. The kind of situations, the interconnect, which is I think a very important -- from a traffic standpoint as well as what we are looking at throughout all of these projects where people have to go outside the road, there are projects around the Carillon Plaza, because Carillon would not allow them to interconnect -- have to literally go out on Airport Road or Pine Ridge Road just to go get milk and bread. So these kind of things are good and things that we need to do. Finding a good transition between commercial and residential are something that we pretty much see everywhere. We don't see people doing crap anymore. You see -- with our new community character plan, you see commercial facilities that have four-sided architecture, that have garbage areas that are covered. You see a lot more vegetation. You see shielded lighting. I mean, these are things that people are doing on their own based on the new criteria. In our case the buffer between residential and the commercial we have some cross-sections that we have prepared, which are shown right there (indicating). I can give you each a copy of those of the kinds of things we are looking to do here. When we started our permitting, we had intentions of that commercial road running through the middle of the preserve. Page 57 January 17, 2002 Unfortunately, South Florida Water Management disagreed with that and the Corps of Engineers disagreed with that, we had to waylay that connection, which would have been from our perspective a better interconnect. This is all we have left is this one piece to interconnect. And because this is a one unit -- one planned unit development, the internal accesses are important to be complete. Now, of course, at the same time being here on the comer of an activity center does not behoove us not to have gates because we would get all kinds of cut-through traffic there. As a matter of fact, I live in the subdivision and so does the owner. We both live there. I can't imagine not having my gates there, because every high school kid at Gulf Coast, you know, at 2:25 that doesn't like that line in front of 95 l's intersection is buzzing through our subdivision at, like, 80 miles per hour. Those gates go automatically down at that time and come up a little later. At night they go down. So we would like to keep that privacy. The gate we are proposing is intended to be inside the buffer. It is not intended for the residents at either side of that gate to have to look at this gate go up and down and the car stop in front of their yards. We are also looking at traffic calming devices in there that, perhaps, in front of this gate 100 feet or so we would put a speed bump so that you are almost at a dead stop by the time you get to this area as it is. I did bring my traffic engineer to try and go through all of these issues with traffic with you because, unfortunately, this staff report that are -- Chahram's original staff report we did not receive until the day after the Planning Commission was postponed last time. So we did not really have the opportunity to address what the heck was going on. We have since then looked at it and have addressed it. And, unfortunately, I'm not sure how Dawn was left out of the loop -- I can't speak to that -- but we are here to discuss those things. Page 58 January 17, 2002 Some of those uses that you have discussed, Commissioner Strain, certainly we're amenable to remove some of them from that area. When we did this six or seven years ago, those were the kinds of uses -- I mean, this was out in the twilight zone at that time. Nobody -- who would have thought that everyone would have been moving out here? Those are the kinds of uses at the time that seemed appropriate, especially hotel/motel. You are on main drags -- two main drags, and you're not that far -- three miles from the interstate. It seemed appropriate at the time. We are willing to remove some of those uses to be more in tune with what you might consider what we see when we look at some of these commercial intersections. Car dealers certainly does not seem appropriate. The drive-in theaters, perhaps, not also. But I dare say, though, a gas station would be appropriate, because I have seen them at every activity center pretty much in town, and -- at least at one of the comers. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yours says for gas dealers; bulk liquified petroleum. MS. BISHOP: We don't want that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's right. MS. BISHOP: I just want a gas station up there so I can go get gas on the way to work. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You have that one, too, but you also have the bulk gas. MS. BISHOP: We will be glad to remove the bulk gas from that. It was not intended for that use. Really, when you put these things together, you throw the smorgasbord together trying to make a decision on something that may or may not happen -- in this case -- 11 years later. So what we need to do then at -- certainly at your request and some of the residents' request is remove some of those uses, which we are willing to do. Page 59 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How would you propose doing that at today's meeting? MS. BISHOP: What is your list? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here it is right here. There are about 170 uses. You are welcome to have a copy. I have a copy for the Planning Commission members as well and for public record. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just pick out two that you would like. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any residents who would like a copy, there are some extras up here. MS. BISHOP: The used car dealers, no problem. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, she needs a copy. MS. BISHOP: The first three which is used car dealers, boat dealers, and gas dealers, no problem. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: One for the court reporter. MS. BISHOP: So far going down your list-- well, unfortunately that is not going to happen. Used car dealer is dead. Boat dealer, dead. Gas dealer, dead. Drive-in theater is dead. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Why don't we take 10 -- MS. BISHOP: Oh, good. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: list. Excuse me, Karen. The court reporter needs a break. -- and you can work down that MS. BISHOP: Great. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Recess for 10 minutes. (A short break was held.) COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Meeting will come to order, Ms. Bishop. MS. BISHOP: I want to go on the record to say that I spoke Page 60 January 17, 2002 with Commissioner Strain during the break just to look at the list along with the transportation director. Actually, it's a lot easier than I thought it was going to be. The uses at C-1, C-2, and C-3 except for retail nursery seem to be all fine. I do want to clarify that under the veterinary we would have no outside kennels which was already mentioned in the PUD. And the hardware store would not be a stand- alone like a Home Depot; that would not be allowed either. When we get up to the C-4 and C-5 uses, some are appropriate; some are not. I will read that list of not appropriate uses. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Starting at the top? MS. BISHOP: Certainly. Starting at the top, we have used car dealer, boat dealer, gas dealer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Those are inappropriate? MS. BISHOP: Inappropriate. Drive-in theater. Then we get down to hotels and motels, equipment rental, refrigeration service, furniture repair, miscellaneous repair services, bowling center, and the shooting range and water slides; which I'm personally going to miss. Those are the ones that do not appear to be according to the transportation director-- don't fit in a shopping center stuff. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Dawn-- MS. BISHOP: It's Karen. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Karen, I'm still on my. Last question. You said C-1, C-2, and C-3 are not appropriate? MS. BISHOP: No. Those are appropriate uses, and those fall under the shopping center guise of what Dawn was talking about with the current TIS. Even though if somebody had come in with one of these other uses not covered under the current TIS, they would have to -- like I said, at the time of permit -- Dawn reassesses your traffic again. So if anything was funky, at that point they would have a problem. But we will remove the ones I mentioned off. The rest of Page 61 January 17, 2002 these uses are appropriate for shopping centers. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. MS. BISHOP: My kids are going to miss the water slides. Can -- I have my traffic guy here to discuss traffic. I'm sure you-guys want to hear from him, and specifically he's here to answer questions for you. Is there anything else, though, Commissioner Strain, that you want to address? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will wait until I hear the public and see if they have any other concerns about the other uses. One of the things that I wanted to know -- I guess your traffic engineer will discuss it. I heard the property is being considered for sale. If that's the case, the new -- one of the new companies that may be purchasing, as I know, is a quick mover. This might get built out rapidly. Do you know anything about that? MS. BISHOP: I know there is a contract on it. As of this point, I know that it is with DeAngelis Diamond. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MS. BISHOP: Do I know what their schedule is? No, sir. It could be soon. It may not be soon. It's all based on the market. Nobody wants to build commercial that does not get rented. I can't speak for them, and I don't believe they are here. Maybe the owner later on can discuss, if he has any knowledge, as to what their schedule would be. But I do know they build quality product. At least I have that comfort level. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No problem. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Miss Bishop, one last thing. I'm interested in the traffic numbers, as we have all expressed, but my eyes will tend to glaze over with a lot of numbers. What I would really like to hear is, as represented in the applicant, that you would agree to the conditions that we talked about earlier -- because Page 62 January 17, 2002 of this absorption rate that you so eloquently defined -- it's probably going to be slow building out anyway, that you would agree to not bring these projects on line until the capacity in the road was actually available. MS. BISHOP: No, sir, I would really like not to have to do that. As much as I appreciate what you are trying to do, which is certainly to be commended, all we have to go by when we do these projects is what the rules are today. When you change the rules, we will adhere to those rules. In this case, you know, we had this being an activity center, the -- what could have been permitted here and built here would have been a 40-acre commercial center, which is the typical size of the activity center, commercial areas on all four-comers which will be at some point a seven-unit-to-the-acre density band goes around that, which means my project could have had 800 units in it and 40 acres of commercial. So that's not what this owner did. This owner decided to do something that was quality. So his density at 650, I believe was -- is right. Around 5 units to the acre. He has since then brought that down to 350 with this commercial -- and then we have this commercial comer. We have done so much already to give up for that -- lessening the impact on the roads and creating a better neighborhood. It was -- for all intents and purposes, this area was intended to be maxed out; that's what these activity centers are intended for. But as we are seeing that's just not what the market bears. We are doing less and less. We are making those choices by not utilizing the maximum zoning abilities of these areas. In this case I would suggest that I would not really want to do that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, you would agree it's within the purview of the Planning Commission to -- Page 63 January 17, 2002 MS. BISHOP: Certainly. If that's what you want to recommend, but, yes, I would say -- I would not want to do that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Karen, I just have one quick one. You say the total commercial was it 237, 000 -- MS. BISHOP: 231,000. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 231,000. Is that including what is currently there? MS. BISHOP: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What is currently there? How much? MS. BISHOP: One hundred twenty thousand is what is permitted currently. We were allowed one hundred fifty maximum. And like Ray said, they used to put those numbers on there -- but typically it's 10, 000 square foot an acre is typically what you do for commercial. At that time we were still going through environmental permitting, and we did not know what we were going to be left with in the end, so we put a number up there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You are saying that Publix center now is 120,0007 MS. BISHOP: Correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So you are looking for 110, 000 more? MS. BISHOP: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You mean that little strip of land is going to give you another 120,0007 MS. BISHOP: No, sir. We had a lot more commercial land set aside for the least amount of density on it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You are increasing the density someplace else? MS. BISHOP: We are increasing the commercial density on the tract what was already designated for commercial is what we are Page 64 January 17, 2002 doing. It was already designated. The tract was already platted. What we are doing is increasing the density on that tract only and reducing the density internal to the residential. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you for clarifying. It's very misleading in terms of the depiction of showing a little strip being added. I thought that's where the new commercial was going to be added. MS. BISHOP: No, sir. It's going to be spread out over the rest. MR. JARVEY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Reed Jarvey. I'm a transportation engineer with the firm of Vanasse Daylor. I prepared the traffic impact statement for this amendment, rezoning, whatever the procedural -- exact procedure is. I will tell you also in a later life -- an earlier life I did prepare the original Pebblebrooke back in 1990 -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Surely, you will have a better later life. MR. JARVEY: Let me address a couple of points here and just from a clarification standpoint -- from a technical standpoint. I will try not to get into too much detail. I do know when I start these traffic numbers and eyes start glazing over and people pass out -- I will notice when you fall out of your chairs. I will stop at that point. We will look at the traffic impacts to this as Dawn Wolff presented earlier. Just for your clarification, I know you are not privy to the traffic impact statement. It was reviewed by Dawn and her staff. They had some comments in the fall sometime, and we resubmitted it in November. And it was approved in November. At that time we did a level service analysis for the proposed project, and what we felt a prudent approach would be to look at a fairly quick build-out, as was mentioned earlier to see what the impacts would be now. So we felt that with our experience in land development that roughly a year would be a potential -- or as quick as Page 65 January 17, 2002 it could be, so it really would be not this year -- it might be done this year, but it would not affect the peak season 2003. It would affect -- 2002, excuse me -- it would affect peak season 2003; roughly a year from now, you know, 13 months or so from now. That's what we addressed in our traffic impact statement. At the time we did it, Immokalee Road was being four-laned under construction and 951 was in its current two-lane condition. So we looked at impacts with a two-lane condition. Our impacts showed that both Immokalee Road and 951, Collier Boulevard, would operate within level service standards in the two-lane condition for Collier Boulevard and four-lane for Immokalee Road. From my standpoint I don't feel a phasing was necessary as was suggested; that's for 2003. Now, to talk about some of the differences of the staff report, which was the 3,750 units additional, I tried to replicate that number and, unfortunately, Chahram who did it was not with us. I talked to Ray Bellows, and I talked briefly with Dawn, and I could not replicate the number. If I just added from one hundred fifty to two hundred thirty-one thousand square feet, period, I came up with, like, 2,800. So I don't know where the 3,750 came from. But I did look at it again and tried to look at the differences from the original PUD in 2000 -- excuse me -- 1990 -- the 1997 PUD amendment and then what we are presenting. Just for your information, the original PUD, 1990, talked about 150, 000 square feet, as we have been talking about. Single family was limited at no more than or up to 130; multifamily was limited to up to 520. So you add those together; 650 units. So when I did that I took the trip generation that we used, the ITE methods that Dawn talked about, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and did their procedures and came up with a trip generation. And to keep it simple, I did daily trips -- I did daily and a.m. And p.m. Trips, which is what we use more -- we used the peak hour trips more than a traffic Page 66 January 17, 2002 profession, but I understand you-all know daily trips. Better, so I did that. I came up with an amount of trips of 10,156. So 10, 000. Okay. Then I looked at the 1997 PUD. The 1997 PUD doesn't -- doesn't differentiate between multi-family and single family. It just says 650 units. From a traffic standpoint, we would do a worst-case scenario. Single-family units do more trip generation than multi- family units. I did 650 single-family homes and shopping center of 150, 000 square feet, and I came up with 11,994 -- roughly 12, 000. Then I looked at what we were proposing. We proposed 231,000 square feet of shopping center. We have -- there is roughly 340 units there now. We rounded those up to 300 single family and 100 multifamily to keep the number -- to be a little conservative if something would change in there -- and we came -- we used because we are now interconnecting the shopping center to the -- to the residential -- and so the people that live there don't have to go out on 951 or Immokalee Road to get that loaf of bread or bottle of milk or whatever they might need, they can go internal. This is external trips now. So this is external impacts. There is -- ITE has a procedure for internal capture -- what we call internal capture; that the people -- the commercial trips that are generated by the Publix and McDonalds or whatever else is there as attractors. And the housing development that generates the trips, they have an interaction. So if I'm going to get that milk and I drive out of my driveway and drive through the interconnection and get that bottle of milk, that's one trip. When I get out of that car-- get out at Publix and get back in my car and come back into my house, that is another trip. You have it both ways. But I'm not on the external road network, not on 951, not on Immokalee, not on Vanderbilt -- all of those. Once again, ITE has a Page 67 January 17, 2002 procedure to look at those. When I added that internal capture -- and the other correction factor is past by traffic which commercial has, and I used that same corrections for the other two generations, I come up with 9,799 trips. Roughly 10, 000. So potentially when we add this together, we potentially have up to 2, 000 trip reduction. So, I mean, we won't know that until we get an actual Do -- when they build it, you see what actually happens. But using Institute of Transportation Engineer's procedure and the discussions that we have had and methodologies that Dawn Wolff and her staff and I have had, potentially we come up with an actual reduction from the existing PUD. So I wanted to make that clear, and for my purposes -- and I think for your purposes, from a traffic standpoint is probably you can say it's a wash at this point. Could it be a little higher? Yes. Could it would be a little higher? Yes. Could it be a little lower? Yes, it could be lower. The numbers show that it could be substantially lower. I just wanted to make that clear. That's really pretty much the end of what I want to tell you, but I will certainly answer -- at least address any questions that you have. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a question. I realize your methodology probably speaks to some generalized cases. But looking at the specific project with this big preserve in the center, it doesn't seem to me that people over on the western side are going to go all the way around to come in through this internal access. They are more likely to go out on Immokalee and come back in. The people that are up on the northwest quadrant of the development, residential development, I don't see that should help you in your numbers. Seems to me that would be -- if you factor in the real case versus the generalized traffic data that you use -- I don't know. MR. JARVEY: Commissioner, to some extent that is a true statement. I mean, what I would say to your direct question -- and I Page 68 January 17, 2002 have another comment on it -- is that those people -- more than likely I would agree. If they are up there, you know, 100 feet or 200 feet from the Immokalee Road access, they are probably going to Immokalee Road, go down to turn into Publix. However, when they return an easier trip would be to use the interconnect rather than trying to do left -- right turn and then a U-turn at the signal or come down Immokalee -- 951 and do a left turn out. So I think you would -- you know, potentially what you are saying is half of that trip would be true. Another answer to your question, when we do this internal capture, we do what we call is a balancing. There is no projected -- and unfortunately, I have the peak hour numbers -- so the numbers I'm going to tell you are not exactly correct for the daily, but they are along the same lines. What ITE has done in their studies says in a peak-hour standpoint, for instance, 53 percent of the peak-hour exiting trips from a residential development could -- are captured by the adjacent commercial development. Likewise, 9 percent of the commercial trips, entering trips, which would be the same trip, are captured. And in this case the -- what we do is a balancing. So it's a lesser of the two. You can't make trips. You know, if you have 50 trips going one way and you are only accepting 10 trips, that doesn't work. We balance them. We take the lesser of the two. In this case the commercial rules with the 9 percent. So some of those trips that the ITE say could capture aren't being captured anyway, because the commercial does not support all the trips that the residential area has. So I think what you are saying is a potential -- within the rules ! have -- within the guidelines I have is -- is -- I think it can be covered by other issues. But, yes, sir, that is a possibility. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, as I understand your testimony, even though the commercial is virtually doubling in size, these other pushes and pulls with the internal circulation will negate Page 69 January 17, 2002 the traffic impact of that? MR. JARVEY: I'm saying they potentially could. From my calculations they're showing -- actually, they are potentially less than what they are if you don't put the interconnect and you keep the residential and commercial as it is. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I respect your numbers. It just seems counter intuitive with that much increase in commercial. MR. JARVEY: I understand, sir. The big thing is the interconnect; that's why -- I'm sure you have been here before when Dawn's been up here and said, "We have to do the interconnects with the commercial areas. "I'm a proponent of it, and Karen Bishop -- if you have been here long enough -- has said it many times; that's the key to the local trips off of the highway network and let the people just go -- you know, get their loaf of bread or, you know, steak -- whatever -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Six-pack. MR. JARVEY: -- from an internal standpoint. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Reed, I don't know if you addressed this. I want to ask you, I was involved in a town meeting in OrangeTree not too long ago on issues that they were having out there with infrastructure. The biggest issue that came out of that meeting was the roads -- Immokalee Road and the backup of traffic getting into town, and it occurs at the intersection of 951 and Immokalee Road. It's two lanes to the east once you pass 951. I know you mentioned Immokalee Road is being four-laned; that will solve some probleMs. But you didn't address the two lanes of Immokalee Road coming from OrangeTree. Because the OrangeTree people don't have a grocery store out there of the size that you guys are going to have, they are going to be using that Publix. They are going to be using that shopping center. Have you looked at the Page 70 January 17, 2002 intensity there on that two-lane road? MR. JARVEY: Yes, sir. Let me look through it. From a strict level of service standpoint, it's -- and, once again, I'm looking at 2003, I'm -- I need to look a little longer. I think this is four lane and not -- I have to look through the rest of it. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, you have registered speakers. Would you like to maybe go to them and have him come back and answer that question later? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are you close to the answer, or do you want a few minutes? MR. JARVEY: I have it. At the intersection -- at the intersection there would be four lanes -- excuse me -- two lanes, what you are talking about going west -- at the intersection -- not out east more -- I realize -- but the intersection itself. At that point -- when that's complete, the level of service is adequate. It's within the standards. I'm not saying it is now, because it's under construction, and it's not that situation yet. But in the -- I think there are supposed to be done later this -- or, like, early summer or late spring. At that point in time, there should be adequate infrastructure at that intersection for that trip. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. As long as you have looked at that. MR. JARVEY: Yes, we looked at the intersection. Specifically we have four lanes -- two lanes going through. I have looked at it. And I have looked at it out farther, but, quite frankly, it's east of the intersection. I have not looked out -- OrangeTree way out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: backs up. It's quite a ways. MR. JARVEY: That's just how far the traffic Where I have looked at is four lanes. I was Page 71 January 17, 2002 worried about in the vicinity of the intersection itself. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Any other questions? Thank you. MS. MURRAY: You have six registered speakers. Your first speaker is Lull Johnson followed by Richard Creel. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Please come up to the podium. State your name for the record, and if it's an unusual name spell it. You have five minutes. If you will please limit yourself to that. If others of you are going to speak and your neighbors, please don't reiterate what has already been said. We need more and different and new information. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if each of the speakers will just state for the record whether they were sworn or not. I'm assuming they all were, but if not we will find out. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: we started this item? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Raise your right hand. (Witness sworn.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: State your name. MR. JOHNSON: Lull Johnson. Okay. My concerns are-- I don't feel that the traffic numbers add up. I know there is a LOS -- there is a level of service standard. I do not feel that even if those standards are met that they are adequate standards set by the county. All you have to do is drive these roads and know that there is a major problem right there on that intersection. I also don't understand how 350 people going to the grocery store, which you don't do every day, can be captured -- can capture 3,700 trips or 20 -- over 2, 000 trips. The information that was given from the DOT seems rather vague. I mean, there is not concrete numbers from the Department of Did you take the oath when Page 72 January 17, 2002 Transportation. But there is definitely a major problem. It's dangerous on Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. People from the Estates, people from OrangeTree, they are all coming down to this present Publix Shops at Pebblebrooke Lakes that are there. There is at least ten stores that I have counted that are not open yet. I have heard there is going to be a McDonalds, a gas station, a bank, what have you, in the already present commercial property. As those things open, traffic is going to increase. It has to. Adding more commercial property, now, I'm questioning the timing. Now, I think is maybe not the most prudent thing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Where do you live in relation to all of this? MR. JOHNSON: I live in Pebblebrooke Lakes. That's pretty much what I had to say. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think you can tell by the questions and comments that this commission has that we share your concerns, and we are trying to figure out a way to, if you will, legally express those in some concrete way that will have an impact in phasing this project or dealing with the timing issues that you have raised. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, sir. I did notice that. MS. MURRAY: The next speaker is Richard Creel followed by Colleen McCartney. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Creel, did you take part in the oath administration? MR. CREEL: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I was sworn previously. My wife is also here. I was wondering if I would be allowed to have ten minutes to speak on both of our behaves. That's fine. Let me proceed. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let's see what you can do in five. Page 73 January 17, 2002 MR. CREEL: I do have something that I would like to put on the overhead so we can all see what we had to -- what we were anticipating as development. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I assume your wife shares your views to a degree? MR. CREEL: Yes, sir, I think she probably does; although not all the time. What I would like to point out, No. 1, is that we were -- it was represented to most of the residents that there was going to be an interconnect in terms of a pathway so that we could bike or walk to the commercial area. And I would like to point out that if that was completed, then we would have a way to access that without going out on 951 or Immokalee Road. At this time there is walking or biking access via a sidewalk to Publix and that shopping center. And there is a lot of traffic going through that area. And we can all walk or bike over there within a ten-minute period of time. I think one of the major concerns that we have is the interconnect, because we moved into the community specifically for the purpose of living within an enclosed community. For instance, my 8 1/2-year-old son, I feel comfortable allowing him to ride his bicycle within the community because we have limited access. There is no through traffic. I have a beeper I put on him. I beep him. He comes home. When I lived in the City of Golden Gate, I was not comfortable with that because of the amount of traffic and speed limits. If we were to open a third access through there, then we're going to have that much more traffic. As far as the capture, the internal capture they are discussing, I would submit to the commission -- to the planning board here that in general most people are going to be coming home from work are going to go to the store and then they are going to come home. So I think that internal capture is being overstated in terms of the amount Page 74 January 17, 2002 of traffic that is going to keep off the road, because we are all coming home and going to the store and then coming back. The other great concern that I have is we already have tremendous problems with our gates. Our gates are wooden. They are broken probably 40 percent of the time. And at this time due to the amount of construction going on, they are open, basically, all day. If we were to open this interconnect, depending on how it was set up, first of all, we would have the problem of who's going to pay for it to maintain it, who's going to build it, and if it's of the same type of gate system that we have now, at least 40 percent of the time it's going to be inoperable. If it's on the same system as our current gate system is, then we are going to be in a situation where we have unlimited access to our community through this commercial area. I went to the dentist on Friday. I went up 951, and I had to go pick my son up at his elementary school, Laurel Oaks, came up Immokalee Road and was going to go down 951. I would like to point out just to the south of our development is an apartment complex opening up with a large number of units. It should be open in, I would say, the next six months. On Immokalee Road right next to where our community is, they are getting ready to build a large apartment complex, and down the road on Immokalee there is a large apartment complex that has opened, all multifamily homes generating a tremendous amount of traffic. I don't know what the plans are specifically for 951 at this time, but I sat through four light changes at 951. And, then, finally, being a resident of the community, I didn't feel quite so guilty about it, I turned around and came back through and went through the community and came back out onto 951 and saved myself about 15 minutes because of the backup. Granted, there is construction there, and that should hopefully improve in the future. You can see what my concerns are about that. Page 75 January 17, 2002 Also, I have grave concerns -- I believe the issue is -- and the fact of the matter is, there is a contract for sale open on the table right now. My belief is -- and this is my belief-- I have no facts to back this up -- my belief is that the contract for sale is, in essence, conditioned upon immediate approval. I don't think there is going to be any holdup in development of this. I think it's going to take place right away, and it will completely saturate our situation. I have two positions. Number 1, I'm asking the commission not to approve this plan at all. I would like to have the community as it was originally planned, an enclosed community with two entrances, where I can feel safe with my son out playing and not have to worry about internal traffic. I can tell you I live in Pebblebrooke Lakes. I live right next to the sidewalk to the middle school. I love to be next to the middle school, but I can represent to you that cars line up in front of our house right now to pick children up because they don't want to go through that line. The gates are open. That may change in the future, but we are already battling a situation with that. Again, as to the interconnect, it was represented to us that there would be an internal interconnect that would be a pathway. If you had a pathway interconnect, I believe that a number of people or a great majority of people would use it, and that would address some of the planning board's concerns about the interconnect. I think 951 is a big issue as well, because I don't know what the plans are for four-laning, or if they are going to four lane it. There is a tremendous backup at the light, not only coming in from OrangeTree but coming northbound to that light ! know that the people at OrangeTree and Falling Waters and Golden Gate Estates, in general, are delighted with the fact that there is going to be this Publix there. It's the closest one out to the Estates. I think it's going to generate a tremendous amount of traffic. And in my viewing of it, Page 76 January 17, 2002 it has already generated a tremendous amount of traffic. My concern is rather than wait to try and get out on 951 or Immokalee Road they will cut down through our facility and get back out. The other issue that I have is, you know, the first idea was to run a road right through our nature preserve. I have a serious problem with that; that has been resolved. But I just want to make a point that we all bought homes based on what we thought was going to happen. We understood that the residential of Phase 4 may or may not be single-family homes; it might be villas. It might be town homes, et cetera. But our understanding it was going to be residential. There is a large commercial activity area in existence. It's going to continue to develop, and I think it's more than adequate to serve the needs of the community as it exists right now. In terms of gas station which was mentioned, if you start at 1-75 coming down Immokalee Road to Pebblebrooke, you get off the road, there is gas stations right there immediately. You come down the road a little farther, there's a Hess Station. A little further down there is a Mobil Station directly across from Laural Oaks. A little further down the road they are getting ready to open up a brand-new Chevron. If we were to head south down 951 instead, you come to a brand-new Chevron that was just opened and just past that there are a number of other gas stations. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Could you wrap it up, please? MR. CREEL: That is basically my point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought so. MR. CREEL: The one other comment if I can make briefly, the uses that have been recommended, I disagree with a number of [hose uses. And what I would like to see allowed there if the commission were to agree to that, I would like to see a larger buffer zone. I would like to see the commercial folks responsible for the gate and specific Page 77 January 17, 2002 type of gate put up that is more secure than what we have, not a wooden gate that is going to break all the time. And I think that's about it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. Next speaker. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I have a question. On this display that is on the overhead, it is kind of zeroed in, so I cannot see who published this. Who provided that? Was it the developer or one of builders or-- MR. CREEL: It was -- sorry, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: -- or where does it come from? MR. CREEL: I can provide the first page. I thought there was five of you. I'm sorry. I made five copies. It's a home page that is available over the internet anybody can access. The home page is at the bottom of that particular picture. I would be more than happy to leave that. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I don't like it that much. I was just curious where it came from. MR. CREEL: I obtained it from the internet, and it was my understanding the developers prepared it. It was an exact copy of a map or a site plan that we were all provided with when we purchased our homes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. The thing I wanted to point out, Ray, if you can just get the commercial aerial back on the map from where you have moved it. There are two roads leading up into the residential area. The current zoning already is commercial for two-thirds of that area that is represented as residential. If you look at the lower cul de sac -- that short deadend cul de sac -- MR. CREEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Commercial zoning right now bisects that commercial -- that short cul de sac and wipes out two- Page 78 January 17, 2002 thirds of the other areas. Yeah. Right there where Ray's finger is about where the commercial line comes across now. So, just as a matter of record, this is some kind of sales or promotional literature. In fact, the commercial line was not where it was drawn here. It's much farther south. MR. CREEL: I understand. Part of the point I was trying to make is that part of the information was misleading. I think it goes to the truthfulness and veracity of the representations that are being made as to what is going to be done on that site. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Colleen McCarthy followed by Craig Haas. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Were you previously sworn? MS. McCARTHY: Yes, sir, I was. My name is Colleen McCarthy. Just in quick reference to this brochure, it is a brochure that was printed up by the association that is filing for this change in the PUD. And I have several, so I would be happy to hand them to you. They are printed up by the owner, the developer with his name and face on it, and there is no disclaimer as to anything being inaccurate. And it is the same one that you have up there. So we have been misled as to the amount of property that is commercial. Yesterday I went to both contractors in the development to get a brochure to hand out that they hand to potential buyers. And both of them, one being Beezer and one being Kimbel Hill, have this brochure in their folder printed by Mr. Saundry stating that this is what they are potentially offering to the future buyer. Now, I presented to Mr. Saundry that this was inaccurate. He said it was printed or made up four years ago, but it is being handed out today to potential buyers inaccurately. He said it would cost him money to print up a new one, so he hasn't printed up a new one. Page 79 January 17, 2002 Now, I would also like to request of you -- because our development is incomplete at this point. There are still hundreds to be built. We have an association that is headed by the developer. In that sense many of us do not think our association represents the residents. And consequently nothing has been presented to the residents -- I should say nothing -- but the fact we feel we have not been able to obtain in a timely manner since we only had a matter of ten days to two weeks. We would like the time to hire an attorney to represent the residents of the area in a more represented fashion, and I present that to you. And I thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And next speaker. MS. MURRAY: Craig Haas followed by Michele Goguen. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Haas, were you previously sworn? MR. HAAS: Yes, I was. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Go ahead. MR. HAAS: I have got a checklist here I would like to pass out to each one of the members, if you would, please. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You are Craig Haas. MR. HAAS: Haas, H-a-a-s. I'm here to speak about if the property is zoned commercial that the residents would like some considerations of what is going to be built on there. The buffer picture that he has got up here is something that I just got a view of today. We have drawn a diagram at the bottom, and it's -- excuse me -- it's relatively similar to what he has put there. That was one of the considerations that we wanted. At the start of the checklist, we were looking for dumpsters to be located outside of the takeover zone, which is the 3.2 acres that you are discussing the lighting, parking lot, landscaping, building to be low intensity and shielded from the residents' side of the Page 80 January 17, 2002 development. Interconnect, we would like a gate similar to the ones that we have. We would like to make sure that is for Pebblebrooke's residents only, and construction traffic cannot come through our subdivision. Mr. Strain addressed this issue earlier, which is Item No. 5. I have got copies of some of the information that they brought to us. We had a meeting Tuesday that Kenco Development did show up for. They had four items listed as to what could be developed there. There is actually 28 groupings, which Mr. Strain's list addressed very well. One of the provisions in there in the staff report is Section 4.4, Item 19. There is some verbage in there that the director would approve what is going in and out of there. We would like to maintain that stays in there for all issues or all commercial projects that go in there, to make sure that the residents -- residential friendly services. Item No. 6 is the buffer zone. And, like I said, we made a drawing up down below of what we would like it to look like when it's completed, which is very similar to what they have here. Like I said, this was just presented to us this morning. At our meeting Tuesday we asked Kenco Development if they would be willing to postpone this so we could get together as a group and have a united voice. As you can see, there is a lot of different opinions what needs to be happened here. They did not want to do that. We have had a couple of weeks to prepare for this and really have only had two homeowners meeting and really don't -- we are all going in different directions. We would really like to get together as a homeowners association and have one united voice. I don't know if we can make that happen today or not. But I understand the petitioner is the only one that can request to be postponed. So other than that I don't have any other things. Is there any Page 81 January 17, 2002 questions of what I have presented? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many residents of Pebblebrooke showed up at your meeting? MR. HAAS: The first one it was, I think, about 50, and the last time it was probably a similar number. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. MR. HAAS: The items I brought before you today -- there is probably about 20 of us that have put this list together. We haven't even had time to talk, as I said, as a whole group. This information is new. We keep getting more information. Like I said, Tuesday, which I brought copies, there were only four groupings that were told to us to be the SIC codes. The first four groups were all that were brought. And, in fact, there is Items 5 through 28, and each group has several items in it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When you saw the SIC codes -- I probably know the answer, but I kind of want to hear it from you -- did you know what those SIC codes meant? MR. HAAS: I was familiar with them. I didn't know exactly what they meant. I did meet with Karen Bishop. Like I said, there was only the first four items in the information they brought us. Items 5 through 28 and -- as you know, there is several items with each group. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. HAAS: We looked through those first four. They didn't seem, you know, very damaging to what property could be built there. Like I said, if this is commercial, what we are looking for is if it's built in a manner it will enhance our property and be convenient for us and not in a manner that is detrimental to our assets that we have there. That's all that I have got. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Haas, to summarize what you are saying then -- don't let me put words in your mouth -- you are in Page 82 January 17, 2002 favor of it with these qualifications? MR. HAAS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER BUDD: We have heard other people say flat they don't want it at all. MR. HAAS: That's correct. MS. MURRAY: Your next speaker is Michele Goguen followed by your last speaker of Jerry Buehler. MS. GOGUEN: Good morning. It's Michele Goguen. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Were you previously sworn? MS. GOGUEN: Yes, sir. Twice. I would like to revisit the issue of the interconnect briefly. As it was said by Karen Bishop earlier, twice before in the 1990 PUD and the 1996 PUD, the master plan had a drawing depicting a road going through the preserve, and for some reason Water Management, whoever it was, is now saying that it's not possible to do that. I would also like to point out that in the petition that is before you today, this is not a preserve. Is it written as a reserve which, I believe, the difference there is whether or not this area is protected or if there is vegetation and plant growth, whatnot, in that area that cannot be removed. I don't believe it's protected. It used to be when the road went through that area there were only 16 to 17 acres of reserve there. Now we have 30 and saying we can't touch it. In light of the petition and where the interconnect is being proposed at the end of Burnt Pine, I think we owe it to all of the residents to explore an alternative place for that interconnect. As you can see on the map, on Burnt Pine on the end where it is being proposed, our residents' gate is only a distance of four lots away. All the people that live in that side of the community, to the left on the screen, they are going to go out the front entrance and are going to be on Immokalee Road. When they come home, they are -- why come Page 83 January 17, 2002 in through the interconnect? You can go a distance of four houses -- believe me, it's not great -- come right in your residents' gate. I don't see a need for that interconnect at that location. Also, it's known as soon as the area gets permitted all the malaluca trees are going to be removed. I have been told that in the front of the reserve area there is a substantial number of malalucas that will come out. Why can't we explore the possibility of putting this interconnect, if it is mandated and said in the petition, it's recommended. I don't believe there is any mandate. There is no law that says we have to have it. It's recommended by the Department of Transportation. We need to look at the opportunity to put it elsewhere. Why can't it go up in the front, right alongside Immokalee Road, perhaps, and into the development or into the commercial area? There is no reason that it can't go there. It's more accessible to a greater number of the residents if it's not tucked away in a little comer in the back where you already have your resident gate already available to you in a very short distance. I would like to propose the commissioners here recommend that we -- we look into the possibility of opening up a different avenue or see how creative we can get with this. But I don't think that where it's -- it's currently being proposed is the only place, as it was said earlier, that was like the last resort place, the only place it could be put. I don't buy it. It's not true. There are other areas it could go. I would also like to mention that it was brought at the second residents meeting on Tuesday -- it was brought to our attention by Mr. Saundry that all of the records available to us, to the common public, in the records room and currently on file concerning this petition were either incorrect or inaccurate. I asked him at that time, I said, "Well, it's Tuesday night. If I go to the planning office tomorrow, am I going to be able to get a copy of what is going to be Page 84 January 17, 2002 discussed on Thursday morning?" He said he didn't know it would be available to me or not. How are we as residents supposed to prepare ourselves adequately, find who is opposed, who is object -- or who is in favor -- we can't unite ourselves and we can't come in here appearing as a really organized community without having adequate time, as has been said before, to have good documentation that we can rely upon in order to make that preparation. And I also would like to state the first community meeting that was held a week ago this past Tuesday was organized by residents, and it was attended by residents, and it was in excess of 50 people. I do have a petition signed by more than 50 people in opposition to this proposed change. And I have not honestly gone out there and pounded the pavement to see who else -- you know, what their voice is. Because the lack of information available to us -- there is no sense in running in circles on it. We need to know exactly in which direction we need to go, and without accurate data and without being able to rely upon the documents available to us, you know, it would be a waste of time literally to try and go out there and get opinions and get everybody's ideas. We need to know what restraints we are facing. I thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Question for Ray Bellows. Ray, in reference to the reserve/preserve issue, I had noticed in the PUD documents, Section 5, it refers to a reserve district. But then it refers to the Master Plan exhibit A, which has listed a preserve district, which is consistent with Michele's comments. Is there a significant difference between reserve and preserve? MR. BELLOWS: No. The reserve section, if you look at that, the definition clearly states it's a preserve conservation area. The designation on the master plan -- we can have that corrected to be consistent with the PUD document. It is, in fact, the same use. Page 85 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER BUDD: My second question was, I know it was stated earlier in the testimony, but can you refresh my memory. What were the governing authorities that denied or recommended against a violation of the preserve area? Wasn't that South Florida Water Management and someone else? I know it was mentioned. I can't remember. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Corp of Engineers. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Army Corps of Engineers. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Anyone else? MR. BELLOWS: The South Florida Water Management District. MS. GOGUEN: May I add one point, Mr. Budd? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead. MS. GOGUEN: According to the existing documents -- and this has been consistent since 1990 -- they are required to provide a minimum of 35 percent, which is 45 acres of open space. That open space requirement consists of three things; it's lakes, it's buffers, and it's reserve or preserve, whichever it is going to be. If they are going to take out vegetation in this supposed preserve area that is, say, the malalucas, the exotic plants, take over everything, so let's get rid of them. Or if they are going to increase our buffer, by whichever width that they increase this buffer, they are adding to that open-space requirement. So rather than put them -- you know, and, say, instead of having 45 acres of open space you are granting the residents this additional buffer -- reduce it by the same amount in your reserve area, perhaps, and make that your interconnect. COMMISSIONER BUDD: It's a great idea, but we can't do that. MS. GOGUEN: If it's going through the center and up on the road? COMMISSIONER BUDD: No, we can't touch it. Page 86 January 17, 2002 MS. GOGUEN: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Your last speaker is Jeri Buehler. MR. BUEHLER: My name is Jeri Buehler, and I have been sworn in. I live at 389 Sweet Bay Lane. And our house will be affected right here (indicating). I -- one of my concerns is the buildings that will be butted up against the buffer, that they not be any higher than one story. I don't really care to have a two or three story looking down into my yard. And if we chose to put a swimming pool in, to me that is a huge invasion of my privacy. We were told when we moved into the neighborhood that this cul de sac was going to be homes, larger lots with bigger homes; that's what we were told. Otherwise, my husband and I most likely would not have chosen that particular lot in Pebblebrooke. I also have an issue of safety. There are probably 100 plus children in our subdivision. One of the pluses is that we do have a middle school. The children do walk to school; that's a wonderful plus. I also have a handicapped daughter that works at the Publix grocery store. My question would be, if the road at the end of Burnt Pine Drive is to be open to commercial, are we going to have sidewalks for the safety of our children and the residents walking? Or are we going to, as I do now, continue to go out on 951 to the sidewalk and walk that way? If we are looking at the safety of our children, I think is a -- is a very large issue. I also do not agree with everything that Ms. Bishop has marked off of here. I don't understand sports and recreation club. What does that mean? What kind of place is that? The motion picture theater-- which would make huge amounts of traffic. You also have here miscellaneous retail stores. What does that mean? That's all that I have to say. Thank you. Page 87 January 17, 2002 MS. MURRAY: That was your last speaker. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ms. Bishop. MS. BISHOP: Okay. I would like to try and address some of these things. I will start with the last one, which was the sports club. I assume that is like a karate center or a workout place; those kinds of items themselves. I have not seen any other types of sport clubs in this area other than those kinds, so I'm making the assumption that's what that it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Gold's Gym; that type of thing? MS. BISHOP: Those kinds of things is what I'm assuming it is. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, that could cover things as a sports bar, could it not? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Right. MS. BISHOP: We had-- COMMISSIONER BUDD: -- 795 is a physical fitness center, which would be Gold's Gym and the like. MS. BISHOP: Right. Like the karate club and Tae Kwon Do clubs, and those would be something separate. You could also have boating clubs that met here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There is probably 30 uses that would go under 7997 as sports and rec clubs. Aviation club memberships, baseball clubs, beach clubs, boating clubs, bowling leagues, bridge clubs, football clubs, golf clubs, hunting clubs, racquetball clubs, recreation and sports clubs, riding clubs, shooting clubs, and soccer clubs -- it goes on and on. These are the kind of issues that when we have categories like this that are miscellaneous or they are more encompassing than what they appear to be; those are the things that cause the public concern down the road when all of a sudden something gets built there, and they don't realize it was part of the approval. Page 88 January 17, 2002 MS. BISHOP: We can take out the sports clubs. They are gone. I would like to take some of the things -- I took notes on some of the things. I will start with the sidewalk to the middle school. When we designed this subdivision-- and I designed this subdivision with Ken -- we had a -- prior to our corp and district permit, we had a whole different idea what this project was going to look like. The 1996 master plan was our vision of that project at that time, which was a road that went through this preserve. And as it was pointed out, at the time the preserve area was only 16 acres. Well, that was also, you know, our concept of what we needed to be saving here. Unfortunately, the permitting process for this site took over a year. During that process the wildlife agencies, the environmental agencies came in force and absolutely, positively required us to make that preserve 30 acres, to have a bird wading habitat experiment, which has gone awry, and to limit uses around that. We have since then platted this whole subdivision which was -- the platting of the subdivision was done in 1997, '98. And at that time the tracts were defined at that time, which was after our second amendment to this PUD. At that time we had to change our master plan to conform with the permits from the agencies. We had to plat that preserve agency and call it a conservation area, never to be touched again. That's what we had to do to get our permits to build the site. That's, in fact, what we have done. So that preserve area is not open for access at any point. It is, in fact, a reserve area. It has a conservation easement on it. The district, in fact, holds that conservation easement. So that is not an option for us. As much as we wish we had an option, it is not. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: minute? Can I pursue that for just a MS. BISHOP: Sure. Page 89 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It would seem rational, perhaps, the agencies that you deal with don't deal in those terms -- but it would seem rational to put an interconnect right up next to Immokalee Road. We have a lot of access roads that are not part of the major thoroughfare. I can't imagine that that would be something that you wouldn't at least be willing to look at. MS. BISHOP: Well, it does not belong to me anymore. It belongs -- the conservation easement belongs to the district. It's not up to me. I don't get to go back and ask them -- if I do ask them, they are going to say no. They have no reason to give that land away when we have another option internally on property that has already been designated for development. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, it's not as an attractive option in terms of looking at the total picture. MS. BISHOP: And I -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ms. Bishop, let me just say that, perhaps, our county and its transportation department would be willing to join you in trying to come up with a more rational solution. They can certainly represent to the current titleholders, if that's the case, that now we have a new situation here. We are trying to resolve it. We have people living there. And a little access road just across the top, if there is some mitigation or something, have you thought about? MS. BISHOP: Right. That's another issue too. The mitigation -- first of all, it would not be just a little road parallel, because you would have to have some distance off that intersection for it to be safe. You would be looking at more than just a little 60-foot strip across that top. The mitigation for this property, just for us to be able to do what we - did we had to save the on site. I believe my client paid $300, 000 already in off-site mitigation. MR. JARVEY: 450, 000. Page 90 January 17, 2002 MS. BISHOP: $450, 00 in off-site mitigation just to have what we have, and they locked us into this design. Going back now, there is no guarantee. I have never been able to go in and impact a conservation area to that degree without significant permitting nightmares and additional significant cost in mitigation and professional services. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What you would be taking back to them is not the project that you took to them before. You are coming in and asking for a new PUD with changes in it that we are struggling with to try and figure out how best to fit it into the community. MS. BISHOP: Right. But, unfortunately, the district -- they care about your zoning. They don't care that I had 650 units on there and I can't fit it on there. They don't care about those things. They care about what your permits and development lines are and what you, in fact, are saving. Those are wetlands up there. That is, in fact, what they required us to save. They are not interested that -- that some of the residents don't like this connection where it is. That is not in their interest. Their interest is to protect wetlands; that's, in fact, what they do. I don't know that they would even consider such a request, since there is a connection available through another access. Regardless of whether that was commercial -- which is underlining commercial, but residential, there still would have always been a connection there because this -- this project is one project total. All the roads are supposed to be internally connected. So we would be required by that -- by the fact this is one document to still have an interconnect there even if it was residential. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just a quick one. Karen, I think I Page 91 January 17, 2002 met you about a year ago on a project for the Golden Gate Fire Department. A situation occurred where the fire department was given some land, but it was land that was dedicated as a preserve to South Florida Water Management District. MS. BISHOP: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But if they could get that changed, they could use the land for a fire department. Of course, I didn't think it could be done. You did it. MS. BISHOP: That's true. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. You should put that kind of effort into this. We might have the results. MS. BISHOP: That was two different reasons why that was able to occur there. One is that the wetland line was not a part of the development line, so that was -- we were not encroaching into any of the district wetlands. Those were uplands there. The other reason that was able to occur is because the fire station is a public entity. Because it is for a public entity, the district looks at that kind of issue for the public good to allow that. And the preserve in that area was over 400 acres. This is only 30. You try taking out -- let's just say 3 acres; that is 10 percent of this preserve. That was not what was taken out. There was only 2 acres taken out of that conservation area at the Golden Gate Fire Department at that intersection. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But it was a dedicated preserve already given away. MS. BISHOP: It was a dedicated preserve that was not wetlands on that spot, correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wetlands can be bypassed sometimes by using things like culverts and elevated -- MS. BISHOP: You are still nailed at the impacts and secondary impacts to those areas. And I do believe in that case that preserve Page 92 January 17, 2002 had what would be considered extra credits for the amount of impacts that project had originally; and that's why there wasn't an issue for those 2 acres to be removed, because, in fact, they were not district wetlands. They were uplands. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Next item? MS. BISHOP: Sorry. I lost my place there for a moment. The sidewalk at the middle school was something that we all considered very important. And, yes, I'm one of those people who park up next to that sidewalk and drop my little girl off if she's running late or if it's raining, I pick her up there. The intent was to keep people off the road from having to drive next door. And, actually, one of the things this developer has spent the last five years trying to do is that sidewalk on Immokalee Road off the back of the curb was a part of the effort that this client and myself personally took on for almost two years to keep those kids from having to be on the back curb of that six-lane road. We also went as far as to make sure that the project to the south of the middle school, which is. Also Mr. Saundry's, has its connections and that project connects sidewalk to Ibis Cove, which has a connection to the high school, which has a connection to the elementary school. We have taken these interconnections for pedestrian access definitely to a standard that certainly the whole community should be looking at. But there are times when the pathways for walking aren't enough. And that in this case for the groceries, driving your car -- I mean, when I go shopping, it's every two weeks because I really hate to shop. My car is loaded down. I dare say I could not carry that on my back coming back and forth on my bicycle. When I send my kids up there to get milk or something, then, yes, certainly they can take that pathway. We would increase the sidewalks or continue the sidewalks into Page 93 January 17, 2002 the shopping center along that area. So, yes, there would be an interconnect of sidewalks for pedestrian access. At that -- it was brought up at the meeting on Tuesday that we only had five items there. I came with the existing PUD document that listed every item. We were only asked about several iteMs. I also came with my SIC book so that I could go through the detail of what was allowed in those things. We were only asked about a few of them; one of them being the car dealers, which I then looked at. And a gentleman asked, "Can I eat Chinese? Can we have a McDonald's? Can we have a Walgreen?" I said, "Yes, we can have all of those things." If somebody would have asked for more information, we had it readily available to supply to them when Ken Saundry was asked about the staffs files, I corrected Mr. Saundry's conversation. What he intended to say was that the original planner mistakenly used the wrong master plan when he gave you your last staff report, which I called some of you and found out that it happened. I did not get mine until the day after, so I had no way to know that that, in fact, had happened. That part of what was in his file was incorrect, but his files were complete. He has all the amendments in those files. Any person can go down to those -- I sent my office down there just to check. We pulled the documents from each of those subsequent amendments. There are also the platting documents which are available down there. And the platting documents are the instrument to which the lines were defined, which in our document it says that all these acreages and lines are approximate until we plat. And we platted. The plat had to be in place before any of these people could move into their homes. I'm sure you are all aware of that. The platting on that line was established at that point. The use on that tract to the north underlined was commercial -- Page 94 January 17, 2002 but Ken was looking at the market directions and seeing what else could go there, just like any developer does. You cannot -- it's hard to project what you are going to do. And it is a gracious idea to give up commercial for residential, if you can. That was something at that time he was looking at. But because -- unfortunantely, because of the impact of the residential by the roadways there and the future activity center in that corner, the -- it's not been as advantageous for a developer to put the two-story four-plexes in. I might want to point out a two-story four-plex or eight-plexs, two story, three stories are allowed. They would go right next to the single-family homes that are there. They would have literally no buffer, no wall. They would have the 15-foot normal buffers that would be required by residential, but there would be no walls, and there would be, obviously, whatever amount of traffic that would go by to go to those homes would be there, plus the interconnect to the commercial would be at the end of that tract, wherever that would be. So those things would still stay in place. Those elements are still going to be an issue whether or not this PUD is amended or not. That still has to be there. One of the issues that we -- that the residents may not understand is that when they build roadways -- at the time you do these PUDs, you are given an opportunity to pick your accesses on the roads. But during that process the transportation department clearly, clearly does not guarantee you that these are going to be there forever and that you are going to get median cuts when they improve the roads or that you are going to get a light or any of those things. Right now, based on what the plans are for this area, Pebblebrooke may be limited on our 951 access to a right-in and right-out and to a directional left but no lefthand turn to go north to the intersection. The Immokalee Road may also be limited to right-in, right-out with a directional left-in; and that's it, with no lefthand turn out. We Page 95 January 17, 2002 don't know any of those things yet. We are still in limbo on what those plans are going to be. If this commercial piece comes into play where it is, Dawn has agreed there would be a lefihand turn out of that commercial as a full intersection through that area, which would give us an opportunity not to have to head down to some other direction and U'ie-around and come back the other way. So that solves future problems that haven't even happened yet. We are trying to anticipate the needs for all of these things, because we don't want another full access into 951 because we are not really going to get that. As a residential area, we wouldn't want that. But having a gate-limited access through whatever parcel to the commercial shops I think is imperative for all projects. You know, obviously there are people who don't agree and that's -- you know, we are never going to get everyone to agree on this. You have seen it at Livingston Road, the Livingstone Wood's people, but yet I can tell you at Pelican Strand, you know, the commercial does very well up there. It's very beautiful. It seems to do well. All of those people that backup to it and see it everyday, we don't get complaints from those projects. It does work if it's done well. The same at the Vineyards. The Vineyards is another perfect example where that kind of commercial really works. They have no main gates on their main drags; just on the subcommunities inside that area. They work well. We are trying to work within good planning practices here. We understand that when you buy into some of these places -- when I bought into this place, that northwest area did not look like that at all. Beezer came back and changed their mind and totally redid it the way they wanted to do it, and it changed that whole idea. Well, that was their prerogative. They owned the property. They had that right. But it was still residential, which is what we understand. Page 96 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd, do you want to question now, or do you want to wait? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Well, I have a couple of things for you, Karen. MS. BISHOP: Sure. COMMISSIONER BUDD: One, from the residents there are three camps; "Don't do it. Not now. Not ever." You are, obviously, not going to do agree with that. There is the, "Postpone it. Give us more time to think about it." I understand your owner has declined to postpone. There is a third camp, which we can address, which is specific requested modifications. If I can get your response or your owner's response as to modifications which are agreeable -- MS. BISHOP: Sure. COMMISSIONER BUDD: There is a request that the dumpsters be located outside of the 3.2 acres that is going to become commercial. Is that acceptable? MS. BISHOP: I believe that's acceptable. I think more than just that. I think what they are looking for is the noise element. I believe the new community character criteria for commercial addresses that with those dumpsters and the way they are done. You have to wall them in now. You can't just leave them sitting out there. It's not just its aesthetics. It's nasty. You know, just nasty stuff. So it's addressed now through those processes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: And, also -- which is also consistent with the community character discussion is low intensity shielded lighting. MS. BISHOP: Correct. COMMISSIONER BUDD: That is agreeable to you? MS. BISHOP: That is agreeable. I want to point out when the activity center across the street comes in that we might want to be Page 97 January 17, 2002 looking at them big time. Because the bigger problem is going to be the activity center across the street with all the lights from the front of that place looking at projecting across to Pebblebrooke's owners also. So when that comes in front of you guys, hopefully you will keep in mind that there are residential people around there and nail them also with making sure their lighting is conducive of residential Wherever it's blaring at. COMMISSIONER BUDD: We make every effort to be equally oppressive. MS. BISHOP: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: How about the request that buildings located within the area of the 3.2 acres be limited to single story, the commercial buildings? MS. BISHOP: That's fine. COMMISSIONER BUDD: That the interconnects will have a secured gate. And I had a question. You talked about traffic calming at some point, a speed bump or something like that. Will that be on the commercial side, the new side, or would that be back on the residential side that is currently completed? MS. BISHOP: We had looked at this at the residential that is completed. Because I live at the comer of two half-mile straightways, so I'm one of the ones that is really affected. By the time they hit my house, they are doing 40 miles per hour. The kids play kickball right around that comer, so that is something we are looking at as a community. If it is necessary to stick a speed bump on the other side because we feel that this is a problem coming from the commercial, I don't believe that Don DeAngelis will have a problem with that speed bump close to the gate within that buffer area outside of his parking lot area. COMMISSIONER BUDD: The gate, there has also been testimony that the current gating system is kind of a flimsy piece of Page 98 January 17, 2002 wood. Will the gate that will be provided on the commercial side, would that be metal gate or something more substantial? MS. BISHOP: Actually, I'm going to suggest to you that we have agreed to put the same kind of gate that is there. The homeowners association at Pebblebrooke has the ability through their buying power to buy better gates if they want, but those were the gates that were provided to us when we came in. They are not intended -- they are intended to be privacy gates more than anything else, not security gates -- and to keep the pass-through traffic out. I'm going to suggest to you that it would be -- I would be hard- pressed to believe that when that full-cut intersection comes into that part of the commercial area that somebody would think it would be better to cut through Pebblebrooke to get out than go through a full and-- perhaps, even lighted intersection where you can turn left or right. So I'm of the belief that it's not necessary at this point. If we want a better one, when we buy the other two better ones, if, in fact, the homeowners choose to do that, we can upgrade that one also. COMMISSIONER BUDD: On that gate would it be approval to the developer that should it be approved with conditions that the gate would not be open at any time for construction traffic? I know right now there are hours of operation. MS. BISHOP: Construction traffic will not be allowed to cut through the project. COMMISSIONER BUDD: It will be a 100 percent active gate right at the beginning? MS. BISHOP: Correct. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Then there is a buffer layout that was discussed here by one of the residents, and there is a buffer layout there, which I don't have a copy of, I have not seen before, and cannot see from this distance? MS. BISHOP: I have stuff for you. Page 99 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER BUDD: I was interested in, is this buffer acceptable or similar? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You need to give one to the court reporter. MS. BISHOP: Okay. As you can see, the buffer is in the same dimensional criteria as the one below. I think we showed our wall closer to the center to make a more even berm. But I don't see that his -- the problem is two-foot berm in an 1 O-foot area does not. Leave a flat spot on the top. I don't believe that the design that the homeowner provided will work, but we can certainly do it very similar to that. Start the berm at the edge of that 30-foot line. I think to make it a maintainable berm, it has to be a 3 to 1 for it to be maintainable. So at a 3-to-1 slope the berm will come up 2 feet, which is 6 foot in -- yeah, 6 foot and then you have a flat spot of a couple of feet, and then 3 to 1 again. It would be at the minimum probably -- about the center of it will be probably 8 foot in to 10 foot in from the backside of the buffer. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. MS. BISHOP: Which we tried to do, as you can see. COMMISSIONER BUDD: The interconnect, which is primarily a vehicle interconnect, would that contain sidewalks? MS. BISHOP: Yes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: So the same residential sidewalks that are currently there would continue right on into the commercial area? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Those are all my questions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The master plan that was up on the screen that had a preserve area, it does not appear that the Page 100 January 17, 2002 preserve area has changed. MS. BISHOP: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It looks like it's about the same. MS. BISHOP: We platted that several years ago. We cannot change that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The lakes look pretty close. MS. BISHOP: Correct. What you are looking at now is a master plan; that is, in fact, the platted -- here is the project here (indicating) on this area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let me get to my question, though. The document that we have that was last approved for this project called 16 acres of preserve and 22 acres of lake. The document that we just got from planning staff says the preserve is going to be 31 acres and lakes will be 22; that's changed sometime then. You have built something different than what you previously were approved for? MS. BISHOP: When we originally did-- I had done the zoning prior to receiving my district permit; so that's what happens. You guys see it all the time. Zoning and environmental permitting have had -- in the past had no real connection. You put a master plan out there and then get your permit, and you are -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If it's over a 5 percent change, aren't you suppose -- there is some rule that when you get to a certain change you are supposed to apply for a substantial deviation. Ray, do you recall what that rule is offhand? MS. BISHOP: That's for DRIs. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, it's not. It's for PUDs. MS. MURRAY: No. Typical PUD language allows for minor changes due to permitting, but it does not necessarily define what minor is. There is no threshold. MR. BELLOWS: If you are discussing a PDI, a master plan Page 101 January 17, 2002 change, that has 5 percent, I believe, criteria is what is a substantial change if they are trying to do a PDI of the substantial master plan change. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have it in front of me. What happened, this project changed its preserve areas -- they doubled those, which is positive, but they cut the lakes in half. And in your mind that wouldn't have required a previous requested change to the PUD? MR. BELLOWS: Not to the PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Also, Karen, your buffer area -- not your buffer so much as your open space -- requirements is 30 percent, which is 45 acres. You call out 48 acres in the text of the PUD, but on the master plan you only call out 42 acres; so how is that addressed? MS. BISHOP: I guess I'm kind of at a loss of what your question is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Turn to your PUD document. MS. BISHOP: The existing or the current? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The new one. MS. BISHOP: The new one. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 2-4. MS. BISHOP: Okay. Section 2.4. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. Page 2-4. MS. BISHOP: Right. Page 2-4. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You show 48 acres of open space. On the master plan, the only open space that you show is preserves and lakes, and they total 42 acres. The ULDC requires the buffers to be on the master plan. Do you know where those are going to be? MS. BISHOP: The buffers are already in place. They are perimeter buffers, the perimeter buffers around the outside of the project. Ken Saundry -- on the north and the west buffers, which are Page 102 January 17, 2002 -- east buffers, which are 951 and Immokalee has a 25-foot buffer there with a wall that he built and put in -- as a matter of fact, that's where we built the county sidewalk on our property, so that we do get that sidewalk outside of the curb. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They do need to be shown on the master plan. The master plan that we have does not show them. Do they need to be added? MS. BISHOP: Actually, no. This has already been platted, as I discussed before. This whole project is platted currently. The buffers are platted. The preserve is platted. The lakes are platted. Everything is even built. The only piece left not built is this one little square, which is north of the existing residential on the east side along 951. If you look at the aerial, you will see that's the only spot left in this project that has not been built yet. Those are already in place. And I can't change them because they are already deeded over to the owners. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not asking you to change them. I'm just asking you to put them on the master plan. MS. BISHOP: Show them, specifically? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm just looking at Section 2.7.3.1.1.3 and .4 of the ULDC where they call out the specific things that need to be on the master plan. I'm just looking for the buffers as part of your open-space requirements. MS. BISHOP: I will be glad to. But your open space do -- I believe also includes yards, doesn't it, Susan? MS. MURRAY: Yes, it does. MS. BISHOP: So it's not just buffers. Your open shows also yards, which I will not be able to show all of that as a part of my open. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, but on your 2-15 open-space requirements, you said this requirement shall not apply to individual Page 103 January 17, 2002 development tracts. Are those yards within residential tracts? MS. BISHOP: Correct. So my overall -- but I have additional open space, which does include that. I just made sure that we had open space that was not required -- or did not include those others. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's get simpler. I need your master plan. I think your master plan should show the 45 acres -- MS. BISHOP: I will be glad to do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- of that. The other item I have on your PUD, Page 3-4 -- Ray, I don't know if you realize this. This is between principal structures under single family detached has been reduced from 15 to 10. I'm not sure it's significant or not. I just want to make sure that planning staff was aware of it. MS. BISHOP: Right. That was done in 1997 also. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. I have your '97 one here. It was not done in '97. It was 15, I believe. MS. BISHOP: Principal structures? I'm looking right here, single-family detached on the 1997 one, I'm showing 10. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I have the '97 staff gave me. It shows distance between principal structures 15. MS. BISHOP: Well-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Maybe I have the wrong one or you have the wrong one. MS. BISHOP: Well, maybe so. Actually, let me look at my '97. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My question is, Ray, is that going to have any impact on your deal? MR. BELLOWS: From the planning perspective, the distance between structures on single family, 10 feet is still within what is typical on many PUDs. I don't have a problem with 10 foot. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. BISHOP: Actually, most of the houses out there have been built like that, except for mine and I have 15. Page 104 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But that's not what it says. It was changed to prior owners, and I wanted to make sure that staff was aware. The last thing, I don't know how many other objections there is going to be to other uses, the drinking places use -- and I want to ask you if you need this. It says, "Bars, beer parlors, beer taverns, cocktail lounges, discotheques, nightclubs, saloons, tab rooms and taverns. "Do you need that in your list of goodies? MS. BISHOP: I suggest to you that we need that. I have seen -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It will generate some noise. MS. BISHOP: Well, there is some noise ordinance that, if fact, does -- and the distance between that area -- I mean, obviously, if there is something on the south end -- we see this all over Collier County. If there is a noise-generating facility and it is disturbing its surrounding neighbors, then they have a problem. There is decibel levels that are required at certain times of the day. And the -- right now, I dare say, I'm probably speaking louder than the allowed decibels. As a matter of fact, a guy did my voice once and said I'm something like 5 to 10 decibels higher than the normal allowance for the noise ordinance, which is 55 decibels at night and 60 during the day. Apparently I'm not allowed to go anywhere and speak out loud because my voice is louder. There are ordinances. There are time frames when these are done. And now the county has very sophisticated noise equipment to keep people in check. So I dare say that will be an issue, and if it is, it won't be an issue for very long. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's one that I didn't want to see the residents have to go through. I don't have any other comments at this point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Anything else from Mr. Bellows? Page 105 January 17, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have an additional stipulation to clarify with transportation of the traffic, and they have -- Dawn Wolff has provided me with language. I would like to read it into the. Record. (As read): "No certificates of occupancy shall be issued above the 150, 000 square foot within the commercial tract until the four-lane capacity above Immokalee Road and County Road 951 to Wilson Boulevard and 951 from Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Road is available." COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I support that 100 percent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So do I. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, you also wanted clarification of the square footage, the maximum square footage allowed? MR. BELLOWS: That would be 231,000 square feet. MS. MURRAY: For commercial. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought we crossed that bridge. MR. BELLOWS: Karen mentioned that earlier. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I will close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission -- let's see, are we approving or forwarding the recommendation that the Planning Commission forward Petition PUD-2001-AR- 14694 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval with specific attachments and recommendations, and that would be as agreed by the petitioner, buffers to be located outside the 3.2 acre commercial rezone, lighting to be low intensity and shielded from the residential area, buildings within the 3.2 acre commercial rezones to be limited to a single story. That there be -- the interconnect shall have a secured gate that will be installed and operational immediately upon the construction of that road and commencement of construction to Page 106 January 17, 2002 limit construction traffic and -- contrary to the petitioner's request -- I would like to see that as an upgraded gate, metal gate superior to the current wooden-plank gate, and that the buffer design be as -- in the recently submitted Vanasse and Daylor buffer. And last, but not least, the transportation stipulation as read into the record by Ray Bellows. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: A second? I will second it. MR. BELLOWS: IfI may, did you mention the revised -- list of permitted uses? COMMISSIONER BUDD: My mistake. Yes, the corrected list -- the list of permitted uses provided by Mr. Strain and amended by Miss Bishop. MR. WHITE: Lastly, the master plan changes -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was going to -- as soon as we got to discussion, I was going to throw in about 20 things, but we are not there yet. After it's second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd's motion. Mr. Midney's second. Discussion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER commercial be 231,000 ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain. STRAIN: I would like to add that the cap on square feet, 231,000 square feet; the discrepancy between the word "reserve" in the PUD document and preserve as shown on the master plan will be corrected pursuant to staffs direction, whether it should be preserve or reserve;. And that the location of the interconnect and any buffers be added to the master plan; there be sidewalks added along roads that go through this interconnect area; and that 5813 be struck as an acceptable use, drinking places. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, is that an Page 107 January 17, 2002 amendment to this? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's additions that I would like to add, if the motion maker and the second approve those conditions. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Is that all of your additions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's all that I have. MR. BUDD: I will agree to those. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I will. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Including the elimination of drinking establishments? MR. BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Any discussion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Second has to agree to it also. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He did. Well, I will discuss. I think that eliminating the drinking establishments is being unduly fussy. I think they should be allowed and dealt with as it exists. There's hardly a place in one of these activity centers that does not have someplace where somebody can watch a football game and have a couple of beers. I don't drink myself, but I think other people should not be presumed to create a nuisance just because they have a drink. So I object on that basis. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, so do I. I don't think it's our position to put something like that in. And I personally would like to see it removed. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I would too. I think if you are having dinner you might like a glass of wine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That doesn't apply. The restaurants already have that. These are strictly taverns and saloons and things like that. My concern is not that people drink; that is a disruptive element to a neighborhood. I'm sure these people don't want to have to go through having monitors put out there and certain times of the day or night to see if they have decibel levels and then Page 108 January 17, 2002 challenge it through county staff. That's why I'm suggesting this. And that's my reason. It has nothing to do with people's morals. They can do what they want. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I will agree. Restaurants would be permitted and people can drink at the restaurants. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, maybe you can just take a consensus question on just that one issue. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many people are going to oppose this motion as long as the drinking establishments prohibition is in it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: As long as restaurants are approved, that's fine with me. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I may be the Lone Ranger then. I don't know. Do you want non-restaurant type of alcohol serving establishments? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I think as long as restaurants -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So we have two. I think the motion can carry. I call the question. All in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? Mr. Wolfley had a conflict, so he abstained. MR. BUDD: The motion carries? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The motion carries 6 -- 7. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would like to make a little comment, if I may. There is -- I would like to address the fellow commissioners. I think we have turned a comer today, and the first time in my year and a half that we have taken a more restrictive position than what the applicant has brought forward in terms of traffic. I think this is a signal -- that I'm sure Mr. Feder and Dawn are listening to -- and would really hope that we can hold the line here Page 109 January 17, 2002 and do more of this, because I think that's what the public is crying for. As far as the public at large, we have got a new public participation ordinance in place. This one did not fall under it. But we are going to see more and more opportunities for public involvement earlier in the process that you may not be faced with in this situation. There is help coming in terms of the process. Our hands were somewhat tied in this particular issue. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to add to that also. In conversations with people and talking about the traffic and the congestion, people have sort of a hopeless attitude, "Well, there is nothing that anybody can do about it. It's just inevitable. "I'm glad to see that we can do some small things. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you very much. MS. MURRAY: Commissioner Abernathy-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you want to go back to Item B? MS. MURRAY: That's up to you. They are ready. They have indicated they have the information you sought. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are they here now? MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's go back to that. We are backto Petition CU-2001-AR-1255. Sir. MR. PALMER: For the record, Tom Palmer, assistant county attorney. We have acquired leases that have been entered into by the Golden Gate Fire Rescue District described as 100 -- from 130 feet plus or minus to the top of the tower. The tower is occupied by agreement for at least -- initial term of 5 years and 4 years automatically renewable for 5 years. So the conceptual lease is essentially a 25- year lease. And there is -- that is if the tenants wants to stay on there, he stays on there unless he notifies the district he wants to get off, 90 Page 110 January 17, 2002 days prior to one of those 5-year terms. The tower is owned by Golden Gate. Golden Gate negotiated all of these leases themselves. So effectively for ! 30 feet, plus or minus, the tower -- other people have the right to occupy the tower. The district itself has the right to occupy the top level or the first tier of the tower, and the next three tiers down to 130 feet, plus or minus, are occupied by three independent private entities; Primco acting as Horizon, Sprint, and one other one is down at the ! 30-feet level. And there are no provisions in here where Golden Gate can require them to vacate except for cause, and that is if they violate the terms of the agreement like any other tenant. So that's the situation in regard to that tower. The tower was built in 1999, and most of these leases were entered into in the year 2000. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you for doing that. MR. PALMER: We called them up, and they were very nice, and they faxed them to us immediately. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that 49 percent of the tower, then, or is it more than 49 percent -- of the usable space on the tower? MR. PALMER: I don't know to what extent as a percentage of the usable space on the tower that amounts to. There is some space below the 130-foot level that has not been occupied by anybody. To what extent that is available -- also Golden Gate does have the right to rent that -- at least under their lease to private enterprise. So it doesn't look like there is anything that binds them, Golden Gate, to the 51/49 ratio. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Except our zoning ordinance. MR. PALMER: Well, I don't know that-- whether this provision existed in 1999, and I have not seen any of their conditional-use application. They came before the board with a conditional-use application. I don't believe the 51/49 was in there in Page 111 January 17, 2002 1999. I think that was added subsequent to that time. So I cannot tell you that they are bound to that. They do get all the rental for-- all of the rentals to private enterprise go to Golden Gate. The provider of the tower, Sprint, did not get -- does not get any percentage of that rent; that's all cash to the Golden Gate Fire District. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: So what you are saying is that there is no way that the tower can be used for EMS? MR. PALMER: That is correct. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Okay. MR. PALMER: At least the next 23 years. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's a little too long to wait. MR. PALMER: I can leave copies of these leases with you for you folks-- that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, I don't think I need COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Call the question. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is there any -- any public speaker? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right. hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that the board forward CU-2001-AR-1255 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation for approval, subject to staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Discussion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Is there any way we can I close the public Page 112 January 17, 2002 amend some language to that so that the same situation that is a travesty of what has occurred on the tower at Golden Gate Fire Department doesn't occur at the EMS, meaning that they cannot get into leases that cannot get acceptable positioning, so the sheriffs department wants to get on that tower, or the county wants to get on that tower, they will have the right to get on that tower where they need to get. This doesn't make any sense. There is the library property which is owned by the county; that could have a tower. The Sheriffs Department could declare a space in the building, and they could have a tower. We are going to have a field of towers. It's just not right. It was not intended for this purpose. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately, I cannot conceive how that can have any bearing if we put it into this PUD. It will not work. I mean, the county commissioners can do something. Maybe a change in the statute, but for us to put it into words like this would have no effect on anything in the future. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What I'm saying is make sure that the tower that is going up does not get built with the same mistakes as the Golden Gate tower so it's not usable by another entity if they come into play. Then when it comes before the board, we should know, no, you have space on this tower. That's the premises under which that other tower was put in. See, Golden Gate Fire Department did not allow for that. I think that was a serious mistake. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Let me ask the attorney, would this be language we can condition this approval with? MR. PALMER: Well, presently, you mean in regard to this particular lease or generally? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do it one at a time. MR. PALMER: This particular case they are already bound by the 51/49 percentage breakup and anything else that comes in the Page 113 January 17, 2002 future. But there are exceptions to that. If you wanted the Board of County Commissioners to say that at least all communications towers on any essential service site must be leased 51 percent for governmental use, you can certainly make that recommendation to the Board of County Commissioner's, that can be across the board, no exceptions requirement. MR. WHITE: Just so the commissioners understand, where that 51 versus 49 percent is allocated on whatever that structure is may change over time with respect to technology. I understand there it's site-to-site whatever, but I'm not sure that the specific intent you are seeking to achieve will be met by such a condition. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I want -- my point was not 51/49 percent. It's that in the future if this tower had to be 100 percent occupied by essential services, government services, that's what it should be there for. The other services will have to leave. MR. PALMER: Certainly, the Board of County Commissioners could, as a matter of policy, in the future state that every essential service communications tower be limited to governmental use. They could do that as a matter of policy. If that is the policy, those things are never going to be built again except at the expense of the county, because no private developer is going to come in and put in a tower for free for the county's use unless it gets some use of the tower. In this specific instance, the entity that built the tower, Sprint, has this tower rent free for 25 years a slot that is the distance below the district's. The district would require the top part of it. The second tier has been reserved to Sprint for 25 years rent free in lieu of the cost to construct and convey that tower to the district. They did that only because they had rent for use of that tower for 25 years under the quid pro quo. If the county wants to go in and say there will be no private use of these facilities, that's fine, but that would result in the fact that all Page 114 January 17, 2002 expenses of all future towers will be incurred by the county. So it's a tradeoff. But it's a matter of policy, and the Board of County Commissioners could do that if they chose to do that. COMMISSIONER BUDD: You mentioned that in the Golden Gate agreement there is a clause in there that they could terminate agreements for cause. Could for cause be determined that Board of County Commissioners or appropriate government authority decided a critical service has need-- MR. PALMER: No, that is not one of the causes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: No, that is not the cause? MR. PALMER: You can take away contract rights by condemnation. You can condemn contract rights. But if the county -- and you would have to find a necessity to do it. And assuming there was, in the eyes of the law, a necessity, you could condemn these contract rights. But you would have to pay just compensation to do it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That opens up a whole new can of worms, because I thought Mr. White said it cannot be done, and now you are saying it could be done. I don't care if the county has to pay for it. They collect taxes and they collect impact fees just to do that purpose with, so they should be paying for it. Then they own it, and they can control it. Now you are telling us that the contract can be like an eminent domain procedure and be taken over? MR. PALMER: Well, there are technical issues here. Number 1, the tower is owned by a governmental entity. There are limits where one governmental entity can condemn the property of another governmental entity. So there is a legal issue of whether or not the county can condemn property owned by the fire district. Assuming they can, in any event, that right that Sprint has obtained on the lease agreement would have to be paid for in just compensation. And that's assuming, of course, that the county has the legal status, via the fire Page 115 January 17, 2002 district, to condemn these rights at all. MR. WHITE: And you can show the appropriate degree of necessity. The distinction between the two, just so you are understanding our point, is that I was speaking solely about contracts. These are in the form of leases, which to some degree are a blending of contracts and actual real property rights to the extent they are, quote, leases and pertain to a term or a lesser estate than just outright ownership of the land. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If you tried to do that, it seems to me that Sprint or whoever, the measure of damages would be the cost of the tower-- or something like that? MR. PALMER: They would allege that it's not the cost of this tower, but it's what they would have to pay to find a substitute location someplace else within the geographical distance. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: For that 25 years. MR. PALMER: So it may not be limited to the value of the tower. In fact, somebody remarked that they thought that Sprint got a pretty good deal here with this, although so did the fire district, because these tenants pay what is called a co-location expense. That's $50, 000 right up front just to get on the tower, and then they are paying approximately $16, 000 a year every year, so just on these co-location expenses the district has $100, 000 right there. It's a win- win situation for everybody. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Not the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm going to call the question, because I think we have jousted with this windmill just about long enough. All in favor? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 116 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I understand the court reporter needs a break. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Can we get the dissents where -- MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- three dissents? Two. Richardson and Strain? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No, I was just. Pointing to them. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Me. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. We will recess until. Half past the hour. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The next item on the agenda, Petition VA-2001-AR- 1442. Any disclosures? They want to swear first? All right. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, disclosures anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: None. Go ahead. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for an after-the-fact variance for a shed. And the property is located on Spurling Avenue, which is -- as you can see, is between U.S. 41 and Goodlette Road, although there's no direct connect because of how the actual fight-of-way was constructed. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Petitioner is here today? Page 117 January 17, 2002 MR. REISCHL: Yes. And you can see the layout of the lot, the existing house. And in the solid color is the shed that's in question. You, as -- well, maybe not all of you individually, but the Planning Commission heard this petition in August of 2000. You recommended approval to the board of zoning appeals by a vote of 5 to 1. For some reason the petitioner did not appear at the board of zoning appeals. They denied the petition. He petitioned for reconsideration, and they told him to go back through the process, so he is now back through the process. There is a code enforcement case on the subject site, and I spoke to the inspector. I was con -- you read the staff report. You know that there was a conversion at some time in the past of the shed into a residence. I had some concerns about that. Gary Dantini of code enforcement assured me that since there was no building permit issued for this in the first place, if the variance is approved, then the petitioner will have to get a building permit, and the building permit will be for a shed. Inspectors will come for inspections looking for a shed, not for a residence. That -- that reassured me a little more on that. You can see the shed on the aerial right here, so you can see the surrounding properties. And there's no directly encroaching -- not encroaching, directly abutting neighbors. It is a 2.3-foot encroachment. The setback for the rear yard that's required is 10. Because the structure has been there for approximately 30 years, as far as we can tell, and there have not been any complaints, the complaint that was received by code enforcement was for the use as a residence, not for an encroachment. We consider those ameliorating factors and recommend approval. MR. ADELSTEIN: Has this been turned back into a shed? MR. REISCHL: It may have to be destroyed if the variance is not approved, so I believe Mr. Sanders -- Page 118 January 17, 2002 MR. ADELSTEIN: I believe at one time it was house. Is it now a shed? Again, they've removed the -- MR. REISCHL: I spoke to Mr. Dantini, and he said that it's -- right now it's still a residence. The owner does not want to do anything until the variance is either approved or denied, he gets direction either way. MR. WOLFLEY: Is there a -- do you know the height of the shed? MR. REISCHL: Fifteen feet, I believe. MR. WOLFLEY: Fifteen feet, okay. Is there a-- I didn't have a chance to read on this, but could it -- if it were shorter -- or I'm sorry. Not as tall, height was less than 15 feet, let's say 6 feet, could it then be that close to the property line, or is it no matter what? MR. REISCHL: No. An accessory structure, minimum setback is 10 feet. MR. WOLFLEY: Period? MR. REISCHL: Yes. MR. WOLFLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions for staff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We'll hear from the petitioner? MR. SANDERS: My name is Kirk Sanders for the record, and I purchased the property. And it had the existing -- what -- what was sold to me as a one-story residence. And I did get in trouble with code enforcement. Since then I have removed all of the appliances and whatnot to make it a residence, so it is converted back to a shed. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's already been converted back? MR. SANDERS: Yes, sir. And there was also one other thing. There was another shed beside that one. I -- I have a copy of the blueprint, and it was told to me that -- that if I remove that, it would - - would help out also so that -- that other shed has also been removed, Page 119 January 17, 2002 so now there's only the one shed on the property. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: When you bought it, it was a residence back there? MR. SANDERS: Yes, sir. It was sold to me as a residence, and that's the reason I did rent it out, and -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So there were two residences? MR. SANDERS: Yes, sir. And according to the -- the -- the county, I -- I did some -- some of my own research also as -- as well as the title company, and I went to the county, and the county said that it was a duplex property, or I could put two single-family homes, but later on to find out that there's not enough square footage on the property to allow for a duplex or two single-family homes. So it is zoned that way, but I -- I did check it out but not far enough, so I was kind of ignorant the fact that it was there and about checking out in -- into it further. It -- everything has all been removed and stuff, so it's a shed. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: completely? MR. SANDERS: Completely. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And you don't live in the principal residence either, do you? MR. SANDERS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions? MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Reischl, am I to understand, then, that there are two residences that can -- have habitation on this? MR. REISCHL: No. What Mr. Sanders is saying, RMF-6 zoning could allow more than one dwelling unit, but because of the size of the parcel, they're limited to one dwelling unit. There were two residences. One of them was not legal. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. MR. REISCHL: The last photos I saw from Mr. Dantini still The little shed has been removed Page 120 January 17, 2002 had it, but Mr. -- Mr. Sanders had said that those are -- are removed now so ... MR. SANDERS: I also went to the tax -- tax record place down below. And when I -- when I -- before I actually purchased it, and they -- it was showing that -- a house and a guest house. I happen to have the -- the -- the deal right here (indicating). And I can pass that around if you wish. MR. REISCHL: And if I can just state that that is something that happens maybe not occasional -- a little more occasionally is that the property appraiser assesses a parcel and doesn't notify us that something's been constructed so we can determine whether or not it's been permitted or legal or whatever. So that's -- we're constantly trying to resolve that communication problem. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. RICHARDSON: So this plat, to finally be correct then, will have that one shed removed. Where it says one-story residence, that will be a one-story structure? MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions for petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? MR. STRAIN: I make a motion we recommend approval of the Petition VA 2001-AR- 1442. MR. WOLFLEY: Second. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, just as to the attached Exhibit A, I'd like to ask if you would consider as to the more northerly or the rear of the two, quote, residences that that Page 121 January 17, 2002 identifying set of words be removed so that there isn't any further use of this variance for the purposes of occupancy. MR. REISCHL: I'll be -- I'll be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Call the question. All in favor? (Unanimous approval.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The motion carries. MR. REISCHL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The motion was by Mr. Strain and the second by Mr. Wolfley, I believe; is that right? MR. STRAIN: Correct. MR. WOLFLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Next, Petition VA-2001-AR- 1526, Diocese of Venice/Kraft Construction Company. All persons expecting to testify on this matter, raise your right hand. (The oath was administered.) MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, and I am the new principal planner with Collier County government, and I am here to present the staff report that was prepared by a previous staff person. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And the name was Katie -- MS. DESELEM: Kay Deselem. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. DESELEM: Just Kay. What we have today is a petition for a variance identified as Petition No. VA-2001-AR-1526. The owner is the Diocese of Venice. The agent is Kraft Construction Company. The requested action seeks a 6.5-foot variance from the required 30-foot front-yard setback to 23.5-foot setback for a Page 122 January 17, 2002 proposed construction of an unenclosed stairwell. The geographic location, as you can see on the visualizer, the site actually is accessed via 52nd Terrace, then to Golden Gate Parkway. And some of the other roads that are around it -- there's 27th Avenue and 53rd Terrace. The description of the action of the project, this particular project is zoned RSF-3, and it's currently developed with a church and a parochial school which is known as the St. Elizabeth Seton School. It did receive conditional use previously to allow for that use. The school's library is located on one of the buildings to which they want to have the stairway. If you look -- let me see if we can narrow it down a bit. If you see the area that's identified outlined in red, that is actually the school on the site. It is a -- like a 1 1/2-story building in that the second story is not totally accessible; like, it's short. It's not a full second story. They have an access on one of the narrow ends for fire on that second story which is the library. What's proposed at this point is a fire escape outside the building on the other side, which would be on 27th Avenue. See if you can hone in on that. At this you can see the existing school, and in red are the proposed stairs. As noted in the staff report, the stairs wouldn't be required to be constructed on this particular building because it is an existing building, and it's best as -- the way it's constructed. However, the parents of the children that attend the school have asked that the school provide this secondary fire access and escape for the students; and, therefore, that's why the petition has come before you today. On page 2 it speaks of the surrounding zoning of the site. Okay. On the visualizer you see an abbreviated form of the zoning map that shows the subject site of the entire church property outlined in green. There is a small X where the actual library and school facility is, and Page 123 January 17, 2002 you can see the surrounding zoning is as depicted on page 2. To the north are single-family residences zoned RSF. To the east is commercially zoned land zoned C-4. It's identified on the various exhibits as the Parkway Plaza. To the south are multifamily residences and the church, and it's zoned RF -- I'm sorry, RMF-12 and PUD. The commercial portion is identified as Founder's Plaza. To the west are single-family residences zoned RSF-3. The staff report I -- has -- analysis has identified that there are no historical or archeological impacts proposed from this proposal. They have also evaluated this particular request for impacts on transportation, infrastructure, and environment, and has determined that there will be no effects. And staff has provided you an analysis of the request in conjunction with Section 2.75, 2.75 -- 2.7.5.6.1 through 8 of the Land Development Code, and these are presented for you beginning on page 2, continuing on to page 3 and 4. And I will go over each one of them if you wish. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No, I -- MS. DESELEM: In lieu of-- I kind of figured, in light of time, you would not wish for me to do that. Staff recommendation is that you would forward this petition to the BCA (sic) with a recommendation of approval. There are no letters on file, either in support or in opposition to the request. I have spoken with the agent for the applicant. He has received a copy of the staff report, and he is here to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any questions for staff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I thought it was rather startling that you could have a public-service facility, like a library, and that it's above the fire code. Page 124 January 17, 2002 MS. DESELEM: This particular library is affiliated with the school. It's not a public library per Se. It's the library facility of the -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I know. But it's for the use of a public. Maybe they're all members of the church, but -- but sort of a gathering place, and with only one fire exit, that just -- MR. RICHARDSON: This particular congregation is fireproof. MS. DESELEM: It's my understanding that the buil -- the building was built to code when it was constructed. MS. YOUNG: Oh. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes. Well -- hmm. MS. YOUNG: When are you planning to build the new building? MS. DESELEM: I personally can't speak for that. The applicant can probably address that question. MR. SHIRVANIPOUR: My name is Amir Shirvanipour. I'm Amir, project manager for Kraft Construction. To answer the question, yes, there is redevelopment plans that is going to be coming up I don't know how many years from now. But I know that this is a temporary stairs. So when that plan is going to be reviewed I do not know. But this is -- was for the concerns of the parents because they're worried about their kids and, of course, the concerns of the students also, that they'd like to have the secondary exit for the fire safety. And yes, this is temporary until they have their new development plans submitted. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions of the petitioner? Is it a wooden stairway? MR. SHIRVANIPOUR: No. This is concrete and stucco to match the existing building. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. Registered speakers? Page 125 January 17, 2002 MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing. Pleasure of the board? MR. STRAIN: I make a motion we approve Petition VA -2001- AR-1526. MR. ADELSTEIN: I second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous approval.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It carried. The next Item, VA-2001-AR-1564, Bill and Kristi Grigsby; agent, Bill Potter. MS. MURRAY: We need to be sworn. (The oath was administered.) MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a variance to reconstruct an existing home with the same setback that's existed since 1983. On the visualizer you can see the location of the home. It's offVanderbilt Drive on Willett Avenue in the Conners Vanderbilt Beach area. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Upside down, I think. MR. REISCHL: And you can see the existing layout of the home. Here is the cul-de-sac for the street, the front of the house, and you can see the 18.5-foot rear-yard setback on the house. This is an unusual circumstance. The research that our staff did found that the building permit was issued and handwritten on it -- well, everything was handwritten in 1983 -- were the words waterfront variance per SDP 83085. One of my fellow planners was doing research on this, and we could find no such thing as a Page 126 January 17, 2002 waterfront variance. However, apparently it was accepted at the time in 1983, and the building permits was issued. In fact, it was a 19.5- foot rear-yard setback because of the 1-foot difference between the property line and the seawall, which in those days they used the property line, not -- today we use the seawall, so it's an 18.5-foot rear yard. The petitioner wants to reconstruct the home with a second story; and, therefore, this variance is required. I did receive a phone call from a concerned neighbor with a question. I believe he's here today. And staff recommends approval because the ameliorating factors, that the house has been in the same location for 19 years, it was built according to the building permit issued at the time, and up until a few minutes ago I -- I had not received any objections to this. And I'll let Mr. Halas speak for himself. Staff recommends -- oh, before I close my presentation, just another thing, for the orientation of the house, too, I mentioned in my staff report how the house is -- the neighboring house is oriented away from where the encroachment is. You can see this is the Grisbys' house, and this is the neighboring house (indicating). As you -- as they come into their driveway, basically where the encroachment is, over here (indicating), they -- this house (indicating) is oriented towards the west, and the encroachment on this side (indicating) won't affect this property owner. And as you saw in your packet that was prepared by the Grigsbys, here is the -- the view from that side showing the -- the neighboring house also. MR. STRAIN: Fred, are you getting those aerial photos from the new tax assessor's site? MR. REISCHL: Yes. MR. STRAIN: It's a pretty good site. I thought they looked familiar. MR. REISCHL: They're great. Page 127 January 17, 2002 MR. STRAIN: They're great. Yeah. They did a great job. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Reischl, I understood you to say this is going to be a rebuild on the same -- to the same size; is that correct? MR. REISCHL: That's my understanding. That first floor could not support the second story. Originally they came in. They -- they just wanted to get an administrative variance according to code to put the second story on, according to the same building line. They found out that the first floor could not support the addition. Therefore, they're here for the variance. MR. RICHARDSON: In the packet that has been provided which has the foldout map in it or diagram, that doesn't seem to be the case. It's going to be a bigger house than what's there by some number of feet because you have the existing one story shown in the dotted lines, and you have the proposed in the solid lines. And it's considerably larger. And I'm just --just -- it doesn't seem like that represents -- it is what you have represented it to be. MR. REISCHL: Well, I'm -- what I'm concerned about is the rear property line where the encroachment is. They can build within the other setbacks for the other side yards and -- and front yard. I didn't mean to cause the impression that they were building the exact same square footage house. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Oh. I thought that's what it said. The same footprint, I thought. MS. YOUNG: It says using the existing rear footprint and setback. MR. REISCHL: Right. Rear. MR. RICHARDSON: And the addition must be along the same building line as the existing structure. And that does not seem to be the case. MR. REISCHL: No. Okay. That was for the administrative Page 128 January 17, 2002 variance. That has already been granted, and there is a copy of that in your -- in your packet too. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. MR. REISCHL: There was an administrative variance that was granted along the same building line for the patio. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But the second story? MR. REISCHL: No. For the patio. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Patio. MR. REISCHL: They wanted to use that same portion of the code for the second story, but when they found out they had to demolish the first story too because it wasn't strong enough to support a second story, that took away the administrative variance portion of it, and they had to go for a regular variance. MR. RICHARDSON: But what we're faced here with then is a building that's too large for the lot with -- unless we give this variance. MR. REISCHL: In -- that's the way to put it except that the encroachment has been there for a number of years without objection. And it was -- and it was put there legally, too. MR. RICHARDSON: However, if this project came in -- you know, they're going to have to tear it down. It's like starting over new. If this project came in now, you would not approve it. I mean, our process would not approve this house. MR. REISCHL: Well, that's up to you and the board -- MR. RICHARDSON: No, it isn't. I'm talking about the -- MR. REISCHL: Without a variance? Without a variance, it would not -- MR. RICHARDSON: If he had -- if he went in the for a building permit and I brought this plan in with this setup, it would not be approved. MR. REISCHL: Not by the building department, no. Page 129 January 17, 2002 MS. MURRAY: You'd need a variance. That's why they're here before you. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Isn't this sort of the other -- other side of the coin where we've granted variances and said if this ever ceases to be the case, then you've got to go back to the original footprint? It seems to me we've had-- MR. REISCHL: Yes, that's true. And that's why -- again, that's why they're here seeking this variance because they -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In those cases was unless you come back for another variance. MR. REISCHL: That's true, yes. Just like in a PUD, you're saying that these rules apply to this PUD. However, it's not hard and fast that you can come back for a -- a PUD amendment and change the rules. It's -- that's why there's a public hearing for it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well -- okay. Let's hear from the petitioner. MS. GRIGSBY: My name is Kristi Grigsby, and my husband and I own this property at 390 Willett Avenue. And I would like to provide a little bit of background on what brought us here today, and hopefully this will make a little more sense. It's been a long process. A little over a year ago we purchased this home with the intentions of remodeling. We were going to remodel this house, and we were going to add a second story. At that time the only glitch we came across was with this lanai. We wanted to expand out to the west because currently the lanai stops at about 19 feet from the property line. So we had plenty of distance to move to expand out to that 7 1/2-foot required setback. But because the pool is elevated more than 4 feet above the seawall, we learned that we needed an administrative variance. And at that time we applied for it, and it was granted this past July. But as our planning process continued, we Page 130 January 17, 2002 then learned from an engineering consultation that the structure that is in existence today could not support a second story. There -- as far as we could determine, there are -- there are no piles; there are no footings of any kind. He had said at one point that it's very possible this house is sitting on a big pile of dirt. So adding a second story was out of the question. It then became evident that we had two choices: Either we work with what is there and somehow we -- we build up the support needed for that second story, or we rebuild with a proper foundation. I -- I suppose, in essence, we have -- we have entertained the idea of using what is there, somehow driving down piles, getting the footings to transfer the load, something so that we wouldn't have to rebuild this, but we just don't believe that the end product could -- would be the result or the strength that we need and that we could achieve by rebuilding. So that is what we've been working with for about a year. We have decided that is the much better alternative for everyone, not only us but our neighbors as well, safety issues, hurricane issues, that sort of thing. So during the past year we've been meeting with various members of the planning staff to ensure that our plans were consistent with the code, and that is how we came upon this rear setback issue and the need for -- for variance. As -- as you know, the house sits 18 1/2 feet from the water as opposed to the 25-foot requirement, and -- and that is why we are here. But allowing us to rebuild this house will result in a much stronger structure. We will build it -- we fully intend to build it to the 2002 hurricane codes. We just can't do that if we start with what is there now. You know, we're not looking to go any closer to the water. We simply want to rebuild what's there and what was already approved nearly 20 years ago, planned, permitted, built, C. O.'d, all that, legally Page 131 January 17, 2002 nearly 20 years ago. There's one other issue I'd like to address. One other advantage of doing this, the house -- I don't know if you can tell from the -- I think you can tell from the photo that was up there before, the house basically sits on a hill. What that slope of land is on the side I don't know. I can tell you it's -- it's severe enough that I don't allow my children to walk on it. It's a very severe slope. It's -- it's -- was held back by railroad tracks -- railroad ties. And you can imagine with the summer rains we get here the runoff that the neighbors get from that. And if-- you know, if we're allowed to rebuild this, we -- we can fix that. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Midney? MR. MIDNEY: I have a question. Since you're thinking of raising the existing house anyway and rebuilding, why not rebuild according to the existing code that would apply to other people? MS. GRIGSBY: Well, there's two reasons for that. One is the lot is an odd-shaped lot because we have that cul-de-sac to deal with in the front with the radius, which -- which I don't know if you have the site map in your -- in your books. You know, we're going out to the 30-foot -- I don't think we have a picture of that, do we? MR. REISCHL: No. MS. GRIGSBY: The foldout site map that somebody -- I'll show you this foldout. It's behind Tab No. 3. You can see that the comer of the lot is already up there. If we're -- if-- if we move up 25 feet, basically, to where we should be in accordance to the current code, we -- we lose -- we lose a room basically by doing that. And it's also an issue of the view. I mean, you saw the pictures, I mean, you know, quite honestly, this is also an issue of the view. You saw the pictures. This house sitting where it is affects nobody, but it does affect us. I mean, this is the house; this is the view that we purchased a year ago. And if we're pushed back 7 feet, it -- it does make a Page 132 January 17, 2002 difference to us. It doesn't make a difference to anybody else. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Other questions? Do you live in the house? MS. GRIGSBY: No, we don't live there in our permanent residences yet because we've been trying to not move twice once we start construction. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do you intend-- MS. GRIGSBY: We will live there, yes, absolutely. MS. YOUNG: And none of your neighbors object? MS. GRIGSBY: None of my neighbors object, and we just had the opportunity to meet with one of our neighbors who is here today, and he intends -- as he says, as long as he's here he's going to speak, and he's going to speak on our behalf. MR. REISCHL: If I could add, too, this petition was subject to public participation, and the Grigsbys did all the notification for public participation, and we got no input from that. MS. GRIGSBY: And, you know, I'll just add one more thing on that. One of my neighbors I was talking to last week, and he -- he is in full support of it. I know there's been concern with a little bit of concern with the house to the east of us that as we showed in the photo before, you can't even see it already with what's there. And, you know, his point was, you know, the house doesn't have a view anyway. They look at your house. So the only difference is, you know, they either look at what's there, or they look at a nicer house. There's really -- there's really no difference. And even those people have no objections. They're -- everyone has been in full support of it which, again, this is the Vanderbilt Beach area. I have to say that that's rare, you know, so -- but we have talked with -- we have talked with everyone involved and -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, if you were talking about a boat dock, it might be something different but -- no further questions Page 133 January 17, 2002 for the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: Kristi Grigsby was one, and then I also have Frank Halas. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you, Miss Grigsby. MS. GRIGSBY: Thank you. MR. HALAS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Frank Halas. I live at 45 Flamingo Avenue. And I just took over the duties of being the homeowners' president up there in Vanderbilt Beach property area. I met with the Grigsbys on this and am somewhat concerned about setbacks. We ran into a setback problem a few years ago building a brand new home up there in that we were encroaching on the 30-foot front easement. And upon getting the house partly built to the point where we were going to put the tie beam in, we found that we were in error of-- of about 5 feet. And, needless to say, we pled with the commissioners and everything and lost. And the house came down. Good thing we had a good, reputable builder. They tore the house down, put the house where it belonged. But I met with the -- the parties here, the -- and looked at their plans and got a better understanding of what they're up against in the fact that the house is basically located on a cul-de-sac, and so you're looking at a pie-shaped deal. I came here with the intentions of opposing this. But upon looking at what they got to work with and everything, I feel that in order for them to be hopefully good residents through Vanderbilt Beach, I think looking at their plans and everything, we'll probably go along with -- with what they got there. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions? (No response.) Page 134 January 17, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? Discussion? Whatever? MR. STRAIN: I make a motion we approve VA-2001-AR- 1564. MR. BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? MR. MIDNEY: I think basically setbacks are a good thing. And just to change the rules because the immediate neighbors don't have an objection doesn't seem like a good idea to change -- to allow a variance to me. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Aye. MR. RICHARDSON: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MS. YOUNG: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. I call the question. All in favor? MR. STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? MR. MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Midney is the one no vote. The motion was by Strain, the second by Budd. MR. RICHARDSON: I would like to compliment the applicant for the excellent work you did in preparing this. It's unusual. MS. YOUNG: Very nice. MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. They certainly came prepared. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you very much. MS. GRIGSBY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thanks for your short course in Page 135 January 17, 2002 planning commission business; long course, I should say. The next item is No. 9, old business, LDC minutes of November 14th and November 28th. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, if you so please, I would move for their adoption. MR. STRAIN: I -- I have some corrections. I don't know at what stage you want them but -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do we have a second? MR. MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Now you have discussion, then. MR. STRAIN: Well, no. I have corrections to the minutes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. STRAIN: Page 52 on-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. On the 14th? MR. STRAIN: November 14th. I have corrections with both sets, but let's start with the 14th. The bottom of that page references my discussion, and I stated a number. And it's read -- it reads here 262,122. That should be 2.6.21.2.2. On page 53 the same number appears again. Likewise, it should be stated the same way I just said. There's another number there that is even longer. It's 2,621,314. That should be 2.6.21.3.14. That's all I have for the November 14th minutes. Do you want me to continue, Mr. Chairman, with the others? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Please. MR. STRAIN: On November 28th minutes, page 24, we were talking about dead-end waterways. It says in the cases of dead-end waterways that are in 100 feet in width. That should have been less than 100 feet in width. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That was at page which? 24? Page 136 January 17, 2002 MR. STRAIN: Page 24, yes, bottom of the page. Page 65, towards the bottom of the page, there's an s-i-c with a question mark. And the sentence reads, "It boils down four." And it should say "boils down to," t -o. And on page 157 towards the second or third notation up from the bottom of the page, there's another long value that says 221,443. It should be 2.2.14.4.3. That's the extent of my corrections. MR. RICHARDSON: I amend the motion to accept those corrections. MR. MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. I have a motion. I suppose we will do them one -- one at a time. As to November 14th, all in favor. (Unanimous approval.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: November-- opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: November 28th, all in favor? (Unanimous approval.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Carried. MR. BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I abstain from vote -- vote since I was not present at either meeting. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I think we should congratulate Commissioner Strain for his painstaking surveillance. MR. STRAIN: Thank you, Mrs. Young. MS. YOUNG: Painstaking. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Next item is new business. MR. STRAIN: I have a couple short items I'd like to bring up, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead, Mr. Strain. Page 137 January 17, 2002 MR. STRAIN: On the February 7th comprehensive plan amendment meeting that now has been scheduled because we apparently are going to have a quorum, the -- that issue that's coming up, I've had a preview of it at one of my other boards that I sit on. And it's very intense, and it's -- a lot of discussion ensues, so I know it's a long meeting. But in order to prepare for it, how far in advance of the February 7th meeting can we get our packages so we have ample time to review it and number-- the second part of that is, sure, it's referring to an existing something. We need the existing something in order to know what we're comparing it to, and including this one in particular, I believe, is a result of a governor's order. So I'm sure we would need a copy of his order to understand what he was asking for. Those things are going to take a lot of time for us to digest, or at least for me, and I'm sure the others would want to get into them too. So, back to my original question, Fred, what do you think? MR. REISCHL: I will let Stan Litsinger know that you need these ASAP and not with a standard Planning Commission deadline and as -- if they're ready now, I'll have -- I'll ask Stan to get them to you right away. If there's still a little tweaking they're doing, I'll say as soon as that's done, get you a copy of what there is right now. MR. STRAIN: Okay. As far as relevance to the documents they're going to be changing, those original documents -- that stuffs very important, and I don't want -- this meeting is going to be rather important. It's going to affect a lot of Collier County. So I certainly don't want to do it with a half-day information and a very short time, so -- I'd appreciate that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We're really talking next -- by the end of next week, I think. MR. STRAIN: That would be great. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If it is possible. Page 13 8 January 17, 2002 MR. REISCHL: I will let Stan know, and we can get them over to you as soon as possible. MR. WHITE: Those commissioners that have e-mail addresses, I believe that -- I don't know that the final order is on any kind of digital format, but I think that all of the other documents that you're likely to be interested in may very well be. So if you have an e-mail address and provide it to staff, they, I'm sure, would be more than happy to send you an e-mail with those attachments. MR. STRAIN: My only concern there, Mr. White -- MR. WHITE: I'm not suggesting that as a substitute. MR. STRAIN: Because we have to bring whatever we have to this meeting. And unless you've got modems tie-ins for me, I'm kind of out of luck. MR. WHITE: My point was that if you wanted to be able to word search it or something similar to that, you would have the document on your own PC. MR. STRAIN: My second comment, Mr. Chairman, was one of the issues today was apparent in my discussions with -- with Dawn Wolfe that transportation isn't always aware of some of the applications and how they're coming through. And procedurally I was wondering if-- if staff could have transportation involved before the package gets to us so that their comments can be incorporated into the package, and we wouldn't have to spend so much time questioning transportation here at the meeting. MS. MURRAY: Actually, that is the proper procedure and the procedure we have in place. Unfortunately, I'd say it just wasn't followed this time and -- MR. STRAIN: Okay. MS. MURRAY: -- unfortunately, with the loss of a staff member and confusion in transferring projects between planners and the petitioner's desired time frame to get in front of you, it fell Page 139 January 17, 2002 through the cracks in this one case. But we do have procedures in place, and they are e-mailed the staff reports before they're even mailed out to you so in case they have any changes on the transportation comments -- as well, they are the authors of the comments in the report. So they see that -- a version of the final report before it's mailed to you. They have the opportunity to comment. Unfortunately, it just didn't happen in this case. MR. STRAIN: Okay. That's great. MS. MURRAY: But we do have the procedure in place. MR. STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure that that happens. That would be helpful. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. White mentioned e-mails which remind me I tried to send a message to Mr. Adelstein using the e-mail address on our roster, and the message bounced. And I went and looked at Lorie's addresses where she had sent all of us a message, and she was using the same one. It's just a simple misprint. He is at cs.com, not c.s.com. There's an extra dot in there so -- MR. ADELSTEIN: I've already taken care of it. Thank you, though. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other new business? MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, just, perhaps, a quick item. We have a new planning director. I guess that's his name, his title? MS. MURRAY: No. That is Joseph Schmitt who is the administrator of community development and environmental services. And I'm sorry I didn't formally introduce him on the record, but he -- he did come. MR. RICHARDSON: In view of his coming on board-- and I know he's got his hands full with a lot of transition issues, but our commission is beginning to address some transition issues, too, in terms of us finding our voice and, perhaps, a will to do things a little differently than we've done in the past. And I'd like to suggest Page 140 January 17, 2002 through the chair that at a early opportunity or when it seems appropriate, really more to staff or more to him, that we could schedule a workshop with the BCC and ourselves to give us a chance in the public to discuss our mutual concerns and in -- more particularly to get their take on what they think our role is. And we can certainly give them some ideas of what we think we should be doing or could be doing. And I would just like to see that format so - - because we can't talk amongst ourselves, and we really can't really talk to the commissioners as it relates to any planning issues. So I -- I would just -- I know it's an imposition to get everybody together, but if we could do that at some appropriate time and particularly with the influence of your administrative bed, I think it would be very helpful to me. MR. STRAIN: Where would they sit? MR. RICHARDSON: They usually sit right down in the -- (indicating). MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, that -- in furtherance of that idea, I believe it may be helpful to the board and perhaps even to this commission to identify what those issues might be so that for the purposes of developing an agenda for that meeting or -- even if it's, you know, broad brush, at least there would be something that would service the focus and the point of reference for the discussions so that also you could make some determination about the amount of time that may be necessary to -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It might be best for us to meet with Mr. Schmitt first and see what we want to talk about and then -- then go forward to the BCC. I won't limit any use of their time while we're searching for what we want to talk about. MR. WHITE: The other point, Mr. Chairman, simply is that anytime you are assembled in a public forum and you want to discuss any matter of new business, including policy issues or otherwise, Page 141 January 17, 2002 you're certainly free to do so. MR. RICHARDSON: In a public forum. MR. WHITE: Such as today. MR. RICHARDSON: That's fine. But I'd like to have the -- a little better focus from planning staff, particularly as it's coming into its new station in life with a new leader. That's -- you've got the sense of what I'm trying to say. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes. MR. RICHARDSON: If we could do that, I'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any further business? MS. MURRAY: May I ask one question? I got LDCs, and I haven't heard anybody else speak up other than Mr. Wolfley, so I assume that everybody else has their LDC? MR. BUDD: (Indicating). MS. MURRAY: Okay. I've got one for you. Thanks. Great. MR. ADELSTEIN: Old business. Susan, I would like you to do me a favor, if you could, and thank Jody for the way she's handled this. For those of you that haven't heard, the two, three codes for the new people are already here, and they'll be -- I've picked up mine. They'll be picking up theirs soon. We still have another two coming, and we also have the tabs which were not yet sent to us. She did a heck of a job, and she really pushed it a lot to get it done. MS. MURRAY: Thanks. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'd like her to have our thanks. MR. MURRAY: I'll tell her thanks. MR. RICHARDSON: While we're handing out thanks, I think it might be appropriate for us to go on record to thank our former chairwoman who is no longer with us. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I suspect she may be watching SO... MR. RICHARDSON: If she is, I'd certainly like to indicate my Page 142 January 17, 2002 appreciation for the fine service she provided the county and the guidance and leadership for this group. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's give her a hand. MR. WOLFLEY: I'll second that. MR. ADELSTEIN: Let's put that in a motion, and let's get a vote on it. MR. RICHARDSON: So moved. Is anybody going to vote against it? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Aye. (Applause.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:30 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION KENNETH L. ABERNATHY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR, AND EMILY UNDERWOOD, COURT REPORTER Page 143 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR _...COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS L,~ "AME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME ._./~ C- ~, .. ~_ ~,,~, MAILING ADDRESS f / DATE ON ~IOH VOTE O00URRED COUNTY THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMrYrEE ON WHICH I SERVE 18 A UNIT OF: )I~COUNTY n OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY NAME OF P~oLrrlCAL SUBDIVISION; MY POSITION IS: [3 ELECTIVE ~ APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A ~rson holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which il ; to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or. to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you m~..~t disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made J or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE I APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ~"~/'%,~.//r3 ~'o/-.- fL-_ Z tz' ~, , hereby disclose that on _~/~ (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, c.-"~nured to the special gain or loss of ',~/~ ~,z \_ __~.,,~ .,~ .~,J ~ t'L whom I am retained; or ~'~/~..//O/__ O ~-/,'(.~: ~ inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , which Date Filed Signature/~~'~'~ NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000· CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE 2