Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/07/2002 RMarch 7, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 7, 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 8:35 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth L. Abemathy Russell A. Budd Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Dwight Richardson Mark P. Strain David J. Wolfley NOT PRESENT: Lora Jean Young ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie M. Student, Asst. County Attorney Susan Murray, Chief Planner, Planning Services Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development & Environmental Services Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 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 MINIIFES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECrED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 17, 2002, AND FEBRUARY 7, 2002 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES -LORA JEAN YOUNG 6. BCC REPORT - RECAPS FROM THE JANUARY 29, FEBRUARY 6, AND THE FEBRUARY 12, 2002, MEETINGS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Ae VA-2001-AR-1696, James and Genevieve O'Connell, requesting after-the-fact variances in the RSF-4 Zoning District from the 25 foot from yard setback requirement, to allow a 15.1 foot setback for the stairs (a 9.9 foot variance), and a 21.0 setback for the covered entry (a 4.0 foot variance), for property located at 183 Sunset Cay, further described as .Lot 88, Port of the Islands, in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) B 10. 11. 12. 13. PUDZ-2002-AR-1978, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A, representing Gateway Shoppes Associates, LLC, requesting a rezone fi.om "RSF-3" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Henderson Creek PUD for a maximum of 500 residential dwelling units of which 363 units must be constructed as affordable housing units for property located on U.S. 41 East, approximately ~A mile east of Collier Boulevard, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 45.84- acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) RZ-2001-AR-1625, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Leo J. Fragiacomo and Annelise O'Donnel, requesting a rezone fi.om RMF-16 to RSF-4 for property located at 227 Cays Drive, further described as Lot 72, Port of the Islands, Stella Maxis, iri Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) ACCEPTANCE OF SETTLEMENT IN THE CASE OF B.J. BOYER-SAVARD, ET AL, vs. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL, CASE NO. 01-1082-CA, PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN CCPC AGENDA/SM/ 2 March 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the March 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Would you please rise and join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you very much. Before proceeding, I -- I notice there are a number of people in the audience. If you intend to speak on one of the items on our agenda, you need to fill out a slip that -- found on the table outside in the hall and give it to Ms. Murray over here so we'll be ready to call on you when that time comes. I'll call the roll. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Abernathy's here. Mrs. Young is absent. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain. Here. Addenda to the agenda. Do you have any, Susan? MS. MURRAY: I do. I just need to make an announcement, that the one petition that was scheduled for your March 21 st meeting has been continued, and therefore, we have nothing on the agenda for March 21st and have gone ahead and -- and canceled that meeting. So Page 2 March 7, 2002 your next meeting will be the first meeting in April. If something comes up today and you need to meet on that day, we may have a small logistical problem with the room, but -- this room's in hot demand, but we'll certainly try to accommodate you. So if that's the case, I'll -- I'll call down to my office and-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: that possibility. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We will try assiduously to avoid Mr. Chairman, I've got a couple of suggestions for the agenda, if I could. MS. MURRAY: May I continue? I just have one more item. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know you weren't finished. MS. MURRAY: The other item -- and I don't mean to -- I'm bringing this up in a public forum because I think it's important that the audience know what your policy and procedure is, Mr. Chairman, on limiting time for speakers. And I don't mean to cast a negative light. I just -- I did receive a complaint from a member of the public about the last meeting, speakers being allowed to speak in excess of the typically allowed five minutes. And that's certainly your policy and your call, Mr. Chairman. But if that's the policy you wish to implement, I think we just need to let the public know that they -- they have five minutes to speak, or more if you wish. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The complaint was they couldn't speak long enough or-- MS. MURRAY: The complaint-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MS. MURRAY: Too long. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- they spoke too long? Well, I really hate to -- to be that arbitrary. If somebody has something that -- that's worth hearing and it takes more than five minutes, I don't think it puts an undue strain on us. So I think five is the target, and I will look to my fellow members Page 3 March 7, 2002 to rein in a speaker who goes beyond that and who is not contributing anything. So I guess that's my policy. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anything else, Susan? MS. MURRAY: That's it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add to old business a continuing discussion on the backup information concerning the ULDC and the adoption notebook for the GMP. And I'd also like to suggest, with the chairman's permission, if we could move Item D, which is a settlement agreement through the county attorney's office -- it doesn't seem to have any controversial aspects to it -- if we could move that forward. MS. STUDENT: May I -- Mr. Chair, may I address Mr. Strain's concern? It's just been brought to my attention that the chair did not, for some reason, receive that item in the agenda packet. And I think now I would like to leave it where it is. So my legal assistant is going to be bringing down a packet for the chair, and I'd like to leave it where it is so he might have an opportunity to glance over it. We've asked the Court for a continuance on when our response is due and gotten an order just the other day allowing us till April 1st. So if this is agreeable with the chair, I'd like to proceed that way rather than have to continue this and go back to the Court and ask for another order continuing the matter. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I wasn't asking for a continuance anyway. MS. STUDENT: No. I understand. But he brings -- if the item's brought down, the chair -- it's not very thick at all -- the chair may have a chance to look at it. And if we keep it on D, that'll give him a chance to look at it so we can proceed this morning, because the attorneys for the parties are here and we're all set to go, and it's set to go before the board and has been advertised for the next -- the last Page 4 March 7, 2002 board meeting in March. So that -- I just want to give him an opportunity -- if he feels that he can consider it now, I guess I'll leave it up to the chair, but I wanted to present that concern. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Marjorie, I had no way of knowing the chair did not receive the -- MS. STUDENT: I didn't either until just now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have no objection to letting it stay like it is, based on that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, in addition to that, Mark, Mr. Duane has a personal hardship and has asked that his item be accelerated on the agenda, and I'm inclined to grant that subject to the concurrence of the other members so -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'll so move. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- we would be turning the entire agenda upside down if we took too many liberties with it. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor of moving Item C to the head of the list, in effect, to be the first thing to be considered this morning, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Moving right along, approval of minutes, January 17th. Any corrections, additions, whatever to those minutes? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: They were fascinating reading. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Page 5 March 7, 2002 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Motion carries. February 7th minutes, corrections, additions, deletions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Move to adopt. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Richardson, Adelstein. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Carried. Planning Commission absences. I'm not sure this has really been very helpful or very meaningful, but anybody anticipate meeting -- missing the first meeting in April? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes, I will miss the first meeting in April. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, then it is meaningful. Any others? BCC report. Susan, recaps for the three meetings? MS. MURRAY: Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You're getting smart now. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Did they agree with us on anything? MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: issues in there. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I don't think there were any of our The -- Avi Baron-- Avi Baron they agreed. Page 6 March 7, 2002 Any MS. MURRAY: -- variance they supported, and I think they agreed with just about everything that you did, that I recall. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: They were all softballs, though. questions of Susan about the recaps? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I know the one item that they didn't agree with us on was the Richfield -- Richman -- MS. MURRAY: Richland PUD. And I think that item was -- the one item that they didn't agree with you on was the phasing of the project until that segment of Immokalee Road was widened. They did not support that. You're correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That was our brave move into the new world to try to get traffic capacity available at the time that the project was being put in. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, I either was here or listened to that segment of that meeting, and my recollection is they might have been inclined to do that, but they received legal advice that they probably could not. So... COMMISSIONER BUDD: MS. MURRAY: That-- COMMISSIONER BUDD: MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Is that true, Susan -- -- because if-- That's my recollection, yes. Because if that's true, it would just be a word of advice to this Planning Commission that any further-- any such attempts, while well intentioned, are a waste of time. MS. MURRAY: Well said. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I don't agree with that at all. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Well, if we want to burn time to get rejected every time -- if it's illegal, it's illegal. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Maybe we send a message -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There may be ways to -- Page 7 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER BUDD: They got the message. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There may be ways to structure it in terms of phasing, though, that the applicant might agree with. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to see the legal opinion, personally have a copy of that opinion, so that we could have a copy of it. MS. MURRAY: It was a verbal opinion that was issued as part of the minutes of the meeting. It was no written legal opinion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sure it -- MS. MURRAY: Marjorie, do-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sure it could be put in writing so that we could look it over. MS. STUDENT: I believe it was Mr. Weigel that delivered the opinion. And he and I spoke about it, and I will talk to him about putting something in writing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I appreciate that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And particularly the circumstances under which that was given, because I don't think that's all -- has to necessarily be viewed as an all-exclusive mandate for us to cease and desist on any attempt to try to match traffic capacity with buildings that are planned. It just doesn't -- that just doesn't make sense. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I want to double-back to addenda to the agenda for just a moment. I've asked Dawn Wolfe to give us a little bit of a briefing on the checkbook concept that seems to be coming into vogue in county planning and which this Planning Commission has never heard of in any official way. So we'll make that Item 10-A, new business. Do we have a motion to approve the agenda as amended and expanded? Page 8 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER BUDD: So moved. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Carried. All right, Mr. Duane. RZ-2001-AR- 1625. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any discussion? Disclosures, Mr. Chairman. Disclosures. I had a conversation with Fred Reischl concerning the zoning to the south. I had documentation that indicated it was different than what was shown to us on this presentation. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any others? All those expecting to testify in the matter now in hearing should rise and be sworn. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Good morning, Fred. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. For the record, I do have a correction, as Mr. Strain pointed out. The lot to the south, on both the application and in my staff report, was listed as RSF-3. It is actually RSF-4. Mr. Duane and I looked at this thing. I -- my only explanation is that we both misread the zoning map. However, it does not affect the analysis. In fact, our discussions on this topic were that were you creating, technically, an isolated zoning district here? And this takes away that discussion that we had. So I wanted to thank Mr. Strain for pointing that out to me. This is a rezone from RMF-16, multifamily, to single family, and Page 9 March 7, 2002 it's in the Port of the Islands subdivision. And, as you can see on the map, it's between the town house area and the single-family area. You can see that better on an aerial. You can see the town houses to the north and the single family to the south. And the petitioner does not want to construct a town house; he wants to construct a single-family home. This rezone is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The lot dimensions are consistent with the Land Development Code. It's compatible with the adjacent zoning. And, as I passed out this morning, there were three letters of no objection from residents in Port of the Islands. And staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This vacant lot in the middle is the one we're talking about then? MR. REISCHL: Yes. I'm sorry. That's the lot in question. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Other questions of staff?. May we hear from the petitioner? MR. DUANE: Good morning. For the record, Robert Duane, and thank you for accommodating my schedule this morning. I appreciate that very much. I have nothing to add, and I'm in agreement with the staff recommendation -- I'm in agreement with the staff recommendation and have nothing to add. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any questions for the petitioner? Any public speakers registered? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing. Discussion and motions? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we forward Petition RZ-2001-AR-1625 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ADELSTE1N: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Budd and Adelstein. Any further Page 10 March 7, 2002 discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Unanimous. Next item, VA-2001-AR-1696, James and Genevieve O'Connell requesting after-the-fact variances in the RSF-4 zoning district. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Disclosures. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Disclosures. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I had a meeting with Kay Deselem, the planner, and reviewed the building permit file in regards to this case. And we discussed some of the issues that I found in the file. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other disclosures? All those wishing to testify, please stand, raise your right hand, be sworn. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I'm the principal planner with development services division, and I'm here to present the staff report to you. You have the memo that is staff's position. One thing that has occurred since this was prepared; the applicant has retained the services of Clay Brooker with Young, van Assenderp and (sic) Vamadoe & Anderson. Boy, I'm glad I don't have to answer their phone. On page 1 of the staff report is the requested action, and it tells you, as mentioned, that this is requesting after-the-fact variances in the RSF-4 zoning district. I have put on the visualizer a zoning overlay that shows you basically where the site is, the little, itty-bitty, yellow piece. And you can see the different streets and see where the piece is Page 11 March 7, 2002 and that the whole general area is zoned RSF-4. You might note that this is in very close area -- very proximate to Mr. Reischl's petition that he just did, as well. Hang on a second. If you give me a moment, I do have a photo of the house. The staff report does explain to you what the Collier County Land Development Code calls for in Section 2.2.4.5, and we have a geographic location to explain, as well as the zoning map that tells you where the parcel is. It's located at 183 Sunset Cay. We now have an aerial photograph that shows you more clearly where it is. In this aerial photograph, the lot appears to be undeveloped, which it was obviously at the time this was taken. However, since that time a house has been constructed on the lot. You can see there is a house across the street. The lots immediately adjacent to this particular site are undeveloped. Here is a photograph of the house that sits on the lot now. I'll try to move it so you can see the -- the entry feature in comparison to the road, the driveway, the stairs. I have some other photos if you need to see them, and it's my understanding the applicant's agent also has some photos. The purpose and description, the petitioner wishes to remedy an encroachment into a front setback for what is obviously an existing single-family home, and the background information in the memo kind of explained to you what has occurred in the process and the different -- basically what it comes down to, when the site plans were initially submitted, it was shown as an entry, and it was not shown as covered. Covered is what triggers it to meet the setback requirements. It was not determined until after the house was constructed that, in fact, the entry was covered. That's why we're here before you today. The memo goes on to tell you that this particular site is located in the urban mixed-use residential land use category. The subject site is consistent with the Future Land Use Element, although variance Page 12 March 7, 2002 requests are not specifically addressed. Beginning on page 2, you have a land use and zoning summary, and you have Attachment B in your packet that basically goes along with this explanation. The surrounding zoning and use, to the north there's an inlet canal, then multifamily units along Stella Maris Drive, and that area is zoned RMF-16. To the east -- I'll go back to the aerial, and you can kind of piece it together from there. To the east are two undeveloped single-family platted lots that are zoned RSF-4, then Cays Drive. To the south is Sunset Cay. And, as you can see in the aerial, there is an error in the report in that there is a home constructed on one of the lots, and some of the other lots you can see up here to be cleared, and there may be other homes constructed in the area. Down along the cul-de-sac, there are homes existing there as well. And across from that is Sunset Cay, the undeveloped single-family platted lots fronting on Venus Cay. To the west are undeveloped single-family platted lots. This particular property is not located within an area of historical and archaeological probability, so we didn't get into those issues. There -- the variance request will have no effect on infrastructure, transportation, or the environment. As you can see, the site is on a paved road, and the site cleared. Staffs analysis gives you our analysis as to the general guidelines to be used to make -- help you make your determination, and they go through-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Your voice is carrying. MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The people in the front row's voices are competing with yours. MS. DESELEM: Item A asks if there are special conditions or circumstances that are pecu-- peculiar -- sorry about that -- to the location, size, and characteristics of the land, structure, or building. And, no, the home is designed to fit the lot. It just is -- a matter of Page 13 March 7, 2002 omissions and errors amongst everybody involved has resulted in what you have today. And the response to B is basically the same thing, in that there were no preexisting conditions. It was just the way the particular home was sited on the lot. Literal interpretations on (sic) the provisions work an undue, necessary (sic) hardship on the applicant; there is no land-related hardship. And, D, will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land? Although it may be the minimum variance that -- that would allow the use to exist, there is a reasonable use of the land in that a home sited on the lot to meet setbacks would be the reasonable use of the land. Will granting the variance request confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures? Yes. In this case the granting of the variance will allow the petitioner to have a front yard smaller than the minimum required, in that those along the same street that are yet to construct would have to comply, where this particular structure does not. This relates to Item F as far as the harmony of the neighborhood. Other homeowners couldn't build the same thing that this particular site exhibits unless they sought variances as well. Item G, natural conditions or physically induced conditions? No. There are no such issues in this particular request. And, B (sic), will the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? As previously noted, variances aren't specifically addressed by the Growth Management Plan. Since it's a cleared site, it did not need to go to the Environmental Advisory Council. Planning staff, in summary, is recommending that this particular Page 14 March 7, 2002 petition be forwarded to the BZA with a recommendation of denial, and we have provided you with our reasoning behind that. I would mention that I've received several phone calls and correspondences regarding this particular request, and I believe the applicant may actually be presenting copies of those. Suffice to say, I've seen some things that say, yes, please approve it -- and obviously I'm summarizing -- and others that are in-- not in support of it. So it kind of-- I've seen both ways. I do -- I don't have copies of them, but I do have the letters with me if anyone wants to see them. And with me today I also have Johnnie Gebhardt, who is the permitting supervisor, and Jackie Hart, who is the permitting technician. If you have specific questions that they can address as far as the actual intake and those kind of things, they'd be happy to address those. Other than that, that's all I have for you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to attempt to answer them. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions for staff?. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Kay, the visual that you used, did that come from the property appraiser's system? MS. DESELEM: Which, the aerial photograph? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. I'm just curious why that's so far out of date. MS. DESELEM: are dated 2000. MS. MURRAY: I thought they updated that at least once a year. Correct me if I'm wrong, Susan. I think these That's what I understand, yeah. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So all those homes that you showed on that one -- that were indicated on the other photograph have been built since this was taken, obviously. MS. DESELEM: It's been my experience in planning that aerial photographs in an area that's growing as quickly as Southwest Florida Page 15 March 7, 2002 are customarily at least a year behind, if not -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This area has not traditionally been growing very fast down, though, at the Port of the Islands. MS. DESELEM: I meant Southwest Florida in general. By the time you get everything flown and then organized, it takes it a while to get available to anybody. And, unfortunately -- if we were in a big city that didn't experience the growth that we do, it would be current. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can you give us your assessment as the principal planner as to what the problem is here? Whose fault was this? MS. DESELEM: I don't really like to cast aspersions as to -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We want you to. MS. DESELEM: -- who was at fault. Oh, you do? Okay. It's difficult to ascertain. It seems as though it's circumstances where it was just a lot of things that went together to create the situation we had. At some point staff has to back off and not question things that are submitted by professionals because then it gets to a point where you're questioning the integrity of the professional and they're offended, and that's obviously a reasonable thing to -- to believe. But since we looked at an entry feature -- and if you look at the information that I've supplied to you as far as the various plans, you see that in the first one the back area said "covered." The front area said "entry." So at some point the technicians that look at these things have to make a judgment call. They can't ask all the questions. They have to assume the professional that prepared the plan, the person that submitted the plan, understood what they wanted and if it were to be covered, they would have said so. They didn't. Staff looked at it based on what they were submitted. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: At what point did the county discover the error? Page 16 March 7, 2002 MS. DESELEM: The county discovered the error when the site plan was submitted for certificate of occupancy, which was after the home, was built. At that point -- let me see which -- this is Attachment E. At that point it is noted as "covered entry." Up until that time -- if you look at Attachment D, this is the -- the survey -- or the -- what they supplied to us once they put in the footer, and it says "walls only." Staff had no reason to question it. And if you look at that particular exhibit, there is a notation at the top that says "setbacks okay." At that point everything appeared to meet setbacks, and you can see they're circled where the technicians looked at it and reviewed it based on the information they knew to be correct. Same way if you go back to Attachment C, which is the site plan that was originally submitted when they applied for the building permit. It says "entry." But if you'll notice, the porch at the rear of the lot says "covered porch." I mean, it's unfortunate that we can't all communicate everything that we know and -- and everything go along that way. But, you know, it's hard to say. And, like I said, you don't want to cast aspersions or -- or put blame on anybody. It's just one of those things that happened. It's unfortunate for the homeowner. It's difficult for staff to have to go back and deal with these issues. But we're very busy. We do a lot of things, and at some point you have to take them at their word and see what you see and go on with it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So it's your judgment that we should deny this variance, and they should tear it down. MS. DESELEM: At this point that's staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I have one question of staff. Kay, I have an Exhibit E in -- in my packet. Something you said I have a question. I mentioned the house was designed to fit the lot. We're concentrating on the front setback. If you look at the rear setback on this particular lot -- I shouldn't say the rear setback -- the Page 17 March 7, 2002 rear dimensions shown on Exhibit E, it shows there's a 20-foot drainage easement in the rear off the lake. Those are maintenance easements. They're not allowed to be intruded upon with structures. The pool deck that's there right now is shown pretty close to that 20- foot drainage easement. If you had to move this house back 10 feet that pool deck would be in the drainage easement. And I'm wondering if the house was really designed to fit the lot, based on that. MS. DESELEM: I really can't speak to that because I didn't design the house. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. If you move this house back 10 feet and you've met the front setback, would the house that's here, then, be designed to fit the lot in the build able area, considering the fact you'd be intruding in that 20-foot maintenance easement in the back yard? MS. DESELEM: It may encroach, but it could have been redesigned to fit the lot, in that there is plenty of room on this lot to accommodate the size home and the things that they're asking for or that they're showing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I guess that's where I'm having trouble with it. If this -- if this home wouldn't fit on this lot -- if they didn't get this variance is what I'm trying to get at, because they would be pushing their rear pool deck into the 20-foot maintenance easement in the rear, and I'm -- is that a true statement or not.'? Do you know? MS. DESELEM: If I understand you correctly, yes. I would say that is a true statement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So the house wouldn't fit the lot. And what I'm getting at is maybe this was contrived from the beginning by moving the house too far forward because they knew if they moved it too far back, they would be into a maintenance easement, and they wouldn't have gotten approval on that. And I'm just wondering if that's something that was thought of or you've heard Page 18 March 7, 2002 any discussion in that regard. MS. DESELEM: I really can't respond to that because I don't know what anybody's intent was, and nobody has told me. I mean, the applicant or the agent may speak to that, but I truly can't. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: designed for the lot at all. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. So your point is it really wasn't That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Kay, could you put that other picture back up, the picture of-- the side picture of the house? MS. DESELEM: Picture of the house? Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Push it back a little bit to the right or your left or whatever. All right. A couple of things. It looks to me as though that house down the street -- now it may be a perspective problem, but it looks as though it's closer to the street than -- than is the porch, the covered porch. Is this just a -- MS. DESELEM: I didn't go out and measure it. I was basically concentrating on the particular subject parcel. It very well could be a perception thing because of the camera angles. I have some other pictures, if you'd like to see them that might help put it into perspective. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: While you're doing that, I just wanted to -- while you're bringing those pictures up, you had mentioned the first one that showed covered porch, Exhibit -- Attachment C, the covered porch, and then the entry just said "entry." Then you went to Attachment D where it said "walls only." Well, that was a -- a foundation plan. MS. DESELEM: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It also says just "patio." It doesn't say anything about covered. And it says "concrete slab with block walls." It doesn't say anything about a roof. So I don't think Page 19 March 7, 2002 that's a -- MS. DESELEM: I was just -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand. MS. DESELEM: -- you know, trying to bring it through the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But let's bring it into perspective, that none of the things said anything about covered on Attachment D. And then about what Mark said about if the house were designed -- well, we're only looking at a 4-foot variance. And so maybe if we moved -- if the house were moved only 4 feet back to meet the front setback, it would fit and be inside the -- the drainage easement. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. I think in one instance if you look at the stairs and the walkway -- you know, it's kind of hard to think back now and look what might have been, but it doesn't look like the steps are as -- as tall as they are. But the applicant can address this, because I think they had to make some changes in their design as they went through the process based on elevations that they had to meet and fill and that type of thing. This is the house basically from a front perspective. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There are two variances, though. That's what-- There's a 9.9 -- That's what I'm discovering too. They're looking -- there is a 9 -- there is a request for a 9.9-foot variance, Dave. MS. DESELEM: Here is a perspective from the other side looking back the other way. This particular picture -- is this the same -- I don't think it's the same one. I think it shows more of the houses down along the cul-de-sac where you can see that it actually has developed a little bit. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: If you follow -- right there. If Page 20 March 7, 2002 you follow the utility pedestals, you can kind of get a perspective of where it is. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. That's true. This is noted on the caption. It's the house across the street. And I just put that in there so you can see that there is a house across the street, and this is what it looks like. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Kay, if the covered feature were somehow able to be architecturally re -- changed and removed and we leave the rest of the house there, then it would come into conformance, because it wouldn't be a structure, then, if it were an open stairwell? MS. DESELEM: Yeah. It's the fact that it's covered. Obviously that would be one remedy. Whether or not it's viable from a building standpoint, I can't respond to that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There is an encroachment maximum in setback areas by attachments to structures, and I'm wondering how that fits into this. I mean, for example, an air- conditioning unit can go into a side yard, but it's blended into a certain depth. Would this exceed that depth that would be -- or do you know offhand if the code addresses that? MS. DESELEM: Susan can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's allowed to go 3 feet or something. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. It's right in the front page of the staff report. MS. DESELEM: MS. MURRAY: Oh, yeah. We put that in there for you so you can -- unroofed and unenclosed stairways, like air conditioners and whatnot, can encroach 3 feet into the setback requirements. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So they'd still need a variance if the cover was taken off. MS. DESELEM: I believe so, yes. I'm trying to backtrack it to Page 21 March 7, 2002 give you the appropriate answer. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're saying now that they would need a variance even if that roof came off. MS. DESELEM: Yes. At least for the stairs, because the stairs-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: They'd have to use a trampoline to get into the house. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Funny looking house. MS. DESELEM: It's a very awkward situation at best. It was interesting to see that the neighbors' responses in their letters was mixed. Some were concerned that there would be a precedence being set by this and everybody would then want to do it; others were very sympathetic to the problem. And it just was up and down the avenue as far as what the neighbors thought about it. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I might point out, Kay, just as a matter of process, we often -- and I don't know what the procedure is going to be in the future. We often get copies of the correspondence as part of our package. MS. DESELEM: Yes. I would have done that had I gotten them in time, but I was still getting them as of yesterday faxed into me. But I would be more than happy to give you what I have at the time the staff report goes out. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I guess I'd like to hear from the professionals on our side as to how they think this happened and if there's any repair work that can be done to the process. MS. DESELEM: Okay. Johnnie Gebhardt's here, and I think she can address that. MS. GEBHARDT: Good morning, gentlemen. As Kay pointed out to you, this is one of those unfortunate things that -- you have a Page 22 March 7, 2002 group of people at the front counter who are looking at setbacks. They're looking at this is -- the site plan shows -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Could you move closer to the microphone, please? MS. GEBHARDT: I'm sorry. They're looking at setbacks. They look at it as an entry. An entry to them -- when they look back three pages, all they see is a slab. It goes back to the plan reviewers. They look at the plans. They see a covered entry, but they're not looking at setbacks. We have a proposal to the administrator to hire two additional people to do nothing but look at setbacks and zoning. Hopefully that'll address the problems that we have, but this is one of those things that could have slipped through the cracks very easily even if we had additional staff who were doing nothing but looking at setbacks and zoning. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Don't you have building inspectors that go out there and look from time -- MS. GEBHARDT: Yes, sir, but they don't check setbacks. All they're looking for is to make sure that construction meets the codes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And the code does not tell them to look at distance from property lines? MS. GEBHARDT: No, sir. They have no idea what the setback is supposed to be. All they're checking is the construction of the structure. In this particular instance, the builder, when he brought his survey in, he was told that it encroached. It's my understanding that he never relayed that to the property owner. She became aware of it when she called me, like, two or three weeks after he had been in, and she asked me why they couldn't get a CO. When I found out that it was her house -- because Teri and I go back a long way -- I asked her to come in and sit down and talk to us. And I told her then what the problem was. She had no idea. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Has the house received a CO? Page 23 March 7, 2002 MS. GEBHARDT: They have a temporary CO -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Temporary. So they're in the house? MS. GEBHARDT: -- pending -- pending the outcome. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: They're living in the house now? MS. GEBHARDT: I -- I don't know. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Johnnie, you said the builder became aware. Was that at the spot survey of the -- MS. GEBHARDT: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: -- slab or the final -- MS. GEBHARDT: That was at the time he came in with the final survey. That was the time that it came to light to us. My staff pointed it out to me, but I had no idea that it was the O'Connell's house until Teri called. This is a very unusual circumstance, because normally when they bring a set of plans in and the site plan, it says, "covered." Any entryway that is covered is marked as covered, and that triggers staff to start looking at setbacks from that covered entry. Without knowing that and without reviewing the plans, there was no way -- for the people who were making the setback determination, there was no way for them to know to measure from that entry. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But I understand that if they remove the cover now, it still would not be in compliance, so it -- MS. GEBHARDT: That's right, because the stairs would still have an encroachment. They could encroach 3 feet, I think Susan said, but they would still -- because of the size of the stairs, they would still need a variance. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment from my perspective as administrator. For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator, community development, environmental services. The -- the folks that work at the front counter certainly have a Page 24 March 7, 2002 responsibility for reviewing the drawings, but we shall not and we should not forget that there's some culpability on the -- on the side of the AE firm that designed the house, that laid out the house, and there's a professional responsibility of reviewing the code prior to doing that. Our folks only had the responsibility to assure that the setbacks are met. Those are clearly defined within the LDC. And when you talk about our inspectors, our inspectors are -- certainly are certified to go out and do various aspects of construction. And in the same vein, they're there to protect the public's interest. They're not -- they're not there to, shall I say, augment the responsibility of the builder, to perform quality assurance or quality control. That's the builder's responsibility. Our inspectors go out to ensure compliance with the codes. And that's the same thing with the -- the folks when they come in to review a drawing. It's to assure compliance. It's not to perform the quality control. That is the responsibility of the -- the builder or-- or the industry and the nature of the industry. So there is a professional liability here that I think needs to be pointed to the direction of the firm that designed the house. MS. GEBHARDT: And just as a matter of-- of information to you, when the staff at the front counter review these plans for setbacks, they put a stamp on the site plan that says these are what your setbacks are. Most builders are aware that if it's a covered structure, it has to meet those setbacks. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just so you know, I looked at the building record file, and I didn't see a site plan by the architect. I saw a site plan by the surveyor, and I'm not sure how accurate he had the footprint of the building portrayed from the architectural firm. So it apparently may have been some lack of communication between the two firms. In the end I -- I have to fall back on what I said earlier: This house could not have fit on this lot if they had used the setbacks Page 25 March 7, 2002 that were allocated by code. Without your department seeing it on a site plan, it would have been more difficult for you to understand that. MS. GEBHARDT: But we have to rely on them to give us the accurate information. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I agree with you. MS. GEBHARDT: Because we have nine people that processed almost 28,000 permits last year. They simply can't go through and scale everything and check it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, I don't think anybody was attempting to cast any aspersions on the building department. I think, rather, we're looking to see if the culpability of the builder and the people on that side was in any way ameliorated by the fact that the county might have caught it -- caught the problem in the normal course of business. And from what we've heard, it sounds as if in the normal course of business, the county would not catch an error of that sort. So that does not relieve the -- the builder and his associates of responsibility for it. That's the way I would sum it up, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: Yep. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Any further questions for any member of staff?. May we hear from the petitioner? MR. BROOKER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board members. My name is Clay Brooker. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson at 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300, Naples 34108. We were retained after the petition was filed for the variance and after the staff report came back recommending denial. I would first like to -- to clarify that this is an after-the-fact variance, and neither I nor the clients, the O'Connells, relish the fact that we are here before you trying to get a variance from (sic) an encroachment that already exists. It's not a position that we like to be Page 26 March 7, 2002 in. It doesn't put the board in a very good position. It doesn't put the county in a very good position. But I would like to try to explain to you in a presentation that this was not a contrived, deceptive, intentional violation by the owners, and they are, in fact, an innocent victim in this whole scheme. Before I begin, I have a small packet of information I'd like to pass out, Mr. Chairman, if I may approach. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is there one there for the reporter? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Marjorie, if something's passed out to us at a meeting and it's issued as part of the record, does that mean that it's assumed we've taken it into consideration in our deliberations on this board? MS. STUDENT: If it's part of the record, my opinion would be that it is assumed that it was taken into account as part of deliberations. I shared with one of the members a resolution that deals with quasi-judicial hearings before this board and before the Board of County Commissioners, and there's some time limits on when things are received by the board, and it's at the discretion of the board if they wish to receive other information. I would say that if you wish to -- if you do make your decision and it doesn't include the information that was passed out, that you need to state that and state on the record why it would not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, there's quite a packet of information here, Marjorie. And to be fair to the applicant, it would be very hard to expect us to take this into consideration while we sit here listening to you debate it today. On that premise alone, I cannot make my deliberations based on this information. I can on what you state, but I certainly don't have time to review this packet. MR. BROOKER: If I may comment on it, much of it is reproduction from the staff report that I'll be -- that I just wanted to easily refer to in my presentation with the tabs. And I will go through Page 27 March 7, 2002 it and point out certain portions that I would like to direct your attention to be focused on. Is there -- do I need to ask for a motion to have it admitted? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Why don't we withhold judgment on whether to -- to admit it until we hear how he ties it in. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chair, may I read from-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I know it says five or seven days in advance and-- MS. STUDENT: Yeah. It says, No later than one week prior to the scheduled public hearing before the board -- and that would include the Planning Commission -- any applicant, proponent, or opponent may submit any written arguments, evidence, explanations, studies, reports, petitions, or other documentation to staff for intended consideration by the board in support of or in opposition to the applicant. And then it states what needs to be done with the agenda packet. And furthermore, no written materials will be accepted by the board at its hearing unless, at the board's discretion, acceptance is necessary to decide the issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ergo, what? What's your bottom line, that we should -- MS. STUDENT: I think-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- reject it out of hand? MS. STUDENT: I think it's up to the board to determine. It's at the board's discretion, and it's up to the board's determination -- or up to the board to determine whether or not this information is necessary based on the description that's presented by the applicant. If it's merely just recopying what you already have, as I think he stated, you may wish to take that into consideration. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, first of all, I can tell you by looking at it, it's not a copy of what we already have. I'm not sure if you've seen our packet, but this isn't a duplicate of that. Page 28 March 7, 2002 MR. BROOKER: I was referring to the staff report attachments. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, this isn't in the packet that we received from the staff. MR. BROOKER: It's not identical, but most of it is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, we can debate that, too, if you'd like. The photographs on your B are not part of the packet received. The county permit on C are not part of the packet we received, all of C. D we received -- part of D. We -- E we did not receive. So you might have had two issues in there that we've received. The rest of it is new information. MR. BROOKER: E are -- E are some of the neighbor letters that Ms. Deselem said she did not want -- did not have to provide to you. Again, if you'll just withhold -- I'll request you withhold your determination of whether to admit it in. You'll see it's not that technical of an issue. And you can, I would then suggest, make your determination after that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have no problem with -- MS. STUDENT: I would just add that if the board feels it can make its determination based on what it already has and the testimony that it hears today and -- then I think you can go forward. If you feel that that material is necessary for you to make your decision, then I think you could continue it, if you'd like, in order to study the information or if you feel that the applicant can summarize it, because after all, part of the requirement is based on the testimony that you hear today. So you need to obviously digest what's presented orally to you, and you haven't had any pre-presentation of that, other than the staff report and what's in writing, and he has to highlight that, so it's at your discretion pursuant -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It seems to me we're moving to the point of rejecting this package and requiring the petitioner to verbalize that -- portions of it that he wants us to know about. Page 29 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: that effect. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I would like to make a motion to I'll second it. Discussion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I kind of feel that if the applicant feels it's important enough that we go through this, then I think this matter should be continued to give -- give us the opportunity to do that. I know I can't go through it today. If you feel it's that important that we use this, then all you have to do is say to us you'd like to continue this to the next available meeting date, and I think that would solve your problem. MR. BROOKER: I believe you'll see that it's -- it's not that important to it. It was just for reference purposes only. MS. STUDENT: And I think we need to have the applicant clearly state that on the record so if there's a problem later on, they cannot come back at this board or the Board of County Commissioners and allege that there was insufficient evidence or a lack of competent substantial evidence to support the record. MR. BROOKER: We will -- we will submit that -- when we get to the Board of County Commissioners, we will submit it in a timely manner and -- so there'll be no problems about due process. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And you're ready to proceed today knowing that we are rejecting this package -- MR. BROOKER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- as such, or about to? MR. BROOKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Marjorie, he just said when he gets to the Board of County Commissioners, and you had requested something pertaining to us today. Does that meet your requirement, his stating-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, I just asked him if he was Page 30 March 7, 2002 proceeding today knowing -- MS. STUDENT: He-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- that we're going to reject it. MS. STUDENT: He essentially waived, you know, an argument that there's lack of competent substantial evidence as to this board and agreeing that, you know, he -- you-all don't have to consider this as -- as part of your deliberation. It -- it's his opinion that he -- based on his presentation and what you already have, that, you know, he's agreeable to that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor of the motion? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Unanimous. Proceed. MR. BROOKER: I apologize for the confusion. The house is in the single-family residential zoning district, RSF-4. It is a waterfront lot. It backs into a canal. The setbacks, therefore, are 25 feet front, 25 foot rear, and 10 feet on both sides. As mentioned above, the house is already built. There is an approximate 1 O-foot encroachment into the front yard setback. In other words, instead of the 25-foot setback requirement, the house sits approximately 15 feet back from the property line. I will refer if you'd like -- I know it hasn't been admitted into the record, but I'll refer to the packet. If you'd like to take a look at the packet information, the photos are at Tab B, all of which, I believe, have already been seen on the visualizer. The encroachment itself is caused by the stairway and entryway element combined. If you look at -- I believe it's any of the attachments to the staff report and my Attachment D to the handout, you will see that the actual walls of-- the technical walls of the house do, in fact, meet the 25-foot setback. Page 31 March 7, 2002 It is only the entryway and the stairway that cause the problem here. I know there was a lot of confusion about how this occurred. As the staff report mentions, there were errors and omissions on both the county and the builder's side. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a point of clarification. We did not hear anything that indicated there was any errors or omissions on the county side, because I asked that question specifically of the principal planner. MR. BROOKER: I'll refer you to page 3 of 6 of the staff report. Subparagraph A under analysis, the nonbolded, I guess the second full sentence, "Omissions and errors on the part of county staff and the surveyor/builder have resulted in the encroachment." COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm aware that that was in there, and that's the reason I asked that specific question and got clarification that this was not what was intended. I will go back to staff after you get through and see if they still stand by this statement or want to correct it. Thank you. MR. BROOKER: So the building permit was issued back in December of 2000, and that-- that's why I attached Tab C to my packet. All it is is the building permit filed to show the dates. There are only two dates that are at issue. The building permit was issued in December of 2000. The house was completed essentially in September of 2001, at which time the CO was applied for and at which time the county first caught the problem and at which time the county or the owners of the house first became aware of this problem. The initial site plan that was submitted for the building permit application, there's been a lot of discussion about it this morning. That is Attachment C to the staff report. That is the portion that-- that states "entry," and it doesn't have the word "covered" on it. That particular site plan that was submitted by the builder or surveyor on behalf of the owners was flawed. It did not show the stairways, and it Page 32 March 7, 2002 did not clarify that that entryway would be covered. However, at the same time when this site plan is submitted, the building plans come with it. The building plans that were submitted on the same very day, I have a copy here, and I know you guys don't want to go through this. The first page shows the stairways and the covered portion -- the covered part of the entryway. So I -- I believe that's where the errors of the county came in. Because of the processing in the building department, all that really -- if there was any confusion about whether this entry was covered or not, the building plans from day one have always shown there are stairs and that there is a covered entryway. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Do you happen to have a site plan that shows Attachment C in there that we can put on the overhead? MR. BROOKER: I don't believe there is, and I -- because I think these were plans that were drawn up by the architect, and there might have been miscommunication between the architect and the surveyor. And just for the record, the owners are not exactly on cooperating terms with the builder at this point for obvious reasons, this petition and this hearing being one of them. If you would like to take a look at the plans, I'm more than happy to show them to you. But for the record, I will state that the plans that have been with the county in their files from day one have shown the stairs and the covered entryway. The -- as I said, the house was finished in September 2001. It was at that time, after the CO was applied for for the first time, that the owner, Mr. And Mrs. O'Connell, became aware of this problem, and it was by a discussion with Ms. Johnnie Gebhardt from the building department, that you heard from just a few moments ago. I would like to make a comment about the pool and the comment that was made that this was contrived from the beginning. There's Page 33 March 7, 2002 nothing further -- nothing further from the truth exists. That pool was added after-- if you look at Attachment C, which was initially submitted, it has no pool. That pool was added after the fact, when the owners found out that there was room to put this on and no encroachment had occurred yet. So the pool came after the fact. It is - - in fact, there's no question that this house -- it's a very -- compared to the building envelope that you could -- what -- the size of the house you could place on this -- this lot, the house is much, much smaller, and I'll get to that in a minute. The -- Section 2.7.5 of the Land Development Code sets out the variance procedures and criteria. 2.7.5.1 discusses and states that a variance may be issued if there's a -- if the literal enforcement of the zoning code will result in unnecessary and undue hardship or practical difficulty to the owner. Under these circumstances we believe that there are un-- there would be an unnecessary and undue hardship to either move this house 10 feet back, saw off the stairs and the -- and the entryway thereby requiring a trampoline for entrance, whatever the case may be. It would be a practical difficulty in no small sense of the words. 2.7.5.6 of the Land Development Code talks about the criteria, what guidelines the board should follow. Again, there's discussion of hardship. There's discussion of special circumstances. And we contend that those circumstances and hardship do exist here. In my packet the -- we have received at least nine letters of support from neighbors. To my knowledge, although I haven't received the letters objecting, there have been two. Those are in Section E. Again, I know it's not part of the record, but in general the - - the neighbors are stating it's -- the home is a nice addition to the community. We are not opposed. Any considerations you can show to the petitioner would be appreciated. And just recently the house directly across the street sent in another letter saying they do not oppose the variance being-- Page 34 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is there a reason some of those letters are not signed? MR. BROOKER: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I did breeze through it. I noticed about half the letters were not signed by -- MR. BROOKER: They are -- they're signed at the top. They filled in their address. They didn't put very truly yours. They didn't realize they had to sign it at the bottom, but they did sign their name at the top and put their address. Just a few last points as I wrap up, and I hope these comments will reduce any anxiety about the variance that's being sought today or any feelings of discomfort about this whole situation. The stairs are uncovered, obviously, by the pictures that you see. The entryway is, in fact, covered, but there are no walls to it. It's basically an open-air structure. So this is not the type of circumstance where you have a walled, enclosed structure that's encroaching into a setback. So from that standpoint we -- we contend that the intrusiveness of the encroachment is mitigated somewhat. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If there's no walls -- Exhibit -- or Attachment D, which is one of your surveys, shows walls only -- what is it pointing to when it points to the walls in the entry area that are not there? MR. BROOKER: Unknown. There are no walls. There are columns. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Unknown. Then why would a surveyor submit that to the county as a document that was required for review? That goes back to the original question, I guess, that -- MR. BROOKER: Again, I -- the surveyor and the builder we are not in cooperation or communication with. Perhaps the building department can answer that question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mark, if you look at the Page 35 March 7, 2002 picture that you have and which Kay also had, it looks like there is a structure there that's -- has walls. And underneath this covered porch, there appears to be a storage area that you access from the driveway. I mean, this is more than just a covered stairwell. It's actually an -- it's a storage area for whatever they store in their storage area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I wonder if anybody's living there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So I would-- I presume that if they show walls, that's the walls they're talking about, because that's the walls that are there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Has that been taken into consideration by county staff, in regards that this is a storage area as well? MS. DESELEM: In all reality, no, I -- until you actually mentioned that. It's, like, by golly, there is something there, and I never really thought that. I was looking at it from the point of view of COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So do they need a variance for a storage area, then, too? MS. DESELEM: That's what I was just discussing with my coworkers to see what the situation might be, because we dealt with the entry feature, rather than the structure. I'll have to check on that and get back to you. Okay. The clarification is it doesn't matter -g from Ray Bellows, the encroachment's the same. What you call it or what the structure is, it has to do with the actual encroachment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BUDD: But would it matter as far as the remedy? If you pulled the roof back and it was no longer covered, would it still be an encroachment? MS. DESELEM: Yes, it would still be an encroachment. It appears as though the revelation that there's a structure there other Page 36 March 7, 2002 than the entry feature, it makes remedying the problem a little bit more difficult perhaps, a little bit more involved anyway. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Kay, as long as you're up there and if you don't mind, we've had this contention about your report versus what I thought we elicited from our discussion with staff about the extent to which the county staff was in error in processing this. We heard from the administrator that while there may have been an opportunity to have uncovered things along the way, that it was not really part of the process, as it was unfolded to us, that we would necessarily take up the slack from professional responsibility of the other people that were involved here, meaning the applicant and his surveyor and those folks. MS. DESELEM: I-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But you've reported that it is, and I just want to make sure. Do you still stand by that statement, and therefore you're agreeing with the applicant; or is it more in line with what was explained to us verbally? MS. DESELEM: In retrospect, having been the one that authored the staff report, I think it was more -- would have been more clear if the word "perceived" error or omissions, because as has been explained, it's, like, at what point in time do you rely on the professionals that prepared it? Sure, if there were different ways to do it and other -- I mean, there could have been some way you might have found it. So it's a perceived error on the part -- and I'm sure the applicant is -- is concerned with that, and that's their position, is that staff should have caught it. So in their instance they would see it as an error or an omission. But in reality, as I said, I don't think there was any error on staff's part, and I do stand -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then I would like to have the record show that -- MS. DESELEM: Yes. Page 37 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -_ as it goes forward. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'm not sure that this inquiry into the county staff's action is much more than a red herring. It's always -- a person whose conduct is in question, it's always a good tactic to make somebody else the defendant. And that seems to me, to a degree, what this excursion into the staff's responsibility, since there seems to have been none, amounts to. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I -- I think just to clarify -- and I'll ask Johnnie so you understand the procedures -- Johnnie, if you could come up and explain and just clarify, but I'll just kind of highlight. When a -- when an applicant comes in, the setbacks are reviewed at the front counter. When the building plans go back for building review, the plans are reviewed for compliance to the code as far as for structural integrity and other aspects of the code. There's no secondary review of setbacks when we look at the actual building plans. That's a whole different review process. And, Johnnie, if you would clarify that. Okay. So there's not a -- there's not a duplicity here where -- the initial review are the setbacks. The setbacks are clearly stated in the LDC. And, in fact, they're stamped, and they're an obvious -- they're obvious -- obviously stated right on the Exhibit C that-- or Exhibit D when you look at the inspection sheet that was handed out. But the building review process is -- is a different process. It's not a review again of the setbacks. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's restating what I thought I had said. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Johnnie, while-- MR. SCHMITT: I just wanted to clarify it for the record. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: While we're on that, is there any way that you could put Attachment C on the overhead? Page 38 March 7, 2002 MR. SCHMITT: Our Attachment C or the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Correct. Yes. Is there any way we can zoom in on the entry? Any closer, or is that it? What is that above the word "entry"? MS. GEBHARDT: I do not know. It appears from the plans that something was erased. I don't know. It never showed up on our plans. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It did sort of-- I didn't see it at first because of all the other dots around the entry area, but then you look at it, and it's -- MS. GEBHARDT: I have the original -- I have the original plans here, if you'd like to look at them -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MS. GEBHARDT: -- the ones that we have in our file. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It looks like that might be "covered" that's been erased. MS. GEBHARDT: If it was erased, it was done before it was given to us, because our copy is -- is a photostatic copy or a carbon copy, a reproduction. MR. BROOKER: For the record, do the plans confirm that the covered -- the entry was covered from day one and -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Building plans for a building that could have been a model house anywhere in Collier County. They were submitted for review based on that. It's not -- the site plans is what's in question here, and your site plan is the issue that David was trying to show is -- had some concern over the -- what may have been whited out or taken off the plan. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead. MR. BROOKER: Thank you. I would just like to make the comment that we're not pointing fingers to anyone. The bottom line Page 39 March 7, 2002 here is that the only person that's going to be harmed here is the only innocent party in this, and that's clear, without dispute, if this variance is not granted. With regard to whether there's a word erased or not, we don't have any information on that, and I would contend that we not go down the speculation road because we simply don't know. Two last comments: Again, talking about how -- this variance, if granted, there -- there's not as much intrusiveness to it as it would first appear. Sunset Cay, the right-of-way for the road is 50 feet according to the attachments to the staff report. The actual road was built to about a 24-foot width, meaning the -- if you stand on the edge of the pavement of Sunset Cay on the north and look at this house, there's actually 28 feet between the edge of the pavement and the beginning of the stairways. Finally -- and this gets back to Mr. Strain's comment about the pool and was this house designed for the lot. If you look at the setbacks, the other setbacks, on the left or west side of the house, there is a 1 O-foot setback requirement; 12 foot -- 12 feet is -- the house actually sits 12 feet back from that line, a 20 percent increase over the setback requirement there. The rear yard setback, not counting the pool, and you don't for this purpose, is 44 feet; it's required 25. That's a 76 percent increase over what's required in the rear. The right side of the house or the east side of the house, the setback required is 10 feet; the actual setback is 30 feet, a 300 percent increase over what's required. So the point being that this is a small house. This is not an attempt to maximize the development potential and squish a building that really didn't fit on this lot. There is a lot of room everywhere else. The pool could actually be moved elsewhere -- or could have been moved elsewhere had it not already been constructed. One of the purposes of a setback is to create open air, green space, that kind of Page 40 March 7, 2002 look. There is a lot of it on this property, on this lot. Under these circumstances, then, we would -- we would ask that you recommend an approval of the variance, if not for the only reason that the only innocent party here is the only party that's going to be detrimentally impacted by it. Again, I -- I'm happy to attempt to answer any questions you may have, but we respectfully request a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you missed my point. My point was that this house as designed, as built, could not fit within the building envelope allocated for this site. Is that true? MR. BROOKER: That's -- that's correct. If you picked up the pool -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's my point. MR. BROOKER: -- and picked up the house and moved it back out of the 10 feet, I believe, according to these plans -- which I would not put much credence on at this point -- the pool deck would actually extend into the drainage easement in the back. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BROOKER: That's not to say that the pool could have been designed or placed elsewhere had this problem been made aware to the owner. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You can design anything to fit. Further questions? Could you put that picture of the profile of the house back on the visualizer, please. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I have one registered speaker if you're ready to go. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Not quite. We're talking about two variances here. One is 4 feet because the entry is covered, irrespective of the storage area down below, assuming that's what it is. The other is 9.9 feet for that stairway. Now, does that stairway -- from the point of the porch to the point of the landing, is that 9.9 feet out? Page 41 March 7, 2002 MR. BROOKER: No. The total encroachment, if you take both elements into account, is 9.9 feet. The stairway itself, I believe, is 5.9 feet. The entryway is whatever the difference is, 4-point-some feet. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, my question is if there are two variances involved here, one for the covered and one for the stairs, is it feasible at all to swing that stairway around to the side of the house opposite the driveway? You would have to walk around, but that might be better than chopping off the front of the house. MR. BROOKER: We would consider anything other than chopping off the front of the house to be a better scenario. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You see what I'm talking about? MR. BROOKER: I believe if you're swinging the stairs parallel to the landing-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes. That's exactly-- MR. BROOKER: I'm not an architect. I can't -- I don't know if that's feasible. That was your question, if that's feasible. The owners - COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Excuse me. Don't we have a picture of it looking at it from that side? I thought we had one at the beginning. MR. BROOKER: My Packet B -- Tab B has some pictures that might help. MS. DESELEM: We were going to clarify for you the measurements. If you look at Attachment F, where it's measured to, whether it's measured to the walkway, it's measured to the actual stairs, not that walkway. Look on Attachment F, and you can see where the 15.1 feet measurement is taken from. MR. SCHMITT: It's right at -- the first step of the stairway going up is the 15.1 feet, which is the one variance. The 21.0 feet, which is the actual stair structure, the top of the stairs is the second variance, which is, of course, the same elevation as the covered porch entryway. Page 42 March 7, 2002 So there are two -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The stairs itself are 5.9; is that right? MS. DESELEM: Yes. That's what's shown. If I may, I do have a picture that kind of shows the other side of that stairway -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Please. MS. DESELEM: -- that you were talking about switching it around. And, again, I'm not an architect either, but there does appear to be a window where the stairs may be, and I don't know what the ramifications to that might be. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, it just strikes me that the 4- foot covered, uncovered, and so forth, that's the real contest here. And the stairs, there's no defense for those that I can fathom. So I might be inclined to support a 4-foot variance for that covered entryway if the stair could be remedied in some way. So I just throw that out for-- MR. BROOKER: Can I make a clarification? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Of course. MR. BROOKER: The -- the Land Development Code has exceptions for the front setback, and a single-family home basically states this whole covered versus uncovered issue. The Land Development Code states that in a single-family residence situation, un-- unroofed, stairs -- I'm looking for the exact language now. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We should know it after that condo up in Vanderbilt Beach that we wrestled with for half a day. MR. BROOKER: Here. It says that -- I'm reading from 2.6.4.1.4. Fire escapes, stairways, and balconies which are unroofed-- and I'll summarize here -- can exceed -- or it can encroach not over 3 feet into a required front, side, or rear yard of a single-family residential dwelling. So that's -- that's where we -- that's why this 3 foot -- the 3-foot issue has come up, the 25 feet where the front wall is, and now this entryway is set back approximately 3 feet into the Page 43 March 7, 2002 front yard setback. That's where possibly some of the confusion arose over this particular exception language. I don't know if that helps or not. My second comment is the Land Development Code itself specifically recognizes that there are going to be mistakes made and after-the-fact variances may come up to be applied for. And I'm looking at 2.7.5.7, and I'll read from it. It says, In this case of after- the-fact variances, the Planning Commission may recommend as a condition of approval that in the case of the destruction of the encroaching structure for any reason to an extent equal to or greater than 50 percent of the actual replacement cost of the structure at the time of its destruction, any reconstruction shall conform to the provisions of this code in effect at the time of reconstruction. So the Land Development Code recognizes this exact type of scenario, and it suggests that maybe a way out is to place this condition on the variance approval. I've discussed that condition prior with the owners, and they are willing to accept that condition if the Planning Commission is willing to impose it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Assuming the covered porch -- the covered entry were not there, the stairs would still encroach if the stairs went right up to the front door. MR. BROOKER: At that point that exception would come in because it's-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 3 feet. It would be -- feet. MR. BROOKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: MR. BROOKER: Exactly right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, but it would still be over -- more like 2 feet over the 3 So, I mean, are the builders Page 44 March 7, 2002 here by any stretch? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you-- you're the attorney. Is there an agreement with the surveyor, engineer, or builder in this, contract of some type? MR. BROOKER: I am unaware of any agreement at this point in time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because I'm wondering -- and I understand the hardship on the -- the owners, and it does look like they probably didn't have anything to do with this. But if this is let to go through, what's going to become of how this could not happen in the future? Meaning, if your builder and your surveyor just doesn't -- just walks because we allowed a variance -- and if we didn't, on the other hand, maybe somebody would force things down to a point where they have to be accountable for their mistakes. I'm wondering if-- if that is -- you've got anything that's going to happen in there, because this is -- this is obviously a wrong thing to have happened. It shouldn't have happened, but it doesn't need to go away scot-free. MR. BROOKER: The -- I can't comment on anything that we're thinking about in that regard. However, in my discussions with Ms. Johnnie Gebhardt of the building department, these types of mistakes - - if you're afraid that they're going to happen a lot in the future -- apparently happen -- I don't know the number she quoted to me, .028 percent of the time. These things are -- well over 99 percent of the time are caught and never occur. It's just this time it did, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER BUDD: It seems to me Mr. Strain brings out a good point in that this situation is analogous to a case of arson where the arsonist has escaped, but the person whose house is burning down we're now pursuing for polluting the air; and that while they are not guilty of any infraction, they're here, and darn it, we're going to punish somebody even if you're not consciously part of the problem. Because Page 45 March 7, 2002 you're here, now we're going to punish you, and I don't want to go that way either. And in an attempt to make some correction here, I think we got to recognize that we don't have the builder, and that was also brought up by one of the other planning commissioners. Is the builder present? No. So I hope we don't go and just beat the only live person that came before us, because they're simply here, and keep in mind who created the problem. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The builder is culpable, isn't he? I mean, he is a culpable individual. If changes have to be made, it should be his nickel that's making the changes, the architect and the builder. I mean, I don't want to see them punished either, but the answer is, this is what we have. We know the problems that are created if we let it go through. And as long as I can see there is a culpable person who will be financially responsible, other than the owner, to make any necessary changes, then the proper party is being punished. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, that's a civil matter that's -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Again, I agree. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- beyond us. My advice to you-- you know, you've got one negative vote on the county commission before you get there on after-the-fact variances -- is to see if-- maybe my idea is not the correct one, but see if you can come up with something to sort of meet the county commission halfway on this and enhance your chances of-- of getting your variance. MR. BROOKER: Well, I guess we -- we would need a little bit of guidance from the Planning Commission as to what -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'd say fiddle with that stairway. Uncovering the porch is draconian, but that flying stairway out there, it seems to me something might be worked out with it. MR. BROOKER: Well, is it appropriate at this time to possibly ask for a continuance of this hearing? We will then go back and hire a Page 46 March 7, 2002 new builder, I guess, to take a look at what we could possibly do with the stairway to remove that portion of the encroachment, with the understanding that that was one of the ideas raised by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd be okay with that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You don't think you could do that between now and your time at the county commission? It's up to you. It's your petition. If you want to continue it, I -- I can't imagine opposition up here for that. MR. BROOKER: I guess I would-- I would prefer to have -- are you suggesting that the Planning Commission would -- would recommend approval of the entryway variance but deny approval of the stairway with the understanding that we're going to try to move that stairway out? Is that -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's one vote out of nine (sic). I don't know how the other commissioners feel about that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We still got to hear from the public yet. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We still got to hear from the public as well. MR. BROOKER: Well, all I can tell you at this point, then, is we are willing to take a look at that issue. If it is architecturally and -- what other technical problems may exist, I don't know, but we are willing to take a look at that issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, you can have a conversation while we hear from the public, and if you have anything more, you can come back. MR. BROOKER: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: You have one registered speaker, Norine Dillon. MS. DILLON: Good morning. My husband and I are -- Page 47 March 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Name, please. MS. DILLON: I'm sorry. Norine Dillon. I'm a resident of Port of the Islands. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Thank you. MS. DILLON: And we are not in favor of this variance. We built a home at Port of the Islands in the year 2000. We had to work through inspections, permits, regulations every step of the way before we could proceed. I personally think it would have been great if I could have moved my house forward on my lot 10 feet and had much more room in the back. You know, it would have been great, and then I'd just come before you and say, "Well, I'm sorry. There was a mistake made. I'd like a variance." We have no malice against the O'Connells certainly, and I can appreciate what they've gone through. But I find it hard to believe if you're building a house and you're here, that you can't -- you don't see something like that, you don't know it's going on. One question that I still don't have an answer to is, what is the Collier County responsibility when it comes to builders and plats and surveys? I mean, there has to be something. Certainly someone in the Planning Commission must have the responsibility to look at those plans and approve them, just as I went through all the permitting processes. To grant a variance now, I feel, is a great injustice to the people that have built there and are going to build there in the future. We feel there's been a lowering of the standards at Port of the Islands because a lot of our covenants are being ignored, such as we have roof requirements. And there's a lot of roofs going up there that are shingled, which I think including the O Connells. Landscaping requirements aren't being met. So this is a kind of a concern going forward, as you were just talking about, that if you allow this variance, what's going to happen down the road? It's a lovely community, and it's starting to grow, and we don't want to see it grow the wrong way. Page 48 March 7, 2002 And I have to ask one question, and I don't know the answer, but whether this house would have fit on that lot, the east side -- I disagree with the attorney's comments, because it appears as though their side driveway is right on the lot line, right on that 1 O-foot variance. So those are my comments, and I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, Ms. Dillon, I'm sure you didn't mean it, in all due respect, on the basis of the record we have here today, there is no evidence that these people are lying to us. And your scenario where you would deliberately misrepresent, though, if you came before us asking for a variance, having deliberately built the house outside the lines, you would be perjuring yourself and I don't think you meant that. MS. DILLON: I'm not saying it was deliberate. I'm just saying that if I were building a house and I was there every day while they were building it and they poured a slab and they put the footings and all that in, I'd certainly know that I was more than 25 feet from the road. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, that's quite a bit different from what you said the first time. MS. DILLON: Well that was my intention. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you very much. MR. BROOKER: IfI may, Mr. Chairman, a quick comment. I would like -- or request that the commission disregard any comments about deed restrictions or covenants or shingled roofs or driveways. Those are private matters, and the Land Development Code specifically states that the county does not and cannot get involved -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We agree with that. MR. BROOKER: -_ in those sorts of-- of things. I have conferred briefly with the clients at this time, with Mr. And Mrs. O'Connell. I guess at this point, from the -- the direction we're getting, we would like to request a continuance -- because of timing Page 49 March 7, 2002 uncertainties, hiring a contractor and whatever may else be required -- to take a look at the feasibility of moving or relocating that stairway in such a fashion where the stairway issue is removed from the equation. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. I'll close the public hearing and open for discussion, first of all, the continuance and -- and/or any motions other than that that might be appropriate. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd like to make a motion that we continue this hearing, VA-2001-AR-! 696, to the next possible meeting date. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. To the next date avail -- favorable to the petitioner. They may not be able to get it done in a week or two weeks. MS. MURRAY: That would be April 4th that -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It was a month away. That's why I thought that might be enough. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: April 4th sound -- MS. MURRAY: I believe that's the date. MR. BROOKER: Unless you guys want to meet just for us two weeks from now. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Strain, and who was the second? April 4th sounds a lot better. That's my intent, yes. Okay. We have a motion by Mr. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Adelstein, second. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. I -- I'm not sure this resolves the issue for me, even if you come back with a changed stairwell, just to signal that. However, I'm certainly willing to take a Page 50 March 7, 2002 look at a redesigned arrangement and see if you can, as the chair has suggested, reduce the amount of encroachments that we're having to face. But you've still got a big problem. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Further discussion? All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Unanimous. We better take about a ten-minute break now for the court reporter, so let's try to be back at 10:20. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Take your seats, please. The next item to be considered is PUDZ-2002-AR-1978, Gateway Shoppes Associates requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to PUD, planned unit development, to be known as Henderson Creek PUD. Any disclosures, ex parte communications? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a whole series of disclosures. County staff and I have had various conversations about deficiencies in the packet and other issues that I had brought to them. And those discussions were held with Ray Bellows, Steve Lenberger, and some with Dawn Wolfe. I also had discussions with Marjorie Student over processes and procedures within the PUD and how they interact with the GMP that was approved in November, some CDD issues. I also had discussions with Wayne Arnold and Grady Minor, representing the applicant, and walked with them through a series of problems I had with this submittal. I've also had discussions with various representatives from the East Naples Civic Association, Jane Eichhorn of county staff, Commissioner Fiala, and then Cormac of the housing committee. That's -- I think that's everybody I've spoke to so Page 51 March 7, 2002 far. Joe Schmitt as well. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anyone else? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I just had brief conversations with the agents for this, just in general discussion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I had conversations with Donna Fiala regarding this particular situation. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anyone else? All right. All persons expecting to testify on this matter, raise -- stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ray Bellows, chief planner with the current planning staff. The petition before you today is a rezone, as you stated, from the RSF- 3 residential single-family zoning district at 3 units per acre to a PUD, planned unit development, to be known as Henderson Creek. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on the south side of U.S. 41 and approximately a half-mile east of Collier Boulevard. The petitioner is requesting to construct a residential development consisting of 500 dwelling units which would be subject to an affordable housing agreement allowing for an increase in density over the -- a base density. The surrounding uses in this area -- and I can show you on the map on the wall behind me. The subject site is generally located here, marked in red. It's -- across from Henderson Creek is the Graystone Trailer Park, Mobile Home Park. To the south is the Holiday Manor park with approximately 312 lots. To the north is undeveloped ag- zoned land and some commercial-zoned land, and then there is the Falling Waters Beach Resort that is developed. To the east is undeveloped ag and residential-zoned lands, and there's Collier Boulevard. Page 52 March 7, 2002 As you can see on the Future Land Use map, the subject site is located in the urban coastal fringe subdistrict of the Growth Management Plan. This district is intended to provide transitional densities between the conservation areas and the urban-designated areas. The base density of this area is four units per acre. It's within the traffic congestion zone, which is illustrated here, which requires a subtraction of one dwelling unit per acre. The petitioner is eligible to receive eight additional dwelling units through the adoption and approval of the affordable housing density bonus agreement, which allows for 11 total eligible units per acre. The requested density is 10.9 units per acre, which is consistent with the -- this requirement. Therefore, staff has determined this project is consistent with the Future Land Use Element. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ray, excuse me. Your site arrow would indicate that this site is right on the comer of S.R. 951. That's not so, is it? MR. BELLOWS: No. It's a half-mile to the east of Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's east of this other hash mark -- it's west of the other hash mark area? MR. BELLOWS: The red area you see is the intersection of-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I got that. I'm talking about going east. Does it mn down where that other section of land intersects in the comer? MR. BELLOWS: This may be a better-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think it is. That's a quarter mile or half mile to the -- MR. BELLOWS: Half mile. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Half mile. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: The other elements of the Comprehensive Plan have been reviewed by staff and have been deemed consistent with Page 53 March 7, 2002 those elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has also reviewed this with the transportation element. Staff has reviewed the traffic impact statement submitted by the applicant. The site-generated trips are estimated to be approximately 3,131 weekday trips, 252 p.m. -- a.m. Peak hour trips, and 289 p.m. Peak hour trips. The project trips, as -- taken as a whole, concerning what would be considered a significant impact on the roadway, is deemed to have a significant impact on U.S. 41 from the intersection of Collier Boulevard to the site entrance. But the total trips will not adversely affect the roadway level of service, meaning we have adopted level-of-service standards for these roadways. This project will not lower those levels below the adopted standards. So, therefore, this petition has been deemed consistent with the transportation element. I have a note here from Dawn Wolfe that there is a slight typo in the text concerning the level-of-service standard of-- I think it's -- it states Level of Service D, and it should be Level of Service F. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: For which? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's more than a typo. MR. BELLOWS: The roadway is operating at a Level of Service F currently, she's indicating, but it-- this project does not significantly impact that segment of the roadway. So, therefore, this is consistent with the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, now, Ray, in your transportation element, the fourth line, it says, "The project will have a significant impact on U.S. 41 from the intersection of Collier Boulevard to the site entrance." And I know you just said it's at Level F, and then-- MR. BELLOWS: I don't think it's that segment, and here's Dawn to explain. MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, transportation planning department director for the record. I would like to make a correction to the stated Page 54 March 7, 2002 whether or not it's operating at an adopted level of service. The section of Collier Boulevard from U.S. 41 to Manatee Avenue, the roadway has an adopted level-of-service standard of D with a service volume of 36,700. The projected with project traffic on that segment is 41,650, which exceeds the adopted level-of-service standard. However, that segment is not significantly impacted by this proposal before you today, and that's the clarification we wanted to make for you on the record. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, let me ask you about U.S. 41 from Collier Boulevard to the site entrance. Adopted standard service volume of 9400, and this is going to add 3,131. That doesn't put it down into F or below? MS. WOLFE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's a third of the volume. MS. WOLFE: With the background traffic that we have today, assuming an 8 percent background growth for other projects and development occurring in the area, for the project build out period, the estimated average daily traffic will be 7,800, which is less than the capacity at Level of Service D, which is 9,400. So it is within the level-of-service standard, even with the additional trips. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MS. WOLFE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: east, it must all go to Marco Island. That 7800 includes the 3131 ? Well, looking at the volume on 41 It just drops off the edge of the world. You've got, what is it, 40,000-some-odd trips on 41 along by Lely there, and then you drop down to -- it must be 4,000-some-odd if these three are only going to raise it to seven. MS. WOLFE: Yes, sir. The volumes drop off significantly going north and south on Collier Boulevard -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. WOLFE: -- at the intersection of U.S. 41. Page 55 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Dawn, your next line, though, if you follow what you just said is -- then the next line goes, For Collier Boulevard from U.S. 41 to Manatee, the road is estimated at 41,650, including background and site traffic, with a Level of Service -- and you have D, but that's what's goes to F; is that correct? MS. WOLFE: That -- the D is the standard, and that volume there is 36,700 for that Level-of-Service Standard D. Therefore, when you compare the 41,650 projected volume to that 36,000 capacity, you are at Level of Service F, which is the final statement, which is, Collier Boulevard from U.S. 41 to Manatee Road is projected to exceed the adopted level-of-service standard. However the roadway segment is not significantly impacted by the proposed application. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But the 41,650, which is tripping the road level of service from D to F, does include the 3,131 contribution of this project or not? MS. WOLFE: A portion of it. You don't get-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But it does contribute to going from D to F. MS. WOLFE: Because it does not directly access and since the predominant movements coming from that site will be to the west and to the north. And we have reviewed the site distribution, evaluated whether or not that would be 5 percent or more of the adopted level- of-service standard, peak-season, peak-hour service volume in determining significance. They do not trip that trigger on that segment. If they had direct access to Collier Boulevard, they, in all likelihood would; but they do not, having only access to U.S. 41. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But people coming north on Collier Boulevard wanting to get to this project would have to go up and take a right on 41, so they would be backing up on 951, which is already backed up for a mile at any peak time of the day you drive it. Page 56 March 7, 2002 MS. WOLFE: That is a -- there is a situation that is out there. However, we can only address whether or not this application is significant or not. And as they move forward and request approvals, they will be subject to the adequate public facilities requirements, which may or may not, depending upon exactly where their trips are triggered at or when they make their application, get approval for part, all, or none of the development. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, as you know, this project is part of one that went through this last fall under a GMP amendment that included some big box facilities in the front on 951. Part of that requirement that I believe they're saying they're going to come back in to and clear up at some point is a loop road connecting 41 and 951. By the time you get that loop road connected allowing the people that are in this facility to go onto Collier and the big boxes, like a Home Depot or something, on Collier, you're going to have a traffic problem on that roadway, and it's a cumulative traffic problem. And I'm wondering if the act that we're -- that what we'll do today is going to help that or hinder that. Is it going to make it worse, or is it going to make it better? I know the answer. I just kind of wanted to see what traffic had to say. MS. WOLFE: The impacts of an application under a PUD amendment would be considered cumulatively. And with the provision of direct access onto Collier Boulevard, as indicated by our specific evaluation of the traffic volumes, which differed somewhat from those of the applicant -- we took the time to go back through, because we had some questions in regards to their application, and recalculated out the numbers. Although they are not substantially different, we still show the problem on 951. The impacts would be looked at cumulatively, and that does mean that we will re-look at the residential component, as it would be included with any conunercial components that may come forward in the future. We've already Page 57 March 7, 2002 identified that under projections and additional trips, this will, in all likelihood, be deemed a deficient roadway segment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did you, in your calculations for the traffic impact statement that you did in house, use the formula for multifamily for this project-- MS. WOLFE: We used-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- as the applicant did? MS. WOLFE: We used the same trip generation that they did, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Would single family generate a higher trip generation than multifamily? MS. WOLFE: At the same number of units, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I thought. Their PUD is asking for far more than multifamily on this site. And has anybody taken that into consideration, the trip generations? I think the answer's no, from what you're telling me. MS. WOLFE: We are looking at the application as it's been presented and trying to look at maximum impacts. The difference between whether it's multifamily or single family with the same number of units, there was sufficient distance in that-- whether or not it's significant on that section of Collier Boulevard, that it would likely still not have made the trigger of a significant impact. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No one actually did the calculation, though. That's just an assumption? MS. WOLFE: That's an -- on my part it's an assumption from having worked in transportation and traffic impacts for a long time. But I can tell you that there was a fair difference in the volumes between 5 percent of the Level of Service D at the peak hour volume for Collier Boulevard and what their actual project trips were on there, and they were significantly lower because they do only access U.S. 41 at this time. Page 58 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, can I -- can I take a moment just to kind of-- I wanted Ray to introduce this project just to provide an overview, but I need, for the record, to provide some history on this project so you can understand some of the background. This project came into -- into the community development environmental services for-- at least initially in early December. Let's set the stage. This is a 500-unit affordable housing application. Recognizing that the county is in need of affordable housing, I agreed to fast track this through the process. What I mean by that is to fast-track it through both the review process and planning and to -- this project will be -- it's on your agenda today, and it's on the board's agenda on Tuesday, and normally that does not occur. And the reason for that is that it -- it was to meet the requirements of a March 15th deadline for tax assistance through the housing and urban development process, and Cormac can talk more about that. So we're -- the reason why this project is where it is today is because of the March 15th deadline. As of Tuesday night, I pulled this project from the agenda. I was not comfortable with where this project was in the review process. There were several deficiencies noted in the PUD. Frankly, we're not comfortable with the drainage analysis. We're not comfortable with the detailed transportation analysis. The water and sewer requirements still have to be addressed and, frankly, the future interrelationship with the adjoining commercial district. That being said, the issue here, again, was the requirement for the March 15th deadline. And-- and that decision was predicated on, of course, the -- recognizing the needs in the county for the housing. So the responsibility, of course, is mine as far as recommending approval of this project or denial. And given the current situation, at least for your -- for the commission, we're recommending approval. Page 59 March 7, 2002 But it -- I have to make a matter of record that it's approval. But, frankly, it's an approval certainly with conditions, and it's conditioned upon a better analysis by the -- by the staff of-- of several of the deficiencies noted. But the threshold -- in the discussion with the applicant and with the -- the county manager's office, I agreed in the 1 1 th hour to put this back on the agenda so that-- based on the applicant's request, because we were -- we had recommended, or at least I had recommended, that it be continued. But, again, if it didn't come before you today, we would have missed that March 15th deadline, which significantly impacts any -- any tax advantages that would be a result of a low- income or affordable housing project. And that's kind of where we're at today. So I wanted to make sure you knew and understood that this project has gone through quickly. It's gone through quickly based on a recognized need within the county. But it doesn't -- and I'm comfortable with this because it doesn't mean that we ought to do it bad just for the sake of meeting the requirements of-- of a recognized need. And I -- I apologize from the standpoint of the staffs presenting the project as it is, but it was recognized by the staff, but it was also a request of the applicant to move this forward. So that's where we stand. And I think as you probe and discuss with the staff, you're going to find that it -- it was not reviewed as -- as thoroughly as it should have been -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If you're not -- MR. SCHMITT: -- given-- given the time frame. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If you're not satisfied with it at this particular juncture -- and you're expecting us to be satisfied with your not being satisfied? Page 60 March 7, 2002 MR. SCHMITT: I cannot -- I hear what you're saying, but that's - - that's the situation that was exactly presented to the applicant, and -- and the applicant chose to present his side of the story in front of the commission. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: When I took this position, I was under the understanding that I had to use the criteria that was given to me before. MR. SCHMITT: That's right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And I was told -- I read through my -- what I was re -- was expecting to get. Additional submittal requirements weren't even met. I mean, you have knowledge and aren't satisfied. We were never even given the knowledge. We don't have any plans of what this was going to look like. We have no idea of the existing structures or the dimensions that are going to be on them, what is going to be built, where is it going to be put. And with this and your unsatis -- unsure position, I can't find any way to go forward with this. MR. SCHMITT: Well, just as a matter of record, we were, up until last Thursday, still -- actually, Thursday or Friday, if I recollect. It was the 28th of February where we did our final housing and urban improvements analysis and still working with the numbers and the density to meet the requirements for the March 15th deadline. And -- and it was that deadline -- because if we -- we pass the March 15th deadline, then it'll be a year before we can apply for this again. So that -- that's the situation. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that. And if it was that important to get that March 15th deadline, why weren't these plans presented -- drawn and presented to us then and not say to us, "Approve this; we'll get you the plans later"? MR. SCHMITT: That -- I would have to defer that. I can't answer that. That's a question that would have to be addressed to the Page 61 March 7, 2002 applicant. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is it correct to assume that the developer would receive approximately a-million-dollar tax credit? MR. SCHMITT: Actually, it's somewhere around $5 million. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: $5 million. I can understand their need, but I still have a need sitting in this chair too, and I don't see it coming. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Adelstein, I do note, though, that he's been very candid with the process with us, but he has signed off and recommended approval. So it's not that he is -- he's pointed out the deficiencies, but he is -- he's put his name on the document. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I saw his name on the document. I saw that. MR. BELLOWS: And if I may, the reason there is a recommendation of approval is based on staffs analysis. Even though we have fast-tracked this at a rate faster than we would like, I think we have covered the significant elements of the project. The first issue that really should be addressed is what Mr. Strain had pointed out, was the traffic analysis. And, you know, it's a good question. If this was developed with single family, the traffic generation would be different. We have -- current planning staff and transportation department has discussed this issue, and the issue was resolved in the fact that the affordable housing density bonus agreement deals with multifamily housing, so that's why the traffic study solely addressed multifamily housing. So I don't think there's an issue there in regards to single- family development. They wouldn't be getting the number of units then because it wouldn't qualify for the affordable housing density agreement that they're applying for. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, then when we get into the Page 62 March 7, 2002 PUD, all the references to anything but multifamily should come out. MR. BELLOWS: It's -- if they're going to do solely that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you-- they have to according to the density bonus that they were given according to -- MR. BELLOWS: Otherwise they'd go back the other way. If they don't -- if for some reason the affordable housing just doesn't fly, they have there zoning approval. They could still develop with the other approved uses within the PUD. It could be single family, but at a far less -- and not exceeding the base density of four units per acre. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: bonus -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But then the affordable housing Three. -- doesn't apply. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But the whole purpose of this project getting the zoning it's got is the affordable housing density bonus. So you would -- can we wipe that out today too? MR. BELLOWS: I think that's something you need to address to them. If they -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because if we take that off and they have a project based just on the zoning they should have, which is RSF-3 or 4, then that's a whole different program we're talking about today than 1 1 units per acre like it is now. MR. BELLOWS: That's -- that's correct, but that's the option. If the affordable housing wasn't approved, the PUD still could be approved with the other uses. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: The other issue was environmental. And, as you can see on the master plan, we have an area shaded in green. That's the preserve area. That currently meets our environmental regulations for preserve area. There's also this area in white that's Page 63 March 7, 2002 noted on the plan as preserve area also, but it also allows for future development subject to PUD amendment and an environmental impact statement, which require the project to go through the EAC. The petition, as you see it before you today, did not go through the Environmental Advisory Council because we avoided this environmentally sensitive area. And it's, under this PUD application, not an area of development. The applicant wanted to be fair and up front with you and tell you that there are future plans to have that developed, and they are making plans to come in for a PUD amendment to show development on that site and after they go through an Environmental Advisory Council review. COMMISSIONER STRA1N: But, Ray, the PUD does allow residential development in all the preserve areas, not just that white area. And therefore, the fact that they included it that way, I thought that the EAB would have been part of the review process. MR. BELLOWS: I discussed this with Steve Lenberger, who did our environmental review, and he seemed comfortable that the preserve areas were properly preserved. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, just so you know, 4.3(A), residential development consistent with Section III of this PUD not to exceed 300 dwelling units, subject to review and approval of the Collier County environmental impact statement and PUD amendment. That's under-- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's under Section IV, but it applies to the entire preserve/open space area shown on the master plan. And if it applies to that entire area and it's acknowledged that some of that area is wetlands, shouldn't that then become part of the EAB review or EAC review? MR. BELLOWS: I think the intent was the white area, and we can clear up that language too. Page 64 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know you've said that. I understand that, but the problem is that's not what was put forth to the public, and that was not what was put forth for us to review so... COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ray, back on traffic, to try to draw a little circle around that, I know we've got some concerns about numbers and that, and I have the same concerns. But it seems to me in the impact statements, they do call for phasing the development. And we keep coming back to that, and I never quite get a satisfactory answer. But it seems to me in this particular case that might be very important to our consideration, that as additional data comes forward and as this process -- project moves forward, they can -- we can require it to be phased in order to match the capacities that are available, and that's done in the project phasing portion of the TIS. And I'd just like to make sure that that tool is available to us and will be applied. And if you can say that, then I have less concern about the -- the squishiness of the numbers right now. MR. BELLOWS: The phasing would have to be included in the PUD document. And if transportation has amended the PUD document -- I'm not sure if the phasing is in there -- from what you compared to the traffic impact statement, I need to verify that with Dawn. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have the TIS. I can't find phasing referenced in it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I'm reading just from the -- in the standards, and it calls for -- project phasing is dependent upon roadway improvements. A phasing schedule may be included as part of the traffic -- and I -- I don't know. That's why I asked Dawn about -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I thought I had-- it didn't-- I Page 65 March 7, 2002 actually went and got their TIS, and it's not phased. MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe for the record. The standards identify an opportunity, if there is a deficiency identified for which they have significant and adverse impact, that they could show a phasing. The -- their application did not show significant and adverse impacts; therefore, it does not propose a phasing plan. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. We'll talk to the applicant about this, but it seems to me we've got an opportunity to -- to at least put some underpinning under some squishy numbers here. If you're going to have single family there or you're going to have something that's going to change the number of trips generated, that's - that's, perhaps, going to tip some of these level-of-service standards down the wrong way as we go forward. And it would just seem reasonable that as those numbers firm up, then the traffic impact statement would be modified or that the project would be phased in a way that would match the capacity of the roadway system to handle it. And so that's what I'd be asking the applicant. And it would seem to me you'd have the same interest to cause that to occur. MS. WOLFE: Yes, sir, I would. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. It says that there's a maximum of 500 dwelling units, and then it says that the residential area consists of 10.34 acres. How can you have 500 units on 10.34 acres.9 MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We'll get that from the applicant here. MS. MURRAY: We're kind of going all over the circle here, and I know it's part of the nature of this petition that's before you. Could you maybe let Ray go ahead and go through his list, and then maybe ask your questions and call -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We can do that. Page 66 March 7, 2002 MS. MURRAY: I think the public needs to have an idea of what's going on here as well. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Thanks. MR. BELLOWS: The -- the last few things I'd just like to point out is that staff has conducted a compatibility analysis of the development standards with existing improved developments within the area. The development standards are generally consistent with this type of housing, and we've approved these standards in the past, and it is comparable in nature with the developments adjacent and nearby. Staff is recommending approval of this petition if we can resolve the errors in the PUD document, and I think we can. I have assurances from the staff members who are assisting me in the review of this petition that we can come up with a document that is consistent with -- and legal review of the PUD document would catch any typographical errors. The other thing I'd like to point out, there was information presented to me after you had received these staff reports that one of the utility plans showed that water and sewer was not available to this site. However, that may have been an outdated map. And there was a recent approval of a new utilities map showing water and sewer is available, and we'll have that verified prior to the Board of County Commissioners. But it's my understanding now that water and sewer is available to this site. Staff has not received any letters of objection to this petition. However, we did receive a letter from the development to the south, the Holiday Manor. They had some concerns that their project wasn't being fairly included in the review because they received an advertising notice showing a general location map that didn't list their properties. However, I think they had several meetings with the petitioner showing that their project has been included in all reviews, Page 67 March 7, 2002 and I'd like to reiterate that we were cognizant of the fact that they are an adjacent property. The affordable housing agreement that you have attached to your petition has been reviewed by housing and urban improvement, and our county attorney Patrick White has been working very diligently with the applicant and with Cormac to resolve any inconsistencies with the plan and that agreement. And Cormac has handed me a list of revisions that have been made to the affordable housing agreement that you have in your hands, and he has given me the revised agreement that meets his satisfaction of being consistent with the housing and improvement requirements. The first page (sic) was to page 1 of the affordable housing agreement. The Gateway Shoppes & Associates, Incorporated, has been changed to LLC. On page 5, paragraph 3,366 DB units changed to 363. On page 11, No. 4, 10.97 units per acre changed to 10.9. On page 11, No. 6, the word "affordable" added before "income classification." Page 19, No. 3, 10.99 changed to 10.9. On page 20, Footnote No. 1, the word "affordable" added before "income classification." Page 22, Table 2, the footnote from the previous tables referencing the remaining 48 units was added. And then the last one was on page 22, No. 7. Still no description of the units is attached. That probably needs to be resolved. The last remaining issue that needs to be resolved is the percentage of income and the number of units meeting those income requirements, and I think I'd rather have Cormac present that part of it. MS. STUDENT: And, Mr. Chair, if I might, I, too, have been in a position of having to review the PUD document late. And aside from the usual typos and things like that, I also have some issues. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. Cormac Giblin, housing development manager for Collier County. I've been Page 68 March 7, 2002 reviewing this affordable housing density bonus agreement for the past few weeks now, and what is presented before you does conform and meet the requirements of the LDC to receive the maximum eight units per acre. In terms of the breakdown number of units that would be reserved for low-income residents, very low-income residents, and very, very low-income residents, it does meets -- it does meet the LDC requirements. The housing and urban improvement department, however, would like to see the development more deeply skewed to serve those portions of the populations in the very low and very, very low income categories. If I may put a chart on the visualizer here, this is a chart created from data from the Collier County Public School System. As you can see, we have categorized it by commissioner district. And this development happens to lie in Commissioner District 1, which roughly comprises the area known as East Naples. If you look at the far right column, 53 percent of the families with school age children living in District 1 are considered very low income, which means that they currently make -- the families combined currently earn less than 50 percent of the area median income. That is why the housing and urban improvement department has requested that the petitioner revise their agreement to more deeply skew the development to serve that population. These are families who currently live in the area. The only difference is right now they may be doubling or tripling up in a house to make it affordable for their -- for each family, or they may be currently living in conditions that are substandard or unsafe. This development would provide 500 new affordable units to this area for these families to then move into and pay something more affordable. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Cormac, aren't those families only living there because that's the only place we're building affordable Page 69 March 7, 2002 housing, is East Naples? I mean, if you-- you don't have the children's statistics up there for North Naples and skewed in such a manner because there's no -- there's very little affordable housing in North Naples, as an example. MR. GIBLIN: I have a map here, and this may be difficult to see on the -- this may be difficult to see on the screen, but the little red houses on the map are the location of every affordable housing complex in Naples, in the urban coastal area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Those overseen by your department; not every one, just those that you are in charge of; right? I mean, because the trailer -- some of the trailer parks and locations that are -- are not on there. Hacienda Village isn't on there, places like that. Is Habitat for Humanity on there as well? MR. GIBLIN: No. This only speaks to rental developments. Habitat for Humanity is a single-family development. In terms of trailer parks or other areas not on the map, those are not defined by the county as being affordable. Those may be cheaper to live in simply because they may be substandard. But in terms of affordable housing, these 18 developments are the only ones in the county that the county would consider affordable housing. There are approximately 4 out of the 18 located in the East Naples area on the map. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Cormac, I didn't know when you were finished, and I had -- I had questions about your -- your agreement if they haven't been resolved by the statements you made. On page 7 of 22, you refer to covenants, and something similar to covenants that has been applied for for this project is a CDD. Have your-- has your department ever studied the impacts of a CDD on affordable housing? MR. GIBLIN: Not to my knowledge. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What's a CDD? Page 70 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's a community development district. It's a -- it's another way of adding an additional tax for infrastructure on to the property owners within a project, which means the landowner here, the people living in the units if they were owning the units, would have to pay for the costs of this additional tax over a 30-year period or 20-year period, whatever the bonds are for. Item F on page 8 does refer to No. 7 as saying that you do have these physical amenities, and I think you stated that's not been yet received by you? MR. GIBLIN: I believe the petitioner does have them in hand today. They have not been received and made a part of this application as of yet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This application is consistent in the total number of units, then, which we're talking about, in this 500. If this application was made out for 200 units, would that have any effect on the way it's -- of its outcome with you? Would you still -- would the density bonus still be the same? Would the conditions still be the same? MR. GIBLIN: They would still qual -- the numbers would have to be run, and a breakdown of the affordability of the units would have an impact on how much density they did qualify for. But I ran some quick numbers this morning, and a development in the area of around 250 units could be worked out to still qualify for the eight units. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you realize the PUD allows the developer to reduce the number of units he's guaranteeing to be built to 200? And the reason I'm asking is if that's the case and you need at least 250 to make this work, then there's an additional flaw in the PUD. MR. GIBLIN: No. We do not need at least 250. That's the number I ran this morning, and it did work. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Page 71 March 7, 2002 MR. GIBLIN: It may, in fact, work with different percentages at different incomes at any unit number threshold. If he were to only build the 200 units, he would not be in accordance with this agreement at the time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's -- that's the point I needed to -- MR. GIBLIN: The agreement does -- the agreement does speak to phasing, though, and it is -- it does have a provision in there that does allow phasing of the units. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I think the rest of my questions on this document you've answered. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One quick question, Mr. Cormac (sic). I notice in the staff analysis it tells that the PUD allows 500 residential units, of which 100 percent of the units would be, affordable housing units. It seems pretty clear-cut. But then back on the Section III, it talks about maximum dwelling units. It seems to say that 200 shall be constructed-- a minimum of 200 shall be constructed as affordable housing units. I don't quite get the connection, nexuses. MR. GIBLIN: I'm sorry. Are you in the affordable housing density bonus agreement? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No. In the PUD. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The PUD, Section III, Item 3.2. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It also appears at 1.4, minimum of 200 dwelling units. MR. BELLOWS: IfI may, I think when the original submission came in; they had plans to do maybe some different mix of affordable. However, during the review process, everything was to 100 percent affordable. These are the things that we have circled in our -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Page 72 March 7, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: To have corrected. MR. SCHMITT: This is part of where the -- when the applicant first came in, there was -- we vacillated from 200 units to 500 units and places in between. When it was finally agreed upon last week, when we -- we agreed to the numbers, it came out to 500, so it was going to be a total of 500 units. But what you're finding are the errors that we found as well throughout the document. Again, the time line and -- was certainly predicated on this March 15th deadline. So, as -- as Ray pointed out, we would have to go back and -- and correct many deficiencies in the PUD itself. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, I was going to ask about this PUD from Ray's point of view. It almost appears as if it's trying to straddle the situation of whether the money is forthcoming or not. And if it isn't, then you fall back to Plan B. Does Plan B include 200? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe so. I think maybe the best thing to do is go to the applicant; because there is going to be future amendments to this and part of a larger, overall plan. And I think if you see their presentation, you'll have a better -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, I was trying to find out your understanding of it as the county's representative. MR. BELLOWS: My understanding now is that there will not be -- if all 100 percent of the units are to be affordable, then all 500 are going to -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: They should all be rental then? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, is it appropriate to have a CDD when all you're talking about is rental? The owner, in effect, is taxing himself, isn't he, if he owns it all? MR. BELLOWS: I believe so. I'm not sure how they're going to work there -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Then let me see what else Page 73 March 7, 2002 I -- there's talk in here about property owners association. That, again, is inapplicable to a rental I would assume, is it not? MR. BELLOWS: More than likely. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: This whole thing needs a pretty good scrub. I just skimmed off a couple of things. MR. BELLOWS: Like I said, it was a different mix when they first submitted, and we're in the process of weeding out all of these -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Then my last question is more a generic one. If somebody comes in with the acreage that this petitioner has and talks in terms of I want this density bonus of 11 units per acre predicated on building affordable housing, which comes out to 500, doesn't he have to reduce the number of acres, or doesn't the number come down if he reduces the number of acres committed to affordable housing? In other words, if it tums out to be a mix of regular housing and affordable housing, he can't still have the same density bonus to build regular houses, can he? MR. BELLOWS: The density bonus agreement allows him to get the additional units. The affordable housing agreement allows him to market the units in a different way. And if Cormac Giblin indicates that they have to be per his requested guidelines, that's what staff is going to support. So 60 percent of the median units -- or median income will be -- encompass 40 percent or 200 units; 50 percent of the median, 250 units; and 50 units for 35 percent of the median income. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No. I'm talking in generic terms. I'm not talking about this PUD. Somebody comes in and has this kind of acreage and would qualify for 500 units of affordable housing and he decides to build 300 garden-variety housing and 200, doesn't that -- MR. GIBLIN: The affordable -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- change the equation? MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin again, for the record. The Page 74 March 7, 2002 affordable housing density bonus applies to the gross property acreage. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: So you may qualify for extra density that not all of which needs to go towards affordable housing. The developer may, in fact, qualify to build a few extra market-rate units in the development. That is the incentive that we offer for someone to build affordable housing. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But then my question is, in this case if he builds 200, can he build 300 garden-variety houses? MR. GIBLIN: He could if he had not already submitted to us that all 500 would be affordable. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That sounds like a Trojan horse to me, but that's just -- MR. GIBLIN: Very simply, if they do not build out as the affordable housing density bonus is written, they do not qualify for the density. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: By the time you find that, you're going to have 500 units sitting there. Are we going to bulldoze them down if they don't -- if they're not affordable then? I mean, they've already got it. MR. GIBLIN: There are -- there are yearly reporting requirements. And through the state financing that they will be seeking as well, it imposes an additional quarterly inspection requirement to ensure that all of the units that they say are affordable are actually affordable. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I used to work for a fellow who had a favorite saying, that I don't understand all I know about this, and I think I know what he was talking about now. Is that all you have, Ray, for now? MR. BELLOWS: That's all I have for now. Page 75 March 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just one question for Ray. This is an easier one. I just didn't understand. The ag lands that are northerly of that, are they across the road, or are they on the south side of the road? What -- what are those two lots that are not developed just in the northerly direction from the site that we're discussing? I can't read -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One's owned by the Board of Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida and the other is zoned vacant agricultural. It's right here. I went and got a larger master plan. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What's the one on the right? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This one is -- actually, I think it's - - Rookery Bay has control over it. It's a Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida on that. So it'll be forever-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I guess what I'm really wondering, in the adjacent lands analysis part of this, is what we might reasonably expect would come in to those, because that's going to provide different ways of accessing Highway 41, which I'm sure Dawn would be interested in. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And there's also -- yeah. Depending on what is developed here in the future, will -- may affect this access point. But this plan has been reviewed, and -- and right now permitting of this is subject to FDOT permits and not Collier County permitting. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is that more than 600 feet from that intersection? MR. BELLOWS: It appears to be way more than that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What would you expect, Page 76 March 7, 2002 Ray, just typically on that ag land? What kind of zoning would -- what is the -- is this one for five, or are we somewhere else? MR. BELLOWS: Ag is one per five, one dwelling per 5 acres. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But they're likely to come in asking for something denser. MR. BELLOWS: It's more than likely that sooner or later vacant agricultural land will come in consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which right now limits the density to three units per acre unless they also try for affordable housing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ray, while you're there, the entry road to this project shown on U.S. 41, I know most of the project is attempting to stay in existing farm fields. Is that entry road an existing farm field, coming in off of 41 ? Do you know? MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to check the -- with the environmentalists. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. It seems to be very neat if that could just come straight out to Highway 41, rather than this gerrymander thing we've got. But that's property they don't control, so I guess they can't do that. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, for the record, Rich Yovanovich representing the applicant. Also with me is the applicant, the members of the applicant, which would be Rob Warstler; Bill Shroggy (phonetic); also is Wayne Arnold, the planner on the project; Grady Minor, the engineer on the project; Dean Smith, another engineer on the project; and we have Pat Law, who will be doing the affordable housing project. And we plan on making a presentation as to everything -- I'm assuming it's on. But anyway, we -- we plan on making a full presentation as to what will be constructed on this Page 77 March 7, 2002 property, including pictures and architecture, and you will see exactly what you're going to get. I would like to point out that this process has been going on for a lot longer than I think we're getting credit for, and we've done a lot of public meetings. As you will recall, this project was first discussed in context with a proposed Growth Management Plan change, which has been transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs and has come back with basically no comments negative to our project. The comp plan amendment is not in effect yet, so we could not bring the commercial project as part of this PUD. That would be inconsistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan. So we have submitted what we can legally apply for today under the existing Comprehensive Plan, which is the residential affordable housing density bonus portion of this project. Assuming that the Comprehensive Plan amendment is adopted, we will come back, and we will amend the PUD to add the commercial. But we can't do that until the commercial is an allowable use for us to apply for. So that is why you are seeing a project done in phases, for, as Mr. Schmitt has said, a good reason. There are timing constraints on applying for state monies to help these projects. And, as you know, every legislative year changes, and priorities of the legislature change. And just because there's money here this year, doesn't mean there's money there next year, so you apply for what you know you can get at this time, because we don't know that next year there will be money available for these types of projects. We have told the people of Eagle Creek, the people of Holiday Manor, and we've mailed out many, many notices, exactly what we intend to do and apply for on this project. There have been two public meetings with -- where we mailed out the required notice. The first meeting was at a county park. Nobody from Eagle Creek showed up. Nobody from the mobile home park across the creek showed up. All Page 78 March 7, 2002 of the attendees were residents of Holiday Manor. So we held a second meeting last week with the people of Holiday Manor at their facility to discuss concerns. The concerns -- there are some people who are concerned about affordable housing, but that happens in every affordable housing application. No matter where you do it, there are people who are concerned about affordable housing and should it be here or should it not be here. But I would think that the majority of the concerns was, what impact are we going to have on Holiday Manor from a flooding standpoint? Now, that -- we brought Grady Minor, because at the first meeting, it was me and Wayne, and neither one of us are licensed professional engineers. So we said we need to bring a second-- we need to bring someone who can talk to you who is qualified to explain to you how we have to design our project to make sure that we are complying with the law, and we did that. It's difficult -- it's difficult, to say the least, for people to understand that engineering does work and that we're not allowed to negatively impact them. In layman's terms, we can't have an adverse impact on them. The law won't allow us to do it, and we have to divine our system -- design our system to meet the requirements, and we will do that. That is a site planning issue. It is not a PUD issue. We have utilities here. We have proposed our project to stay out of, at this time, any environmentally sensitive lands. If we get into those environmentally sensitive lands, the PUD requires us to go to the EAC. That's clearly set out in this document. The documents -- as proposed, you have the planned unit development, which is the zoning on the property, and then you have a separate document, which is your affordable housing density bonus agreement. The PUD says that we have to have a minimum of 200 affordable housing units because that is what the proposed Growth Management Plan requires -- amendment requires. What will Page 79 March 7, 2002 absolutely -- and, as you know, the affordable housing density bonus agreement is a document that frequently is negotiated back and forth up to when you get to the Board of County Commissioners. The affordable housing density bonus agreement is what will govern our density and will be recorded as a deed restriction on the property. This project is no different than every other affordable housing project out there. This density bonus agreement is monitored and enforced by your staff. It's no different. We are not creating anything new. There are many of them out there already. We are subject to monitoring requirements, and we have to meet those requirements. So I hope that that will address the issue of making sure you get your 500 units, because it's a deed restriction on the property. It's an agreement that can be enforced by your staff, and it is an agreement that will be enforced by the state. MS. STUDENT: And I just want to say that I think the PUD document should say what the number of affordable housing units are. And if there are 500, it should say that, because it creates an inconsistency between the two documents. And even if the comp plan amendment says a minimum of 200, there's no harm in putting 500, because that's a minimum in the comp plan. That's not inconsistent with -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I don't have any objection to that. If the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday approves 500 -- approves this density bonus agreement, we'll strike the minimum of 200, and we'll go right to the maximum of-- MS. STUDENT: Well, I don't plan to sign it unless it says 500 that change. We'll delete the reference to a minimum of 200. guess rock broke scissors. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. All right. Well, then we'll make So I Page 80 March 7, 2002 MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll do it right now. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: You heard it. Okay. If that's -- anyway-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I don't think that's striking a real hard bargain, by the way. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We've always committed to that. I've said that we're doing that. We've always said that this project is going to be a 100 percent affordable project. If the commission wants something less than a hundred percent affordable, we're amenable to that. Okay. We're amenable to not providing all of that. We don't need to provide all 500 units as affordable to qualify for the 8 units per acre on the entire property. We can still do a market-rate project and qualify for 500 units. I want that to be perfectly clear. We have agreed to limit ourselves as to our market, and it will be affordable because there is a need. I don't think anybody can dispute there is a need. There's a need in a lot of other areas, and there's still a need in East Naples for this; not just because we're here in East Naples, but there is a need up in the central part. You-all heard a petition for Bucks Run. That's not in East Naples. People came in. That was a hard-fought battle. Not everybody on the Planning Commission voted for that, and it wasn't in East Naples. I will tell you we had a neighborhood meeting for a project called Wolf Run. There's another project called Wolf Creek, but this is up by -- I think it's Island Walk, on 951 -- I'm sorry -- you know, Vanderbilt Beach Road about a mile or so in from 951. We had a pre -- we had the pre-neighborhood meeting. It's an affordable housing project. Now, it is not immediately adjacent to a certain neighborhood, but that neighborhood came out in droves, yelling and screaming about putting an affordable housing project right next door to them. Well, we weren't right next door to them. They confused the names. But I am telling you there are -- and I am representing that Page 81 March 7, 2002 developer of that affordable housing project. It is not only one area of the county that is being -- where we are attempting to meet the need. I will tell you trying to meet that need is no easy task because, you know, I -- I find that no matter what you say, no matter what you do, nobody wants it. Okay. That's my -- my opinion based upon the meetings I had. We are attempting to meet a need. You will see a very high-quality project. You will not be able to distinguish this project from any market-rate apartment complex. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Richard, have you ever attempted to provide an affordable housing that didn't maximize the density? That may be where the problem is; not so much that it's affordable, but it's the density that you -- that is always pushed down the public's throat. That may be where the issue is. MR. YOVANOVICH: If-- if-- Mr. Strain, if there were another policy or another incentive for a developer to go ahead and make it to where it is -- you know, most developers are not in the business to lose money. Some of them do lose money, but they didn't start out intending to lose money. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Not in Collier County. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't know. I bet you there are a few projects in Collier County that fail. But the intent is -- the only incentive we have, Commissioner Strain, is density bonus. Okay. Density bonus coupled with a delay in the payment of impact fees is all we have, and what it's resulted in is a maximization of density. If there were other incentives, you may get what you wish, but they don't exist today. They have not been proposed. I haven't heard what they are. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They are being discussed. There is a committee that does meet that does discuss those issues. They are being formulated. They haven't finished their-- their findings yet. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciate that, but we have a need Page 82 March 7, 2002 that exists today, and that is what we're trying to address. And we are working hard, and your staff has worked hard. And I think your staff has taken some unnecessary shots here, or undeserved shots, for being cooperative in trying to meet a deadline, because they did meet with us in December. They-- they-- we've explained everything. There have been expedited reviews. If an "i"-- if we missed dotting an "i" or crossing a "t," none of it has been substantive or substantial. There -- from anything we've ever said, there is no ambiguity as to what we have applied for from day one, as far as what we needed. The CDD, Commissioner Strain, that's an option. A CDD may or may not occur. And, by the way, it's still factored in, and I think Cormac will tell you. You look at what someone can afford to pay per month to live there. You can't add that to the rent, so it is factored in to what they can pay per month. So however we finance our infrastructure and charge it back will be factored into the maximum rent an individual can pay to qualify in that category. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Who inherits the responsibility to pay off the CDD? Isn't it the landowner? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the landowner happens-- in a rental community happens to be the same person, and that's what we're doing. So it is one landowner who will pass it through in the rents, and he's capped on the max he can charge for the rents. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That landowner is an LLC? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. ' COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Limited liability company9 MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. ' COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How much responsibility will they have, if they just walk away, to pay that CDD bond off?. MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess the property will go through -- you know, the bondholders will seek their collateral, and their collateral would be the land. Page 83 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. That's what I'm worried about. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just like if-- same thing if they don't make their payment on the mortgage. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, this is a little -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No different than any other developer. If you don't make your mortgage payment, the -- the remedy is going to be whatever the security for the debt is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This -- this bond is an addition on top of the landowner. So I'm just wondering if it's been factored in appropriately as to the impact should an LLC walk and you're sitting there with bonds and liens on this property that the affordable housing is based on, and all of a sudden it's got to be addressed in order to move forward. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, first of all, it's an option. It's not certainly what we're required to do. And all of that is something that needs to be addressed. I don't -- if you would like, we'll just strike the fact that we can do a CDD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I was going to get there. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have met with Mr. Giblin, and we have agreed to his percentages of units that meet the various categories, so we're -- we're in agreement with that. We have stayed out of-- and Wayne will get into more details, but we have done everything we could to make sure that this application met all of the county's criteria, which, I believe, it has as far as traffic impacts go, as far as making sure we got that, the site plan. We're no different than anybody else. We got it designed properly. We have water and sewer there. We qualify for the density. We are staying out of the environmentally sensitive lands on purpose because there were time constraints on this application process, so we had to put aside land that we can't use. And if we do Page 84 March 7, 2002 go into the future -- future development stage, we have to amend the PUD. We have to come back in front of this Planning Commission. There's -- we're not hiding anything, and any implication that we're trying to is -- is unfair. We have spent a lot of time informing the neighbors as to what we're going to do and trying to address their concerns. As recently as Friday, we've agreed to extend what was -- there was going to be a solid fence on a portion of the property. We've now agreed to extend it all the way to the creek. So there will be a solid wall between us and the Holiday Manor project, which will be reflected in the -- in the submittals. But we have -- we are -- we are meeting all of the legal requirements to make sure that this agreement is in place, with the minor changes we just talked about today. There was a typo. One place it said 363; one place it said 366. It's 363. So I would hope that the Planning Commission would vote, after you hear Wayne's presentation and after you see the project, to transmit this to the Board of County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. There's no question there's a need. There's a need in this area. Encourage it other places. Support it, embrace it, and make it happen. And that's up to the committee you're on, Mr. Strain, and also the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to make that happen. Right now we are where we are, as my -- as one of my coworkers used to say. And this is -- we can do this here. There's a need, still, in this area. And we meet all the criteria, and we would hope that we can get that recommendation of approval from you-all. Unless you have any legal questions, I'm going to sit down and let Wayne talk about planning and -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a lot of questions, but maybe Wayne will help so some of them haven't got to be answered. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Wayne Arnold, Grady Minor Engineering. I'd like to -- Rich touched on some of the history of this Page 85 March 7, 2002 project, going back to our proposed plan amendment. Some of you were on the Planning Commission at the time. I know Mr. Strain was absent at that hearing. We had -- as part of the Growth Management Plan amendment process, we had come in for an approximate 85-acre site, which would include 84, 85 -- 85 acres. Roughly 30 -- 35 acres would be commercial, oriented toward Collier Boulevard. Housing, which we said -- through the process with the county staff, they said, "We want a commitment that some of this will be work-force and affordable housing." We struck on the number 200 minimum units as part of this proposed comp plan amendment that would need to be affordable to help move this thing into a position that the county staff liked. We agreed to that. So you see some references in our PUD to a minimum 200. There's where the minimum 200 comes from, from the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment process. I know when I met with Mr. Strain, he raised a question about the Growth Management Plan consistency of this project with the full plan amendment that includes the commercial relative to a loop road system that we had proposed to connect at Eagle Creek Drive through the project and out to our proposed entrance on U.S. 41. That, of course -- we're not bringing in the commercial component, so we don't have a full loop road system as of yet. Obviously, I talked to staff, and they said, "Can we add language that would say that you will not apply this PUD to be consistent with that plan amendment if adopted?" We certainly will. We have no problem with that. That's always been our intent, to bring them in together. However, because of the timing issue, we're not before you with the entire project yet. We fully expect that within the next 30 to 45 days, we'll be back here with an amendment; not before this board within that time period, but back before the county staff doing this to hopefully bring back the commercial component. As Rich indicated, Page 86 March 7, 2002 this came back from the state with no objections, recommendations, or otherwise. So from that favorable perspective, we hope that the board will go ahead and continue the process and adopt this plan amendment. What we did with this PUD submittal was to break out that residential component. And, as has been alluded to, the reason that we kept this larger preserve area/open space open, and to hopefully clarify for the record for Mr. Strain's earlier comment, in the preserve area, it says we can have units, but we have to do a PUD amendment to get there. And that PUD amendment and the EIS requirement require you to go back to the EAC. That's part of the process. If you have to do an environmental impact statement, you must go through the EAC. There is no waiver of that. But because our project largely falls within old farm fields where the units are being developed, there was no impact. And, as you can see, I went ahead and put the whole 85-acre project on this aerial, and I hope it's legible. But the crosshatched area shows some melaleuca-infested wetlands in part. Some of it's higher quality, but you can see that the wetland areas don't touch any of our development land. This area that's labeled preserve and future development as open space, that is upland area. That is not wetlands. So from that perspective we did not go to the EAC for this first portion of it. We fully recognize that when we go back in to add a commercial component or to do the next phase of the affordable housing project, we will be back before that body and the Planning Commission, as well as the Board of County Commissioners, asking for your endorsement and approval of that. What we had also done, we had met with the residents of Holiday Manor extensively. They're our most immediate neighbor and those obviously most impacted by what we intend to do. As has been alluded to, the primary issue that we heard in meeting with them was Page 87 March 7, 2002 concern over drainage. They're obviously an older park. Their roads are substandard by today's elevation requirements. Yes, they have flooding at times in their park from heavier rainfall events. Part of what we discussed with them -- and that's why Grady Minor's here, and he'll be addressing you in a few moments to talk to you about our drainage plan. I know Mr. Schmitt mentioned that there were drainage deficiencies. I'm not quite certain what those may be, unless it's formulation of commitments in our PUD document. But there was a storm water management report filed with the application, and essentially -- I won't steal Grady's presentation, but we will be routing the water to Henderson Creek. I know Mr. Boldt is here from the storm water management department if you have specific questions from your staff about how we treat this, but that is consistent with how they want to treat the water management on the site. So that's what we will be doing. The other issue that came up with the Holiday Manor folks was the issue of a buffer and some physical protection for them for both security and just visual buffering. And we had proposed initially in this project a 20-feet-wide buffer that would end up with a 6-foot-high chain-link fence for the residential component; to which I had added some landscape standards to buffer this chain-link fence so that when it grows in, you don't see the chain-link fence, you see vegetation. After our meeting on Friday -- and I don't know how many -- I don't know the head count from that meeting, but there were easily over a hundred people in the room -- the consensus was clearly we want a hard, physical barrier, 6-foot-high minimum, precast concrete wall. We want you to put it in some form either on the berm or near a berm so that we get, you know, the protection physically from you for security reasons, and then we get a berm with vegetation. And to that we agreed, and that's something that is not reflected in your document, but that's a commitment we're making to you on the record. And Page 88 March 7, 2002 between now and, I guess, the county commission meeting, we would write that standard into the document so that everyone knows that is our intent. That, of course -- I don't want to get off track but we had also proposed, obviously; an extension of that for the commercial component, an 8-foot-high wall on the commercial component. But those were the two issues that we discussed at length with the Holiday Manor residents. And obviously, as Rich mentioned, there are some of those folks who obviously have concerns about affordable housing, but we think through our development standards that are going to limit our building heights -- we have development standards that mandate a 40-foot minimum setback from our PUD boundary, and we have a 20-foot- wide minimum buffer. Grady's going to tell you about what our berm heights are going to be for water management purposes in that and what we can do with respect to some landscaping and wall placement. But with that, I think we've -- we've talked a lot about the issues. The issue of compatibility, Mr. Richardson brought up the question of what's our adjacent zoning. Well, we hope to our west will be large intensity retail uses. The comer of our property does touch Activity Center 18. That's part of your activity center at U.S. 41 and State Road 951. The commercial properties are to our west and to the north. The areas that are immediately adjacent to us in this area and next to the DEP property were taken out of the activity center during the evaluation appraisal report and Comprehensive Plan, but they are part of the urban area. And there are water and sewer lines that mn down U.S. 41 all the way to Boyne South. The lines were recently upsized from Manatee Road south, and the water and sewer lines were also upsized along State Road 951. But with respect to compatibility, we think that we are compatible with surrounding development. There's obviously vacant land to our north, and whatever happens there will help make itself consistent if they're not supportive of what we've Page 89 March 7, 2002 done. But to the south we've provided a buffer that's twice the county's requirement, in terms of width, between us and the Holiday Manor Mobile Home Park. And, of course, for those folks -- and I think there are a few in the audience that live across Henderson Creek. If it's not Graystone Mobile Home Park, it's one of the other parks off of that Henderson Creek Drive, I believe. We have about a 150-foot minimum vegetative buffer shown along the creek back there. And obviously, from my perspective, the first phase, obviously, is where the residences are proposed to go. The next phase we intend to respect that preserve boundary as well along the creek. So I don't think from their perspective they will see us or hear us. I don't think there's anything more I need to add with respect to compatibility. I did want to try to clarify this issue of numbers of units. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have -- one of the requirements, as I understand it, is that you are supposed to have for us a drawing showing us the proposed structures. Is that going to be available to us? MR. ARNOLD: I was going to leave that to Mr. Law, the affordable housing provider, to show you the type of units that we intend -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not the type, the layout of where they're going to be. MR. ARNOLD: On our proposed master concept plan, we've shown you the footprint of our internal road system, the access point. We've shown you where the recreation center is, our proposed lake system. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. What about the -- where are the residences? How are they going to structure, and where are they going to be laid out? Page 90 March 7, 2002 MR. ARNOLD: What I've shown you are the residential building footprints that we intend to develop on the property, on this -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That will hold 500 units in that? MR. ARNOLD: No. That portion of it will not. That's why the PUD, as it's structured, says we can only build 300 until we come back for a PUD amendment. And I know the numbers are very confusing for you. What we -- what we've set out is that we've established our maximum density based on the 45.8 acres, times the 11-unit-per-acre maximum density. That comes up to 500 units. What we've said is in the PUD we're allowed a maximum of 500. If we're going to build at least 200 of those that were affordable -- which Rich says we're striking that. So the question is, can I fit 500 in the Phase I building envelope? And the answer's no. And that's why we've simply put on here the future residential development will occur in what we've shown as preserve and open space subject to a PUD amendment. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Let's go to the last-- maybe I can get my point out. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: An architectural rending -- rendering of the proposed structures is required, but we are -- you're required to do that. I still have yet to see what you're -- that's -- MR. ARNOLD: That's what I said. I was going to leave that aspect of this to -- leave it to the affordable housing developer to tell you a little bit about the product and what they're doing. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Adelstein, I -- I'm not sure that's really required. I'm not sure where you're getting that. We usually address that during site planning process. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: During what? MS. MURRAY: The site plan process, the administrative review process. So is there some area of the code that maybe I'm not familiar Page 91 March 7, 2002 with that you might be referring to? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, I'm reading right from their own documents, and it said that one of the things that they were going to present here was a -- what the existing and proposed structures -- structures -- were going -- and their dimensions and what was going -- how they were going to be laid out on the land. That's all I've asked to see, and I would assume that they have that available. MS. MURRAY: And that's part of the affordable housing density bonus agreement that you're referring to? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's part of-- 8 of 16. I think it's -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: His point may have been that -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Application for public hearing and -- for rezoning. Application for public hearing for rezoning. And I'm on page 8. I assume we're being -- we're talking about rezoning. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Adelstein, we are going to show you exactly what the architecture is going to look like, if that's your question. It's not a zoning requirement that we have our specific architecture in our PUD document, nor is it a zoning requirement that we have our specific site development plan approved at the time of rezoning. So what we are planning on showing you -- exactly what you're asking for is, what -- what are the buildings going to look like? You're going to see that, but you're not going the see the -- the finished site plan at this time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It -- doesn't it say here additional submittal requirements, under 1 1 ? Page 8, Item 11. MS. MURRAY: Of the application, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to find it. I believe that criteria applies to -- does not apply to this type of project. It never has in the past, as far as staff, when you're talking about rezoning the project. Just because we're talking about a multifamily project doesn't meet the Page 92 March 7, 2002 criteria of a specific site plan, I think that is applicable to different -- different uses. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This is your report that you sent to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the application off of the county's application. This is -- it's just-- we just type in the information on the application; correct? MS. MURRAY: That's correct, yeah. That's -- and it also provides the option to waive those requirements as well. So why don't you let me look into it in the code a little bit. They've -- they're proposing to show you the -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you going to look into it before I vote or after I vote? MS. MURRAY: I have the book right here, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Pardon me? MS. MURRAY: I have the book right here, and I'll do it while they're making there -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Before we vote? MS. MURRAY: Sure. MR. ARNOLD: If I could just address that, I think in the context of how this has been applied, it talks about a single use. If I were coming in and I said, "I'm going to build John Smith's medical building; here are my architectural requirements," that is something the county can ask of us. What I'm telling you is we are demonstrating to you the architectural elevations of what we intend to do. I think we're -- we're probably exceeding the county's requirement in doing this, but I think it's typical for what you see with affordable housing projects. You want to see what they're going to look like. We're trying to make that representation to you. I think we've met that provision of the code, even though I'm not certain that it's truly applicable. Page 93 March 7, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: And if I may, the -- the -- for example, Bucks Run did not have the specific architectural style that was committed to. They had a general style that they committed to. The county staff doesn't force architectural designs for large projects or varied-use projects that allow for different uses. We have a site development plan process, as Susan Murray has indicated, that we get into the details of that. And Mr. Arnold is correct. When we have a single- use, specific project, such as maybe a personal storage warehousing, we want to see the architecturals up front, and we would not waive that requirement at that time. MS. MURRAY: Part of the problem with showing renderings and architectural drawings is everything -- if everybody thinks they look great and real pretty and they base part of their decision of whether or not to approve the project based on how it looks -- it's a proposal. It doesn't necessarily meet -- mean it meets the minimum requirements of the code. Then we get into difficulties later on when the applicant comes in and submits for their site plan and we are reviewing the details of the site plan for compliance with the code and we have a conflict because what appears to be shown before the board as a proposal then later comes in for more detailed review and, lo and behold, may or may not meet the requirements in the code. So it's -- it's to give a general overview or picture of what it may look like and understanding that this is just a proposal at this point. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I understand, Commissioner Adelstein, what you're pointing out. I think it's a good point to make, and I -- I think it's something we probably could require. I do notice on page 15 of 16 that it was addressed and that it was marked as not required, and that may be why it didn't come through to us that-- during the pre-application process. MS. MURRAY: It -- it's an option, and I'd be very hesitant. I would just encourage this board to be hesitant. I know everybody Page 94 March 7, 2002 likes to see pictures, but the -- the code is very detailed about architectural requirements. And this is residential, so this is -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand where you're coming from, and I don't think I'd have this problem if all the things that we were told that we weren't going to see or get because they aren't available or we're not sure whether this is here yet -- weren't in this PUD, I probably wouldn't be as -- as much in need of seeing what they're really going to try to lay out for us. MS. MURRAY: I understand, and we're probably beating a dead horse because they did say they were going to provide them, and they do have the pictures up there. MS. STUDENT: I would just like to point out that Section 2731221 of the code -- and this may get to a bit of the issue -- when determined necessary to adequately assess the compatibility of proposed uses to existing or other proposed uses, the relationship to open space, recreation facilities, or traffic impacts or to assess requests for reductions in dimensional standards, the development services director may -- it doesn't say shall -- request schematic architectural drawings, in parens, floor plans, elevations, prospectus, for all proposed structures and improvements as appropriate. So that's a code require -- well, a code requirement that the DSD may require that these be submitted. And, again, this is in supporting data for rezoning to PUD. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So if he may require, he may also waive. MS. STUDENT: It says --"shall" is -- by our code "shall" is mandatory, and "may" is permissive. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think that's what happened on -- with page 15. I think they waived the requirement, which is why it probably wasn't -- MS. STUDENT: And that's under our 273 for planned unit Page 95 March 7, 2002 development procedures. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: And I also would like to point out that staff has deemed the application sufficient. That's why we are here today. And that was, as Mr. Strain pointed out, a requirement that was waived. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions of Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: If I -- I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I have one. Go ahead. MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. I just wanted to point out one other thing that Mr. Strain mentioned to me yesterday that I did want to commit to the record. This loop road system, we make allowances for gated structures in this PUD. The intention there was simply to provide gated access to the residential building pods if we deemed necessary, but there was no intent to somehow create a gated system on this loop road. That was intended to be a public through road system connecting all the way to 951 at a future date. So I would like to clarify that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And, Wayne, in relationship to the stuff we discussed yesterday, as I told you then, before you-all finish today, I would like the time to run through those issues in this public meeting. But some of them may get resolved during the other discussion, so I'm just going to hold off until we get to that point. MR. ARNOLD: And I think that -- based on our conversation, I think we were 90 percent there, I hope. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Table 1, development standards -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: setback from the PUD boundary is 40 feet. My question, Wayne, is your -- you have stated that your According to the table, Page 96 March 7, 2002 there are some instances where it would be 25 feet, not -- not if you build 500 units. But does this language need to come out, or is it in there as a fallback in case you don't go that route? MR. ARNOLD: I think the latter. We structured this to allow all residential dwelling types essentially, knowing that -- and what we've told the -- our nearby residents, fully intend it to be multifamily. However, there are provisions there for single family, attached, detached, patio homes, things of that nature. And we put development standards in there that are very typical. For instance, the 25-foot setback, which would essentially be a rear setback, for those structures is very common and typical for that type of structure. We felt that going with a two story -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Would it cause you heartburn to make it 40 feet no matter-- MR. ARNOLD: As a minimum for any of the others? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any of the others. MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. We -- we have not looked specifically at laying this out for single family. I know that -- I don't want to belabor this point of density, but as Mr. Strain was alluding to, I don't think we could put 500 units on here if they were to be detached products. The numbers -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And have the 40-foot-- MR. ARNOLD: Right. The only -- the way -- the only way you can net 500 units on 45 acres is to build multifamily structures that are at least two stories in height. If you go to a typical single-story or two-story single-family home, you net somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 6 units per acre, depending on how you can lay out your site and what other environmental constraints you have. So it goes back to the traffic analysis. What we looked at was probably the worst-case scenario in terms of number of units times trips equating to the multifamily. If I can only net something less than Page 97 March 7, 2002 150 single-family units, although it has a higher trip generation rate, that number, when you do the multiplication, comes out less than the multifamily we're proposing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But, Wayne, with your affordable density housing (sic) bonus, you're kind of locked into 500 units now, which means you just locked yourself into multifamily. And does the $5 million that you're going -- your company's going to receive, or whatever that number is, is that based on a density? Is that based on a number of units? Because are we just -- are we -- are you guys telling us in no uncertain terms, forget the 200, forget the 300, forget anything; it's going to be 500 multifamily, period, if this is to go forward? MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to let Rich Yovanovich answer that question for you. He's been working much more closely with the affordable housing agreement than I have. MR. BELLOWS: And if it is all multifamily can we, at this point of the process, eliminate all the development standards except for the multifamily? That way -- MR. ARNOLD: I think if that's the direction we're headed and we have an intent only to provide multifamily, I have -- I've got no problem with-- MS. STUDENT: I don't know if I'm lost, but I thought we all said already that it was going to be a hundred percent affordable. That's what I thought was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners may I -- (Several speakers at once.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- you said what you wanted to say? MS. STUDENT: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. YOVANOVICH: Wait a minute. The court reporter Okay. Rich. Commissioners, we are committed that Page 98 March 7, 2002 100 percent of what we build will be affordable. Okay. If-- if you don't want us to -- if there's a lower number you're talking about, Mr. Strain, than 500, let us know. But we would -- we're committed that a hundred percent of our units will be affordable. We could -- it may end up being less because when we get down and do the site planning and get down to the specifics, we may not be able to fit them. But, yes, we are -- because all we really have right now to -- to make this work, together with, you know, the financial assistance available, is density bonus. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I missed the GMP issue that you guys brought up in November. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And so knowing that the county commission approved this GMP amendment or went -- sent them forward thinking of 200 units, I would really be concerned to understand what their thoughts would be if you had said 500 at that meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we -- what we did say, Commissioner Strain, if you -- if you -- it was a minimum of 200 with a maximum of 500. That was discussed during the GMP presentation. If-- if everybody's more comfortable with our just doing Phase I right now and put the number of 224 and come back for Phase II, I think we can live with that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That seems to find favor with the county attorney. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We'll have to see where that goes. MS. STUDENT: All I'm trying to do is establish what amount of units are going to be affordable for this PUD document so I have some direction, when I review it, what it's supposed to be. And, again, the comp plan amendment is not approved yet. It has been transmitted, Page 99 March 7, 2002 and it's in the process, so it's not approved. And a 200-unit minimum means a minimum. You can go higher than that and not be inconsistent with that comp plan amendment when it is adopted. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was more worried about perception. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Strain, does that help, with -- with a Phase I of 224, and we'll come back for Phase II with an amendment? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll have -- I can-- I'll comment further on that when we get through the rest of your document. There's a lot of other issues here that are startling, to say the least. MR. ARNOLD: I think with that, unless there are other questions of me, I would turn it over to Grady Minor to talk to you about how we intend to -- storm water management on the site. Is that okay? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's okay, but let's -- do we want to change right now? Let's change court reporters. That'll take a couple of minutes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let me ask, Wayne, how much longer is your presentation going to take? MR. LAW: Give me 5 or 10 minutes. If you all have questions, I'm sure -- MR. ARNOLD: We probably need 15 total minutes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. I think at the conclusion of your presentation, we'll break for lunch for a half hour or 45 minutes, so you may proceed. MR. LAW: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name's Patrick Law. I'm with Windover Housing Partners, Inc. We are developers of affordable housing. It happens that we have already constructed the project I'm about to show you in this very county on Green Boulevard. The project's called Whistler's Green. And what Page 100 March 7, 2002 I'm going to show you are pictures of this product. We've built it all over the state. And just for the record, we also constructed another project, which is called Whistler's Cove, which is a three-story product. I want to be clear; we're not talking about Whistler's Cove. We are not going to build a three-story product. We have no problems whatever with restrictions that indicate that it will be a two-story product. As far as the pictures I'm showing you, that they can be built in this county is evidenced by the fact that we've built this exact product in this county on Green Boulevard. So you can rely on these pictures as being accurate representations of what would be constructed, and we're -- I could have brought a set of plans if I would have thought that mattered, because they're all down at the building department, approved also. This building over here is a typical building. It's an eight-unit building. There's a unit up -- upstairs, downstairs, upstairs, downstairs, and the same thing on the other side of the building. All the units have individual entries, very popular with people. It's much more like a home than having these corridors down between the buildings. The size of the buildings range from a three-bedroom unit, which has a footprint of about 1200 square feet, so that you would have a building footprint of a little over 4,000 square feet down to -- this is a two-story product -- I mean, two-bedroom product here. The two- bedroom units are a thousand square feet, and then we have one- bedroom units that are 850 square -- or 800 square feet, and the eight - - one-bedroom units are always built as part of two-bedroom -- there will be a one-bedroom on one side, two-bedroom on the other, so that the buildings keep some architectural perspective. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is that a four-plex there? MR. LAW: It's an eight-plex. Page 101 March 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Eight-plex. MR. LAW: It's an eight-plex. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's the speaker. MR. LAW: I beg your pardon? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's eight? MR. LAW: Yes, sir. There's actually -- you can't see it from this angle, but there's two doors here. One door goes upstairs; one door goes into the ground-floor unit. The same thing happens over here. That gives us four. Then we have -- down in the middle of the building is in effect a wall, and on the other side are four more. That's where the eight come from. The clubhouse looks like this. By the way, if you go over to Whistler's Green, you'll see it's exactly the same color. And this is what -- this particular picture is a clubhouse we did in Charlotte County in Rotunda, but it's -- again, it's the same. This is a picture of the back of the clubhouse. Same construction standards. It's all stucco. A lot of builders don't always use all stucco. We do. We've been doing it with all of our jobs. This is just a picture of the inside of the clubhouse with -- I brought these particular pictures because they happen to be professionally shot and would show up well. The site plan of Whistler's Green, which is on the screen up here -- this is a 168-unit apartment. It's on Green Boulevard. It is exactly the same product that you're seeing pictures of here in bigger scale, and the design is very similar to what we intend to do on 951. What will happen is, the clubhouse presents itself as you enter. We go around. And fortunately in Naples, when you dig a hole you get a lake, so we like to put a lake in the middle to build the retention that way. I would make two other comments so everybody has a little bit of an understanding of the -- why it is this has to stay affordable. We get what are called tax credits. Tax credits, in effect, is a -- there's a Page 102 March 7, 2002 section of the code called Section 42 of the IRS code. If you qualify and are granted the tax credits, you get -- let's call them $10 million in tax credits. What that $10 million in tax credits does is, it pays -- you sell them, American Express, various large profitable companies, and use the tax credits. They pay you for the tax credits. So if you had 10 million in tax credits, they pay right now about $8 million. You take the $8 million and use it to pay part of the $19 million cost of the project. That $8 million which paid for that cost reduced the cost of the property. That's how you're able to afford the lower rents to build the property and be able to offer at lower rents. You now have $11 million to carry. We'll call it -- you know, financially as opposed to carrying $19 million. That allows you -- and the bargain the government makes in return is that you can only charge so much rent. Collier County has an interest in having a certain percentage of those units at various rental levels. The most that we can charge is 60 percent of the median income. Then we can charge 50 percent of the median income so that people have to qualify on that basis also, so a millionaire can't walk in and rent the unit in one of these jobs. They have to meet -- they have to also have income that matches up with the median income. So an easy way of putting it is, if you make 60 percent of the median income, you could live in one of the 60 percent units. If you make 50 percent of the median income, you can live in one of the 50 percent units, and if you make -- I think 35 is our bottom one. Thirty- five percent of the median income, then you get to live in one of the 35 percent units, and you pay a rent that's determined by the government, but it's basically 35 percent of the median income annualized, divided by 12. The utilities get taken off of that, and that number is the amount of money that we collect in rent. It's set by the government. It never Page 103 March 7, 2002 changes except with changing years. And there are people, appliance people, who come around and audit us every year, who insure -- they come from the state. They come from the investor who wants to be sure that these tax credits stay valid, because if we violate and have people that are in there that are not supposed to be in there, what happens is, we lose the tax credits. Somebody that paid $7 million for the $9 million in tax credits, they're out a lot of money. So they have an interest in being sure that these things are maintained. The IRS comes around and looks to make sure everything is right, because they want to be sure that everybody in compliance. The people that do that for the IRS in this state are Florida Housing Finance Corporation. That's the state arm which man -- which handles the tax credits. So what I'm really trying to say is, they will stay the way they are. There's also something called a land-use restriction agreement. We call it in the business, the LURA. That determines if we will in fact build a clubhouse. When we apply up at the state, we'll say things we do. We'll say we're going to do a clubhouse. We'll do that because we get points for-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Excuse me, sir. Direct your comments to us, please. The audience can do the best they can to hear it. MR. LAW: Yes, sir. I beg your pardon. When we make our application to the State, we end up telling them what we're going to do, all in writing in the application. That goes into the land-use restriction agreement. So if we see we're doing a clubhouse, we have to do a clubhouse or we wouldn't be in compliance. If we put in a swimming pool, put in a mail kiosk, put in a playing field, all these things get set down. Like insulation that's put into the building -- R-30 in the roofs, R-15 in the walls, R-11 -- 13, I guess, would be the walls. Page 104 March 7, 2002 The sear rating on the HVAC units, all of these type of things are set down. They're put into land-use restriction agreement. That land- use restriction agreement in Florida applies for 50 years. So in 50 years, this property will be a -- what's called -- we like to call it work force housing. Call it affordable housing. That's what it will be. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Any questions? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have another question here. How many acres is Whistler's Green? Do you know offhand? MR. LAW: Whistler's Green is approximately -- I think it's about 16 acres. And, by the way, this -- the first phase of this job would be about 20.5 or 20.6. If you take 224 and divide it by 10.9, that's how many acres the first phase would be. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And that's 224? MR. LAW: Two twenty-four. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: in Collier County? MR. LAW: We've done two. Whistler's Cove. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: US41? MR. LAW: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: MR. LAW: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: apparently? MR. LAW: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: MR. LAW: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: MR. ARNOLD: Yes. Have you done any other projects We built Whistler's Green and Whistler's Cove is the one up on That's just north of Lely. And they are stick built, Asphalt shingles? Minimum landscape standards? Page 105 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean, the one in Green is, because I drive by there every day. It's pretty stark, and I just was -- that's the same intent you'd be putting here? MR. LAW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRA1N: Thank you. MR. MINOR: Good afternoon. My name is Grady Minor. I'm a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida. I've been providing land development engineering services in Collier County for over 20 years now. This development is going to be designed to meet all the rules and regulations of the South Florida Water Management District. One of their requirements is that you design your primitive berms, your lakes, your conveyance system, to meet up what they call a 25-year, three-day storm event, which, over 72 hours, is 12.2 inches of rain in this area. You're allowed to bleed off a certain amount of the water that falls in your property during the storm event, but they limit you to the amount of-- the amount that you can discharge in a post development. After you've developed, the state can't exceed what is discharged at a predevelopment state. The advantage you get from having a water management system with lakes and pipes is that right now what falls on the property saturates the soil, and then it begins to find the lowest areas to run right off your property. There's no staging of it. Once we develop a property with primitive berms, the lakes and pipes, you actually store the water. You stack it up in your lakes, and then you bleed it off at a constant rate over a certain period of time. So rather than everything going off quickly, you've managed it, which is an improvement to the neighbors and to the entire grading system. I talked with your Collier County Storm Water Management director, John Boldt -- Page 106 March 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think John's still here. Here he is. MR. MINOR: -- about this property and the drainage patterns in the area. He informed me that we wouldn't be able to discharge any of our water to Collier Boulevard, nor would we be able to discharge any of our water to US 41. He wanted us to collect everything eternally, manage it and then discharge it to Henderson Creek on our east property boundary. I mentioned to Mr. Boldt that Holiday Manor Park was our neighbor to the south. He said he was well aware of their park that he'd been there. And he and I are both aware that that park was developed without meeting any of the rules or regulations of the South Florida Water Management District because it was developed so long ago. I told Mr. Boldt that I thought we would be improving their situation because right now the water that lands on our property, once the soil's saturated, can move to the south or wherever it needs to reach equilibrium and flow out to them and cause them additional problems. And he agreed with me that, once our property was developed, that it would actually be an improvement to the Holiday Manor situation. We've done some preliminary calculations on our water management system. It's going to require a perimeter berm of approximately 3 feet in height, so we'll be circling the developed portion of the property with at least a 3-foot-high berm, and that would include the common property line with Holiday Manor so that none of our storm water would go onto their property unless, of course, it exceeded that 12.2 inches over 72 hours. We met with over a hundred residents of Holiday Manor just last Friday afternoon, and we discussed this with them. They're very concerned about their park and the drainage issues there. And they're Page 107 March 7, 2002 concerned, of course, about what we might do and -- especially if we were to cause them a greater problem than they already have. I tried to assure them that we will not have a negative impact on them and we will actually be improving the drainage situation. So in summary, we're going to design everything to meet this year 2002 drainage standards. We won't have a drainage problem, nor will we create a drainage problem for any of our neighbors. So based on that, I'm respectfully requesting that you approve this petition before you today. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Henderson Creek is there to the extreme right; is that right? MR. MINOR: Henderson Creek is this water body. This is US 41, and this is the tidal weir on 41. This is Holiday Manor. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Right. MR. MINOR: This is the property we're -- well, this is the property we're talking about today, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Does Henderson Creek then go into Eagle Creek? MR. MINOR: I'm not sure if it goes into Eagle Creek. It goes into Rookery Bay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Rookery Bay. MR. MINOR: I'm not sure if it becomes Eagle Creek before it gets there. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: There's a canal that runs down 951. here. MR. MINOR: There is. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Where does it go? MR. MINOR: It comes in right here. It becomes the headwaters CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Of Henderson Creek? MR. MINOR: Yes. It flows across that weir and becomes Page 108 March 7, 2002 Henderson Creek. MR. MINOR: What's the NGVD elevation of your project; do you know? MR. MINOR: The areas that are crosshatched are just below 5 feet NGVD. The areas that are above are just above 5 feet NGVD. It's the upland wetland difference. So right now what happens is, once the soil saturates, most of the water will find its way into the wetland area and will discharge off of- - onto -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What is NGVD of the trailer park? MR. MINOR: They gave me some information, and they show elevations as low as, on their roadways, 3.5. George Lacombe is here from Holiday Manor and may know better. He's giving me a sketch that shows ground elevations in the 3.5 to 4- foot range. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, your associate talked about creating a lake when you dig. Are you going to raise the level of the land in the housing project? MR. MINOR: We are definitely going to raise the level of the land in our housing project. Our finished floors -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: By how much? MR. MINOR: By probably 3 1/2 feet above the existing ground. We'll be in the 8 1/2- to 9-foot finished floor range on the units. Minimum FEMA here is 7. But then we'll grate away from the buildings, and the parking lots will have to meet the county's 25-year three-day storm event, which is pretty high. We'll probably be somewhere around 7 1/2 or 8. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So you'll be perched, in effect, as compared to the trailer park. MR. MINOR: We'll be perched, in effect, compared to the trailer Page 109 March 7, 2002 park. But remember that we will collect our water. None of it will go directly off site until it goes through our dried retention quality system through our lake for quantity, stack up in our lakes, and then it gets discharged out into Henderson Creek only. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: "Lakes," plural? MR. MINOR: I think "lakes" plural. The plan that we use -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. I see the second one there. MR. MINOR: You have two. You almost always create about 10 percent of your total land area into lakes. It seems to work well with -- that meets the storm-water requirements. It gives you a pretty good amount of fill. It gives you pretty good-sized lakes. So I would see, if we're talking the full 80 acres, 8 to 9 acres of lakes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What drives it? The amount of fill you need or-- MR. MINOR: Sometimes. If you have enough property, you can -- you can dig enough lakes so that your cut and fill balances. Sometimes you can do a combination of cut from the lakes and still bring in offsite fill. And at 11 units per acre, you probably won't balance your cut and fill. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other Grady, how do you -- where's your outfall going to be for that -- for the one lake you show on the PUD application? MR. MINOR: Where or what? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Where? MR. MINOR: On Henderson Creek. And, Mark, I would imagine that we would discharge to a spreader swale, that we would build right on the edge of the preserve so that it might be a few hundred feet long rather than have a point discharge, and it would just Page 110 March 7, 2002 sheet-flow across there into Henderson Creek. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And you're going to use RCP, a regular box to outfall or -- MR. MINOR: The box would probably be concrete, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The reason I'm asking is, the area that you're going to run that pipe through and the area you're going to put your spreader swale in are areas that are not disturbed farm fields, which means you're creating issues on undisturbed lands that -- I go back to my argument that EAC should have reviewed this particular petition. MR. MINOR: You're going to talk -- okay. If you want to talk about that, we could -- preliminarily; we could discharge here across there or limit it to the farm field. I understand what you're getting at for Phase I. We could come into here possibly and discharge. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, your argument -- MR. MINOR: But we don't have been any wetlands back there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, but the argument to avoid DAC was that you're only going to be working in disturbed farm fields. And while you made -- I don't know about the other fields. They don't appear to have been disturbed in the past. I just want to make sure that that's your intent, is that anything that's going to be developed or disturbed is in areas that were previously developed and disturbed. MR. MINOR: Okay. Then I would say we would have a Phase I discharge here and then move it over after we go to the AEC. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And did -- excuse me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did your environmentalist come here today? MR. MINOR: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Who would be answering questions concerning questions like that? Page 111 March 7, 2002 MR. MINOR: Well, our environmentalist is Boylin Environmental Consultants. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did they do an environmental survey on properties outside the farm fields? MR. MINOR: They just completed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So it's not part of this application? MR. MINOR: No. But it's on this map. It's the crosshatch areas that you see here. And the only areas that are within the boundary we're showing you today are up here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What about the entry road area; do you know? MR. MINOR: I know that it's not wetland, because the only wetlands are crosshatch. The entry road is here. MR. BELLOWS: IfI may, Commissioner, those type of issues would be addressed at the -- oh, excuse me. For the record Ray Bellows. Those issues would be addressed at the time of site development plan, where the outfall would go at the time of PUD zoning as long as they're not impacting the wetland area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. But that's not my point, Ray. The point I was trying to make was that, if they're impacting wetlands, they just have to go to the EAC. And that's what I was trying to point out, is that -- MR. MINOR: Well, we're not proposing to do that. And we can make it work. MR. MINOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is that everything? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. Unless you have any questions before you want to -- any questions of the team before you take a break for lunch. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He has a number, but I guess we'll Page 112 March 7, 2002 break first. Let's shoot for one o'clock. (A recess was had from 12:20 p.m. Until 1:02 p.m.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think the next order of business is for Mr. Strain to propound some questions. This is the strained period of the hearing. MR. STRAIN: Actually, it's Wayne -- no offense to the legal counsel, but Wayne might know-- have more of these answers. MR. YOVANOVICH: I prefer those kinds of questions. MR. STRAIN: Wayne, in the PUD document, the statement of compliance -- these are some issues we brought up yesterday. Paragraph 3, fourth line up from the bottom, used the words, "Such amendments might include addition of the 40 acres adjacent to the west." And I asked you to use the word "shall" there instead of the word "might," since that is supposed to be part of this project's overall strategy. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: I just wanted to state that I would prefer this entire statement to be lifted and put out in a regulatory portion of the document. It's in a statement of compliance. It says how it complies. And reference can be made to the upcoming adoption of the plan amendment there, too, but I want that regulatory effect. And I also would like to have it in another part of the document. And I concur on the -- MR. STRAIN: Okay. So what other part of the document would you like it added to, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: Okay. Probably-- probably a Section II project development. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain? MR. STRAIN: Yes? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think we're talking -- speaking from the same PUD document. Could you hang on a second. Page 113 March 7, 2002 MR. STRAIN: Oh. Well, that would be interesting if we're not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there was some revisions that staff has requested. I think -- I thought that statement you were referring to was something that's been added by staff. Is that correct, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: I didn't catch the first part of that. MR. STRAIN: On the statement of compliance, Roman -- little Roman numeral-- little "i," triple "i" on the first or second page of the PUD document, there's a paragraph 3. Starts with the words, "Henderson Creek PUD." MR. BELLOWS: Yes? MR. STRAIN: That's the paragraph that I referred to. MR. YOVANOVICH: You've got it. MR. STRAIN: Wayne, this is one of the comments I made to you yesterday as well. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. I -- I don't think we have a problem with that at all, except I think we need to reference -- somehow we need to contemplate its approval, or subject to its approval of the comp plan amendment we will make these modifications. MR. STRAIN: Well, then that has a concern to me, because the whole basis of which you're putting this through is the fact that you're going to come back and modify it based on the comp plan amendment. Now, if you're going do leave this as a stand-alone project, then we need to reconsider the way it's evaluated so I'm pleased in my mind. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I guess the only way I can answer that, Mr. Strain, is simply that, should the Board of County Commissioners tell us that they don't want us to adopt the plan amendment that was called the Henderson Creek Mixed-Use District that was inclusive of this regional component as well as the residential component -- if they choose not to adopt it, we're still left with a project that is consistent Page 114 March 7, 2002 with the current growth management plan today at the 11 units per acre that is proposed. So I -- I don't know. I might defer to Marjorie Student on that issue on how we would clarify for the record. I don't know that I can say that I'm going -- my -- my biggest concern would be simply that if the board chooses not to adopt and I say that I am going to amend it, I -- I don't have a basis for amending it if the plan amendment's not adopted. MR. STRAIN: Well, then, Wayne, if we use language that if adopted -- MS. STUDENT: I think we could use some conditional language that says, "upon adoption" or if-- "if adopted" or "upon adoption." MR. ARNOLD: That's fine. I think that there needs to be that clarification. MR. STRAIN: But that also brings in the concern that this project, then, is a real -- really a stand-alones project. And the way the county commission transmitted the GNP documents was that the big box was -- and the approvals on that were based on a comprehensive document. So I'm not sure that we've gained anything by what you're doing, but I'll definitely go forward with it. MR. ARNOLD: Well, again, it goes back to the issue of this residential component coming ahead of the game, because we have this tax-credit deadline looming. It was always our intent to have this residential component. It's unfortunate that we can't bring it back all at the same time, but it's certainly our intent to do that. MR. STRAIN: Well, I'm in disagreement that you couldn't have done this in a more timely manner, so -- we don't need to get into that, because that's not productive right now. MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. I missed it. Did she reference which section we should-- Page 115 March 7, 2002 MS. STUDENT: I mentioned Section II. I believe it's called Project Development. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. STRAIN: Are you guys ready? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Wayne, Page 2-2, Item H, talks about the prototypical model homes. MR. ARNOLD: Right. MR. STRAIN: Would you explain to me what you did yesterday just so it's on record what your intent on that last statement is. MR. ARNOLD: I think what we said there is, in the event that there were multiple dwelling types that were developed, that would contemplate that we would have those. I -- I don't think we have a problem with striking that language. MR. STRAIN: That's what I was going to ask. MR. ARNOLD: It probably makes it just as easy, because I think the way we're headed, we're going to end up with one -- one dwelling type. And if we don't, we can certainly live without having multiple units in the-- MR. STRAIN: So the last sentence in H would be stricken? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. STRAIN: On 2.4-A, under roadways, the last sentence there references gates. Per discussion, you had intended those gates to be at the entrance to the residential elements, not to the -- the main road. There needs to be some clarification then, because that's not what comes out of that paragraph. MR. ARNOLD: We'll just add a whole new sentence there that would reference that the proposed loop road shall be open to the public and shall not be gated, or something to that effect. MR. STRAIN: It doesn't become a loop road, though, unless it's tied into the GNP that's going through that. Page 116 March 7, 2002 MR. ARNOLD: Well, so a primary access road shall remain open. MR. STRAIN: I'm wondering how staff is going to keep track of all this and produce a new document for BCC review. MR. BELLOWS: We're writing it down as we speak. MR. STRAIN: On Page 2.7 -- or 2-3, Item 2.7, there's a lot of references in here to minor changes and refinements and how they are to be looked at, whose authority can make those, such as the development services director. That entire section, in my opinion, is inappropriate. I think the limits that you can change things according to the ULDC is as far as it needs to be, and that document speaks for itself. I'm not sure we need to be redundant, nor do we add -- need to add any flexibility that isn't already in the code. MS. STUDENT: And I had a note here to address this, because I reviewed this against the code. And it appears there's some additions to what the code references as these very minor changes. So -- MR. ARNOLD: I think we're more than happy to live with what the LDC says, if that makes it easier for all involved. MR. STRAIN: Then 2.7 would basically just come out or just stand as a small ref-- a minor reference to the ULDC? MR. ARNOLD: Right. And I think the first -- first section that references Section 2.7 or 3.5 of the Land Development Code is all that we -- need be retained that says this is the process by how an amendment is structured. MR. STRAIN: 2.8, common area maintenance. There's the reference to the CDD. And I know we've spoke about it. And for the record, I need to know what your position is on that. MR. ARNOLD: I think as Mr. Yovanovich tried to point out, it's another funding mechanism. I'm not so sure we don't have that mechanism in our PUD, so I think we can delete any references to the CDD. Page 117 March 7, 2002 MR. STRAIN: On 2.9-B, I'm just -- this is a point of clarification. The fence or wall, maximum height is 6 feet as measured from the finished floor elevation of the nearest residential structure. Then the words, "within the development." I think someone testified or stated that the Holiday Manor areas are 5 1/2 or 3.5. If you're going to be at 7.5, and you're 6 feet above that finished floor, you're going to be 13-1/2 feet with this wall. Now, in -- compared to the Holiday Manor side. And I just wanted to make sure on the record, if anybody is here from Holiday Manor, they understand they're going to have a wall of that height along their northern property line or something close to that. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think for clarification purposes, the physical wall itself would be 6 feet. It could be placed on top of the 3- foot-high berm, for instance, that we're contemplating, and I think that's what we represented to them. We -- or they tell us that they want the wall on the property line on their side of the berm. Do they want it on top of the berm; would they like it on our side of the berm, and then we structure our landscape vegetation on the berm. Then that way, they may not even see the wall at all, but they still get the security issue that they were hoping to achieve. So you may want to -- we're willing to do any of those. Whatever is most, I guess, appropriate to the residents of Holiday Manor. MR. STRAIN: When the presentation was made to Holiday Manor, which one of those plans did you use to explain the project to them? MR. ARNOLD: We showed both. We've talked to them about the full option of having the entire project there that was contemplated with the plan amendment, and then we've also discussed with them this residential component on its own. Page 118 March 7, 2002 MR. STRAIN: Okay. Because I was wondering their reaction. But if they saw that whole project, including the big boxes in the front MR. ARNOLD: Yes, they have. MR. STRAIN: On 2-5, Item G, that references a chain-link fence, which I understand is not a condition now. We're going to a structural fence. MR. ARNOLD: We committed to them that we would do a precast concrete fence 6 feet in height. MR. STRAIN: Item 2.10, fill storage. The first paragraph, the third line from the bottom, "Stockpiling in these locations, developers shall notify the County Community Development Environmental Services administrator." I told you yesterday I thought that ought to be changed to either "request permission from" or "obtain permission from" to put those stockpiles there. MR. ARNOLD: I think if we simply put, "The developer shall obtain approval by Collier County Community Development Environmental Services administrator." MR. STRAIN: That will work. And on item B, your stockpile maximum height, I asked if you could consider a limitation on that for a time frame. I don't -- dirt sitting there along the roadway forever wouldn't be a sightly thing to see. And did you come back -- did you talk to anybody to -- MR. ARNOLD: Excuse me for one second. I think what Grady's indicated to me, we've done some number crunching. We would reduce the height from 30 feet to 20 feet, not to exceed one year for any stockpile. MR. STRAIN: On page 2-6, item 2.13, general permitted uses, your first sentence, "Certain uses shall be considered general permit uses throughout the Henderson Creek PUD except in the conservation Page 119 March 7, 2002 areas. The problem is, on your master plan, you show no conservation areas. So what is it that we're talking about here? Are you going to change that language? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. I think we should change that language to say "preserve/open space," as it's referenced in the document otherwise. MR. STRAIN: Item A-3 on the same page, you're requesting temporary sewage treatment facilities. I think that that should be taken out. MR. ARNOLD: We can do that. MR. STRAIN: Item A-10, again, it allows flexibility as determined by the planning services director. That should come out. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Excuse me, Mark. The two items just before that, Number 8 and Number 9, the sections cited don't support the propositions. I think that something was added along the way. 2-11 should be 2-9 and 2-12 should be 2-10. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Excuse me. MR. STRAIN: On, no. Thank you for that. On page 2-7, the top of the page, "Unless otherwise set forth in this document, the following development standards shall apply to the structures." And as we spoke yesterday, these standards contradict the table you have, so I believe you're going to suggest some language to be added after the word "structure" is accepting table one. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. RICHARDSON: Mark, in that same paragraph -- Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir? MR. RICHARDSON: I didn't quite understand what"minimum floor area, none required" -- "minimum lot or parcel area, none Page 120 March 7, 2002 required." MR. ARNOLD: For instance -- these are other uses contemplated. For instance, if you go to the prior page and it talks about guardhouses, gatehouses, recreational facility, we just haven't established a minimum floor area for that. That's pretty typical generic language that you'll see in most PUDs. MR. STRAIN: And 2-14, Open Space Requirements, the third line. "Preserves lakes, recreation tracks and buffers as open space," and it says they'll be identified in the PUD master plan. There weren't any recreation tracts identified in the plan that we have. Are you -- Have you -- are you going to be identifying those? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think we can doing two things: We can simply label the recreation area that we show with the pool area on the master plan as recreation, or we could simply take out the reference to recreation under the open-space requirements. And I think that, either way, it's a -- it cleans up the document to make it perfectly clear. I don't think it has a bearing on the open-space requirement issue, because it's in the LDC that you'll include it. MR. STRAIN: My preference would be to leave it in so it's another element that has to be defined and built rather than take it out and leave that up in the air. MR. ARNOLD: If we do that, then I would just add a label to the PUD master plan. MR. STRAIN: The -- page 2-8, item 2-18, substitutions to subdivision design standards. I think when we talked yesterday; you agreed that none of those should be applicable to the loop road or the potential loop road. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. We're fine with that. They would meet all county minimums with the primary service road or loop road, however we're going to refer to that. MR. STRAIN: On 3-2, Number 7 needs to be struck. Page 121 March 7, 2002 It, again, provides flexibility for the planning services director. MR. ARNOLD: That's not a problem. MR. RICHARDSON: Back on the previous page, Mark. The cul-de-sacs -- what does our current code say that the cul-de-sacs -- they can only be how long? MR. ARNOLD: I believe that number's a thousand feet. MR. RICHARDSON: And this would allow you to go more than a thousand feet by having this language in here? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. RICHARDSON: Do you anticipate having to do that? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not certain, but I can tell you that a lot of the fire codes dictate how long your cul-de-sacs will be and whether or not you have to put in -- the real issue for length of cul-de-sacs was getting fire apparatus and things of that nature in, and we'll have to provide appropriate tumarounds if we were to exceed the thousand- feet entry. MR. STRAIN: The table on 3-3, I'm not sure on what the best direction is to do on this table. I know that multifamily dwellings were the issue at hand in order to get the density. My preference is not to see that kind of density put on that property. By eliminating all the single-family aspects of this page, you definitely lock yourselves into mandatory affordable housing and higher densities. In our discussions today, we -- we talked about making sure that it was nonflexible, that we locked it in to 500 units. And thinking about it this past hour or so, I'm not sure that's the best thing to do for an outcome that might be best for the area. And I kind of wanted to see what the board thought about it on that particular point, if there's any other feelings on that whole thing. Because, by locking this project into the 500 units on the affordable housing agreement, we lock it into multifamily and affordable housing, where that may not be the most desirable -- this may not be the best location for that. Page 122 March 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I tend to agree. MR. RICHARDSON: I've seen the renderings, though, and I'm satisfied with the quality of this project as it's depicted and built in Collier County. And I think the need is so omnipresent -- and you certainly know those terms better than I do -- that I would go for as much as they could get. MR. STRAIN: The only problem I have, Dwight, is, I've driven past every -- in fact, I drive past daily the Green Boulevard project, and I didn't know it was this company's project. I am not impressed with it. I also know that the east Naples area is generally an area that is getting a lot of affordable housing, more than its share in the county. The problem with that is, when people relocate or locate in east Naples and they work in north Naples and they work in Pelican Bay, and they work in the other -- in Marco Island or anywhere else, they have to put an inordinate burden on our infrastructure system to get to where they really need to go to work. At the same time, it puts an additional cost on the people living there to making sure that their means to get there is a way that is dependable enough to get them to work each day. So those are two basic concepts that -- the whole location bothers me because of its concentration in an area already saturated. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: I disagree. East Naples does not have more than its share of affordable housing. We have more than our share in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. We can argue. And I think Golden Gate does, too, for that matter. So I think there's three areas in the county maybe where it's concentrated, Paul, and I think it needs it - - and where there is a committee right now underway in Collier County to figure out a way to spread it more evenly across the county. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That young man that worked for the county this morning with the little minuscule red dots, there wasn't Page 123 March 7, 2002 a preponderance of them in east Naples. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: He's looking at the red dots in a different manner than what I would have referred to as housing that is affordable. I mean -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think we'd have a hard time getting affordable housing next to Pelican Bay, though. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, actually, I live in Pel -- in Naples Park, and that's exactly what we're planning. And that's right next- door. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The room will be more filled than this. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I'm here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, Mark, if you reduce the 5 -- the Number 500, is there a proportionate reduction in the density bonus? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I asked Cormack earlier, and I think he's still here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's what I tried to ask, too. Probably we haven't phrased it properly. MR. CORNELL: Imagine this project could still qualify for the maximum density bonus at a threshold of less than 500 affordable units. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: How much would that be? MR. CORNELL: It would vary, depending on how affordable those units were held. During the break, I was crunching some numbers. If there were a 225-unit development, it would still qualify for eight bonus units per acre. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: For a 500-unit total -- MR. CORNELL: Correct. Page 124 March 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- developments? MR. CORNELL: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you familiar with this award or whatever this money situation is that the developer has an opportunity to obtain? MR. CORNELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that based on unit count? MR. CORNELL: That is based on how affordable they promise to keep the -- the project, and it is based on how many affordable units are in the project, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean, if they were to get 225 affordable units instead of 500, would they still get the full, say, 5 MR. CORNELL: No. They would not receive the maximum they would qualify for. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So they're driven in the opposite direction. They're driven to put more affordable in by that formula. MR. CORNELL: They are driven, and the Housing Improvement Department is driven to maximize the number of affordable units in the county. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That just helps with further discussions. Wayne, we talked about the table yesterday that we're on right now. And I had pointed out some distance issues between structures. Did you look at that any further and come back with anything, or -- MR. ARNOLD: I did. I think the numbers -- it gets a little bit complicated in the application. I think a lot of it is going to be non- applicable going towards more multifamily. But I think what we were trying to achieve -- for instance, your reference was to the zero or six- foot side yard setback that was shown for the patios zero lot line, two- family and single-family attached and its potential or -- potential Page 125 March 7, 2002 conflict or appearance of conflict with the minimum distance between structures, which is 5 feet or 10 feet. And the way that table was meant to be structured is that you end up on a side yard setback. You're either at the zero line or a minimum of six. I know I've heard Mr. Abernathy, on many occasions; say he doesn't like the 5-foot side yard setback for some of the smaller lots. So-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I don't even like 6. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They want 6 to avoid you, Ken. MR. ARNOLD: So we went to 6. That number is something that tends to work without changing the building footprint for some of these more typical zero lot line patio homes. The reference to the minimum distance between structures 5 or 10, I think in either case, you've exceeded it. So in those particular instances, it may not even be applicable, and I think you might be able to put "NA" under patio zero lot line and single-family attached, or distance between-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, frankly, I -- I don't imagine that the average person living in affordable housing expects the setbacks that are obtained in the Moorings or Park Shore. Just not -- not the way things work. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. That is the case. And one of the other comments you had, Mr. Strain, was in reference to the fact that the footnote references the distances between principle structures are not inclusive of garages. And I think I talked to you in the context that you may end up with a bay of four attached garages, only to find that you end up with two interior courtyard residential units that have to meet guideline separation, but the garages technically would not have to. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And as far as the board Page 126 March 7, 2002 goes, I just -- if this does go forward, I'd rather it went forward with this table in than out, only because, if we get something besides mid -- I mean, besides multifamily, it's still better to have some opportunity to do that. MR. ARNOLD: And I think while we're on that table, one of the things I heard Mr. Law commit to you all is that he would build only two-story structures. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: The reference in here is to basically -- I don't think it's in the table, but it's in the section. I think we might want to go back and take out the "35 feet not to exceed three stories" to say "two stories maximum." COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's -- I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Marjorie, are you all right leaving the table in as is? MS. STUDENT: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On page 4-1, the general description, 4.2, "Preserve open space on the master plan designed to accommodate conservation, passive recreation and water management uses and functions." Seeing as how some of those preserved open spaces are wetlands, the assumption here would be -- and I think I talked to you about putting some general language in that any intrusion into any areas outside the farm fields would be something that the EAC would -- in the whole process would have -- you'd have to go through the regular process to get approval. Do you recall that conversation? MR. ARNOLD: I do. And that was in reference, I think, to -- we talked about making a more general statement up in the purposes, as opposed to what staff has drafted as Section 4.3, Item Number 4, that said that we were -- we can't exceed 300 dwelling units until we're subject to review and approval by the county for environmental impact Page 127 March 7, 2002 statement PUD amendment. That in itself contemplates the EAC review, but we need to make that more clear, and I think we have no problem limiting ourselves to the impacted area for the residential development unless we go back through this process. MS. STUDENT: I have a question about that as it's presently configured in the PUD. I'm assuming that what will happen when the PUD amendment comes in, because you don't usually put residential- type development in the preserve or open space. If the amended PUD will show this as coming up on the master plan as a residential area where these units go, and then the preserve open space area be reconfigured in some way. MR. ARNOLD: And let me explain to you why we put it there, because we didn't want somebody -- we know -- we hope, with approval, that we would be back in modifying this at some point in the future to add the commercial and maybe the future phase of residential. We didn't want to show pictures of something that implied that this was always going to be preserve and then come back and somebody think we did the bate-and-switch. We simply wanted to note on our plan that this was going to be a future development area that today will remain as preserve. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But see, the fact that you're bringing it up now, telling us that it's going to be a future development area, more lends to the argument it should have gone through EAC now instead of later. MR. ARNOLD: Well, they will get their bite at that apple at the time that we propose an impact to it. MR. BELLOWS: If it went to the -- excuse me. For the record, if it went to EAC, then we would not be at this meeting today. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My point exactly. That's a good point. Page 128 March 7, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: And that's the reason why this language is put in here, to keep it undevelopable and as a preserve area until they do submit a DIS. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Ray, I'm -- I thought -- I think it should have gone through the whole system. That's my -- MR. BELLOWS: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- point. And the fact that it didn't and we're here today, it just voided the system. And you can do it with tricks and smoke and mirrors, which is what's happening. I'm just not in favor of it. That's all. What I would suggest, if you're not going to go into the reserve and open space areas without a PUD amendment and without going through the process, then why don't we eliminate any references to the residential areas, since you can't do those anyway without coming back through the whole system? So we would take out A-4 and 4.4, because you won't need development standards either at that point or development standards for shelters. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think that would be applicable for some of those other permitted uses and structures. But I think -- again, my only fear of taking that reference out is simply one of somebody reading this document and saying, hey, wait a second. You guys told us this was a preserve area and, you know, now you're back in asking to put some residential development over there, and we think we got hoodwinked. And I don't want that implication to be there because we're trying to be very upfront about how we got to the point we are. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When you talked to the Holiday Manor people and you showed them that green plan there, did they know there was going to be residential in that area that's not shown? MR. ARNOLD: I hope I made that abundantly clear, because we Page 129 March 7, 2002 also showed them the other plan as well that showed two phases. So I hope that they would certainly tell you that we did talk about that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Maybe -- hopefully someone from Holiday Manor is here today, too, so we can see how they feel about it. I'm not quite comfortable with A-4 but, I mean, let me chew on it a bit, and I'm sure the other members have their opinions on it as we go forward. The -- page 5-2, item c, you reference Section 2.4. I think that entire section -- we were going to drop that end of it because 2.4 is your roadway reference. It's not a -- not a water utility reference. MS. MURRAY: Could you repeat that again. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 5-2, item c, second line, references Section 2.4. 2.4 is roadways, not sanitary sewer and water system. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The Water Management, under 5.5-A, the first line is redundant. You can't get a permit unless you meet that language. And subject to possible changes in the future, I'd just as soon that language came out and you were subject to South Florida Water permit requirements, period. MR. ARNOLD: We do reference that. And for everyone's benefit, it references the fact our design storm is a 25-year three-day duration event, which is the design standard of the district. But I don't think there's an objection to take that language out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It is for now. You're in a flood zone. You're below US 41, which means you can't have hurricane evacuation centers on your property because of a storm surge. I'm just wondering how you addressed the hurricane issue on this project. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we are addressing a hurricane issue on the project because, in Collier County, the emergency preparedness Page 130 March 7, 2002 standards -- again, on DRI-level reviews, there's hurricane preparedness. Otherwise, the countywide application for storm shelters are there. I mean, our elevations, we've developed above the hundred-year storm. The minimum elevation requirement on this property is 7 feet in an 8 to 7 flood zone. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're going to be putting 500 units, say, 2 1/2 bodies per unit. That's 1250 people. I'm just wondering, number one, based on traffic, how will they ever get out of there. But once they did, where would they go? Have you-- have you got any work on some offsite improvements of offsite contributions to help hurricane-- MR. ARNOLD' We have not specifically for this project. I did rezone the -- I worked on the Winding Cypress DRI, which is just on the east and north across US 41. And on that particular project, there was a cash payment in lieu of actual physical improvements anywhere to make storm shutters and some other facilities available at the Laurel Oak Elementary up on County Road 951, Collier Boulevard. That review normally does not occur for a sub-DRI project. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's see. 5.6 -- and I'm almost done, fellows. I'm trying. The same page, 5.6 environmental, item B, you reference conservation/preservation areas. You don't show either on your master plan. You just need to revise that language to conflict -- or be concurrent with the master plan. The last line of that same one talks about scheduling the removal of exotic vegetation. I think that's clearly addressed in your building permits. And the building department handles that at the time of CO, so I'm not sure you need to have any special dispensation there. MR. ARNOLD: I'll be happy to strike. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And that's the last of my concerns Page 131 March 7, 2002 about the PUD document. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Did any of that raise any questions? Mr. Midne? COMMISSIONER MIDNE: I still am confused about how you can fit 500 units on 45 acres at 11 units per acre. That comes out to about 495 units. That's if you use every single acre. And so I don't see where you have any room left for wetlands, lakes, conservation areas, open space or commercial. That's my first question. MR. ARNOLD: Well, the commercial component comes into play when we end up with an 85-ace project, so the 45 we're looking at, net densities for multifamily housing that are 9 to 12 units per acre are not unreasonable to build physically and still meet your water management open-space requirements. Single-family -- for instance, I'm looking at a number of four to six units per acre. But for multifamily housing, I can build 9 to 11 units per acre net without a problem at all. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: You'll still have open space? MR. ARNOLD: We will still be mandated to have open space, yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: How many eight-plexes are you going do fit onto one acre? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that I can tell you that number. Grady, do you have any -- MR. MINOR: We haven't gotten that far. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we've gotten to that point where I can tell you how many of those eight-plexes would fit per acre. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: It's just hard for me to imagine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wayne, could you ask one -- answer one other question I have? And that is, is this affordable segment, this housing segment of this overall project going to be sold Page 132 March 7, 2002 off?. MR. ARNOLD: It's my understanding -- and I can be corrected by the owner, but it's the affordable housing developer that will be purchasing this property to develop it from the applicant deed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the applicant and everything that we're doing today, basically it's going to be passed on to -- to another potential buyer. MR. ARNOLD: Right. Our clients, the applicants, are not affordable-housing developers. That's why they partnered with one to bring this project forward. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Yovanovich still over there? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Not right now. He stepped out. Okay. You have -- speaking for the team, then, you have nothing further at this point? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You reserve the right to -- MR. ARNOLD: We would like to come back and address anything that's raised by the planning commissioners or the public during their discussion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, the public, at least -- once we close the public hearing, I'm not inclined to have you address what the planning commission discusses among themselves. MR. ARNOLD: I thought maybe you meant in discourse with the residences. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Of course. Okay. Are we ready to hear from the public? MS. MURRAY: We are. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We are. MS. MURRAY: We are. The first speaker is going to be Mario - Page 133 March 7, 2002 - I'll spell the last name for you -- C-u-r-i-a-l-e. Doesn't look like he's here. Second one is Sylvia -- I'll spell it for you. It's G-o-u-l-d-e-s-b-r-o-u-g-h. Gouldesbourgh. Is Sylvia here? Come up. MS. GOULDESBROUGH: Good afternoon. My name's Sylvia Gouldesbrough. I'm from Holiday Manor co-op, which is next door to the planned development. We're a senior community, very elderly, and we're concerned about two things: Traffic and drainage. Maybe there are other concerns, but those are the ones I've heard most about. There's going to be a light, we understand, on 951 opposite Eagle Creek. But even so, we think there will be about a thousand cars on the road extra if we go ahead with this development. That makes it very difficult for us to get out from our turning on Henderson Creek Drive. The second thing, of course, is -- is the drainage. I've heard Grady talk about where the water's going to go, but I'm very concerned, because I know that when there's a three-day storm and lots of rain, the wind affects the tide, and if the water empties into the creek, it won't be able to get out sometimes, which means that we'll be flooded. What's more, on 951, the water gully there, the state roads build for us -- or rather, for the roads that holds the water will not be able to get out at the bridge, because the tide is still up and water's coming from the development further up, the one that's planned. So I ask the commissioners, please do not allow this planned development to go forward and to reduce the zoning back to where it was. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Next speaker is Patrick Law. MR. LAW: That was me. I thought I had to fill one of those out. Sorry. Page 134 March 7, 2002 MS. MURRAY: Okay. KenDrum. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's gone. MS. MURRAY: Bob Murray. MR. MURRAY: Yes. Commissioners, I have prepared remarks, if I may. Good afternoon to you all. My name is Bob Murray. I am a citizen of Naples not far from locality of Henderson Creek, and I'm also the secretary of the East Naples Civic Association and cochair of the Economic Development Committee. First, let me be clear: I am not against affordable housing. And we, the East Naples Civic Association, whom I represent, are not against affordable housing. I do not and we do not, however, support this effort to build a very large number of affordable housing units in the area known alternatively as south or east Naples for the following reasons: Already serious traffic issues will be exacerbated, and the problems that result from them will negatively and unnecessarily impact adjoining communities' quality of life. Traffic patterns at the general location of the proposed development at the very major intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Collier Boulevard are already severe, and with just the addition of the Home Depot and the inevitable ancillary development that such a store brings has more than issues and concerns for safety at this location. The county's transportation administrator seeks to make Collier Boulevard a limited access roadway from approximately 1-75 to the State Road 41 intersection. Vehicular traffic, comfortable at 55 miles plus, approaching this intersection from the north, will have to pattern from high speed to restricted speed in a very short distance in time. As accidents are inevitable at any intersection, just think what the additional traffic loads will do. They're guaranteed to raise the number, frequency and the mortality as the result. Although we are pleased that Home Depot will soon build in the Page 135 March 7, 2002 area proximate to the proposed Henderson Creek development, nevertheless, we are concerned about that resulting traffic, let alone the added traffic from 300 to 500 units, where an estimated additional 1250 residents. So please, don't rush to approve this project until adequate studies reveal true impact. With the intensity of traffic resulting there, County Road 951 and State Road 41 will soon look very much like what Pine Ridge and Airport-Pulling intersections and approaches are today: A quagmire, but of tar. And I know of no one who thinks otherwise. And what about storms? Hurricanes, tornados and tropical depressions that bring huge amounts of rainwater and flooding and high winds that destroy improvements and injure and kill people. So I ask, inasmuch as 951 and 41 are evacuation routes, what is the impact of this added burden, this unbelievable congestion and the consequences that will, make no distake -- will manifest when an event occurs. What about offsite shelters to serve this added population burden? Is the county ready for this? How many injured or stand without clothes of food will be left to the elements because no consideration of these factors was made? What about medical facilities and emergency services? Can they support large areas of these lands cut off by the flooding from tidal surge alone? And isn't this an area of tidal surge zone? With most properties built on filled lots of 4 to 6 or less feet above sea level, what about the disaster resulting from flooding -- Loss of property, loss of life -- as erosion takes away the underpinning of buildings. Can we not serve the community by planning for the essential contingencies, rather than playing catch-up later when lives are at stake? Wouldn't that be worth waiting for? And speaking of wetlands, in -- is the entire tract the developer intends for the building of some 500 units on acreage defined as farm fields actually farm Page 136 March 7, 2002 fields or is it possible, even probable, that access roads will have to cross wetlands to facilitate ingress and egress? With such a large area, incursion into protected acreage seems inevitable. We must be sure that the Environmental Advisory Council gives approval before building is permitted. Has this been requested? If not, why not? Isn't it standard procedure to verify developers' claims? I understand that the PUD submitted shows development going well into the protected acreage, and that was offered for a plan to build only 300 units. Procedures established for the review process called for a minimum period of two weeks between planning commission and county commission hearings. This is to permit a proper review and consideration of all the facts disclosed in the review approval process. In this case, it's just two business days. Why are they rushing? Does this commission know whether all the required documentation and reviews for accuracy and completeness have been done? Assertions by the developer aside, can this commission act to approve if it does not know? Has county staff at all levels and in all departments that must review and approve done so? Finally, the BOCC approved a new work-force housing commission some three to five months ago; however, the commission has not been formed yet. Shouldn't this request for approval wait for consideration from that organization? If groundbreaking is not intended in the year 2002, but instead in the year '03 or '04, why are we rushing to make this happen now? What benefit will the citizens, through the representatives of the county, Collier County government, derive from this very time-driven request for approval process? The developer seeks approval today, but it will derive certain financial awards from the state, especially due to increased density that results from changes in the original plan ratios. It is my understanding that there are new ratios that raise the number of planned units from somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 to 500. Page 137 March 7, 2002 There is a rather large chunk of money to be gained from this immediate approval. No one suggests that builders be denied fair profit from their work. This let's-get-it-done-today approach of the builder, however, seeks state credits for -- that are permitted by law, providing approval is given by a certain day. Is this a usual fair-profit approach, especially when the stakes are so high? I mean, people's lives. The builder has had plenty of time to assure it got it right. It is assumed that it had financial wherewithal to employ professionals to draw its plans, research codes and statutes and take the necessary steps to assure that it conformed to all county requirements before coming to the commission for approval to proceed. In the course of its planning, it may have received advice that caused it to delay. It may have vacillated and misspent precious time that could have otherwise caused it to succeed in the allotted time frame. It may have -- it is also assumed that it offered adjacent citizens an opportunity to see what is going to be a good neighbor by making certain that all issues were on the table for all to see. Insofar as I know, their required paperwork was not complete or correct as recently as March 5. Public hearings? What does that say? Respectfully, Bob Murray. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions of Mr. Murray? MS. MURRAY: George Lacombe? MR. LACOMBE: I've already requested -- excuse me. My name is George Lacombe from Holiday Manor, and I've already sent you a packet that I'd be addressing your meeting here. Do you want me to read those documents or just to carry on from the documents? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Why don't you just summarize for the record-- MR. LACOMBE: All right. Page 13 8 March 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- if you can do that. MR. LACOMBE: Our greatest concern at Holiday Manor is flooding. On your screen there, you see a picture of some of the flooding from September where we had a five-inch rain. And the -- we are told that these problems have been solved by 951, which is the highway department. Collier County -- or Collier Boulevard, they replaced the tiles in -- underneath the Henderson Creek Drive and said that that should solve our problem. Obviously it hasn't. If you see the edge of the picture here, this is Henderson Creek Drive, and the water is running over the top of the road rather than through the tiles, because it just can't handle it. The water from about a mile of Highway 951 drains in front of our property. We are the low spot, and it's just not allowed to escape. And now we have a development that's going to add to this problem, and we're really, really concerned. These are some of our streets, and there you see a couple of inches of water on our streets. And this is just from a 5-inch rain. If we -- if we get a 1 O-inch rain, heaven help us. And the engineers keep telling us that they've resolved the problems, and now we have other engineers saying, oh, yeah, don't worry about it. Well, we are worried about it, and the only place we can get help is from this -- this board to make the proper decision not to let this go on. The -- the people who are concerned about this -- well, we have 47 Army veterans in our park, 10 Air Force veterans, 20 Navy veterans, two Coast Guard veterans, three Marine veterans, four retired policemen, 12 retired firemen. Please don't let them down. Look after your heroes, because they live in this park. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: John Juliano. MR. JULIANO: Good afternoon. My name is John Juliano. I'm a resident of Holiday Manor, and I'm also president of the co-op. I would like to speak to you in a capacity as a resident Page 139 March 7, 2002 and also in some capacity representing our co-op. I found today's presentations very interesting and very informing with the questions that you gentlemen have asked the developers. I do agree that we had a meeting as late as -- recent as March 1 st. Wayne Arnold was there. Greg Minor. We had Rich Yovanovich. We did discuss these water issues, our flooding problems. We did discuss the issues of security for our park. As it was mentioned, we are a senior park, 55 and over. We're a resident-owned co-op. We have a $6 million investment that the shareholders made, and that is only in the land. So if we appear to be defensive to the project or create an attitude of "not in our backyard," I hope you'll understand, we are trying to protect an investment that we have and trying to make our community a good community for east Naples. One of the issues is traffic. I plead total ignorance to your traffic studies and your numbers, but if you experience driving on Collier Boulevard, and especially a day like today when everybody exits Marco Island, you have a tremendous problem of getting out of Henderson Creek Drive. I don't know if these studies have taken into account -- I understand there are 6,000 more houses to be built at Fiddler's Creek. You have developments going on at Marco Shores. I understand there's some towers being looked at for Collier Boulevard. You don't have Marco Island fully built out yet. And what happens when that occurs? Are these traffic studies conducted just for today's impact of these 500-housing unit, or is it looking down the road? Is there a long-range plan as to how you move traffic? The -- so that is an issue that we're concerned with, is traffic. We're right there. Ray Bellows mentioned earlier this was a compatibility item. We also agree that affordable housing is needed in Naples, and we're not against it. What we are opposed to is the number of units being Page 140 March 7, 2002 proposed on this piece of property. So is 500 units crammed in on 45 acres compatible with the neighborhood? We have Eagle Creek condominiums and homes across the street. Is that compatible? Will a Home Depot or a commercial installation next to us and on 951 or Collier be compatible with the neighborhood? We would be opposed to the commercial residential. We -- we feel that putting 500 units exceeds the amount of usage properly on that land. Commissioner Abernathy, you talked a few minutes ago about-- you questioned about setbacks and that the people in these units could not expect the setbacks you wouldn't expect at Moorings. I think if you want to provide a better quality of life for affordable-housing people, setbacks should be taken into account. I don't think you create a good living atmosphere by cramming 500 families into a tight spot. I think it needs to be spread out. I know people in the south do not like to hear what the people in the north live with, but I feel here density needs to be looked at. In the north, we could never build a house on a lot that you have down here that you'll put a 2 or a 300,000 dollar house on it. I did a subdivision, and my minimum lot had to be 20,000 square feet for one house, and I think here you could put two houses on that lot. So we hear of density. We hear of traffic and we need to look at the density issues. We can-- we also have a concern about if this preserve area is not build able, should the density numbers or the bonus numbers be different? Now, when the representatives were at our park on the 1 st, we did see the drawing here on the left-hand side. Wayne, I'm not sure if we really discussed that part with the preserve part in there unless I was out of the office. But I don't remember that discussion. It was just looking at this larger overall blueprint of the project. So we are aware of the commercial park that's being proposed. We were not aware that it would be in two segments. Page 141 March 7, 2002 And my question to this board is, if that preserve area is not build able, should not the bonus points be recalculated as to the number of build able acreage that you have for affordable housing? And again, I don't want to sound that "not in our backyard," but I think the irmnediate area of 41 and Collier Boulevard is being saturated with affordable housing. You have Whistler's Cove, which is affordable housing. You have Habitat for Humanity building west on 41 near the Lely entrance. You have Habitat that has property down near Paradise point RV units, and I understand there is also about 26 acres of land about three miles east on 41 that is going to be coming in for affordable housing. And if you ratio those 26 acres to this 45 acres, I could see another 300 affordable housing units coming into that immediate area. You take that traffic, and you couple it with the proposal of the Collier company for Winding Cypress planned unit on 1900 acres, how much more traffic are we going to dump into an intersection that already is aggravated, congested and dangerous? And I will state for the co-cop, at our board meeting yesterday, the residents have asked that I, on behalf of the co-op, ask this commission not to approve this development. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Daniel Hess, followed by-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just a minute. Just a minute. Marjorie. Something this gentleman said I wanted to ask you about. The presentation that was provided to these people during the town meetings or the public participation meetings, should those meetings have used the same graphics that we're seeing here today? MS. STUDENT: I -- I think it's fair to say that conceptually what was presented conceptually should have been presented there. I mean, that's the idea of it, so that the property owners can have a change to review the project and to know, you know, conceptually again, what's going in there. Page 142 March 7, 2002 I -- I don't think that specifically there's anything in the code that says that, but it sort of defeats the purpose. And maybe Mr. Arnold can explain, you know, what was presented. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've asked Wayne. And Wayne, I thought you indicated both of those plans, and now this gentleman seems to recall one plan being presented. Do you know what -- what do you say about that? MR. ARNOLD: Both exhibits were presented, had them both on the easel at different times, and I talked from both exhibits. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Those exact exhibits? MR. ARNOLD: Those exact exhibits, yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Who's the next witness? Is there -- MS. MURRAY: Daniel Hess, followed by Robert Smith. MR. JULIANO: I may have -- I did step out of the meeting for a few minutes, and maybe Wayne did discuss the proposal with the preserve. There are other members here who were at the meeting the entire time, and if I missed it, I do extend my apologies to Wayne. But I do remember we discussed that one in more detail. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Daniel Hess? MR. HESS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Daniel Hess, and I'm speaking on behalf of Lee and Margery Woodbury that live on 69 Kumquat Lane, which is on the comer of Kumquat and Palm Drive. I am also a member of a -- the Isabelli -- Issabella Planning Commission in the State of Michigan. I've sat here today and listened to this project, and to myself, there's a lot of gray areas that have not been addressed. And if they have been, it's still gray. And I don't understand why that -- you would go on with this project with -- without some explanation to the soil, of what it's going to do. If they're sitting at possibly Page 143 March 7, 2002 7 foot above Holiday Manor and you get a sudden rainfall that could possibly find the easiest path of resistance and come back into the Holiday Manor when you already have 14 inches of rain, which is going to wind up flooding the area even more than what you have now. The other thing is, is the 951. If you do get that amount of rain, where is all that water going to go off of their project? It will probably flood out 951 even greater than what it is now during the construction phase. So looking at everything, I -- I would think that this matter should be tabled. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Last speaker is Roger Smith. MR. SMITH: My name is Roger Smith. I've resided in Holiday Manor for the last six years. I'm a winter resident. I'm here six to seven months out of the year. I haven't seen too many of the heavy rains, but I've ridden my bicycle on some of our streets when the water is up to the axle on the bicycle, full-size bicycle. Some things I've heard today have surprised me, considering what we heard in our meeting about a week ago on the 1 st. We were told that this was going to be low-income housing, and I asked whether -- what this low-income amount was and whether it was just for the breadwinner of the house or total income of all those working in the household. And they said it's just the income of the household, so I assume that's for everyone working and living in a particular household. Now, today, we hear another definition of low-income housing. There's low income, lower income and lowest income. Another new surprise in what we'd been told, in addition to the original, which you've mentioned earlier, how much individual housing and how much high-density housing, and now there is no Page 144 March 7, 2002 individual housing and it's all high-density housing. The traffic problems, the amount of children that will be brought into the school in the local area, will the school no longer be able to handle that many? Will there be a new school building program? Will our taxes go up? All of these things are problems, which we have. Many of these problems have been listed much more eloquently than I can, and I just wanted to add my request that this not be approved. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: There's no more speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to respond to the last comments about what was explained at the last neighborhood meeting, and Mr. Giblin can confirm this. We explained the three categories of affordable housing we would be serving. We said 60 percent of the median, 50 percent of median. And I had to keep looking at Mr. Giblin to make sure I had the right numbers. And I think the last one was 35 percent of median income. So we explained that we were covering all three of the affordable housing, and we always -- and we said -- we always said it was going to be multifamily. We never said it was going to be single family or varying types. So I just wanted to clarify that on the record, and unless you have any other questions or comments -- do we need to address the drainage anymore? I mean, Grady has explained in great detail. He can come back up and explain all the requirements. MR. M1NOR: Real quick. Holiday Manor-- excuse me. Grady Minor, for the record. Holiday Manor has a drainage problem now. They just showed you photos of it. Our water management plan is going to keep sheet Page 145 March 7, 2002 flow that presently would come from our property to the north from entering onto their property. All of our drainage is going to be routed to the east, back to Henderson Creek. Right now, some of our drainage sheet flows out into Collier Boulevard. They have a problem with the drainage in Collier Boulevard. He showed you a picture with the water going across their entrance road. That won't happen anymore. It won't happen from our property. The sheet flow from our property is going to be routed in an entirely different direction to the east, and it's going to discharge into Henderson Creek. This is going to be an improvement. Traffic. Yes, there's a lot of traffic here, and there is especially at this time of year. But we did a traffic study, and it was based on the methodology required by the land development code. And the traffic study was reviewed by your transportation director, and she told you this morning that we weren't going to lower the level of service standard on the roads that were significantly impacted by our project. Also, just because we were to develop 500 affordable apartments doesn't mean that 500 new families are going to move down here from somewhere else. A lot of these people are already here, and they're already driving around. They're going to relocate to a better facility, and there won't be new trips. So I don't think traffic is that big of an issue for what we're requesting today, and I'm telling you that the drainage is going to be taken care of because we can engineer that and improve their situation. Can I keep their subdivision dry? No. Somebody made that decision a long time ago to build that that low. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Grady, may I -- does their water problem come from Henderson Creek or 951, or just the sheer fact that it drains from all the surrounding property onto theirs? MR. MINOR: I've asked about that. I talked to John Boltd about it, and we think that there are times when Henderson Page 146 March 7, 2002 Creek actually comes out of its banks and gives them a problem. And that's a problem. I mean, that's how low they are. There are times now -- and they tell me it's only since Collier Boulevard was four-laned-- when Collier Boulevard was four-laned the Water Management District made the state Department of Transportation provide water quality within the swales of Collier Boulevard. In other words, you don't just run the water off into a ditch and hurry it out to Henderson Creek so it can run out to Rookery Bay. They purposely made that system sluggish. They actually designed a certain amount of time for that water to stay in the system so that the particles could -- could set. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Heavy metals and whatnot? MR. MINOR: Yeah. Thank you. So there's a water quality system built into that that makes it sluggish, and that's causing part of their problem, too. But the main reason they have a problem, obviously, is because they're low. And I can't raise them up, but I can keep our property from negatively impacting them. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, you said it's going to positively impact. MR. MINOR: I -- I -- it is. It's not -- no longer going to have that -- we're not going to contribute to the flow in Collier Boulevard anymore. We're not going to contribute to the flow from the north to the south onto their property out. We will positively impact their property. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm still back on traffic, and I'm somewhat enamored with the idea of doing some phasing here or getting you to commit to some phasing, because it does seem that there's at least -- even though you've followed all the rules, that there's some degree of uncertainty about what the future may bring as it relates to the total traffic volume, the background traffic and other projects coming down the line that you really don't have any control Page 147 March 7, 2002 over. I would -- it would really be helpful, I think, to our understanding and perhaps moving towards approval if we could get some sort of commitment from you folks that you would plan a phasing in of this project that makes sense to everybody. But plan it, and then allow the traffic analysis people that we have to take a look at that at the end of each of those phases and decide when the appropriate time to issue CO's and that sort of thing would-- MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. Mr. Richardson, we can commit to that. The first phase -- we'll do it in two phases. The first phase would be 224 units, and then the second phase would be -- it could be three phases, I guess, but the remainder of the units would be in at least the second phase so that you would have that opportunity to address that. MR. RICHARDSON: I guess, in fact, you almost have to do that because you have to come back to us for the second phase anyway. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've created that internal phasing mechanism already. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I think getting that on the record may be helpful. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got one question, and it's for the members of the public that are here. How many of you are in favor of this project? Raise your hand if you are. (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The reverse is, how many are not in favor? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm going to make that assumption. We're here to serve the public. I just wanted to see how much of the public was in favor of this project. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anything else, Rich? Page 148 March 7, 2002 MR. YOVANOVICH: Other than the standard comment that zoning is not a popularity contest, okay? The vote of the public is irrelevant to the decision, and I would hope that the planning commission would -- would limit itself to the merit of the project. And with that, I don't think we have anything else to add. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: I just have to advise that, in making your decision and acting quasi-judicially, you're bound by the criteria that is in the land code that has been set forth in your staff report, and that is the proper grounds for making a decision. And when you do make your motion, I would need for you to point out either in support or in - - whichever way it goes, what criterion or criteria support it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let me ask you a question. Mr. Murray, in his remarks, commented about the minimum period of two weeks between planning commission and county commission hearing. Are there provisions to waive that, or does that even exist? MS. STUDENT: I don't find that in the PUD procedure section of the code. We have those provisions and other sections for time between hearings for planning commission hearings from LDC amendments and the like, but I looked under the PUD procedures, and I didn't find that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. All right. MS. STUDENT: I'm just going to go check in another place to make sure. So -- I don't find that in the section either where -- there's several sections, and it can be confusing. In the land code, you have sections where it's initiated by a property owner, sections where it's initiated by the board, sections where it's 10 contiguous acres or less or more, so it can be confusing. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Page 149 March 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: This issue came up on a couple other projects in the past few years that follow the same kind of tract a week after the planning commission. And as I recall, staff review of the LDC did not find any prohibition against scheduling the Board of County Commissioners one week later. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Any other questions of staff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'm going to close the public hearing. Open for discussion, motions, whatever. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I still believe that there's too many unanswered questions for us to go forward with this issue. The only one who will benefit if we rash this decision is the developer, who's going to receive a good deal of money. But that's not our problem. Our problem is to be able to say with our own good conscious that we understand what's going on and that we agree with what's going on, and therefore could go forward. I personally believe at this stage -- I understand what it would do to their problem -- that this motion be tabled until we get back answers from staff that will give us the assurance that what's going to be done will be done properly. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm certain the developer will benefit from this, and that's what they're in the business for. I think there will be a great benefit to the folks who can't afford housing in Collier County. I think that's what we're looking at here. There may be some -- some questionable items here, but I -- I-- as far as traffic is concerned, as water flow, I -- I don't think that's -- that's really the issue here. I think we need this -- we need this type of development and -- well, I'm down there every day. I understand the problems -- your problems that are existing, but I think that the Page 150 March 7, 2002 benefits way out -- out way the -- any of the other problems that I see. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You mean 30 days more would be unreasonable to you to find out whether it's going to actually work the way they say it's going to work and will bet the horse today because it -- 30 days might make it that much easier for 500 units? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I rely on our professional staff people. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They've already told us that, under the circumstances, they have a problem. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No. They -- I don't agree with that, Mr. Adelstein. It has come forward to us as a signed document by the professional staff to approve this. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You listened to his opening statement? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'm in agreement with the comments made by Mr. Wolfley. There are issues. There are some issues that might be shades of gray, but I think there's been sufficient reasonable and competent testimony presented by staff and the experts that have presented to us. And I think time is an issue, and what will be lost in 30 days are the grant monies. And the people who would be hurt would be those who can't afford adequate housing right now. And there is a housing issue, and I'm inclined to support this petition. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I agree with that assessment, and it's the larger picture I think we've got to keep our eyes on. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Adelstein, do you want to make a motion to table to see whether it flies? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's not going to go forward, but I would like to make a motion to table this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Margorie? Page 151 March 7, 2002 it. MS. STUDENT: I think the correct motion would be to continue CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Continue it? All right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. To continue this. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Whichever. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any discussion of that? Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER MIDNE: I'm torn by the need of-- for workhorses housing and also between that and the problem of congestion. I'm kind of leaning more towards tabling it, because congestion seems to me a harder problem to remedy than affordable housing, because you can relocate affordable housing, but once something gets to a point of extreme congestion, it's hard to remedy it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, it seems do me that tabling is an extreme remedy. If you don't like what you have, then you should vote against it, against the petition. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: I'd be inclined to do that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, can I just add one thing -- just a second -- is that land is a precious commodity here. There ain't much left, and you get it where you can get it. That's all I wanted to say. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: And that's what I'm -- noticed too, is that it seems like affordable housing always seems to be in places that are marginal; that's, you know, either in a congested area or near a CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Under water. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: -- or a place -- you know, it's hard to get the affordable housing in a place where it would be the most desirable. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Yovanovich, do you want to Page 152 March 7, 2002 speak to this motion? I think you're entitled to that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would appreciate that. Commissioners, I would-- if you vote to continue this, it is a drastic remedy. You basically have denied the project. I think we should appropriately -- if you do -- are not convinced by what we have presented and our willingness to do this in multiple phases, where the only commitment you're making today is for 224 units, then vote against it and let us have the opportunity to talk to our county commissioners as to whether or not they will support this. But prior to that, you are essentially taking the decision away from the Board of County Commissioners and whether or not they feel it is appropriate to consider this petition by continuing it. And I would hope that you would not do that and at least let the county commission decide whether or not they want to have the opportunity to vote in favor or not in favor of trying to get these grant funds. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, can I -- I know I don't say very much usually, but I'd like to just throw my two cents into this meeting, if I could. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You've been awfully quiet today. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Who is that gentleman down far end? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One thing that have -- that's come out publicly by our -- by the Board of County Commissioners is that there's been a system in place that's been somewhat flawed. And in -- this weekend's paper highlighted it when the commissioner called -- appropriately calling attention to it, and that is predictability and consistency. We don't have any predictability here because we'd know that what you're coming in with is not what you want to do. You've already stated that you want to use the space in there, but you're showing nothing on it. I think predictability in that regard is Page 153 March 7, 2002 questionable. Consistency. You did not go through the due process that most other projects would have gone through, both in a timely manner and through the proper boards; nor is there a normal time lag between this commission's meeting and the BCC. So I don't think there's consistency in the way this was reviewed compared to other projects. You missed the EAC. The traffic issue is one that I think is extremely important for that area. I sit in traffic jams in that intersection time and time again every single day, whether it's lunch, noontime, or -- I mean, lunchtime or afternoon or on the way home. And at the same time, the -- the density bonus that we have in front of us, there's been some changes of that document. It is incomplete. Item Number 7 has not been provided to us. We hob-walked through the PUD. I got to commend you fellows for agreeing to a lot of the terms and conditions of the PUD, but it isn't this board's responsibility to rewrite PUDs. That should have been done by staff over the normal course of time before it got here. So those are my reasons why I would agree with a continuance on this project. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Rich, no more -- (Applause from the audience.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All -- now, wait a minute. All he's done is restate his position, all -- all of those things have been previously stated, so we just can't keep this up all afternoon, I don't think. Now, Marjorie, let me ask you a question. Is there a way that the county commission or county staff could override a -- MS. STUDENT: On the continuance, you have to -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- on a continuance? MS. STUDENT: The code requires -- Page 154 March 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: down at the other end. MS. STUDENT: I need -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We still have the jurisdiction, then. MS. STUDENT: -- a recommendation from you all. The code requires that, that you all make a recommendation to the board. So without that, I don't think -- it would be my opinion we can't proceed. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Well-- MS. STUDENT: I would ask, if you could, continue it to a date certain so people know what the date is and staff knows whether they might have to re-advertise, because if it's over five weeks, you've got to re-advertise. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's cross that bridge just a block or so later. I would implore the commission, in the public interest, I think, to forward this and let the county commission exercise its discretion. You can send a powerful signal voting against it, and it -- it will go forward with the recommendations of disapproval, but it will go forward. And I think that's the preferable course. So -- any other comments? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I agree. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. I'll call the question. Let's have a show of hands. All those in favor of the motion to continue this item to a date that we will determine if necessary, raise your hands. The motion fails. So now-- COMMISSIONER MIDNE: I'd like to make a motion to deny it. All right. I'll second that. Well, I know you got a second Page 155 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're the anchors. MS. STUDENT: I need a reason or reasons as enunciated in the staff report, the criteria that are in the code. We have to have a reason set forth as part of the motion to deny. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: My motion would have to do with traffic congestion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And if you would so be inclined, I could contribute two points that I would feel comfortable with adding, and that's ULD Section 1.4 and ULD Section 2.1.2. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That was the second. I was adding -- I was adding to the motion if-- if Paul didn't mind. MS. STUDENT: I need to correct something for the record. You're limited to the criteria that are in your staff reports. And those would be -- just bear with me a minute. Either under 27.325 -- there's another section here, too, and I'm not -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What page of the report are we -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Page 1. MS. STUDENT: In any event, it's on Exhibit A, page 1, of the staff report, the findings. 27.325 or 27.25. That's exhibit-- one's Exhibit A, and one's Exhibit B. And there are a list of criteria in there, and those are the criteria that govern in making a decision on a reason in a PUD rezone. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Could traffic congestion COMMISSIONER MS. STUDENT: I mouth. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: okay. Now I can give-- MIDNE: I can't find it. MIDNE: Would traffic be one of those? be one of those? STRAIN: Number 6 would hit that, Paul. can't -- I can't put words in the commission's I'm sorry. I just can't find it. Oh, Page 156 March 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Where are we talking about, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: There are criteria that the law requires that govern a decision, and there's case law on that right out of the City of Naples, for that matter. And it should be in your staff report. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I've got it. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, again, Ray Bellows. If you look at Rezone Findings, Exhibit B to your staff report, it's Number 7: "Whether the proposed change will create excessive -- or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with the surrounding land uses because the peak of volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development or otherwise affect public safety." COMMISSIONER MIDNE: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: That's one of the -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: That's what I would like to -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's what he wants. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd like to add Number 1 as well. MR. BELLOWS: Of the rezone findings? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Number 1 of the rezone findings, yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: motion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: but if you don't want to, I-- COMMISSIONER MIDNE: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't agree with that for my Okay. I'm asking if I can add that, No. You don't want to? Page 157 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER MIDNE: No. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking whether or not it might be simpler to find out the sense of the commission by having a motion to approve, and then-- if we go to deny than to have to go through all the steps. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You want to withdraw your motion, then? COMMISSIONER MIDNE: I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Who wants to make a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Discussion of that? All right. All those in favor, raise your right hand. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Of what? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Of approving the petition. MS. STUDENT: And can you ask for the vote? I mean, you can assume it, but can you ask for the show of hands for those against, just COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. Aye. MS. STUDENT: -- to make the record clear. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Those against? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Nay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Nay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Four to three. Motion passes. MS. STUDENT: Patty's not here, so are you ready to address Page 158 March 7, 2002 this? All right. I'll stand here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Moving right along, Mr. Budd wants to add some clarifying language to his motion. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yeah. Things wrapped up quickly. It was my intent that that motion would include all the stipulations requested of the petitioner that were agreed to in the dialogue and were entered into the record. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'll certainly accept that change to the motion. It was a clarification. MS. STUDENT: Can we -- oh, a clarification. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was our understanding. COMMISSIONER BUDD: There was nothing new. I didn't add anything. I just want to clarify, everything entered into the record accepted by the petitioner was part of the motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. The next item, Item D, acceptance of settlement in the case ofBJ Boyer, et al. MS. STUDENT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Marjorie Student. And a settlement in this matter was agreed to between the parties, the BJ Boyer Sevard, and I think the E & D Marinas has -- a new party has been substituted. And Mr. Yovanovich is here to present a little bit of the background of this. I had our boat dock expert review this. He has no problems with it. The only question he posed was how would we deal with the resolution that's currently been the subject of the litigation. What we would do to would be to bring back a new resolution to the board where you would have to approve this by that boat dock resolution, and we would put in that resolution that the prior one was superceded by the new resolution, so that would take care of that issue. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just real briefly. This was a boat dock petition that was approved with a maximum extension of-- it was like Page 159 March 7, 2002 43 feet, total of 54. But anyway, we agreed to what they -- this is -- to pull it back closer. Twenty -- it will be 20 feet from the platted property, which is what Mrs. Boyer had requested. And I believe she even testified in front of you all as what she could accept. So I hope you'll approve the settlement between the parties, and we'll move on. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Will you phase it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. The first phase is done. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any member of the public wish to address this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing. Entertain a motion? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Motion to approve the settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Motion. Second. Discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? Seven- zero. All right. Number 9, old business. Backup info regarding the LDC and the adoption notebook. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ray, you had January 3rd committed to try to find out where our adoption notebooks were. That was the first -- MR. BELLOWS: Good news. I just got the word from David Weeks. He's the chief planner in Comprehensive Planning. They're working feverishly producing them. We're hoping to get them for today. He indicated that, because of the nature of the amendments, that they don't stockpile them, so it would be by your next meeting, Page 160 March 7, 2002 definitely, because we're missing the next one. So I can almost guarantee -- almost guarantee they'll be there before your next meeting. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And the second part of my issue on that was, there are some of us still missing updated ULDCs. MR. BELLOWS: My understand is, Ms. Susan Murray has been working diligently trying to get that, and I know she's been talking to several of the commissioners, and I'm not sure what the status of that is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will probably request this be added to the -- that's all I have, Mr. Chairman, on that issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: There was no other old business. New business. I asked Dawn Wolfe to give us a brief peep at what -- peek at what the checkbook concept is all about, so far as it applies to roads and utilities, I guess. MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe with Transportation Planning Department, director for the record. A brief overview as to our current status is, with the assistance of Tallahassee legal counsel, we have made substantial modifications to the adequate public facilities division that we will be bringing forward under the next cycle of land development code amendments. We will be processing that through several of the committees, as well as bringing it to the planning commission prior to the Board of County Commissioners for your consideration. It will in effect eliminate the AUIR of one-year-at-a-time approvals in regards to level of service for adequate public facilities, as has been in the past once it actually comes into implementation and goes to what everyone keeps referring to as a checkbook method of keeping track of things. Former utilities administrator Jim Mudd, now our deputy manager, upon his coming on board about the same time I did -- about Page 161 March 7, 2002 a year and a half ago he noticed that we're giving out permits, but we really don't know how many we're actually giving out and not keeping track of how much water we're using, how much waste water we're generating and the like. And he himself developed a bit of a tracking system that, when a building permit got issued, that that meant this is how much water was going to be consumed or this is how much waste water was going to be generated, and they started them -- themselves a method of keeping track of it, of accounting for it. A lot simpler when you're dealing with one water treatment plant or a couple of waste water plants; a little bit different in regards to roadways, because you don't just come out on one road and you can only go one way. You have lots of choices to make, lots of places to avoid, or you can make your choice of which fast-food restaurant you want to try and get to at lunchtime on a short break. But we need to develop a data base system to go along with these amendments that we're proposing. The board, last week, approved at their prior meeting -- authorized us to utilize some of our gas tax revenues to have a out-of- area consultant develop the data base system, actually put together a system where I have all of my road segments that could potentially be impacted and then enter in on a project-by-project basis when they come forward to get their certificates for adequate public facilities, to be able to enter in, this is what road, this is how much the project is, this is how much it's impacting it, and it will be able to give us a cumulative tally. It will also be able to keep track of how long it's good for and how long those permits are available. Anyway, so it's a lot of data collection right now. I have staff frantically working through 20-odd years of past approved PUDs, looking at how much development has really occurred, how much is left to occur on them, so that we have a good, strong data base, a good beginning point of this is what's approved out there and not subject to Page 162 March 7, 2002 meeting adequate public facilities. And then the remainder of it is going to -- as the process will probably be argued through the adoption process, get in line if there's capacity, then you can move forward. The AUIR will still remain as a planning tool in order to make sure that we have the opportunity to take that five-year snapshot picture and make sure our five-year work program is sustainable and maintainable. But the tracking system that we're indicating will also help us keep you abreast of where we are. When a new zoning product -- project comes along, we can say we have issued these many certificates of level of service compliance and have had a consumption of capacity on the primary roads impacted. These, in addition to those, could either potentially impact negatively or not at all. We will be able to give you that cumulative answer that you've been looking for. And that's our goal to have in place, that product, by the middle of this year. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The whole system is not worth anything if the beginning balance in the checkbook is not credible. MS. WOLFE: And that's what we are working on right now, is on that beginning -- we're putting the technical tool together, and staff is pulling the information to get that beginning balance right. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You spoke of there being a number of approved PUDs that are already out there that have not been built or only partially built. Is -- does an approved PUD get-- is it already in line? That is, do they have the capacity that's already reserved for them -- MS. WOLFE: No, they don't. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- in this checkbook system? MS. WOLFE: No, they won't. Page 163 March 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What's your mechanism to keep them from -- once it's approved, how do you go back and -- MS. WOLFE: The PUDs right now are subject to; I believe a three-year period of being valid. We're looking at the vesting of-- the sunsetting of those and whether or not you're going to have a lot coming back to you in the near future. I'll let Ray -- MR. BELLOWS: And Marjorie may correct me. There are some out there that are approved to five years, and those are still subject to the five years. The ones -- like, if this Henderson Creek -- I'm sorry. I don't have the ordinance in front of MS. STUDENT: me, so -- MR. BELLOWS: three-year sun setting. I think it applies to all newly approved, the We have a five-year sun setting, and all those approved prior to the five-year sun-setting requirement are subject to the five-year sun setting also, so they came in immediately with the adoption of that ordinance if they were older than five years. And those petitions have already been taken to the Board of County Commissioners. What Dawn is referring to is, we look at them. If no construction has occurred during that three-year period and the level of service is no longer acceptable, then they are not consistent with the transportation element, and they could be down zoned. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is it level of service at the time you take a look at it or level of service three years out from when they come back in for review? MR. BELLOWS: When they come back in for the sun setting three years later. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So it's really six years. MR. BELLOWS: No. No. It's from the time of approval of the PUD -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm trying to really Page 164 March 7, 2002 understand what this balance means, which is really Mr. Abemathy's question, too. MS. WOLFE: I think -- let me try and explain it in a little bit of a different way. First off, zoning gives you no adequate public facility guarantees. You -- just because what we're giving you is a potential of whether or not they will or will not be able to meet those level of service requirements in trying to take a little bit more of a general or conceptual picture at the time that it comes forward. That's why we're referring to consistency with that 5 percent on level of service. We're just -- we're looking at that conceptual, because we don't have the details to make the absolutes, nor do we know if they're going to come in tomorrow or 18 months from now. It's when they are coming in for their preliminary subdivision plats or their site development plans that they're going to then say here's what - - exactly what I'm going to build. I'm going to build 150 single-family lots or I'm going to build 150,000 square foot of shopping center under this SDP. I now want you to tell me I have adequate public facilities for transportation. We're going to make them run through some hoops and show that there's sufficient capacity on their significantly impacted roads. And after we find that out, we're going to put them in this system and say, okay, you're reserved for this period of three years for this capacity on these individual roadway segments. And that's part of what the tracking system will do. What we're looking at with the PUDs that are out there, because there's not really a good system already in place to say a PUD that was approved in 1990 has completely built out or that it's only built up to 85 percent of its overall density, but the available land has been completely platted out. A single-family home will not be subject to obtaining a certificate of level of service. That's based on statute, because the -- it's denoted Page 165 March 7, 2002 as having vested rights and being of de minims impact. So it's only -- that's why I'm saying at preliminary subdivision plat is the time they would ascertain their adequate public facilities certificate, because any time later, they've already put a massive investment in. They have -- they need to know before they make that major construction investment whether or not someone can pull a building permit. And so that is what we're also looking at when they get those certificates versus right now they just pull them at time of building permit. And since we go off of the one-year, everything's okay. Because the county's going to put all the road improvements in, they are just issued for transportation for roads, because we have no areas of significant influence identified that would prevent that from happening. And what this system will do is completely replace that thought process. And, yes, it can result in someone coming in today and getting an approval for a 500-unit subdivision and a guy coming in tomorrow looking for that 7-Eleven shop being turned down right around the comer. That's the nature of it. But the thing is, it's less speculative and it helps us keep a better control over what we've got. There's going to be a lot of arguments coming before you as it's presented out there. It's not going to be the best of both worlds anymore for the development community. There will be an accounting system in place, and that's what we've been told, that -- by the board that they want to see because that's what the community wants to see, an accounting of what is going on with growth and keeping track of it and saying when enough is enough. So that's the direction we're trying to take this. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The checkbook would not go to the point of getting right down to a CO and the capacity's not there and stopping the CO; you'd stop it much earlier. Page 166 March 7, 2002 MS. WOLFE: Correct. Not -- right now, it has an allowance of you get it at time of building permit, because you kind of waive it until that time. We're not recommending that. We're recommending that it be required at the next step of development subsequent to a rezone. Otherwise, you're taking a lot of risks, especially with major infrastructure investment. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Of course, with Mr. Mudd's former responsibilities, even though he might have had that thought in mind, when the sewage starts flopping over the sides, it -- somebody else comes in and says, stop right at the CO time. So -- can you ever envision that we might be in that kind of a strait, that -- MS. WOLFE: With roadways? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. With roadways. MS. WOLFE: In terms of-- no, because the thing is, once you've got your certificate of occupancy -- I mean, your certificate of level of service, your adequate public facilities certificate, you're going to get that at preliminary subdivision plat. And as long as you've got your final plat in place, by the end of three years the life span of that adequate public facility certificate, you're good to go because single- family residential lots, once they're a lot of record, are no longer subject to being told you have to go get an adequate public utilities certificate. In terms of any -- any nonresidential use or a multifamily residential use, you're going to get those at site development planning stage, not when you pull a building permit. And you've got a certain period of time from when you get that site the development plan to pull your building permit, and that building permit -- as long as you pull that building permit within three years of its issuance, which you're required to, your site development plan isn't good for any longer, then you're okay. Then we've got an accounting on it. We want to make sure that the tracking -- the concerned Page 167 March 7, 2002 management system is tied to when building permits get issued for projects that have been issued, certificates under a site development plan, so we know that this one is there, and as soon as it has a CO on it, we can say the next time we have a ground count after that's been CO'd that we can wipe that reservation off, because now it's part of background traffic. So that's the type of technical levels that we want to get into it so that we have more of a real-time accounting of when those impacts hit the road. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If we happen to miss, which is, I guess -- one segment or another, and you have a level of service F there, we really don't have any mechanism then to keep that traffic from coming on line. That's a question, not a statement. MS. WOLFE: And it's -- it's a guess at best. And we -- we're using the best technical tool that we have available. I mean, we know that the toilet will flush so much a day or how much -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think we need to sort of wind this down. So we're going to hear all of the minutiae in due course. I just wanted to get sort of a feel for what it was all about. So I thank you. A motion to adjourn? All in favor? Out the door. Page 168 March 7, 2002 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:45 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION KEN ABERNATHY, CHAIRMAN Page 169 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION March 13, 2002 Christian Spilker Turrell and Associates, Inc 3584 Exchange Ave., Ste. B Naples, FL 34102 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2001 OAR- 1642, GOODLAND BAY Dear Ms. Spilker: On Thursday, March 7, 2002, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2001-AR- 1642. A copy of Resolution No. 02-01 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincere3~, /~ Ross GoctlSenaur Planner RG/Io Enclosure CC: Lois Hoskins 4702 Wilkshire Drive Knoxvie, TN 37921 Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)v/ Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www. col liergov, net CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 02- 01 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001 -AR- 1642 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 30-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 50-foot boat dock facility in an VR~GZO Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Christian Spilker, of Turrell & Associates, Inc., representing Lois S. Hoskins, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 18, Block 6, Goodland Heights Amended, as described in Plat Book 1, Page 85, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 30-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 50-foot boat docking facility in the VR-GZO zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. 3. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2001-AR-1642 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this ~ day of '~~ ,2002. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: /dministrator ~ommunity Development and Environmental Services Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: '~arj0~ 10vi. Studetnt Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/B D-2001 -AR- 1642/RG/lo