Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/18/2002 RApril 18, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 18, 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 8:31 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Ken Abernathy Dwight Richardson Lora Jean Young Russell A. Budd Mark Strain Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Frank Frey NOT PRESENT: David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Development & Environmental Service Administrator Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNrNG COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2002, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSUR~ 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 -NO MEETING ON MARCH 2 I, 2002 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS FROM MARCH 26, 2002 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8 . ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RZ-2001-AR-1143, Tim Hancock, ofVanasse & Daylor, LLP, representing Golden Gate Capital, Ltd., requesting a rezone from "RSF-3" to "RSF-6" for single-family housing for property located on the corner of 20th Place S.W. and 51st Street S.W., Golden Gate City, in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) Bo RZ-2001-AR-1353, Terrance Kepple, of Kepple Engineering, Inc., representing Amerisite LLC, requesting a rezone from "A" Agricultural to "C-5" for property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and approximately ¼ mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.76± acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) VA-2001-AR-1696, James and Genevieve O'Connell, requesting after-the-fact variances in the RSF-4 Zoning District from the 25 foot frOnt 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, ~n Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) (THIS ITEN HAS BEEN CONTINUED INDEFINITELY) D. ADOPTION ORDINANCE: Petition CP-2001-1, R. Bruce Anderson of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson and D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, representing LDJ Associates, requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan text and Golden Gate Future Land Use Map to change the designation from Residential Estates Subdistrict to Neighborhood Center Subdistrict, and modify standards, for 5 acres located on the northwest corner of Collier Blvd. (CR-951) and 11th Avenue SW, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. (Coordinator, Aaron Blair). Petition CP-2001-2, Karen Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples representing Buckley Enterprises, requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to create the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict allowing 172,500 s.f. of office and retail commercial uses, and 345 dwelling units, and changing the designation from Urban Residential Subdistrict to Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict, for 22.84 acres located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road, 300' north of Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator, Amy Taylor) Petition CP-2001-3, Terrance Kepple of Kepple Engineering, Inc., representing Northside Construction Co. requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to change the designation from Urban Residential Subdistrict to Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict to permit a maximum of 40,000 s.f. of commercial development for 10.47 acres located on the northwest corner of Pine Ridge and Livingston Roads, in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator, Jean Jourdan) Petition CP-2001-4, Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, and D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Assoc., representing Warstler-Schrage Development Co., LLC, requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to create the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict allowing 325,000 s.f. of commercial uses and up to 500 dwelling units, subject to the Density Rating System, and changing the designation from Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, for 83 acres located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (SR-951) and the south side of U.S. 41 East, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. (Coordinator, David Weeks). Petition CP-2001-5, Comprehensive Planning Section, representing the Board of County Commissioners, requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element to establish the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict within the Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Commercial District, Urban Industrial District. (Coordinator, Amy Taylor). 2 Fo Ho 10. 11. 12. 13. Petition CP-2001-6, Richard Yovanovich, Esq. of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, representing Hiwasse, Inc., requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to establish the Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict to permit 91,000 s.f. of professional and medical office uses OR 200,000 s.f. of indoor self-storage use, for the subject 12.5 acres located on the west side of Livingston Road, south of Pine Ridge Road, and north of Eatonwood Lane, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator, David Weeks). Petition CP-2001-7, Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Richard Evans, requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to establish the Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict to permit 52,500 s.f. of professional and medical office uses, and non-commercial indoor storage use by office building occupants, for the subject 6 acres located on the west side of Livingston Road, south of Eatonwood Lane, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator, David Weeks). Petition CPSS-2001-1 Small Scale, Vince Cautero of Wilkison & Associates, Inc., representing Barbara A. Cacchione of the Empowerment Alliance of SW Florida/Community Development Corporation, requesting a Small Scale Amendment to change the Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map designation from Commerce Center - Industrial (CC-I) to High Residential (HR), for 2.483 _+ acres located on the east side of South First Street, immediately north of Rose Avenue and south of East Main Street, in Section 3, Township 47 South, Range 29 East. (Coordinator: Marlene Foord). PUDZ-2001-AR-1842, Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc., representing Thomas G Eckerty, Trustee for 1-75 Exit 15 Land Trust, requesting a rezone from A, RSF-4, RMF-6, RMF-12 AND C-4 to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for property located in the southwest quadrant of the 1-75, Exit 15 Interchange, with frontage on Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84), in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 37.39+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN 4-18-02 CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo April 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I want to call to order -- I'd like to call to order this morning's meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Excuse me. 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. I'd like to call the roll at this time. Mr. Frey. MR. FREY: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And welcome aboard. MR. FREY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd. MR. BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Abernathy is here. Mrs. Young. MS. YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Richardson. MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Wolfley, absent. And Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Addenda to the agenda. Staff?. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have an addenda to the agenda. Item H on the agenda, PUD Z-2001-AR-1842, which is a proposed rezone from RSF-4, RMF-6, RMF-12, and C-4 to a planned unit development. This petition has been continued indefinitely. The Page 2 April 18, 2002 reason for the continuance is that the petitioner received some transportation stipulations concerning the phasing of the project, and the conditions came after this project was scheduled, and they decided that they needed to work those out a little more with transportation. And they've asked for a continuance indefinitely so they can work out those stipulations. MR. RICHARDSON: Are they going to try to change the transportation's mind? MR. BELLOWS: I don't know. MR. RICHARDSON: I hope not. MR. BELLOWS: That's the only change I have on the agenda. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Approval of minutes. I don't believe we had any, did we? No. Do you have any comments on the recap of the county commissioners' meeting of March 26, or does any member have any questions about it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Hearing none, Planning Commission absences. We have a meeting on the evening of the 24th. MR. RICHARDSON: The day of the 24th. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is it? No. It's the evening of the 24th. MR. RICHARDSON: The evening. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's the Land Development Code amendments. MR. RICHARDSON: Sorry. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: This meeting is a result of the failure of a quorum the last time we tried to hear this matter, so I implore all of you who can be here to be here. Now, having said that, I understand that Mr. Budd has a conflict Page 3 April 18, 2002 that evening of the 24th. Are there any others? MR. ADELSTEIN: Is that Wednesday again? No problem. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's 5:05 in the evening. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I will not be here for the 24th evening. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, that puts us down to six and possibly Wolfley. Okay. I'm sure the county commission is going to be unhappy if we don't get this off, because if we don't do it on the 24th and we have to have another on the 8th I believe it is, then we've sort of two-blocked the county commission. They can't take it until we've done our two, and there just isn't time to do that so -- have a care and govern yourselves accordingly if you want to have a phone call from your appointing county commissioner. That's the risk. We've already covered the recap. I have no reports, so let's move into the advertised public hearings. First, Item 8-A -- excuse me. MS. YOUNG: We didn't do any addenda to the agenda, I believe. MR. RICHARDSON: No. That was-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I asked, and nobody had any. MS. YOUNG: Sorry. I was remiss. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do you have an addenda to the agenda? MS. YOUNG: Well, I think this is. Since I've been away for two months, I have -- may have missed some of the very important planning that we should be doing, and I have not found it in the minutes. Could we have a thorough discussion on concurrency? Also, I would like to have my fellow members polled. How many of us feel that this problem is first and foremost and would approve much more Page 4 April 18, 2002 stringent laws immediately or as soon as possible? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, in answer to the first part of your request, the packet that you were given of LDC amendments -- MS. YOUNG: This one? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That one. MS. YOUNG: Hmm. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: There is a lengthy amendment that addresses the matter of concurrency. And, frankly, I don't see that there's much to be gained by a straw poll of members. I think it would go without saying that most of us would approve of some move toward concurrency. It's just a matter of-- of the degree, and I don't want to get into the politics of whether we should have a referendum on that issue. I think that is a place we need not tread. So study for next week, and see if-- if you see something you like in there about concurrency. Now, back to the advertised public hearings. Item 8-A, RZ- 2001-AR-1143, Tim Hancock representing Golden Gate Capital requesting a rezone for single-family housing. All those expecting to testify on this item raise your hand and be sworn -- stand and raise your hand and be sworn, pardon me. (The oath was administered.) MR. STRAIN: Disclosures? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Disclosures. MR. STRAIN: I've had discussions with Cheryle Newman and Katie Cuff (phonetic) of the Golden Gate Civic Association concerning the width and density of these lots. I've talked to the same issues with Mr. O'Gara who represents the applicant. I had the same discussion with Ray Bellows and I think Susan Murray at the county as well. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anyone else? Page 5 April 18, 2002 (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, chief planner with current planning section. Petitioner is requesting to rezone the subject 3.7-acre site from its current zoning designation of RSF-3 to the RSF-5 zoning district. As you can see on the visualizer, the site is located -- let me zoom in on it a bit here. It's located on the northeast comer of 50th Terrace Southwest and 22nd Avenue Southwest in Golden Gate city. The subject Tract or Block 168 is currently undeveloped. It's surrounded by developed residential and the single-family homes. I have an aerial here that kind of depicts the existing situation. As you can see, Block 68 is currently surrounded by existing development. This is an undeveloped tract that petitioner is requesting to rezone to RSF-5. The results of rezoning to RSF-5 will allow the petitioner to develop eight -- or 16 single-family lots under the current RSF-3 zoning district. Based on the 3.7-acre tract, he could get 11 lots. The development standards of the RSF-3 district require an 80- foot-wide lot. And based on the curvature of Block 168 and the development standards, it would appear to the applicant it would have been difficult to meet the development standards also of the RSF-3 district, if they could fit in the number of lots based on the density. However, the code does allow for these -- or took this into account with the curvature of lots, and they have a section in the definition of lot width allows for 80 percent of the lot width, if it's provided that it would be deemed a buildable lot. However, they still have not -- could not get the actual 16 lots under the RSF-3 zoning, so, therefore, the RSF-5 zoning has been presented to you today. On the furore land use map the subject site is located in a density band just outside an activity center. It's designated urban residential. The project's eligible for a density of 7 units per acre. Page 6 April 18, 2002 The requested rezone for RSF-5 is 5 units per acre. It's less than the eligible density. It's consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the future land use element and the Golden Gate area master plan. So this petition has been deemed consistent with the future land use map and the grow -- Growth Management Plan. The traffic impact study indicates that the project will generate between 160 and 170 trips. That will not have a significant impact on any level-of-service standard on any county road, and, therefore, it's consistent with the transportation element. This is an example of the platted subdivision that could result from the zoning. This is not a -- an item that's -- or an illustration that is part of this ordinance, if adopted. This is kind of a conceptual plan showing what could be developed for 18 -- or 16 lots. The compatibility issue is -- if I can get back to the -- this one -- the petitioner has indicated that he's not going to increase the number of dwelling units above the number of lots that are adjacent to the development. And if you count the homes that are located on the south side of 51 st Street, that are basically one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, he'll have eight lots on the -- on his south side and eight on the north. There are nine homes across the north. So basically he's having a single-family home for single-family homes that are adjacent to the lots that he's creating. So it will not be a perception of additional or increased density as a result of this rezoned action. MR. RICHARDSON: Ray, I don't count nine on the top, just looking at-- MR. BELLOWS: One, two, three -- there's a vacant lot here -- four, five, six, seven, eight -- oh, you're right, eight. Excuse me. MALE VOICE IN AUDIENCE: There are nine. FEMALE VOICE IN AUDIENCE: There are eight. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Wait a minute. We -- none of that's in the record. Page 7 April 18, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: Nine, excuse me. There are nine. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: People in the audience, please don't call out numbers unless you're willing to come up to testify in due course. So it's eight or nine; is that -- MR. BELLOWS: It's nine. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Nine. MR. BELLOWS: It should be also noted that Block 168 which a resident of the community has brought to my attention that there is a deed restriction on Block 168. She gave me a copy of the deed restriction, and I can show you the basic language. Basically it states that Block 168 will be limited to civic purposes only. That would include a public park, for example. We have some old county records that indicate that at one time there was a park designation on -- on the -- on -- on one of these maps. The county does not enforce deed restrictions. There are other lots within this area that have the similar deed restrictions that the county did not enforce, and they were subsequently subdivided and currently contain single- family dwellings as proposed here. So based on my discussions with the county attorney, staff, that since we do not enforce deed restrictions as it's not recorded on any county plat as -- for civic purposes or park purposes, there is no other documentation. It's not on the county's zoning map for any other purposes other than RSF-3 uses currently. Staff felt that the petition could proceed to rezone through-- through the RSF-5 zoning district. I've received a couple of other calls from concerned residents about possible increase in density, and that seems to be a concern of the -- many of the residents in the area that there might be undue increased density of this development. Petitioner did hold a public information meeting to true -- with some of the residents, and I believe he made some progress, but as far Page 8 April 18, 2002 as I could tell, we still have some letters of objection to this proposed rezone. Staff is recommending that the Collier County Planning Commission forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, since it is consistent with all the county codes and ordinances in effect at this time. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yeah. Ray, are all of the other lots in this area on this map 80 feet wide? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. They're zoned RSF-3, and they're pie shaped. Their average lot width is 80 feet. MR. ADELSTEIN: And these would be the only ones in the area that wouldn't be? MR. BELLOWS: These will be very similar to 80 feet in width MR. ADELSTEIN: They're 60 feet. MR. BELLOWS: That's the minimum standard of the RSF-5, but these lots will be larger than the minimum standard. MR. ADELSTEIN: Do you know what width they would be? MR. STRA1N: On the exhibit you've got they're 74 feet on the interior, and the sides look like about 77 on the comers. The 80 percent role and the LDC allows them to go down to 65 on the interior, 64, and 76, I believe, on the end. So under that premise of the RSF-3, it seems to meet the width. That was the issue I had discussed with staff and various parties involved I was trying to figure out myself. MR. ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Midney? MR. MIDNEY: Ray, on page 4 it looks like paragraph 3 Page 9 April 18, 2002 relationship to future land uses, about two-thirds of the way down that paragraph I read, "Staff is of the opinion that the eligible density is not compatible with the existing neighborhood that is developed at RSF-3 standards." Could you explain what that means? MR. BELLOWS: The key word there is "eligible," and that's where I was referring to the 7 units per acre. If he requested a rezone to a PUD allowing 7 units per acre for a multifamily-type development, that would not be consistent density, in staff's opinion. However, since he is developing RSF-5 with a wider than the minimum 60-foot wide lots, then my determination is that the overall density of 7 eligible density is not consistent, but what he's proposing with the limitation of 16 lots is consistent. MR. STRAIN: Ray, the RSF-3 density is called out for -- and it says in the code -- gross acres. MR. BELLOWS: Uh-huh. MR. STRAIN: Has anybody went back to look and see at the time of platting of this area had that parcel been originally included out to the middle and centerlines of the roadways so that you would be dealing with gross acres and not now net as this particular applicant is dealing with? MR. BELLOWS: These lots were created prior to the zoning, so that really doesn't come into play in this situation. We're dealing with after-the-fact lots, and the zoning was placed on them after the lots were created. It wasn't zoned first and then the subdivisions created. MR. STRAIN: So, in essence, the gross acres on this particular area isn't -- MR. BELLOWS: Each parcel are blocked in this case. MR. STRAIN: Okay. But in the end what happens is we're really dealing with net acres here even though gross acres could be applied if there were such a boundary for gross acres on this parcel. I Page 10 April 18, 2002 mean, typically parcels that are zoned include enough excess land after the lots are carved out to cover roads and utilities, things like that. In this case, all that's done. It's in the roadway, and the net acreage is what we're talking about here today. MR. BELLOWS: I think -- ifI believe what you're saying is that if you look at Golden Gate city overall, you're correct. We're not -- I don't believe -- dealing with that situation because this is a separate block under separate ownership, and, therefore, we're dealing with the gross acreage of Block 168. MR. STRAIN: I'm just trying to get to the practical point of it. And part of that was my discussions with some of the parties involved. The lots to the south and the north are on curvature as well or some of them are. MR. BELLOWS: That's right. MR. STRAIN: I believe some of those are slightly less than 80 feet. MR. BELLOWS: You're right. MR. STRAIN: These lots at 80 by whatever depth still come out to 10,000-square-feet minimum, which is the RSF-3 standard. I believe, based on literature that I have received, the applicant has agreed to meet all of the RSF-3 standards and not go to any RSF-5 standards, except for this density issue. Instead of a rezone, which becomes problematic to track in the future, is there another way this could be approached, possibly a variance to the RSF-3 or something that would not -- not be so muddled as it goes on in time, or is the rezone the only way this could be approached? MR. BELLOWS: I believe it's the only way it could be approached. Considering we're getting-- dealing with this as a gross block and a separate ownership, the rezone is probably the best way and less muddled way to handle this, unless there's some way of getting additional dwelling units. There's no variance for that. He Page 11 April 18, 2002 can't get the 16 lots he's asking for. He would only be allowed the 11 under the RSF-3 density. MR. STRAIN: If you were to take the 16 lots, move them either to the south or the north on some of those other roads with similar curvatures, would you end up with the same density that this applicant is asking for? Do you know? MR. BELLOWS: If you said -- if you're saying that if we move the -- MR. STRAIN: Take the 16 lots double road to the south-- they're on a curvature parcel also -- if they were just to cut 16 of those lots out, being they're on a curvature, they're -- they're pie shaped which means one of their dimensions is less than 80 feet, would they have a higher density than the RSF-3 zoning? Do you know.9 MR. BELLOWS: I think what you're doing is taking the rest of Golden Gate city that is previously platted prior to the zoning and trying to force this separate issue dealing with a block that we're dealing with as a gross acreage. If we did try to move those lots down, he may not be able to meet all the development standards and may not get the entire 18 lots -- or 16 lots that he's asking for. But in any event, that's irrelevant in this case because we're dealing with two separate issues. The rest of Golden Gate city was previously platted and developed prior to this county zoning over -- coming back and rezoning this RSF-3 at a later date. It had some other zoning designation prior. MR. STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand. This is where I was talking to everybody trying to understand the practicality of it. If the lots are the size of an RSF-3, if they're 10,000 square feet or more and the homes and all the dimensions that are required by RSF-3 are going to be met, I know there's -- there's a resistance to this, and I'm -- I'm desperately trying to figure out the reasoning for Page 12 April 18, 2002 it. And maybe through speakers here today that will help me, because if it's all the same, north, south, and within this parcel, I'm not sure I have not grasped yet where the problem is. MR. BELLOWS: I think probably the best way to visualize this is the property is being rezoned to a PUD, planned unit development, and he was asking for density similar to this, wanted 16 lots. He would be asking for at least 5, a density of 5 units per acre. In order to get that, maybe 4 point something, it would still not be the RSF -- or 3 units per acre. You would have to ask for at least 4 -- 4.5 to get 16 lots. MR. STRAIN: But there you would be dealing with true gross acres, wouldn't you? MR. BELLOWS: It's the same situation, though. This gross acreage for Block 168 -- it doesn't matter if it's zoned PUD or RSF-5. MR. STRAIN: I understand what you're saying. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman. Ray, this deed restriction, is the county put in any jeopardy from a lawsuit standpoint to go ahead and rezone this against the -- the underlying scriptures of the land? MR. BELLOWS: I was told no, but I defer that to the county attorney. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. Commissioner, if I understand your question, you are essentially asking whether it would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan? MR. RICHARDSON: No. I'm saying whether we would be subject to any kind of a legal action as a result of violating the underlying deed restriction. If we go ahead with zoning -- MR. WHITE: No, the governmental entity, in this instance the Board of County Commissioners that has the final authority for the Page 13 April 18, 2002 rezone, has no right of enforcement for deed restrictions. They are a private legal matter between the subdivision lot owners typically. I haven't had the opportunity to fully review all of the applicable deed restrictions. I'm not sure if some of them have been recorded or not. I've been told they are. But, regardless, the general rule is that the governmental entity has no liability for allowing a property owner to apply for and obtain something that otherwise complies with its regulations, even though it may offend essentially a contract, a deed restriction, applied to that land by subdivider. If there's a remedy that's going to be sought, it's going to be in court rather than through the administrative or legislative action by the government. MR. RICHARDSON: And the county would not be a party to that suit then you say. MR. WHITE: We may be joined, but we're not an indispensable party. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I'm sure you're indispensable. I didn't mean to imply that. MR. WHITE: It's a term of art. MR. RICHARDSON: If these people lived out there and they have a deed restriction and they expected to have a park there -- I mean, I'm just putting myself in their situation -- it would seem that we come along and say, hey, let's -- we want a -- somebody comes along and wants to rezone this and put houses there and they expect to have a park, it seems like somebody's got a cause. And you're saying the county is not involved though? MR. WHITE: That's absolutely correct. The -- the circumstance might be different if when this were platted there was a dedication made for this parcel, Unit 1 -- excuse me -- Block 168, Unit 5, to be, quote, unquote, for park purposes. There is no such dedication that I've seen on the plat. Page 14 April 18, 2002 So as a result, the only operative provisions are those that are in the deed restrictions themselves, and those are specifically enforceable typically by only the subdivision lot owners. I'm not saying that there aren't private rights here. Indeed, there are. But there's the opportunity from the same private property rights of the landowner to request this type of approval so long as it otherwise complies with the county's rules. It may ultimately be that the resolution of this matter is one that will be determined by a court. But as I'd indicated, the county is not necessary to be a party to that. We may be joined because either of the parties may ask us to, and the court may require us to, but we are not necessary for the suit. MR. RICHARDSON: It just seems that we're underwriting the action that's going to precipitate the problem, so that's why I thought we might be involved. MR. WHITE: I believe that there's no liability if you're concerned about it on an individual or collegial body. MR. RICHARDSON: I never worry about that. MR. WHITE: All right. MR. STRAIN: The idea of a park, though -- it's just as a suggestion. It says civic purposes. So we arg -- the Golden Gate Community Center, we could possibly put another one of those there? Because the community could use something like that. MR. WHITE: I'd prefer that Mr. Bellows not answer that question --. MR. STRAIN: MR. WHITE: MR. STRAIN: Okay. --just in case there is litigation. Gotcha. Well, I mean, someone suggested a park. So I figured if we could suggest that, there were other suggestions about that. MR. WHITE: Understanding us to be talking hypothetically. Page 15 April 18, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Hypothetically, the property owner has the right to put on there what's consistent with the zoning ordinance. Right now it's zoned RSF-3. He would not be allowed by right to place it on there without some other county action such as a conditional use for that type of use. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ray, I'm at a loss to understand why one can't build houses on fan-shaped lots. That seems to be part of what the applicant is saying. Do you buy that? MR. BELLOWS: No. I think what they're saying is he could not meet the literal intent of the RSF-3 district development regulations and get the number of lots he wants. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Oh, that's different, isn't it, quite a bit different? That would be true if they were linear. MR. BELLOWS: And -- but he's also not asking for the total eligible density he's eligible to receive based on the fact that the property's within the density band which grants 3 additional dwelling units per acre over the base of 4 units per acre. So technically anyone owning property within this area could ask for a rezone to a PUD for 7 units per acre and be consistent with county plans and ordinances for this area. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, somehow I'm mildly offended by the fact that these people didn't buy this property until the latter part of the year 2000, and they either miscalculated or presumed that they could come in and rezone it to the detriment of the rest of this residential neighborhood. What we're really talking about is the economics of squeezing out profit on 16 units instead of 11, aren't we? MR. BELLOWS: I think maybe you should address that question to the applicant to -- I don't know the motives behind the zoning action. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, I think I'm closing in on it, Page 16 April 18, 2002 MR. ADELSTEIN: I think you're there. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, any other questions for Mr. Bellows? MR. FREY: I very much agree with what the chairman just said. And that is, when people buy a piece of property and they know what the conditions are at the time they buy it and then they come in afterwards and ask a commission or a board to change those conditions, then I -- I have a problem with that. And I have a problem with it basically because the people who bought the property around them, they also knew of those conditions, and they believed that they would have those conditions. So I understand what you're saying, that this apparently wouldn't make a -- a great deal of difference under other circumstances, but it -- it -- my question is, is it fair to the people? And I'll be interested in hearing from the public when they come up to discuss this. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: If I may, I'd like to make a little quick comment on that. The county's faced with deed restrictions all the time when property owners come in and pull a building permit for a single-family home within a community that has deed restrictions. In most cases there are wide-ranging deed restrictions such as restricting the color of the houses, limits on type of architecture of the homes or roof designs, keeping your garage doors closed during the day. We get calls from code enforcement saying that residences are -- within these areas aren't obeying those private deed restrictions. Our code enforcement staff cannot enforce those private deed restrictions. And it comes down to people buying into these communities with deed restrictions, they must know that those are civil issues between the residents and the people setting up the deed restrictions. The county is not enforce -- does not enforce them at any level from code enforcement stage or even at the time of zoning, as in this case. Page 17 April 18, 2002 MR. FREY: Yeah, I -- thank you. I'm not speaking to the deed restriction. I'm speaking to the rezoning and what appears to be -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The density. MR. FREY: Yes. Very much so. MR. BELLOWS: The comprehensive plan allows for 7 in this area, and they're under that. MR. WHITE: And if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'll remind the commissioners that there is no criteria for fairness, if you will. It's not one of the things that you would be able to deny this petition based upon. You'd have to have one of the criteria that are set forth in the Land Development Code as the basis for that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, compatibility comes to mind -- MR. WHITE: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- right away. All right. I suppose we should hear from the petitioner at this point. We've given him a lot to chew on. MR. O'GARA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My name is Jim O'Gara. I'm the managing partner of the partnership that owns this property. I think Ray did a good job describing the overall concept here, so I'll try not to rehash any of that. But a couple of things on the deed restriction in particular. We were very, very cognizant of this restriction when we bought the property, and our attorneys worked with the Avatar attorneys -- Avatar is the successor to GAC Corporation that originally-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Speak up just a little bit. MR. O'GARA: Oh, I'm sorry. Avatar is the successor company to GAC Corporation that placed this restriction in 1970. And our attorneys and the Avatar attorneys and particularly our title company were extremely cognizant of this issue, and they worked all -- all the Page 18 April 18, 2002 legal issues -- I'm not an attorney, and I -- it's difficult for me to describe those, but they are extremely confident that we -- that this restriction no longer applies, but that is a civil issue, and our attorneys feel very strongly that we -- that the restriction doesn't apply. I'd like to really actually just speak to the issue of density because that seems to be the concern particularly. We bought this property, and we looked at the density of the actual environment around it. The lots across the street are less than 70 feet in width, wider at the back because of the pie-shaped aspect. Our lots have the same. The density, a typical lot in Golden Gate city is that 10,000 square feet. This property is 3.7 acres. It's roughly 161,000 square feet. If the typical lot in Golden Gate city is 10,000 square feet, 160,000 divided by 16 lots is 10,000-square-foot lots. So the -- our goal is to develop a neighborhood here that is completely compatible with the abutting property. What is the density of the surrounding property is really one of the issues that we need to grapple with. We've done a number of aerial studies. And even just right here today we counted the number of houses. On one side property has nine houses. On the other side it's seven houses, all on 10,000-square-foot lots. If you just -- excuse me. If I can step up to-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Pick up the other mike. MR. ADELSTEIN: There's a mike in the comer. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mike back there in the comer. MR. O'GARA: How's that? Okay. Across the street here we have seven houses. Across the street here we have nine houses. I should say nine lots. There are eight houses. One of them is a vacant lot. And, in fact, this particular house had burned down last year, so it, too, is a vacant lot. But there are 9 lots over here, 7 lots over here, 16 total lots, all of which are -- all the lots here are less than 80 feet Page 19 April 18, 2002 because of the curvature. All we're doing simply is taking the same density, sliding it this way and sliding it this way. Ours actually lays out a little bit better if it's eight and eight rather than nine and seven -- excuse me. I'm trying to illustrate it with this transparency, and it just basically extends those same lots. Every lot will be 10,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, Jim, is the gravamen of what you're saying that if you apply the 10,000-square foot standard, the RSF-3 standard is more restricted than it really needs to be ? MR. O'GARA: I'm not sure I understand your question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, if you can't-- if you can only get 11 lots under RSF-3, then they must be greater than 10 --. MR. O'GARA: Yes, sir. They are. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. So-- MR. O'GARA: I did the mathematical calculation in my head but -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So the other side of that coin is then RSF-3 is imposing a restriction greater than the Golden Gate norm for lots? MR. O'GARA: That is correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. O'GARA: We're just trying to do exactly the same kind of density that is surrounding it, nothing more. There is, as I mentioned, a vacant lot over here and vacant lot here because of the house burned down. That fella comes down and can buy that property at 10,000 square feet. He has to build pursuant to the RSF-3 standard. All we're saying is do the same thing, 10,000 square foot for us and we do the RSF-3 standards. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That puts it in a different light Page 20 April 18, 2002 MR. STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, the question you just brought up is the one I've been trying to understand as well. And I -- I think the key to that is the gross versus net density that I was trying to allude to earlier with Ray, because most properties when you buy them, you're not net. And this thing is right to the -- right to the foot buildable, whereas other properties have to include in their gross calculation utilities and roads and things like that. That's the issue I've been trying to get a handle on since I got involved in this so --. MR. O'GARA: Mr. Chairman, I've made a number of promises to the neighborhood out there, and I wanted -- and I realize this is a zoning hearing; we're not doing the subdivision. But I wanted to make sure that those promises got read into the public record so that there's no bait and switch by the developer. We've put in writing -- and I'd like to make sure it goes in the public record -- that we are also concerned and I think the community is concerned that maybe somebody could sell this property and then suddenly build more than 16 houses. And that's not our intent at all. Specifically what we want to do is guarantee that there will be no lot less than 10,000 square feet, in other words, just like where everything's across the street, that there's a maximum of 16 lots, all single-family-equity housing. This isn't rental or anything like that, and that the construction of the houses are done pursuant to the RSF- 3 standards, same setbacks, rear yard square footage. Whatever you can do on that lot across the street that burned down or the vacant one, we should be no different or no worse, just the same, just pure out and out the same. And that's really as simple as I can put it. I don't know how to describe it any other way than that. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions? MR. RICHARDSON: So, Ray, just to kind of draw a circle Page 21 April 18, 2002 around -- · MR. O'GARA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: -- this, if the RSF-3, if we were talking -- picking up on Mark's point, if we're talking about this as a piece of a larger parcel that had to be subdivided or where streets and other infrastructure had to be provided, that you'd essentially end up with these 10,000-square-foot lots in an RSF-3 configuration taking into account that there would be a larger parcel involved in order to get to that if we're starting with raw land. MR. BELLOWS' I believe what you're saying is if it was under same ownership, we're -- my understanding is this is a separate block under separate ownership and could not get the -- if you came in for a subdivision plat, not get all of that, it would be limited to 11 lots, and that's the reason why we went to the rezoning action. I guess it comes down to a determination of would this be vested under the currently approved plat in the area and allow them to build 16 lots without having to rezone. My understanding, in talking to the attorney's office prior to this meeting, that would be treated as a separate block, and, therefore, they'd have to rezone it to get the 16 lots. MR. RICHARDSON: I think this is kind of awkward, Mark, because I really understand your point. MR. STRAIN: I'm having the same communications problem. That's what I had -- I was trying to talk to some of the people living in the area, and I had the same issue. I was trying to -- some words lack of communication. Ray, something, though, the applicant just said that concerns me. And apparently the attorneys have found a way -- and attorneys are notorious for this, with the exception of Mr. White, of course, for finding a way around these things. They found a way around these Page 22 April 18, 2002 deed restrictions. I don't know if that's good, bad, or indifferent at this point. But if this motion were to go through if they were to say they were going to meet all these RSF-3 standards but somehow they got an RSF-5 approval, how would we know for the future that something couldn't change so that they can say they found a way around them again? Would it always be locked in to these minimum RSF-3 standards even though the plan would say it's an RSF-5? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The zoning ordinance attached to this action has conditions of approval stipulating these lot dimensions. That would be shown on the zoning atlas master noting that this was a zoning action on this date, the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners adopting those development standards and that hence forth those are the development standards for Block 168. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do we have public speakers? MR. SCHMITT: We have two registered public speakers. I ask both would position themselves, be prepared to speak. First, Marie Ingram -- Ingram followed by Cheryle Newman. And either-- either one. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let me remind the speakers that you're limited to five minutes, please. MS. INGRAM: My name is Marie Ingram. I live across the street from this block and have for 17 years. When I moved to Golden Gate, I was told that block was reserved for a park site. And as you can see by the map I have up there, this is the official Collier County zoning map for 1972. And I do believe this would give the county some liability in a lawsuit because it does clearly mark it as a park site. This map is in the archives in the courthouse. The deed restriction -- I was the resident that brought this to Mr. Bellows' attention. The deed restriction for Unit 5 goes through every block of Unit 5 stating the zoning. Yes, the zoning in 1969 was Page 23 April 18, 2002 different. It dealt with R-1 and R-2 instead of RSF-2 and RSF-3, but there was zoning. And Golden Gate was developed as a 2-mile-by-2-mile subdivision. And, actually, it was developed, you know, Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3. Unit 5 was developed as gross acreage. It took into account -- it says right on the plat map that it took into account the roads, the canals, the green areas. And this particular block is a green area. And according to the deed restrictions, Block 168, 171, and 179 were reserved for community use, or, in other words, they were a green area. This is 168. I can also show here Blocks 179 and 171 showing a park site and a church site. This park site has recently been made a park by the county. This church site has been developed as single family, but it was developed according to RSF-3 development. They did not request a zoning change. They developed on larger lots. Current zoning is RSF-3; I agree, even though there is a deed restriction. But RSF-3 zoning does allow for provisional use, which would include a park or a church or -- or that type of major -- something for the public. The buyer's warranty deed clearly states that he bought it subject to restrictions of record. I had problems with his application. On page 4 he did not put the legal description of the property. He only put Block 168. He did not put where that Block 168 is. It is in Golden Gate, Unit 5. Item No. 1 -- you guys can call it urban area if you want. It's a very quiet residential neighborhood. The lots are 80 by 125, which is 10,250 square feet. The lots are all over 10,000 square feet in that particular area of Golden Gate. Item No. 12 will propose changes, constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual, owner, as contrasted to the public welfare, yes, it will because it is a deed-restricted lot. And by allowing them Page 24 April 18, 2002 to develop homes on that property, it is giving him an unfair advantage over the general public. And he says in here that the only alternative to getting this zoning would be to go to multifamily, and I think this is ridiculous because what he paid for that lot, he puts 9 lots on there, you know, you're talking $11,000 a lot, which is below the market value for lots in that area. If he goes to 16, you're talking $6,000 a lot. And if anybody -- you know, that's totally ridiculous for what -- for what real estate goes for in that area. I am a resident of Golden Gate Unit 5. These deed restrictions were written to residents of Golden Gate Unit 5, and they were never rescinded in the courthouse, due to my research. And I have a petition available if any other residents of Golden Gate Unit 5 would like to sign it. I -- if anybody has any questions of me -- MR. STRAIN: Did you do all this research yourself?. MS. INGRAM: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: You did a very good job. MS. INGRAM: Thank you. MR. STRAIN: You did a very thorough job. I don't know how you found all this stuff. It must have taken a lot of time. MS. INGRAM: I've been -- I've been a real estate appraiser in Collier County for the last 14 years. MR. STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, that makes things -- opens up some avenues that others might not know. That's good. Mr. White, the one comment she made concerning the zoning atlas, do you know the validity of that in regards to where its standing would be today? MR. WHITE: It's still considered part of the history, if you will. And it's a public record in that regard. But the currently effective zoning atlas is the one that controls with respect to what the zoning of the property is --. Page 25 April 18, 2002 MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: -- as of this date. MS. INGRAM: It was the zoning when I bought my property. And, you know, nobody ever contacted the residents about changing the zoning. MR. WHITE: I couldn't tell you when it may have happened. It probably happened as part of this ZRO, zoning reevaluation ordinance. That's my suspicion. I don't know that for a fact, however. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Did-- did the county build the park that you're talking about that's nearby there? MS. INGRAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: How long ago? MS. INGRAM: Last year. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We can get very far afield on this. But now if the county is a property owner in there, then they have standing to raise deed restrictions. But that's a long way from thinking the county would want to. MS. INGRAM: The county -- parks and recreation said they had money to build and maintain a park but not to buy an additional park in that area at this time since they just did one in that area last year. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Any other questions? MR. STRAIN: Your -- let me understand this. If this development were to go in and put 11 units in there, that would be acceptable? MS. INGRAM: I feel there's only room for nine but -- MR. STRAIN: But your -- your mindset is the units could go there? Housing could go there? Because that's -- you're now-- you've talked to us now about a couple of concerns, and one is the density. Page 26 April 18, 2002 MS. INGRAM: MR. STRAIN: deeded for that. MS. INGRAM: The density. The other is that it's not zoned for that or not No, it's not. MR. STRAIN: Not -- they deed restrict against that. But yet if nine are acceptable, why would they be acceptable if the position is they shouldn't be there at all? I'm trying to understand what the -- I'm trying to boil the objection down, because if-- if the objection is lots, then we're just getting into sizes of lots versus what's across the street versus what should be there. But if it's against any development on there except what the deed restrictions say and what you believe the zoning was now or -- I know what it was at the time. You had already stated that. That's a different program. I'm just trying to understand where your -- where your most concern is. MS. INGRAM: I think the property should be reserved for civic purposes only. And -- and I think that should definitely prohibit a rezone to a higher density. MR. STRAIN: The civic purposes typically in Golden Gate could be like a community center or fire station or something like that. MS. INGRAM: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: That would be a more acceptable use of that property for you than residences? ! mean, you would be across the street from it as well? Okay. I just -- I'm trying to understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, I can't issue rulings in my position as chairman, but I would like to state the strong opinion that I don't believe the deed restriction is in play here this morning. I don't think we have any -- any jurisdiction over that whatsoever. It's a civil matter. Somebody would have to pursue it in court, and that -- Page 27 April 18, 2002 that's just my judgment on that. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be instructive to have me read into the record the provision in the Land Development Code about deed restrictions that I think is somewhat germane. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Does it agree with what I just said? MR. WHITE: Oh, of course. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. You can read it then. MR. WHITE: Section 2.6.18 entitled "Deed Restrictions" -- it's just two sentences -- (as read): "The zoning code shall not be affected by any deed restrictions or restrictive covenants recorded with any deed, plat, or other legal documents. No person or agency in the capacity of enforcing and administering this code shall be responsible for enforcing any deed restrictions." Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Next witness? Good morning, ma'am. MS. NEWMAN: Good morning. For the record, Cheryle Newman, Golden Gate Civic Association, vice president. First of all, I'd like to say I -- I am here to support the neighbors. They are the ones that live there. We're only their voice for the community, and that's why I'm here this morning to support what they're asking for. I would just like to put into record that what the petitioner has put on paper and what he has said here today is what we would like to happen, if, in fact, you choose to allow single- family homes to be built on this lot. He has stated that no lot will be less than 10,000 square foot. We would like that put into record that that would be part of the building requirement. And with that, if that would allow him to have 16 units, those 16 units would have to abide by all RSF-3 zoning restrictions, meaning front yard, rear yard setbacks, the floor space, parking, height, everything that's stated under RSF-3. Page 28 April 1 $, 2002 Exactly what -- there's a couple things that he has provided in his paperwork to the neighbors that I have a question to. He is talking about parking. Exactly what does that mean as far as parking? There are a lot of houses that are now currently being built in Golden Gate that do not have garages. We have a parking problem in Golden Gate as it is. If these houses will be built with a minimum of 1,000 to 1200 -- 1200 square foot is really what we'd like to see on those houses, and that would not include garage space. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's driveway-- you're talking about driveway, pervious -- impervious surface? MS. NEWMAN: All he's saying is parking in his paperwork. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But you say you want 1200 feet. MS. NEWMAN: Not to -- including a garage. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Of parking? MR. RICHARDSON: Of floor space. MS. NEWMAN: The square footage of the garage should not be included in the living space. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MS. NEWMAN: And he's also indicated landscaping and signage, and I'm not sure what that means either. I know that some of the codes allow you to just put two trees in front. And then as soon as they get their CO those trees come out of the pots and they're gone. We'd like them to be standards that they have to have landscaping installed. And signage -- I'm not sure what he means by signage. Does that mean numbering on the houses? I'm not sure. Let's see. The big question that I guess I have is there was another block which -- which was an Avatar block that was just recently developed in Golden Gate. And the gentleman that was going to develop that indicated that they were going to be exclusive large lots, good-sized houses. Unfortunately, he did not hook up to sewers and water. Page 29 April 18, 2002 Therefore, the houses became very small to allow for septic and well. So now we have these nice big lots in this block and these little bitty houses, and that is not concurrent with the rest of the neighborhood. We would ask, are these houses going to be hooked up to sewer and water? Sewer and water is available in that area. If so, the houses can be larger. If not, the houses are going to get smaller, and we would not accept that, or we would ask that you not accept that. I guess that's all I really have to say this morning. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them for you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions of the witness? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I suppose I -- thank you very much. Any other -- Mr. O'Gara, do you want to address potted plants and signage and the like? MR. O'GARA: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The reason my letter said parking and landscaping is because I didn't want to get into the fine points of what's in the RSF-3 standards. It's whatever those are, and they do address parking and landscaping issues. Whatever they are, we'll do the same rather than it will be this or that. To impose criteria on us that is different than the RSF-3 standards, more restrictive, I think, is -- confuses the issue. If the property across the street -- RSF-3 standards are well established in terms of what that means in terms of landscaping and parking and-- it's in the code, and it goes on for pages and pages. Whatever those are and whatever those landscaping standards are, parking standards, they should be enforced per the current RSF-3 code for our property or properties across the street, just like anybody else. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: I have two questions: Are you going to have connecting sewers and water? MR. O'GARA: Yes, sir. We are -- right now there is no sewer Page 30 April 18, 2002 and water to this property. We are extending it -- excuse me. Is the mike on? Actually, this is north to the top of the page. The school over here (indicating), we are bringing sewer and water at our expense, 100 percent, we loop it. And we have to extend sewer and water to this block. But it doesn't exist right now. Currently the property could be developed with well and septic, but there's been a lot of concern about that in Golden Gate, particularly when you're down gradient of the canal. You're -- yes, sir, you know what that means. So we are, at our expense, extending sewer and water to this property. Any of the other property owners that are along the way here have the option to hook in and don't have to pay for that, but we must -- are required to extend sewer and water, and we're doing that at our expense, and that's why these are additional costs that we have to incur. But we're just trying to end up with houses that are just like everything else. And Ms. Newman was asking for a series of standards. Whatever the standards are for everybody else, we should be treated the same, not differently like you should do something different. MR. ADELSTEIN: Just one more question. Are you also planning on putting in garages? MR. O'GARA: Our plan is to put in garages simply because we think that's good marketing in that area. MR. ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MR. O'GARA: But that is not a requirement of the RSF-3 standards. MR. ADELSTEIN: I understood that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions of Mr. O'Gara? MR. STRAIN: What about your square footage excluding the Page 31 April 1 $, 2002 garage? Do you know what that would be? MR. O'GARA: We're going to build the largest houses that we can that fit in with the neighborhood. I think, and I'm-- there's people better than I to -- I think the minimum in the code is a thousand feet. MR. STRAIN: Right. MR. O'GARA: Our current expectation is we'll probably be building 1700-square-foot-type units. The houses should sell for-- and these are all just market guesses -- between 130 to 150. We built four houses out in Golden Gate last year, and that's the kind of market that we achieved. We did build garages with them. We think that's just the proper market. The reason I haven't gone through all these specifics as to what we propose to do, A, we haven't completed all that design work because we may not get any further than right here, but I was trying to reinforce the point that we should be held to the same standard as everybody else, no more, no less. When you start changing them, then people say is that -- are you getting something better or worse. It gets confusing because I'm not an expert on the code, but whatever the standards are we ought to say we want quality; that's all. MR. STRAIN: Well, see, part of the problem is you are technically changing the standard by what you are here for today. Based on your need to do that, I think this board can then come back and approve additional restrictions on you to make that happen, if that's the way this board decides. And maybe that's why all this discussion is going on, is that we do have some latitude in which to put additional restrictions on the approval that's -- or disapproval that comes out of here today. MR. O'GARA: I understand that. The -- answer the specific question about garages, yes, we plan on putting garages, because we think that's a good market for them. Page 32 April 18, 2002 MR. FREY: Question, Mr. Chairman: When you say you -- it was brought up earlier by the speaker that there was another situation where they made commitments and then they built smaller houses because of the situation with well and septic. Can we also make a part of our approval process the commitment to have sewer and water and the commitment to build garages? That's one question. The second question is of Mr. White. You had mentioned earlier that there was nothing plotted in the record, so that could affect our ability to -- to make certain decisions here. With the information brought by the first speaker and her showing that a park was plotted, she says, from a county record, does that change your opinion at all? MR. WHITE: No, sir. MR. FREY: Thank you. And the answer to the question of putting the additional restrictions on? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The ordinance really addresses the development standards. The provision of making the owners, subsequent owners, of those individual lots to have garages, I think, is problematic. That's kind of a area outside the Land Development Code. No zoning district says you have to have a garage. That sounds like things that may be incorporated into a deed restriction or maybe a planned unit development. So I'd really suggest we stay away from requiring architectural features or -- I think we should limit ourselves to development standards of the RSF- 3 which is a 1,000-square-foot minimum. And the setbacks of the RSF-3, those -- those are appropriate based on the fact that he has lots, standards that he's proposing consistent with that. MR. FREY: What about the situation of sewer and water? MR. BELLOWS: My understanding is -- MR. SCHMITT: May I -- I would defer that to the -- Joe Schmitt for the record. I would defer that to the county attorney's Page 33 April 18, 2002 office. But, Patrick, if I am not mistaken, we're getting into an issue where we're amending a PUD rather than strictly discussing zoning. MR. WHITE: Well, I think there's an LDC provision, Mr. Chairman, that speaks to that. It's 2.7.2.8. And in the second full paragraph it talks about the types of restrictions or stipulations that may be put on an amendment to zoning and in this case the ordinance that would actually amend the zoning atlas. And there is a list of things that are appropriate for consideration as those types of restrictions or stipulations, and they -- I'll only read a part of it. (As read)' "Density, height, connection to central water and sewer systems, and stipulations requiring that development take place in accordance with the specific site plan." I -- I understand what Ray had said that with respect to perhaps architectural matters. That would seem to be outside this list, but I believe that the central water and sewer connection could be imposed as a connection under this provision. MR. RICHARDSON: Ray, I'd like to take exception to your characterization in that if we have an applicant in front of us and the applicant freely of his own -- he's had discussions with the community and he wants to make those commitments on the record, I think we should be able to put those commitments on restrictions on what we say. It just follows. MR. BELLOWS: I think you have the ability to request those things. I was just suggesting that we stay away from nondevelopment standards that would unduly inhibit future property owners that when the properties are turned over and turned over, it sounds more like we're dealing with deed restrictions and/or standards that-- MR. RICHARDSON: I don't know. I think we're -- I think we're being faint of heart here. If the applicant comes on his own Page 34 April 18, 2002 free will and says I have met with these people, I know they've got a problem with what I'm doing, so I'm committing to the following things, and he's listed them, then I think that should be part of development commitments that are made part of this record. MR. ADELSTEIN: So do I. I don't see any reason why he can't. Pardon me. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's hear from Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I thought I enumerated pretty clearly what the list of things were that the area that you could impose restrictions for. And I thought I offered an opinion with respect to whether or not architectural standards falls in or out of that list. I don't believe that it does fall in that list. Things that pertain to density, height, connection to sewer and water, stipulations requiring development take place in accordance with a site plan. Site planning issues may be appropriate. I think the actual construction standards are ones that are not, other than as to the property development regulations establishing lot size, area coverage, and setbacks. Those are the area of zoning or the purview of zoning and zoning amendments and that these other matters are ones that are more construction standards and I think are beyond the scope of what this provision allows. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: To me it's a catch-22 because we don't see the SDP, so the things that would be in there, we can't include them as a stipulation because we're excluded from that process. So to me that -- the fact that we are excluded by inference opens the door to doing it at some other time. But in this particular case, I think maybe we're beating something to death but -- MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to beat a little harder. I think the key word is "impose." I'm not suggesting that we impose restrictions. I'm suggesting that we commemorate in our -- our deliberations the commitments that the developer has made in Page 35 April 18, 2002 front of us. Why can't that be commemorated? MR. ADELSTEIN' Let's hear from -- MR. WHITE: My -- my point, Commissioner Richardson, was that you ought not rely on that commitment's existence or not as the grounds or one of the criteria for-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: For approval. MR. WHITE: -- your recommendation of approval. If there's a voluntary statement upon the part of the applicant to a condition and they believed that that may be something that's in their best interest to do, that's fine. I don't believe that it's something that is offensive to the code or couldn't be put into the regulations. But essentially the county is not going to ultimately go back and enforce it. MR. STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, if I might-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Please. MR. STRAIN: Mr. White has read the second half of a sentence in the section of the code he's referring to. The first half of that says (as read)' "Restrictions, stipulations, and safeguards attached to an amendment supplement or establishment of a zoning district may include but are not limited to those necessary to protect the adjacent or nearby landowners from any deleterious effects and the full impact of any permitted uses, limitations more restrictive than those applying to the districts regarding density." And that goes on through the rest of it. So I think the key element there is it may include, but they're not limited to. Wouldn't that open the door for us to provide more information or More restrictions? MR. WHITE' You -- you -- you just read, Commissioner Strain -- and -- and although there's the idea that it's not limited to those things, there's a further limiting provision, the phrase that says, "From any deleterious effects from the full impact of any permitted uses. Page 36 April 18, 2002 I would suggest to you that the color of a particular building or whether it's French provincial or old English is not something that's going to have a deleterious effect. It's not a public health, safety, welfare issue. MR. STRAIN: We haven't brought those issues up. Parking garages and maybe square footages aren't aesthetics. I'm just wondering if we keep away from the aesthetics and architecture, wouldn't we be then including things that we could address pursuant to the section of the code? MR. WHITE: I believe that the parking garages, given the issue that's been raised in the recent code amendments with respect to pervious/impervious areas in particular in the Golden Gate city area, are something that you would have a public health, safety, welfare basis for. It's more once you cross the line over into what the building should look like as opposed to how it should function, I think the commission is without authority to impose those as conditions of approval. MR. ADELSTEIN: We're not trying to. We've asked for certain things. Should we let the speaker talk and see what he has to say? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's -- Mr. Budd wants to say something at this point. Then we'll hear from Mr. O'Gara. MR. BUDD: A question for Mr. O'Gara: Would you be willing to voluntarily stipulate to the Board of County Commissioners, which has final approval on this action, that you will have a minimum 1200-square foot of living area and garages on your homes? MR. O'GARA: Yes, sir. No problem. MR. BUDD: Okay. MR. RICHARDSON: And connection to sewer and water. MR. BUDD: That we can stipulate -- you can voluntarily do it. Page 37 April 18, 2002 But if I make a motion, I'll include it because we have the right to do that. MR. O'GARA: And sewer and water as well. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We've all agreed on sewer and water, I think. MR. O'GARA: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anything else? MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask Mr. Bellows a question. One of the persons that came in front of us said that the minimum in RSF-3 was 10,250 square feet. Could you clarify that for me? And that -- she was speaking to her experience as a -- MR. WHITE: Was that with respect to lot area? MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. MR. WHITE: If I may, I have the code provision open. It's 2.2.4.4.2, and the minimum lot area for RSF-3 numbered under 3 is 10,000 square feet. MR. RICHARDSON: So that doesn't square with your experience as to what the lot sizes are in that area? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct, 10,000. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anything else? Anything else from you, Mr. O'Gara? MR. O'GARA: No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'll close the public hearing then. MR. BUDD' Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission forward Petition RZ-01-AR-1143 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval and an additional stipulation that sewer and water hookup be provided by the petitioner and also noting that -- separate from this motion that Page 38 April 18, 2002 petitioner has voluntarily agreed to 1200-square foot minimum living area and garages. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Don't you want to also include that he has -- the lots will be 10,000 square feet and that he will build no more than 16 units and that RSF-3 standards will be applied throughout? MR. BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. ADELSTEIN: I second the --. MR. STRAIN: Discussion? Could I ask a question? Russell, you said separate from this motion. If he -- I -- I think-- and I don't think Mr. White said I was wrong in this assumption. We're not into aesthetics when we talk about living space and parking garages. Those are functional structural proponents. I think we can include those in your motion, not make them separate so there's no confusion since the applicant did agree with them anyway. Would that be okay? MR. BUDD: Yes. I amend my language to include it in the motion because ultimately what we're trying to do is make a clear conveyance of intent to the Board of County Commissioners who has final authority. So I'll agree to that change to clarify our position. MR. WHITE: Iflmay--. MR. ADELSTEIN: I accept that as a -- as a second. MR. WHITE: IfI may, Mr. Chairman, I've been kind of going along making a few notes. If you would have the motioner and seconder consider what I'm going to read into the record, I think it states essentially what's been put forward and does it in a -- perhaps, a little clearer way. We have some existing conditions of approval that were part of your backup. D pertained to all residential units shall have a minimum floor area proposing to say a floor area of 12,000 -- 1200 Page 39 April 18, 2002 square feet -- excuse me -- exclusive of a required minimum single- car garage, attached minimum single-car garage; that there be a new letter, F, that would say, connection to central water and sewer systems and a new G, and it would say -- state otherwise will meet all RSF-3 property development regulations except that the RSF-5 density provisions of LDC Section 224415 will apply. That's the density standard that brings it up to allow 16 units. MR. STRAIN: Not to exceed 16 units. MR. ADELSTEIN: Not to exceed 16 units. MR. WHITE: Not to exceed 16 units. If that's acceptable, I'd ask the seconder and motion maker agree. MR. BUDD: That's what I had in mind. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So we've melded the staff conditions and the commission's conditions. Is that -- that was your intention? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. We have agreement to that by the motion maker --. MR. ADELSTEIN: And seconder. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any further discussion? MR. RICHARDSON: I'm sympathetic out there that the people have lost their park. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'll call the question. All those in favor signature by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Hearing none, unanimous. Thank you very much. Next item, RZ-2001-AR-1353, Kepple Engineering representing Amerisite requesting a rezone from A, agricultural, to C- Page 40 April 18, 2002 5. All persons expecting to testify on this matter rise and be sworn. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Disclosures. MR. STRAIN: I think I -- well, in fact, I did speak to Susan Murray about the advertising issue involving this, I hope -- and she was going to follow up with Mr. White, and I gave her some photographs in which to show to him. So that's the only disclosure I have. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with planning services staff. I'm presenting Petition RZ-2001-AR-1353. Petitioner is requesting a rezone of the subject site from agricultural to the C-5 zoning district. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard and approximately a quarter mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. There's Rattlesnake Hammock. This is the Naples Forest Country Club. There's a canal that runs north-south. There's Collier Boulevard, and this is the First Assembly of God PUD to the north. The currently zoned agricultural property abuts an existing C-5- zoned property to the south. This property here (indicating) is zoned C-5. The currently -- the property was previously used as a landscape nursery business for over 20 years. However, due to changing market conditions, the landscape nursery business does not appear to be viable based on the information provided by the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner is now requesting to rezone the subject site consistent with the comprehensive plan. I have the future land use map here that -- as you can see, the subject site is located in this northeast comer of the activity center. This activity center allows for commercial uses. This size also -- this Page 41 April 18, 2002 district is intended to provide a mix of commercial and residential uses, and it's to provide a full array of commercial uses that would allow from C-1 through C-5. It should be noted that through Policy 5.1 provides all rezonings must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. As an aside, if this petition were approved, the parcel to the north would appear to qualify for commercial rezones based on the office and in-fill subdistrict criteria. So the property to the north could eventually qualify for commercial uses through the in-fill provisions. MR. RICHARDSON: Ray, just on that map, would you -- could you sketch out just where the activities boundaries are? Is it 600 feet on either side of that intersection? Because that's kind of critical to me as to what's going to happen to the rest of those properties. MR. BELLOWS: To the center boundary basically is along the northern end of this subject site. MR. RICHARDSON: So it does not include the property to the north of that. MR. BELLOWS: It does not include. That's the purpose of the statement that the property to the north would qualify only for commercial through meeting the criteria of the office and in-fill commercial subdistrict. MR. RICHARDSON: But not because it's part of the activity -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. RICHARDSON: And how far south does it -- does this go? I mean, I just see a square there. I can't -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. This is Rattlesnake Hammock Road, so it goes south -- a half a mile south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. I don't have a scale here to tell you how far down that would go. It's north and south. If this is the northern end, say the northern -- or the southern end would be down here somewhere Page 42 April 18, 2002 (indicating). MR. RICHARDSON: It just seems to me one of-- one of our concerns here is that what we do here is going to -- can set up some dominoes that's going to knock all of these over based on what's decided here. MR. BELLOWS: Well, this site is within the activity center, and it qualifies for this. Any rezoning we've ever done for properties around the edge of an activity center, the same situation occurs. This abuts existing C-5 zoning to the south and would be similar in nature to the -- that zoning district to the south. This is the place the county encourages this type of zoning and, matter of fact, provides the ability for adjacent property owners to have a similar or compatible transitional use next to existing commercial. That's the purpose of the office and in-fill, to allow for transition to residential. The traffic impact statement indicates that the proposed project -- I have a nicer graphic here for you. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. That helps. MR. BELLOWS: Those are the activity center boundaries. The traffic impact statement indicates that the project will generate approximately 662 average daily trips and 21.24 trips during the morning peak hour. Based on the traffic impact statement, the project will not significantly impact any county road and will not lower the level of service below the county adopted standards. Therefore, the transportation department has deemed this project consistent with the transportation element. The county staff has looked at the project in relationship for compatibility issues. And based on the development standards of the C-5 district, the fact that it is adjacent to the C-5 zone property to the south, the development standards of the C-5 zoning district and the landscape requirements adopted in the county code, and the architectural ordinance incorporated in the Land Development Code, Page 43 April 18, 2002 staff has determined that this project would be compatible with the adjacent properties within the activity center. Staff has not received any letters of objection to this petition, and the project is consistent with all elements of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, staff is recommending the Collier County Planning Commission forward this to the Board of County Commission with a recommendation of approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. MR. STRAIN: Ray, did the question I posed to Susan Murray on Tuesday -- Mr. White looked confused when I mentioned his name earlier. Did she not get the photographs to you, Pat, that I had taken of the advertising that was somewhat inaccessible? MR. WHITE: Other than I believe my look should have been one of concern rather than confusion, no, I have not. I've placed a call to her and am hoping to hear from her. MR. STRAIN: Well, I drive up and down 951, and I'd seen the sign go up a distance off the roadway a long time ago. There's a guardrail along 951 with no shoulder in that area right now. The sign was placed on the opposite side of the canal, and there was no way anybody in the public could have stopped without causing a traffic problem, first of all. And second of all, had they stopped without crossing that canal, they probably couldn't have seen the writing and read it. I mean, I don't have a lot of concern over this whole project at this point, but I was curious if that does meet the intent of the advertising that was required in the LDC. MR. WHITE: We recently had a similar circumstance arise where, due to the location of a particular property, it would have been necessary to put it, quote, in the right-of-way. But what we did discover, in researching that particular instance, was that merely putting it on the property meets the requirement of the code as it's written. We understand that it's a relatively new provision. It may need some tweaking to be most effective, and these are the kinds of Page 44 April 18, 2002 issues that we're presently considering for furore amendments to the code. MR. RICHARDSON: Maybe larger print based on distance? MR. WHITE: Anything that is going to achieve the overall objective, I think you're right. MR. RICHARDSON: Issue binoculars. MR. STRAIN: That's what I -- that was what I -- the point that I brought to Susan, if this had met the advertising intent. If it did, we could continue. If it didn't, I just wanted you to know about it. MR. WHITE: I believe it's legally sufficient. MR. STRAIN: Ray, I had no questions of you, but I did have some of Dawn. And I don't know; at what point is the appropriate time to ask her to comment on the ingress and egress? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think now is the time. MR. STRAIN: Okay. If that's convenient, I'd like to -- MR. BELLOWS: I believe Greg Garcia, transportation -- MR. STRAIN: He does not look like Dawn. And, Dawn, I understand now you're leaving us? That's a horrible rumor, but it's true I -- I'm sorry to hear that. You've been a pleasure to work with. MR. GARCIA: Commissioner, my name is Gregory Garcia. I work in transportation planning for Collier County. Your questions were -- MR. STRAIN: Yes, sir. The -- the sketch that we received in our packet, it shows what might be a decel lane going north on 951. Is that, in fact, what's going to occur there, and is this an acceleration lane as well when you come out of that roadway? MR. GARCIA: There's -- in the LDC it doesn't require an acceleration lane leaving the site. On the multilane we do have it in the LDC that they will provide the decel lanes. It's a requirement because it's multilane. MR. STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to make sure that was the case Page 45 April 18, 2002 because that road is very, very tight there, and anybody pulling off into this development is going to cause traffic to back up on that roadway. It's fast in that particular location. MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: Transportation, while you're there-- it's Greg, is it? MR. GARCIA: Gregory, yes. MR. RICHARDSON: Gregory. This is not directly related to this project per Se, but in terms of Miss Young's concern and others about the application of concurrency, I know we have a whole thing with the Land Development Code which we've all read and none of us understand yet -- well, I say I don't understand it -- but I wonder if you couldn't use this just as an illustration for a quick tutorial that if this project goes in, at what point would the checkbook be noted as having these traffic trips taken off the capacity of 951, if that's the right way to say that? MR. GARCIA: Without the facts and figures in front of me, you know, I mean, they're indicating a number of trips, but I don't know what the current capacity is based on existing numbers. MR. RICHARDSON: Just looking at the process, not necessarily the numbers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He didn't-- MR. RICHARDSON: Would this come in at site development plan time, or would this come in at -- when we approve this, does that put reservation -- MR. GARCIA: It would be at the site development plan stage. MR. RICHARDSON: So that any other project that is in a site development stage along this roadway, those capacities would already be reserved and taken out of the capacity? MR. GARCIA: If they are already in place, yes, sir. Page 46 April 18, 2002 MR. RICHARDSON: So others that are approved but not in the site development plan stage, this one, for instance, could come in and take capacity away from them or what they might have expected to have received when they had their sufficiency of infrastructure guarantee years ago? MR. GARCIA: Whoever comes in first does take up the capacity, yes, sir. MR. RICHARDSON: Yeah. But it's the come in first at the site development plan time. We've got a lot of old approval sitting out there that I think is one of our concerns about the checkbook concept about how that's going to be folded into the -- the capacity and that the checkbook's going to work against. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The checkbook, you write the check at the time you -- well, you subtract it at the time you write it rather than this is sort of cash. MR. ADELSTEIN: That's where--. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You're going to be presenting it MR. GARCIA: Well, if they -- you know, if they come in and they -- you're saying that they already exist there and they've already come in with their site development plan -- MR. RICHARDSON: Let's take, you know, the other situation we've got. You know, how many hundreds of PUDs and stuff out there that's already approved? But -- and we were still rolling more things out. I'm trying to figure out how those feather into current actions that come along, and they may not be at the site development stage. But if you're saying definitively that has to be at the site development stage, that helps. That means that those old approvals don't have a bite at the apple until they get to the site development plan time. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Richardson, I -- I appreciate Page 47 April 18, 2002 your interest in this, and I know we can talk about this for about an hour, but it's really something we need to address when we address the LDC changes later this month, and that's where we should delve into this. I think to do it with this project is probably diverting our process away from what we should be doing here in the next -- and focusing on this project. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I intended to do that. But, nonetheless, I appreciate your comment. I would withdraw further probes into that area. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I had a related question for you, Greg. Our staff report indicates that C-5 zoning district allows heavy commercial uses and a range of more intensive retail uses and services. Then there is an estimate of average daily trips and trips during peak. How can you do that if you don't know what the retail uses are or what the industrial uses are? Is there just some average that you go to a book and -- and get? Is that the way that works? MR. GARCIA: Well, you have the ITE trip generation manual. You base it off the square footages and the type of usage that you're going to put in place. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, it allows a wide range, according to the write-up, of retail, services, and heavy commercial. MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir. And we looked at this when they submitted their TIS. And based on what they've indicated in their documents, possibly as a condition of approval, is to make it clear that it's based upon what he submitted. The limited land use under C-5 to no more than 12,000-square feet retail and 60,000-square feet self storage or equivalent based on a transportation impact comparison assessment, these were the numbers he provided. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Now, self storage is a fairly benign use in C-5. What if he decides that there's something Page 48 April 18, 2002 more lucrative in C-5 that he'd rather do? When does that hit the fan? At the SDP stage? MR. GARCIA: Well, at the SDP stage when he brings it in. But if you make a condition of approval now, he's limited to what he's previously indicated. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Okay. MR. BELLOWS: And those uses are listed on the conceptual plan that's -- will be attached. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Thank you. MR. GARCIA: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions for staff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Kepple. MR. KEPPLE: Good morning. For the record, Terrance Kepple representing the petitioner this morning. Staff has described the site and its location. I don't think there's any questions on that. I won't go into those items. There are a couple of things about this site that are -- that are a little different than a lot of them. It fronts Collier Boulevard, but there's a hundred-foot wide South Florida Water Management District easement and canal between Collier Boulevard and this site. And to address Mr. Strain's comment about the sign, without encroaching on either the county easement or South Florida's easement, that's as close as we could put that sign to the right-of-way. We were concerned about safety and some others if we put it right up behind the guardrail, and we did discuss it with South Florida Water Management, and we said we could not put it on their easement. MR. STRAIN: It was obvious you had no choice. I recognize that. I just didn't know, pending the fact you didn't have any choice, was it still -- did it meet the legal grounds? That's where I was coming from. Page 49 April 18, 2002 MR. KEPPLE: I wanted to put it up closer because I knew there were some visibility issues, but we could not do it. There's a hundred-foot South Florida easement on the front. There's a -- roughly a hundred-foot FPL easement in the rear, which starts to restrict the site. The site -- the property is only 165 feet wide. There is -- does -- it is 5 acres in size. The current -- the owner does plan to construct a self-storage building in the rear of the project. That's his intent at this time, one of the reasons that he bought the property. We asked -- have done some estimating on the square footage of building he can put in there. Depending on permitting requirements, that may vary somewhat, and there would be some area in the front of the site for commercial retail uses. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You make me very nervous when you say "at this time." MR. KEPPLE: Well, unfortunately, we haven't done final design on the project. By the time we put all the landscape buffers in, setbacks -- and we did do that on that site plan -- water management, utilities, we're probably going to shrink the buildings down from what we've shown at this time. I don't see any way we could enlarge them. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But the same uses. MR. KEPPLE: Same uses, yes, sir. We are asking for C-5 commercial uses, but the uses that we're currently intending are -- are the self storage and general -- general retail of the process. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. KEPPLE: I don't think I've got any other comments. If I've got -- if you've got any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions for Mr. Kepple? MR. RICHARDSON: Then I understand that based on what Page 50 April 18, 2002 you've done so far that you would agree to adding that as the condition to our approval, that is the -- the nature of the uses, not the square footage, but the uses that you're intending? MR. KEPPLE: Well, one of-- one of the reasons we asked for C-5 zoning is to allow some flexibility. There is no end user for the front yet. We don't know what that user wishes to put in there. Nobody's came forward and made an offer on the property or anything of that nature. The current owner does -- does intend to sell off a portion of the front of that property through subdivision platting or what -- however method. We don't have an end use for that at this time. That location is not going to lend itself to heavy industrial uses along the right-of-way, but it may be a -- I was looking in the code yesterday, as a matter of fact, to find out where banks could go. And I believe -- and I may be wrong. Ray, you can correct me. I believe C-5 zoning is the first place that a bank could go in a zoning district. You know, that might be a good place for a bank. I don't know -- I don't consider that a heavy industrial -- heavy commercial use per se. MR. BELLOWS: I believe banks and financial institutions are allowed in the C-1 district. MR. STRAIN: As a conditional use and then C-2 as a permitted use. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, Mr. Kepple, I think we still remember our development on Pine Ridge that is next door to a -- what was agreed upon as a medical office building, which is now a Houlihan's. So we -- we remember things like that. MR. KEPPLE: I -- I understand. MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Abernathy, ifI may, we can put it into the adoption, ordinance of adoption, restriction of 12,000 Page 51 April 18, 2002 square feet for any similar retail uses found in the C-5 district. That's what was basically based on the traffic impact statement as retail. And it's the ITE land use classification A-20, and that 60,000 square feet of self-storage building-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Supports those figures. MR. BELLOWS: They would have to amend their zoning if they were to try to -- something different. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Any other -- any member of the public desiring to speak? (No response.) MR. SCHMITT: We have no registered public speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Notwithstanding that, is there any member of the public that wishes to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. I'll close the public hearing for motion, discussion, so forth. MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Abernathy? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Sorry. MR. BELLOWS: I'd just been informed by transportation that we'd also like to see that there be provided a vehicle interconnection to the adjacent properties, though I -- I do see there is -- it does show one on here. MR. SCHMITT: MR. BELLOWS: MR. SCHMITT: MR. BELLOWS: There's one showing. I just want to make sure. There is one showing. Just clarify that that be kept on the plan. MR. KEPPLE: Terrance Kepple again. We have no objection to providing interconnection to the adjacent property. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The adjacent property owner cognizant of this? Page 52 April 18, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: There's no force of the interconnection without their agreement. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. So we've got half of it. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I was remiss in not asking one last question. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go right ahead. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Kepple, do you know this is under agricultural exemption now I presume because of the nature of the activity that was there? MR. KEPPLE: I'm sorry. I don't know the answer to that one. It may be, but the nursery has not been in use for a couple years. Best of my knowledge. MR. RICHARDSON: I would gather it would be the intent of the applicant to not seek additional agriculture exemption if this zoning went through? MR. KEPPLE: His intent is to develop it as soon as he can. MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, anyone want to discuss or make a motion? MR. BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission forward Petition RZ-01-AR-1353 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval and note that the interconnection shown is to be included. MR. BELLOWS: And that -- excuse me. For the record, make that interconnection provided the time of-- CO'd with the first project built? MR. BUDD: That's exactly what I meant. MR. RICHARDSON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any discussion of this motion? MR. RICHARDSON: This, by what Ray said earlier, includes the use restrictions that are attendant to this zoning action, that is, that Page 53 April 18, 2002 it would be self-storage buildings at the -- what is it? 12,000 square feet? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: 12,000 of retail. MR. RICHARDSON: 12,000 square feet. And the retail uses in accordance with C-5 in the front? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. It was 12,000 square feet of retail and 60,000 square feet of self storage. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: motion. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. BUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Right. That's a part of the Right, Mr. Budd? Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying (Unanimous approval.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Motion carries unanimously. I think we're going to shift gears here at this point, and we'll take about a ten-minute break. (A break was held from 10:12 a.m. to 10:26 a.m.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Moving right along, Item 8-C has been continued, so that brings us to D, an adoption ordinance. And this being a legislative matter, disclosures are not necessary. Of course, if you want to make them anyway, that's permissible certainly. Mr. Weeks, are you ready? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. For the record, I'm David Weeks, chief planner in the comprehensive planning section. First, I'd like to introduce this item in general and give a brief Page 54 April 18, 2002 explanation of what this is about because you don't see these types of petitions very often, typically only once or twice a year. This is an adoption hearing for amendments to the county's Growth Management Plan. You previously saw five of the seven petitions, all five of those under Item D on your agenda, last fall for the -- what's called a transmittal hearing, a preliminary review of these amendments. And now they're back for the final review, both by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. After the preliminary review last fall by this body and the Board of County Commissioners, those amendments were sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their preliminary review, and then they provide a report back to the county saying we've reviewed these, and these are -- these are our issues, these are our concerns, our objections, our comments, if any. And, in fact, they have reviewed all five of the amendments under Item D. They had no objections to any of them, as noted in your -- your packet of information. They did offer some comments about the amendment that -- that establishes the research and technology park subdistrict. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's No. 5, is it? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, yes, sir. Typically the way we handle these petitions is that take a straw vote after each of these individual petitions, CP-2001, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and then at the end take a single motion. I would also like to point out that Items 8-E and 8-F on your agenda are also part of this annual cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments. They have a separate entry on your agenda, because these two are a little bit different. They're different in that they were not part of the preliminary review that you made last fall. These petitions were allowed to be submitted in the middle of the cycle after the preliminary review of the other five petitions, and that had to do Page 55 April 18, 2002 with the right-of-way taking from both of the respective properties for -- for Livingston Road and the -- the -- it's a way to address the alleged damages to the properties themselves that the county commission said, okay, we will let you submit these amendments in the middle of the process. So you actually have a total of seven items to be included in your final motion for this cycle of comprehensive plan amendments. That's Agenda Item 8-D, the five you previously have seen, and then the two new items, E and F. And completely separately is Item 8-G. It is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. It is not part of the annual cycle. It just simply happens to be on this same agenda. You will address it completely separately, both in having it presented to you and making a separate motion. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll move right into the first of the amendments. This is a 5-acre parcel shown on the visualizer. It's at the northwest comer of Collier Boulevard and 1 lth Avenue Southwest. This is a proposal to add this 5 acres to the neighborhood center within the Golden Gate area master plan to allow for some commercial development. You should have had placed in front of you during the break a copy of some revised language staff would like to have included in your motion. This pertains to the buffer area along the perimeter of the project fronting on the -- on the two road frontages. It's 11 th Avenue Southwest and Collier Boulevard for this particular project. But the language we're discussing is applicable to neighborhood centers in general so that any property within a neighborhood center that has a road frontage will be subject to this language. In the staff report itself you have language that is different than what you saw last fall. What is presented to you this morning reflects yet some additional changes from what is in your staff report. Page 56 April 18, 2002 The -- the rationale for the changes, No. 1 is that the language that was transmitted contained a sentence in there that simply did not make sense. The intent was to -- to encourage the retention of native vegetation within the buffer area, but -- but the language also suggested putting in a berm within that same area. That seemed contradictory, so we tried to clean that language up. The first draft, which the staff report reflects, the -- the petitioner reviewed that and took some issue with it. They raised two primary issues. One was that the proposal was to not allow any water retention facilities within the buffer area. And their concern was, well, what about conveyance through the -- the -- through the buffer area simply to get to an external outfall alongside one of the adjacent roadways. We thought that was a valid concern, so we changed the language to allow for that to occur. Secondly, the concern was that if we required all existing native vegetation to be retained, the potential will be there, if there's enough vegetation already there, that it would effectively block the view of the commercial development that would eventually occur on the site. That was not staffs intent as well. We weren't trying to hide the project. We were simply trying to maintain the -- the semi-rural character of the estates area. A way to do that would be retaining the existing native vegetation as opposed to removing it and coming in with all planted vegetation. We, again, thought that was a valid concern, and so we proposed some -- some language to -- to address that. And, further, what you have in front of you this morning in blue ink shows yet an additional change. And we agree that it is -- it is reasonable to allow water retention or detention areas within the buffer area so long as that -- that water management facility is left in its natural state. What we mean by that is you -- as long as it does not require going in and removing vegetation and laying down sod, you Page 57 April 18, 2002 can retain the existing vegetation and still have the water contained within the buffer area, that is acceptable. The, I think, final change to mention is, as far as the native vegetation retention, we've made it specific to trees, retain the existing native trees on the property and simply to encourage the retention of the other native vegetation. It is that other vegetation that -- the ground cover and more particularly the mid-level shrubs that might actually block the view of the future project. And, again, we -- we agree that that is -- is not what we want to do. That is not our intent. With that long-winded explanation, Commissioners, I think I'll stop and simply leave it for your discussion and any questions. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, on the first one, 2001, just to kind of get my head on straight here, the discussion says that this project will link into a road segment that's in a failed condition level of service. I'm -- I guess I'm just troubled with us going forward with a change in the -- what will ultimately be a change in the zoning based on the growth management change that will go into a situation that we're already into failure in. Can you tie me into what the -- when we're -- we've got level-of-service problems in this area that -- why we would want to be going in and changing in effect the zoning down the road to make this even worse.9 MR. WEEKS: First, I'm not sure if that statement is accurate. I'm going to ask where in the staff report you see that. MR. RICHARDSON: Page 5. I don't know the staff report, but it's page 5 of the segment that talks about traffic, has all kinds of tables, shows the different segments, what the percent of volumes are, and what the level of service in each segment is. And it's got a bunch of them that are at level of service F. Just -- I realize this, you know, is probably taken care of somewhere down the road. But I -- it was not the road really. Page 58 April 18, 2002 MR. WEEKS: I -- I don't have that in front of me, but I'm going to take that at face value. I certainly wouldn't challenge your -- your accuracy here. It will be addressed at a later stage. W hat this does -- the comprehensive plan amendment does set the stage for the zoning approval for commercial land uses. It can either be addressed at the rezoning stage that will subsequently occur or at the -- the next level of development approval, which is the site development plan. Either of those two circumstances are times at which the level of service issues could be addressed. As was discussed earlier today at this hearing, the county is proposing some changes to that checkbook balance-type system for our level of service standards. And that would, ! think, fall into play here as well, being that we're talking about transportation. MR. RICHARDSON: So from a growth management standpoint, you don't have any particular concerns about the volume of traffic that's created by the growth management change? You're just saying that's -- that's a problem we push downstream to be dealt with in zoning and in permitting stages? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And, also, keeping in mind that the -- the level-of-service standards, the -- the level of service that is functional today, not the adopted level-of-service standard but actual functional, is subject to change as improvements are made, as additional roads are constructed, as widening occurs. And this, again, sets the stage for a zoning change to occur but, also, knowing that road improvements will also occur. And if they don't occur in a timely fashion, ultimately the project will not be allowed to go further to the point of actual development. MR. RICHARDSON: But is it fair to say that in your deliberations on a growth management standpoint that you've taken traffic generation as part of the consideration for recommending these Page 59 April 18, 2002 kind of changes? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. The -- the comprehensive plan amendment level, the transportation analysis and other public facilities, water, sewer, etc., it -- it's a matter of-- of-- it's different than the rezone stage that you're more familiar with. Our analysis is to determine, will this project -- if approved, will it result in a -- a significant impact to the level-of-service standard? Most particularly, will it change the level-of-service standard below what the adopted level is? And for such a small petition, only 5 acres, our conclusion is no. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, except that it is by -- by the record, it shows that it's going into failed roadways right now. MR. WEEKS: Yes. Yes, sir. MR. RICHARDSON: So it will have an impact. MR. WEEKS: Well, certainly -- it's going to generate traffic. It's going to have an impact on the adjacent roadways. But we're dealing with the adopted level-of-service standard. Will it have a significant impact to that adopted level-of-service standard -- level- of-service standard D or F. If you were to add this additional amount of traffic from this project, would it result in a dropping below that adopted level of service-- MR. RICHARDSON: Well, remind me, what's less than F? What's lower than failure? MR. WEEKS: I don't think there is one. MR. RICHARDSON: Then I'm not quite understanding your comment then. MR. WEEKS: The distinction is between the functional level- of-service standard, which you're stating is F, from our report, as opposed to the adopted level-of-service standard for the adjacent roadway Collier Boulevard, is E. MR. RICHARDSON: Of what we'd like to see. Page 60 April 18, 2002 MR. WEEKS: That's correct. MR. RICHARDSON: Not what's there. MR. STRAIN: David-- Mark. For the-- so that I can understand the process that I haven't been on the board long enough to have been through one of these, I have a lot of concerns that I would have over uses that say generally they're going to have a C-3, C-4, whatever type use. It may not be pertaining to this exact one. But instead of going through the list of uses that are allowed in C-3 and then talking with the applicant about which ones they really want, which ones they don't, is it better timing to do it at the time they come through for a rezone further down the road instead of doing it now? MR. WEEKS: That usually is when that occurs. Comprehensive plan amendments vary as to the specificity, how detailed they get. Generally speaking, the way it works, at least in Collier County, the smaller the site, the more specific the amendment, then the more detail we put in. In this particular case, the Golden Gate master plan has the neighborhood center provision already, which allows C-1, C-2, and C-3 uses. They're asking to be added to the neighborhood center which then means they have the right to request up to C-3 zoning. But at the time of the zoning petition, yes, that's when you get down to the specific SIC code level and say we have some concerns about these uses. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Because in the past what's happened, a lot of times I keep hearing or I keep reading that everyone feels they have to pass something because the LDC says they can't object to it or there's no way to object to it. I want to make sure that doesn't happen here, since this is, in effect, changing the documents upon which we build our codes. Can we down the road, then, change -- if it says C-3 but there's a dozen or two dozen uses in the C-3 that are objectionable maybe for that neighborhood, we can weed those out at Page 61 April 18, 2002 a future element-- or future stage of this process ? MR. WEEKS: Absolutely because the LDC is -- again, you were discussing some earlier-- has specific criteria by which you would view each and every rezone petition and one of the chief ones being compatibility. So if there are certain uses that are considered incompatible with the surrounding area, then you have the ability to limit those uses. The one limitation I would like to defer to the county attorney's office is -- has to do with on that conventional or straight zoning, like C-3, as opposed to a PUD as I think you're all familiar -- you see PUDs frequently -- and those are a mini zoning ordinance for the property, and you most certainly do go through and list each individual specific use. You can add this one, delete that one. In the case of the conventional zoning districts, my understanding is that the county's approach has been if the petitioner voluntarily agrees to restrict themselves, that can occur but that the county attorney's office is saying no, the county cannot impose that condition. The county cannot say you shall, even though you don't want to, be limited to certain uses. And, again, I need to defer to Patrick on that. That's my understanding of what the county's attorneys office has been saying. MR. STRAIN: The compatibility issue arises from the intent and purpose of the code, the language in that body in that part of code? MR. WEEKS: That could be part of it. I don't think that's the specific use itself. You know, this -- take convenience stores, a use that is frequently referred to as one of the more intense land uses because of its hours of operation, the traffic generation, the lights that they have, they particularly have gas pumps as well, those are all ways of measuring compatibility and impacts of a project. And so on a site-specific basis, the determination might ultimately be that we Page 62 April 18, 2002 don't want a convenience store at this location. It's not going to be compatible, whereas if it's at some other location, on a site-specific basis, it might be considered, yes, that use is acceptable. Therefore, we'll approve the zoning that includes that use. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. And I think Mr. White was looking up something for you. No? MR. WHITE: Yes. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I believe the section of the LDC that David's referring to is 2.7.2.13. And it talks about applications for rezones to a specific use, and I believe it's talking in terms of conventional zoning districts, not PUDs, because it's not in that section of the code pertaining to PUDs. And it says that, indeed, the applicant for any rezoning application may at his or her option propose a specific use or range of uses permitted under the zoning classification. MR. RICHARDSON: Unless we can get them to volunteer for something different. MR. WEEKS: I was just going to suggest, going one step further on that, if ultimately this body and then the county commission in reviewing a particular rezone request or a specific zoning district, again, using C-3 as an example, and if there is a concern that some of those uses would not be compatible, they would not be appropriate at that location, presumably that would be your basis for denial. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any further questions of Mr. Week (sic)? MR. STRAIN: One other thing. Some of these -- some of these Growth Management Plan uses that are -- that we're looking at right now have already been previously addressed in PUDs that have gone through in these past months or so. Does -- if those have passed, what we do here today with this, does that have a retroactive Page 63 April 18, 2002 effect on those, or are those locked into what was previously approved.'? Say Henderson Creek is one coming up, for example. That was previously approved by both the board and CCPC. If-- anything we do today, does that have any effect on that now that it's approved in the smaller size or smaller acreage that it was approved in? Do you know? MR. WEEKS: I think the answer to that is -- again, I want to look over at Patrick for some help. But I think the answer to that is, whatever ultimately gets approved in this comprehensive plan amendment, since it's occurring after the rezoning has occurred, is not going to affect the rezoning of that site. The only exception I can think of would be, which I think is going to be the case, is that Henderson Creek PUD is going to come back for an amendment to incorporate the commercial component. And I believe at that point it then opens up the door for the county to say here's all of these additional requirements in that subdistrict of the comprehensive plan. You must comply with these. MR. STRAIN: Right. Thank you. MR. WHITE: I concur. this? I'm fine. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anybody desiring to speak on MR. SCHMITT: We have four registered public speakers, and I'll call them off. First speaker, Terrance Kepple followed by Jim Goldie. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: On this -- on this sub item? MR. SCHMITT: 8-D. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, it should be more specific. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, ifI may, the -- the petitioner's representative is Bruce Anderson and Wayne Arnold. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I see that. Do they want to speak? Page 64 April 18, 2002 MR. ANDERSON: For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the property owner. The only reason I need to speak is to confirm on the record that we have agreed with the modifications requested by staff, as orally modified by Mr. Weeks this morning. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Remind you-all that it was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission once before and unanimously approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and the Department of Community Affairs had no objection to this amendment. MR. RICHARDSON: Do you think that would sway our opinion some? MR. ANDERSON: Well, I would hope that -- for some consistency. MR. RICHARDSON: Consistency is the mark of a small mind. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Leave it alone, Bruce. MR. SCHMITT: I was going to say maybe that's why my golf game is so bad. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Is there any discussion among the -- you don't have registered speakers on this, do you, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I just show them listed for 8-D. And, David, I'm assuming they're going to be for each of the topics then? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Are they registered for each topic? MR. WEEKS: Well, each-- each single petition. MR. SCHMITT: Each single petition. MR. WEEKS: That is, each name will be submitted for a specific petition under H -- under 8-D as, again, we have five. Page 65 April 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes. Well, they're -- they don't specify which of the five they want to talk about? MR. SCHMITT: No. It just shows 8-D on this one. The next one is the research and technology, and the other one just says 8-D again, research and technology. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is there any person here who wants to speak on subdivis -- subheading dash one, the thing we've just been talking about? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. That being so, I'll close the public hearing. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. This is all part of one public hearing item. I would ask that you not do that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. I won't close the public hearing. I'll reopen the public hearing. Well, I won't do that because I've not closed it. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I would ask, however, if you wish -- if you wish, you may take a straw vote on each of these seven petitions and then take your one motion in, or you could simply wait and take that one motion if you don't think it's necessary. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt, but the notion of a straw vote is one that I believe that's not consistent with the Sunshine. I think what Mr. Weeks is intending to say is that you can effectively take the vote on them one at a time, the dash 1 through, or consider them all in toto at the end. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MR. WHITE: If you want to have discussion on the public record and learn of any objections that may ultimately at the end lead to a negative vote, then certainly you're free to ask your fellow commissioners whether they have those objections now. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, I think that we should Page 66 April 18, 2002 discuss them one at a time; otherwise it's just too confusing. So does anybody have any discussion as to 2001-1 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That being so, we'll move right along to 02 -- dash 2. MR. STRAIN: I have discussion on that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You have discussion on dash 1 ? MR. STRAIN: Dash 2. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Dash 2, all right. Go ahead, Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, this is Petition CP-2001-2. This amendment is to establish the Buckley mixed-use subdistrict that would allow up to 172,500 square feet of office and retail uses as well as 345 dwelling units. As you can see on the visualizer and also in your staff reports, the site is on the west side of Airport Pulling Road about 300 feet north of Orange Blossom Drive adjacent to the north of the -- the new library facility constructed by the county. The total site is just shy of 23 acres. Nothing particular to add other than that the -- again, DCA, in their review of this petition, did not have any objection. MR. STRAIN: David, is this a good time to ask you questions? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. MR. STRAIN: Density. In the code right now there's a base density for areas. I'm not sure if this one's three or four. I know there's a lot of bad traffic out there, so maybe it's three. As we learned in some other PUDs that there's a density bonus system for affordable housing, that seemed to be the strongest one everybody uses. That could bump it up 11 units per acre, I think, if everything was handled correctly, what might give this property 14 or 15 units. MR. ADELSTEIN: Fifteen. Page 67 April 18, 2002 MR. STRAIN: They're getting 15 units per acre here and it's not -- and it was stated in the preapplication meeting, it is not an affordable housing, how do they qualify for that if it isn't affordable housing? MR. WEEKS: Okay. First, the-- the density bonus for affordable housing is up to 8 units per acre maximum, which, added to the base of 3 or 4 units per acre, could get you up to the 11 or 12. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So they're beyond the base that-- the maximum they could get with affordable housing. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. The way they could be allowed to have 15 units per acre is, simply put, because they're proposing it in this amendment. This density they're asking for is not related to the density rating system. They're saying don't apply that to us, simply give us 15 units per acre, period. The idea in this amendment is to allow for a mixed-use development of commercial and residential uses. Residential could be freestanding buildings, or they could be located above commercial uses or a combination of the two. Part of the -- the concept is to have employment opportunities on site for persons that are living there, as well as the fact that you would have some commercial needs met on site. Therefore, you would have lesser trips out on the external roadway. MR. STRAIN: Well, under that criteria they could ask for any density, 30 units per acre or whatever they wanted to. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: Then the incentives to put in affordable housing for other people basically are taken away because you really don't need to use it if you just want to come in and use this method to get more density on your property. MR. WEEKS: That's -- that's true. MR. WHITE: The -- the only factor that would enter into that Page 68 April 18, 2002 equation is Provision 2.7.7.2.1 that talks about the maximums that can be established where there is affordable housing used for density bonus. And there's a cap there that the code says not to exceed a total of 16 dwelling units per gross acre. MR. STRAIN: That's if it's affordable. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: And, again, this one is not affordable. I think it was stated clearly it isn't. Also, there's a certain amount of allocated commercial space. MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. STRAIN: And I did the calculation on it. And 172,500 doesn't -- I was concerned -- I couldn't figure how we got to that. There's 22.84 acres. You allowed thirty-two fifty square feet per acre for retail and forty-two fifty square feet per acre for office use. That's a total of 7500 square feet per acre times 22.84 comes up to one seventy-one three hundred. How'd we get to one seventy-two five hundred? That's another thirteen or twelve hundred square feet that's a-- hanging out there. MR. WEEKS: I'm going to guess they rounded their acreage, which we would not allow them. MR. STRAIN: Why don't we round it down? MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry? MR. STRAIN: Why wouldn't we have rounded it down? We just rounded it up? And do we have to leave it at one seventy-two five hundred? That's as about of an odd number as one seventy-one three hundred. Why don't we put it exactly what it is? MR. WEEKS: That would be fine. The short answer is I'm not sure exactly how that number was derived. But if you want to change it exactly matching that ratio, that's certainly something staff would not object to. MR. STRAIN: Well, since the previous speaker mentioned Page 69 April 18, 2002 consistency, that might help. This is a rectangular-shaped lot. One of the reasons why it's saying that the GMP arguments should be supported is that it's an odd shape. What is odd shaped about rectangular? I mean, actually, that's more of a squared-off piece of property than the odd shapes we normally deal with. And I'm wondering why that would be in the language to the application as a premise for approving this. MR. WEEKS: I'm going to presume what they mean is the fact that the property is long and relatively narrow. It's off of Airport Road. I believe it's in the neighborhood of perhaps 400 feet. That's not necessarily small but the fact that it's a linear shape as opposed to I'll -- I'll defer to the applicant to explain why a more square shape. they chose that. MR. STRAIN: Oh, I'm sure the applicant has got a reason for it. I was just curious what your reasoning was. If this were to go in affordable housing, I think it had stated there would be about 253 units. And now they're looking for 345 units. I'm not saying that affordable housing is the right thing for here, but seeing how that was the maximum under the maximum conditions of the current code, I'm very concerned about the 345. I mean, I don't think that the land -- the infrastructure, the uses in the area, anticipated that kind of density. Otherwise our code would have had some provision for it. So with that being said, that's enough of my questioning on this particular issue. MR. RICHARDSON: I see the applicant is here. I'd like to have an opportunity to question her. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Weeks, just one sort of clerical thing. On page 6 of your staff report, the staff report -- are you there? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- at the bottom you're Page 70 April 18, 2002 redescribing B when you should be describing C. You've got Karen Bishop all over again. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. I was going to get to that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Since you brought it up, I would go ahead and mention. We appreciate that. We are aware of the error. We want to assure the Planning Commission that the advertising was correct. And, in fact, we don't advertise the specific titles. But, regardless, the advertising was correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Now we'll hear from Miss Bishop. MS. BISHOP: Good morning. Karen Bishop, agent for the Buckleys. I'll be happy to answer any questions. The linear -- just to address the linear issue, a lot of these parcels -- this is a tree farm and -- or a nursery at this point. I'm sure we're all aware where this parcel is. The depth issue makes it difficult for -- to get reasonable issues with residential. A lot of people aren't -- don't prefer to see that. This is going to be a rental is what the intent is. This is to be a rental project. It is intended to have affordable elements in it. That would be necessary for the people to work there to be able to live there. But there will be some higher-end units also with some garages. So there will be a mix of all of these units in this. And what this intent is to be the first one -- well, actually the Pulling one, I think, is the first true mixed-use project that has been proposed, and that will be moving forward for development. The activity centers which were intended to be somewhat like that have turned out to be pretty much all commercial with literally no residential in these, so this is intended to take these small parcels or in this particular small parcel and to create that true mixed use, which is kind of like downtown Naples, I guess, is the closest thing I Page 71 April 18, 2002 can say we can all identify with is where you have commercial and office space and then residential above it and behind it. It will all be interconnected to the other-- to the library next door, to the sidewalks along Airport Road. Right now I'm working to try to get the -- there is -- I think the Marriott assisted living facility just to the north of us, to get that connected. I've met with the neighbors to the west. Of course, their response was leave us alone and we'll be happy. So I can't interconnect to them; they won't allow it. But they were for trying to interconnect the frontage along there so that people could access from Vanderbilt intersection to the library without actually having to be on that road. So we will interconnect or allow interconnection from that point to create that. MR. STRAIN: I understand the commercial component. At least, you know, commercial in that area seems reasonable. When you come in, I assume you're going to come back in with a PUD? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: You will be very specific, I would assume --. MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: -- on the commercial application? Yes, sir. And you know me as Mark-- you don't have to MS. BISHOP: MR. STRAIN: say that. MS. BISHOP: I want to be -- I want to be respectful as opposed to disrespectful. MR. STRAIN: You'd probably like to shoot me. MS. BISHOP: No. No. You're consistent. No, no, no. You're consistent. And I can assure you that we all like consistency when it comes to this kind of-- MR. STRAIN: Well, Bruce I know does if he's still here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He got his consistency and left. Page 72 April 18, 2002 MS. BISHOP: Well, I'm going to use that for my game, too, because I was wondering why I couldn't have a good golf game. MR. STRAIN: I am -- I am concerned about your density. And I'll be honest with you; that will be an issue at this point with me, and it probably will be in the future. I don't know how the traffic patterns are going to be improved or the compatibility of the area is going to be improved with that kind of density. And if you could address that now, as well as in the future, it would be helpful for understanding. MS. BISHOP: Well, what we're looking to do -- one of the issues with the -- with these kinds of mixed-use projects is that this is a new thing. And you're -- you've got to have enough rooftops to make these things work in general. And usually what we see, all through Collier County, is that the residential goes in first, and then the commercial has been allocated to certain areas. And it works, but the commercial never comes in until after the residential is in some place. What is going to happen here is this is all going to be built at the same time. And the rental end of this is you have a higher density of rental units. Sixteen units to the acre is a pretty typical number for eight-plex, two-story buildings. And so we derived -- when we looked at the market study, we looked at making these elements work. Now, keep in mind this comprehensive plan at this level is based on having some flexibility to determine by the time we get to zoning what our real needs are going to be. We're in the process now of doing market studies to determine what actually can we -- can we work. Whether -- 172,000 square foot may not be the number that we're going to deed; we probably may be closer to a hundred thousand by the time we get this market study done. And the density may drop down to -- from 15 units to the acre to 13 units to the acre by the time you get all the elements in the water management and all Page 73 April 18, 2002 those kinds of things. But we're not there yet. So this gives us some flexibility to look at that and see what can we do here. And then those details -- when we come back in front of you for the zoning of this, we will have that detail at that point. There is some transportation el -- issues with the way intersections are done here and we're right across the street from-- let me see -- Lakeside? I think it's Lakeside. And, you know, there's some issues there with them. We're working with them and the other mixed-use elements at Orange Blossom to try to create some interconnecting so that these people are not -- two people have died at that intersection which is going to be across from us. And in lieu of a light, which isn't going to happen, we're working with the Pullings to come up with an answer to get people in and out of that area without having to go back out on Airport Road to cross over. So there are a lot more details to be addressed which we cannot address until we get to the PUD zoning level. MR. STRAIN: Well, that built-in flexibility that you're talking about has been the cross that this county has had to bear for years now. And it's coming to a head with all the problems we've having in our infrastructure because the flexibility has been there, and because it has been there, everybody seems to reason that it's got to be approved. And I think that's where I'm going to be concerned with is that the flexibility for that kind of density, I think, is too much for that area. And that's just my opinion, but I'm expressing it. MS. BISHOP: And -- and I'm not suggesting that your opinion doesn't have, you know, merit for you, and -- and there may be others that feel the same. When we come back for that zoning, it will not be as flexible. It will be more precise. But when you start looking at trying to make areas work and affordable housing, I mean, no one wants to hear that word. This will Page 74 April 18, 2002 be -- I don't want to say work-force housing either. It's going to be people like me, regular people who, you know, work here can afford to live in these places because it's going to be a rental. That is the intent at this point for the Buckleys to put a rental facility in. But what we -- you know, you've got to have some flexibility because the intent is to make it work. You don't want to zone a project that is so limited that if this doesn't work that I've got to scrap it all and come back again. Most PUDs, in general, put in some flexibility. But like, for instance, the last one I stood in front of you, Pebblebrooke, when we first zoned that we had commercial and residential, and we had a higher residential number than what eventually was built out there. We had the flexibility to go with the market. But -- and at that activity center, the reason why these activity centers are done that way, the intent was to put more density around these commercial areas to keep the burden of the infrastructure from being spread out. It would be consolidated. But unfortunately, the market there said single family which turned the 650 units at Pebblebrooke to a little over 300. So that gentleman had to have that flexibility. If he would have come in for 350 or 300 and then the market said, no, you must put multifamily here and put apartments here, then he would not have been able to do that, and that project could have languished and died and would have been an eyesore, and then we would have been going back to retrofit or work out the elements of that that was left undeveloped. So there has to be -- I mean, I appreciate what you're saying to the degree that we want more detail. That more detail, I don't think a lot of people are bucking at the zoning level. But you've got to have some flexibility to give people the opportunity to make a project work. MR. STRAIN: Would you have any -- would you have any Page 75 April 18, 2002 objection to limiting the flexibility to what's built into the LDC at this point, which is up to 11 units per acre, and then let that be the flexibility we have to deal with in the future? MS. BISHOP: Right. The problem is the 11 units an acre doesn't work on this site because of the need to put some commercial in here and the mixed use -- most of the -- the density basis wasn't -- wasn't based on this mixed-use concept. And we've been trying -- we being the county and the staff have been trying to get these kinds of uses in place. So if you look at downtown Naples, the density there is a lot higher than the base because they have the apartments above the commercial and residential. And the county is trying to promote this. We're standing here saying, okay, we'll be the first. We'll be the first. We'll be the experiment. Let's see how this works, because that's what we're trying to do. And these kinds of projects aren't -- there isn't going to be the availability for many of these because of the way the county has been built out now. MR. STRAIN: Well, if the county promotes this, then there will be, in essence, almost eliminating the incentives for affordable housing anywhere because you can get better density at a higher rate by doing it this way, which would be a contradiction. MS. BISHOP: Well, we're going to be putting an affordable element in this project. So we -- we're preparing our own incentives. We're doing this because that's what we know we have to do to make this project work. We can't create a -- I mean, the whole idea that this little strip would be luxury apartments that I could charge exorbitant rates for are ridiculous. You're not -- it would never happen here because the traffic is loud. And you've got, you know, a lot of elements in this area, a lot of commotion and moving. So apartments is about the only thing that will work there. And -- but getting a mix, I mean, one of the things that Page 76 April 1 $, 2002 everybody complains about is we stick affordable housing in a little area, and we're not including them in the rest of the projects. And when I come in front of you with a PUD and you want to know -- and the commissioners want to know where's my affordable house -- housing element, you know, my comment is, well, I can't put it in my project because it doesn't fit my market. Now what we're doing is we're mixing it all in one. MR. STRAIN: Would you be able to stipulate today what percentage would be affordable housing in the county's codes? MS. BISHOP' I -- I can't at this point. My client's not here, but I can at the zoning. I certainly will and have done that before on the record at the zoning, tell you how much will be available and commit to that at -- at that time. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MS. BISHOP: Okay? Any other questions? MR. RICHARDSON' Mr. Chairman? Karen-- MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. MR. RICHARDSON: -- I'm very enthused about this project, unlike some projects. MS. BISHOP: That I bring forth. Well, thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: No. I'm enthused because I see this as picking up on the community character plan, and so it's really neat ideas that are there that are difficult to -- very easy to want to have but very difficult to see where they're going to work. We're obviously going to have to deal with density issues down the line here. But I think it's great. And I wish you well on this. My single comment is that I would like to see you push for more interconnection, particularly Emerald Lakes. I suspect they won't want this. But in the spirit of trying to keep traffic off of the arterials, there is a vacant lot that's shown on your aerials, at least, up at the northwest end of this -- of your project that looks like it could Page 77 April 18, 2002 be used to provide -- I know you've got pedestrian and bike access, but I would like to see a full access there, if possible. MS. BISHOP: What I -- just so you know, one of the -- I'm a huge advocate for interconnecting and pedestrian pathways. I've been in front of you guys before, and -- and I require my clients to do this as a part of the deal because it makes sense from a traffic standpoint. Unfortunately, when you have projects existing around you, you can't force these people. Now, I've written letters -- and, actually, there's not a vacant lot to the north of me. The project to the north of me is the Marriott. MR. RICHARDSON: No, not north, on the northwest side of your -- there's a vacant lot right where it curves. It shows on the map. MS. BISHOP: Oh, inside Emerald Lakes. Oh. Let -- but let me explain something to you -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Must be the northeast. MS. BISHOP: I, you know, didfft have to meet with any of the neighbors as a part of the project. I did -- I did on my own. We -- we -- we met with all of the neighbors. And what you're talking about, that little piece, I went to them. I wanted to -- notice that their roadway is directly beside my property line. MR. RICHARDSON: Right. MS. BISHOP: I wanted to interconnect their roadway to my project. That's what I asked them to do. When I talked to the management company, the man told me a little story about how he had gone in there and did a plan and a design for a pathway, a pedestrian pathway, to connect to the library and said he almost got fired. So when I met with the Emerald Lakes people, they said clearly do not even consider messing with us, no interconnect, no nothing. We want to see pretty architecture along our side, which we have Page 78 April 1 $, 2002 two-faced buildings, so that would be there. But they said in no uncertain terms. Now, I'd be glad to ask them again. Now, what I did ask them, because they also have the easement of that roadway that their entrance goes all the way to Airport, I asked them if they would have a problem of us trying to get the Marriott to connect, because if I can get the Marriott to interconnect, then, in theory the Emerald Lakes people can connect through the Marriott, connect through me to get to the library. At the same time if I can interconnect, I can go through the Marriott across their entrance into the commercial. That's what we're trying to do, but I can't make them do this. So -- MR. RICHARDSON: No. I'm just encouraging. MS. BISHOP: And -- and just so you know, we asked them. We wanted to do that. We still want to try something. Plan B -- since I couldn't get them to agree to let me connect to their -- to their roadway, plan B was using that entrance along that access. And I told them that I would go to Marriott and try to get them to interconnect. They thought that was a great idea. But that's the best I could do with them, because they're in no mood -- I can assure you they're in no mood to have me interconnect with them. They've had some other difficulties that I don't think-- they didn't even want the Eckerds, which is on that comer, to interconnect with them, which, you know, I thought was kind of odd. But, you know, I don't live there. It's not my place, so I can just do my best, which is encourage it, but I can't make them. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You're talking always about a roadway, are you not? MS. BISHOP: Well-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What about pedestrian? MS. BISHOP: Well, the pedestrian is already going to interconnect. There's already a main drag along Airport. We'll have Page 79 April 18, 2002 the interconnects. All in between our project we'll all be pedestrian- oriented, campus-type stuff. You'll see little areas for people to hang out in and then the interconnect with the library. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No. I mean, is Emerald Lakes willing to interconnect pedestrian-wise? MS. BISHOP: No, sir. They wouldn't even connect to the library pedestrian-wise. So the issue here is, you know, which, you know, I stand before you saying -- knowing that people are probably going to be annoyed with me. But interconnecting is important. Pedestrian, at the absolute minimum, if you can't connect, you know, through -- through vehicles, I mean, we've done that in other areas. Pebblebrooke is one that worked with Indigo Lakes, Ibis Cove, Laurel Lakes to create an interconnect through all those projects, pedestrians, for the kids in that area go to all the schools without actually having to go out onto Immokalee Road. Now, we all did that independently. We didn't -- we weren't forced to do it. We weren't mandated to do it. We all got together and worked it out, my client being the one who directed me to head it. We went out and made this happen. But unfortunately, some of these areas just don't want to -- there's a perception that if you let people walk through your neighborhood, then you're bringing your property values down or perhaps they're going to steal or vandalize or something. And on this busy access road -- and, of course, I'm having a rental complex. There's -- even though, you know, I lived in rentals a long time before I can afford a house here, there's a perception that maybe rental people are of a different caliber, I think, than people-owned homes, which I think is wrong, but that's -- unfortunately, that's why you see affordable housing getting nailed by the neighbors every time one comes into a place. And as a person who has lived in affordable Page 80 April 18, 2002 housing for most of my life here in Collier, I haven't understood it, but I still see it happening. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Anything else? MS. BISHOP: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any speakers on this item? Amy, do you want to tell us something? MS. TAYLOR: Just a general comment in terms of staffs analysis and compatibility with us at the time of transmittal, there are -- this was considered by staff as a real good opportunity to demonstrate how mixed -- urban mixed-use projects can work, not only in terms of the design features that are -- that are written in the language and the assurances in the language, but, also, this segment of Airport Road has quite a few examples, to one degree or another, of mixed-use development or high -- high density residential. The Marriott, of course, being 5.14 acres has the density of roughly 22 acres, so it is a higher density residential, just in its nature of being a - - a-- a care facility. There is also the Orange Blossom, which is in mixed use. There are several with mixed-use office and residential mixed-use office residential and -- and retail in the area. So it -- within this half- mile segment of Airport Road, there's many such opportunity. It might shape up in the future as a -- a premiere location and showcase for how mixed-use development can occur in Collier County. I'm hoping that that happens. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman -- I'm sorry, Mr. chairman. I took the opportunity, based upon Commissioner Strain's comments about his concerns with respect to -- to density, to consider a modification to the text. I've discussed it briefly now with the applicant, and I'm not sure if you're interested in -- in hearing anything like that at this Page 81 April 18, 2002 point in time, but I believe that the intention would be to limit the additional number of 15 units per acre to multifamily. And if that's something that you'd like to have me discuss the specifics of, I'd be happy to do so. MR. STRAIN: I'd like to hear it, if you've done the research. MR. WHITE: Well, based upon the testimony you've heard from the -- from the applicant with respect to their intended development, I believe that on page 4 of the staff report under one eight eleven, the small letter e is where the provision regarding maximum dwelling units is located. It presently reads (as read): "Residential development will be subject to a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre for the total project." I'm proposing to add after the word "development," so it would read: "Residential development," insert "for multifamily units will be subject to a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre for the total project." And then further amending on page 6, just above capital letter B, there's a provision regarding the density rating system under Roman numeral 4. The proposed newly added underlined text at the end of that section I'm proposing to modify after the comma -- I'm sorry -- before that. It -- it presently reads, (as read): "The Buckley mixed-use subdistrict is not subject to the density rating system but is subject to the densities established by the subdistrict," proposing to strike the word "not" in -- in the first phrase. So it would read: "The Buckley mixed-use subdistrict is subject to the density rating system," striking the words, "but is subject to," replacing it with, "except for." So it would read, comma, "except for the densities established by this subdistrict" and add the words "for multi-family dwelling units." I believe the effect of that amendment to the text would be to otherwise have the density rating system apply other than for multifamily units. And if the intention is to have multifamily units, Page 82 April 18, 2002 they would be allowed to go up to the density of 15, but any other residential dwelling units would not. They'd have to follow the density rating system. MR. STRAIN: So they'd be penalized for going to affordable housing? MR. WHITE: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Karen, are you on board for that? MR. STRAIN: Pat, if affordable housing will get them up to 11 units per acre and that does meet the density but they could still do 15 if they want affordable or a portion of affordable, is that what we're trying to say? MR. WHITE: They can do affordable either way. They're going to have for multifamily 15-DU. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So then the -- okay. Then that affordable part of the current LDC doesn't really apply to this. MR. WHITE: It-- it could. They still could come in and be subject to an affordable housing density bonus agreement. They just wouldn't need it in order to construct multifamily. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MS. BISHOP' And I think-- remember, residential could mean single family. Now, the problem what he's suggesting is that single family at 15 units an acre, but, you know, you couldn't get 15 units an acre. Single family at 4 units to the acre maximum of 50-foot lots for single family. So I think he's just clarifying that -- that if I came in here and decided to do single family that I would not be allowed this level, even though physically I couldn't fit it on anyway at that level. So it's fine with me. It's just a clarification. It really doesn't affect what I'm doing at all. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. BISHOP: Okay? Page 83 April 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any further discussion on sub 2 at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's move along to sub 3. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, Petition CP-2001-3 is -- woops. I'll get the map up for you, Commissioners. MR. WHITE' While Mr. Weeks is doing that, Mr. Chairman, I want to further his remarks previously about the advertising with respect to the glitch in the staff report went out to the agendas as well for today's meeting correctly state what the facts are with respect to this particular amendment. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY' Okay. MR. WEEKS' This -- this project is located at the northwest comer of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road. What's proposed here for this project, which is about 10 1/2 acres, is to add it to the existing Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial in-fill subdistrict so that they will be allowed to develop with the commercial uses that are allowed presently within that subdistrict. This site is impacted substantially by an FPL easement that runs over the western portion of it, and also a portion of this site has already been taken by the county for future right-of-way -- excuse me, for right-of-way of the future Livingston Road. One change that has occurred since you saw it last was based on the county commission's action. The present Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial in-fill subdistrict allows for office and retail uses. The county commission's action on this was to limit the site to this particular site, this -- this 2 1/2 acres, to general and medical office uses only. And, further, they reduced the square footage for this area, the building square footage, from 60,000 down to 40,000 square feet. Other than that, it is as you previous saw it and recommended for Page 84 April 18, 2002 approval. MR. BUDD' Any questions of staff?. (No response.) MR. BUDD: There are none. MR. WEEKS: Next is -- MR. BUDD: Mr. Kepple? MR. KEPPLE: For the record, Terrance Kepple representing the property owner for this. If I may make a couple comments ... Basically what David -- David said was correct. The county commission did limit their rec -- their submittal to DCA to office and medical uses. We would like the opportunity to discuss that with him a little further and see if we can't get some limited commercial uses up to maybe a C-2 district approved at the -- at the original submittal. We were talking C-3, C-4 types of uses, and I believe the commissioners were concerned with intensity of uses and-- and higher-type commercial uses. I have -- was not able at that time to get exact information as to what they were looking for, but the best that we can tell is that they were looking to -- to limit the intensity of the use, which we have no problem with. We would like the opportunity to -- to discuss maybe limiting it to the C-2 uses, general commercial office medical up to C -- C-2 uses. That's the only comment I'd like to make at this time. MR. BUDD: Okay. Any questions of the petitioner? (No response.) MR. BUDD: And Mr. Abemathy has returned. He's back in the chair. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any member of the public wish to address this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. We'll move along to 01-4. Page 85 April 1 $, 2002 MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, this property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, State Road 951, and also south of U.S. 41 east. This -- this is a proposal to create the Henderson Creek mixed-use subdistrict. The subject property is about 83 acres, and this would allow for regional commercial uses primarily, as well as affordable housing dwelling units. And as Mr. -- Commissioner Strain had asked questions earlier in this hearing about -- this is the site for which a rezone petition was recently approved by the county commission for the eastern portion of the property that's before you for an affordable housing PUD. Now, this -- the -- the site presently is allowed to have an affordable housing project simply based upon the existing density rating system. That's how that project was able to come in and be approved before this comprehensive plan amendment ever came before you. The -- the actual change that occurs as a result of this comprehensive plan amendment is the establishment of commercial uses and the various development standards, including requirement for a loop road to connect Collier Boulevard with U.S. 41 East. The Department of Community of Affairs had no particular comment or objections about this petition, and it's back before you the same as you saw it previously. MR. STRAIN: David, since the PUD that was previously approved committed to 360 units, not 500, would there be a problem with changing this to that, 360? MR. WEEKS: Staff would have no objection. MR. STRAIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions for staff?. MR. STRAIN: Oh, I'm probably going to have a few here. I'm trying to find them right now. Staffs report -- by the way, I had this same confusion with the report. There was some pieces out of order. That's why it's hard to Page 86 April 18, 2002 find some of these. In the staff report on page 8, 12 -- Item No. 12 says (as read): "The entire subdistrict shall be developed under a unified plan. This unified plan is encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development." First of all, I was wondering instead of encouragect, could we substitute the word "shall"? Second of all, I'd like to find out the definition of what a planned unit development plan -- unified plan is from our county attorney, because the applicant's already put through a piece of this project, and I'm wondering how it's going to be unified if a piece is already through, and should that piece have been put through? MR. WHITE: With respect to the prior rezoning, Commissioner? MR. STRAIN: Well, the GMP that's coming through now says that the entire areas that encompass the previous approved PUD will be done under a unified plan. Does that require a submittal all as one piece, or can it be piecemeal submittal like it has been? MR. WHITE: Since that -- since this provision is not in effect, it wouldn't preclude what's already occurred. That was done as a, quote, unified plan of development under that PUD. Once this regulation comes in effect, any subsequent rezoning would have to be done in compliance with this then-adopted provision. Does that answer your question? MR. STRAIN: Yes, it does. And as far as substituting the word "shall" instead of encouraged, so that we are assured that this would be a unified plan, is that any problem from your perspective if the applicant has no problem? MR. WHITE: Other than I'm a personal proponent of using words other than "shall" to indicate intent. "Shall," in my opinion, has at least two meanings. Page 87 April 18, 2002 MR. STRAIN: Well, pick a good word then. MR. WHITE: Must. MR. STRAIN: Must. Okay. That's fine. I like that. I had previously asked the applicant or mentioned to the applicant that I was concerned about the broad C-4 statement used here, and he assured me that -- or the applicant's representative, not the applicant - - if he was the applicant, he would probably be retired. He assured me that we could discuss the zoning on an item-by-item basis on the C-4 prior to the next meeting, and I think that would suffice, say, an hour's worth of discussion today. So I'll defer that until a future date. And I think that's the only comments I had at this time. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich representing the applicant. We obviously can agree to the word-- using the word "must" for the PUD, reducing the maximum dwelling units to the C -- 360 that have already been approved by the Board of County Commissioners as that was always the intent. Also, just to clarify the record, the PUD that's in effect only allows two-story buildings, so we would revise our limitation on three down to two to make it consistent. But, yes, this is always -- as we came through the last time with the Phase 1 of the project being the affordable housing, this has always been the intent, always has been, once the Growth Management Plan was adopted, to come through with a unified PUD, including both the affordable housing and the commercial in one PUD application, which will hopefully occur soon, and we will make sure that we go through all of the uses in the C-4 category and take out those things that we really have no intention of doing before we submit the application. MR. STRAIN: I remind you of your eloquent speech two weeks ago in which you argued that this board ought to be looking at the intent and purpose of the provisions of the code in making their Page 88 April 18, 2002 decisions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. MR. STRAIN: Hopefully when your new submittal comes through, that will be considered as well. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to put a very broad purpose and intent into the PUD application ordinance to give us both some flexibility. And I did want to point out that I was impressed by Karen being able to speak for that long, and I didn't see her breathe once. MR. STRAIN: I'm sure the court reporter appreciated that too. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, cats can purr on the inhale and the exhale, so maybe there's some parallel there. Females. MR. ADELSTEIN: I get you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I noticed that two meanings of the word "shall" sort of rippled through the audience a little bit at a time as people picked up on that. Any member of the public want to speak on 1-47 MR. SCHMITT: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No -- all right. We'll move to 1- J MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, Petition CP-2001-5 is a county commission directed amendment. It is not one of the private amendments in your package. This is to establish the research and technology park subdistrict that will be applicable in the urban area. Also, on a side note, the Rural Fringe Growth Management Plan amendments, of which you had discussed fairly recently, contains a provision for rural villages, a mixed-use development. And those also provide for these -- for this research and technology park subdistrict. So primarily it will be limited to the urban designated area. This is the only one of the five amendments transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs on which they had specific Page 89 April 18, 2002 comments, and those are -- are noted within your-- your staff report. And, also, you'll notice that staff has responded to each of those comments that were made with -- by the Department of Community Affairs. And we have also made some language changes partly in response to DCA's comments. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Are the bold letters -- are those response -- responses to the DCA? MR. WEEKS: Some of both. Some of those reflect responses to DCA. Some do not. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, all DCA responses are bold? MR. WEEKS' Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And then there's some other things that you've added? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And in some cases there was not a language change in response to DCA. We simply remarked in the staff report. For example, they made a comment about affordable housing saying you -- this provision does not indicate what the -- the amount of affordable housing units, the increase to those might result in. And our response basically is we don't know until we come in -- each project comes in for review as to whether or not there will be any increase or not. That remains to be seen. But we do acknowledge that the affordable housing bonus is something that exists in the Growth Management Plan today. So with or without this amendment, those types of projects can come forward. And I think Amy, as she's much more versed in this petition, might want to respond further. MS. TAYLOR: Amy Taylor for the record, comprehensive planning section. There were a combination of changes based on DCA comment, Page 90 April 18, 2002 working with the Economic Development Council, and also some just clarifying language and grammatical changes that are pretty obvious when you go in and look through the bolded text and the -- that's underlined and crossed through. Essentially the Economic Development Council has been the one that's initiated this amendment and has worked closely with staff. And they continue to work closely with staff after transmittal. And they had various concerns about what was transmitted to DCA and how they -- they wished that staff would address that. One of their concerns was the 35 acres which was a minimum requirement. They had felt that this would have limited the number of sites available within the urban area. According to an industrial study that the staff did that -- that would have been roughly agricultural parcels, 35 acres or more, would have been around 54. And this was as of two -- 2000, 54 parcels that would be eligible. This -- lowering it to a 20 minimum -- minimum allowed for potentially a number of more sites that would be eligible. In response to that, staff also wanted to consider the economic viability of a site that's as small as 20 acres with it being a research and technology park. And what we did is we changed the language so that there wouldn't be a requirement for low structural density so that smaller parcels, in-fill parcels, could be well integrated and have a -- higher intense uses on them and, also, allow for what will -- what will be part of the Land Development Code in terms of their site development requirements, water retention and so forth, so that a smaller 20-acre piece would be economically viable. It is -- it is really, if you -- when reading the language carefully, probably the first look, it looks like there's a lot of requirement in there. But there's built in a lot of flexibility for the opportunity for location of research and technology parks. There are some criteria or requirement for affordable housing Page 91 April 18, 2002 which has been a goal of the county's, and it's included in here, particularly when and -- and is absolutely required when the property is located next to residential. It allows for up to 40 percent affordable housing. And that's one of the things that the EDC had been concerned about, that we had this requirement. But staff felt that it was important that it remain there. But, again, it is -- it is a flexible requirement in that it -- it can be -- there's no men -- there's no minimum. There's only a maximum. If-- if the commission has any questions, I'm -- I'm available. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Richardson. MR. RICHARDSON: Have you found some interest in this concept amongst development community? MS. TAYLOR: Yes, I have. I've had a number of calls. MR. RICHARDSON: We can kind of view it as a floating district, then, that will fit into these various criteria, and so it could pop up most anywhere. MS. TAYLOR: It could pop up. MR. STRAIN: Amy, is there some language that we -- affordable -- work-force housing, wherever it seems to go, seems to have a problem with the immediate neighborhoods? The way this is written, it could go next to any neighborhood in the county. MS. TAYLOR: Uh-huh. MR. STRAIN: And a lot of those neighborhoods may not like affordable housing because of its density and its impact on the systems and the infrastructure. Is there some way we could word something in this that requires the affordable housing that they take into consideration the adjoining densities and if there is a residential component near it and that that somehow is a factor in the density rating that they receive, because just to arbitrarily allow a -- a half-acre home on a Page 92 April 18, 2002 subdivision, say, along 951 or in Golden Gate where you have a lot of big lots, to drop a affordable housing project in there because it's part of this park, have it right next to homes on that are on huge lots, there's going to be a public outcry? Looking ahead and trying to avoid that, is there something we can do now that would avoid that or help avoid it in the future? MS. TAYLOR: There's two things. And one in particular is addressed in the language as it is now. We did -- we did at one point require it to the -- the -- the residential component be adjacent to the residential, the existing residential that was next door. MR. STRAIN: Right. MS. TAYLOR: We changed the language to say encourage because we recognize through our discussions with EDC -- and, of course, historically these problems that you mention that landscape buffering would probably be more -- more suitable, you know, the park areas, the water retention areas, next to the adjoining residential might be more appropriate. Even office buildings might be more acceptable in some cases if designed appropriately than residential. It also, then, allows for some flexibility on site where the residential component can be integrated into some of the -- the buildings and mixed-use buildings like office or retail. The -- the other issue is -- is, if we're going to encourage more work-force housing, what we'd essentially be doing in this case by matching what's next door is that we would be limiting the number of units that the property owner would be able to provide, thereby limiting the number of affordable units we'd be providing to the community. So that would be a concern. MR. STRAIN: I was hoping we would have more of a transition. To go from 2 units per acre to 11 units per acre is a considerable jump. A lot of times the public outcry is more from that perception than anything else. And if we think of that ahead of time, Page 93 April 18, 2002 maybe we could avoid that. I was hoping maybe somewhere that could happen. But it leads to my next comment. The last item that you have in your list of criteria is research and technology parks are encouraged to utilize PUD zoning. If they were required to utilize PUD zoning, then through the public notice process and the planning process, we might help regulate that a little bit better so that it is positioned more clearly. Do you have any objection if we change the word "encourage" to "must"? MS. TAYLOR: I don't but I -- I've understood that we are not permitted to say "must" legally. Is that -- MR. RICHARDSON: We should say "shall" instead; right? MR. WHITE: I must confess that there -- there is no legal prohibition in Collier County or anywhere else in English-speaking countries that I'm aware of against the word "must." I'm a firm believer that it's more precise and generally more accurate than in the term "shall" which can mean a future event and may oftentimes mean "will" instead. So I -- I'm an advocate certainly of must and don't believe it's unlawful or less precise. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mark, it occurs to me, the other side of the coin, if you try to do what you're suggesting, you're inviting criticism on the -- on the basis of it's somewhat elitist. If you can't build affordable housing next to PUDs that have large lots, then you're right back into the East Naples argument. MR. STRAIN' Well, no, there's no large lots around the East Naples --. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, that's where they would end up having to go then. MR. STRAIN' I'm just looking at a transition. Like our -- like our commercial zoning, we transition from C-1 down to industrial in areas which at least we try to. It would be nice if we could transition an intensity of multifamily uses or even single-family uses when we - Page 94 April 18, 2002 - when that's available. But if-- the best way to do that, though, might be to accomplish it through the PUD process, and if we just substitute the word "must" instead of"encouraged" in that one line, at least that will get it into the public notice, and everybody -- all the neighbors and everybody will know what's going on so they can have an open discussion about it. And that may massage it enough to get it to an acceptable point. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think Amy's solution is probably -- well, I don't mind making it "must," but putting the research office buildings next to residential to me bypasses this problem of we're not going to build affordable housing next to large lots. MS. TAYLOR: Yeah. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That just doesn't come down right. MS. TAYLOR: I mean, they're built into this language. They are asking for specific design issues. But built in is this flexibility so that the property owner can then respond to neighborhood concerns, if it so happens that they -- they do want to locate near residential. MR. ADELSTEIN: I think that flexibility is a good idea, but I also think the word "must" should be put in there also. MS. TAYLOR: As far as a PUD ? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. MS. TAYLOR: Okay. MR. STRAIN: That's all I had. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any member of the public wish to speak on this? MR. SCHMITT: We have three registered speakers on this subject. The first speaker, Jim Goldie. MR. GOLDIE: I-- I defer. MR. PRITT: Robert Pritt. Page 95 April 18, 2002 MR. SCHMITT: Robert Pritt. MR. PRITT: I would like to pass something out. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Robert Pritt with the law firm of Roetzel & Andress. I'm here on behalf of Jim Goldie, one of the owners of a particular parcel that they would like to have be a candidate for the research park area. They have one minor problem, and -- and that is that their parcel does not quite make the 20-acre minimum that is in the plan. I heard a lot of talk this morning on -- there is matters concerning flexibility. And since you-all know that the planning process, when you're doing your plan as opposed to your land development regulations, you're doing something that, by its very nature, is very difficult to change, we would ask that we build in a little bit of flexibility on the minimum lot size in the plan itself. In other words, since the plan cannot be amended very easily -- it has to go through this process -- you can write flexible language into the plan itself. And in this particular case, we would ask that you would consider amending, making a small amendment to, subsection F of this district where it says research and technology parks must be a minimum of 35 acres in size, change that to say 18 acres. I was going to say 17 1/2, which was right in the middle, but I didn't think you'd want to have anything that would be a half acre in size difference. I do have a rationale for that that I put up and put into the memo. And it's just very simply, some of the research and technology industries are smaller. The -- there is a lot of interest in these -- in this aspect and trying to get this type of development in, and it's not just an interest that is a county interest. It is an interest that is in the public also, in-- in the business public, real estate business and so on. And so we really like the idea of making the -- the numbers smaller. We like the idea of it going down to 20, but we Page 96 April 18, 2002 would ask that there at least could be a way to have it either be flexible, either make it 18 acres, or as you can see, the alternate recommendation -- and I also have that in -- I'm not sure. Is there a way of moving this back? It says please do not touch. Please do not touch staff. Essentially it says the alternate recommendation would be that if you want to keep that at 20, at least build in the flexibility that would say restriction technology parks must be a minimum of 20 acres in size, and then put in an exception, except that appropriate land development regulations may provide for a deviation or variance from the minimum acreage, not to exceed 2 acres, providing the purpose and intent of the subdistrict are otherwise met. And that way, again, since this is a planning document, that gives some flexibility but with some limitation on flexibility for the project that you see in a place that you see that you would really like to approve and maybe you, the county, would -- would like to approve something like this, and this -- but you can't do it because -- and they're not going to even bring it to you because they can't meet that size requirement. So -- and I noticed that in looking at the other subdistricts; I kind of skimmed through them. But looking at - - I think there are other -- ten other subdistricts. I think only the business park subdistrict has that minimum acreage requirement. I could stand corrected because I was kind of skimming through it. Most of the other ones have a reference to how many acres are in the district, 18,000 acres, and-- and things like that, but I don't think that you normally have a minimum put in there. These are more like -- to me, some of these requirements are more like land development regulations, and that's not what you're about here today. You might be -- you would be required to be about (sic) land development regulations within one year after implementing these. But I think that these are more like land Page 97 April 18, 2002 development regulations. And I can't help but comment on the shall, must, will, and cat matters. I really wish I could remember the name of the famous author that had two cats. He named them Shall and Will because he couldn't tell the difference between them. And that's the fact that I can't remember the name of the author. In the plan -- again, remember in the plan, you are required to have certain standards by state statute. You-all know that. Chapter 163 requires you to have density and development intensity standards actually in your plan. But it does not require you to have a lot of these other rules and regulations that may pertain to development standards in the plan itself, and to the extent possible, if you can have those moved to the Land Development Code, except for those that you feel absolutely must, pardon the quote, stay in the plan, we would appreciate your consideration in doing that. And I'll be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Goldie's here. He could -- if you had any questions, he could respond to them. Or if you wish us to speak-- also Robert Duane of Hole, Montes is here on -- on his behalf also. MR. STRAIN: Could you tell me where your client's property is? MR. GOLDIE: I'll be glad to. We're in north -- sorry. My name is Jim Goldie, like Goldie Hawn, G-o-l-d-i-e. Our property -- you know, we -- as Mr. Pritt says, the 20 acres, our property is 19.26 acres. And it's located in North Naples. We're the last property in Collier County. We operate a golf driving range and so forth, and we are currently a PUD with commercial on the front and multifamily in the back. We're surrounded -- across the road there's a body shop; there's a lumberyard; there's Rail Head. Immediately north of us Spanish Wells has their construction road. Immediately south of us there's a-- conditional use. They have three Page 98 April 18, 2002 little warehouses. And we've been contacted by the economic development people. We've been working currently with two plants that want to -- in fact, we're working up figures for them what it would cost. Interestingly enough, I suppose, one plant is local now. They're looking for about a 40,000-square-foot building. They have 40 employees, and they're quite interested in moving there. Another plant is from Michigan, and this came to us from the economic development people. We have submitted a nonbinding letter of intent, and we're looking into industrial bonds, and they are and so forth. But they want to move to Naples. They like our location. MR. STRAIN: I was just trying to get an idea of where you were --. MR. GOLDIE: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: -- trying to do this just so it could fit the understanding of what you're asking for. But my question, though, sir, is why wouldn't you just change your PUD? I mean, that's just -- out of what you just said, wouldn't it be simpler just to do that? MR. GOLDIE: Well, in all --. MR. STRAIN: Than us change the whole document? MR. GOLDIE' I can't answer that. I'd have to defer to Bob, Mr. Duane, who's been our engineer on it. Mr. Pritt's been our attorney. I-- I would defer to them. MR. STRAIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, this provision is not site specific, so I don't know we need to litigate Mr. Goldie's problem today. MR. GOLDIE: Thank you. MR. STRAIN: My only question was, if we're considering changing from 20 down to something to accommodate Mr. Goldie, Page 99 April 18, 2002 we -- he may not need to be accommodated if he's got a simpler solution. Then this whole issue wouldn't even have to be addressed. That's my -- I thought it would be a real simple -- to receive. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It seems to me we would need hear from Amy as to why there's a minimum at all. MS. TAYLOR: As I stated before, it was -- it had been 35 acres. When we had worked with the Economic Development Council, they had wanted to see whether we could consider reducing that to make other properties eligible within the urban area. In considering that 20-area mini -- minimum, we were looking at the economic viability of any particular -- any particular site that had to have the appropriate site improvements in and also multiple uses that would be inherent in a research and technology park. A minimum needed to be set at 20 acres to accommodate all of this. And you can -- you can see within the language there are 20 percent of-- or 60 percent minimum of-- of the target industry uses. There's allowed a 20 percent of-- of support commercial. There's also an ability to provide residential. If you get any smaller than 20 acres -- and I understand where he's coming from. He sits so close. But if you get any smaller than 20 acres, you're not going to really be able to provide a product that's really going to be a research and technology park, inherently a research and technology park, and function as one. There's always going to be an issue where, well, my property is 17.2 if we lower it to 18. Also, in the way the language is written that he has submitted to you, as -- as the Land Development Code would -- would be written, consistent with the provisions in the Growth Management Plan, we would already want everyone, whether it's 20 acres or 35 acres or 200 acres, to comply with the intent of the Growth Management Plan language fully, not just if they are -- it's not really an incentive that is inherent in -- in the requirement built Page 100 April 18, 2002 into the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code that they would be held to those standards. MR. STRAIN: Amy, would there be any problem from a planning viewpoint if this applicant simply went and rezoned his PUD to research and technology and went through the process that way? Could he do that? MS. TAYLOR: If his property is 19.26 acres, there would not be a -- a mechanism for him to get a variance because it -- you know, it is written in the -- in the Growth Management Plan as 20 acres. MR. STRAIN: Could he then be very site specific and say he wants on that property to put a facility that does X and then rezone it in that manner? MS. TAYLOR: He would have to go through a Growth Management Plan amendment to do that. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MS. TAYLOR: He could also -- and there may be possibilities where there are properties that are 15 or 12, but they may combine properties if there's opportunities, neighboring properties and so forth and where this might provide an incentive not to go in with those smaller pieces that it would be questionable as to whether they would work and function but that they would have it be incentivised to maybe combine some -- some properties to get the eligible acreage. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: Amy, I'm just persuaded that -- I support your argument for the minimum size, but I'm persuaded that we almost have a bird in hand here, and I'd like not to let that one get away. And if 18 would capture this bird, I think we ought to try 18. For the most part, they're going to be larger anyway. MS. TAYLOR: Yeah. And that's really for the Planning Commission and the board to decide, whether that-- whether they believe that 18 or 20 would be -- should be the minimum. Page 101 April 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I don't have a rational basis to decide that. You say that all of the requirements can't be met in less than 20. But I suspect Bob Duane would get up and say they can. So I don't know where we go from here. MR. STRAIN: Well, if he's got 19.62, compromise 19. I mean, that's the way to look at it if we want to consider that. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I don't want to lose this one. That's all. MR. STRAIN: Well, you wouldn't under that condition. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. MR. GOLDIE: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: We have one other speaker, Richard Woodruff. MR. WOODRUFF: For the record, Richard Woodruff, planning director for Wilson, Miller. On behalf of EDC, I speak this morning. And we want to thank the county staff, the Board of County Commissioners, and the Planning Commission for their support for this proposal. The modifications that DCA and the staff have before you today are certainly in keeping with the intent of what the EDC is trying to accomplish. I'll be happy to answer further questions. MR. RICHARDSON: Would you like 19 acres? MR. WOODRUFF: The -- if I may say it this way, our goal is economic diversity and research and technology. If, in your opinion, 19 acres helps accomplish that versus 20, then I would suggest that we go in that direction. I think that there is logic -- you know, numbers do have a basis. In our system we start with a section of land being 640 acres. And as you subdivide that, 19 is not a normal subdivision. If, however, this gentleman has 19 acres and he is able to help Page 102 April 18, 2002 the EDC and the community reach its goals, then we certainly would be supportive. MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. WHITE: I believe, Mr. Chairman, there was only one other minor modification that was going to be proposed to the text, to delete a short phrase, in small letter i. It's in the bold text, and it will eliminate a future conflict with the definitions in the LDC. The words, I believe, that it's appropriate to delete are in the sentence that begins, "direct principal access is defined as," proposing to delete the words, "a driveway and/or," so that it will read, "is defined as local roadway connection. Driveways are a defined term in the LDC that relates to three or more residential." CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So "a driveway and/or" is deleted? MR. WHITE: Correct. I believe staff supports that. MS. TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Any public speakers on this -- any further public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, Mr. Weeks, do you want us to do 1 through 5 or proceed with 6 and 7? MR. WEEKS: Proceed with 6 and 7, please. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Proceed with 6, then. MR. WEEKS: And, again, David Weeks for the -- for the record. This is, again, one of the two comprehensive plan amendments that were submitted after the cycle had already begun after DCA already begun-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let me interrupt you just a second since this is sort of a stopping point. Another member of the Planning Commission has indicated an inability to be here on next Wednesday the 24th at 5:05. Can I have a show of hands of those Page 103 April 18, 2002 members who will be here next Wednesday night at 5:05 to make sure we have 5? Two, three --just barely so -- MS. YOUNG: Wow. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We're all on the hook. Those of us who raised their hands, going to be here. MR. SCHMITT: And we hope no one gets hit by a truck between now and then. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Don't even mention that. MR. SCHMITT: Not a nice thing to say, but we need to get on with the LDC amendment. MR. RICHARDSON: Or a falling flag pole. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Oh. Go ahead, David. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. The subject site is located on the -- on the west side of future Livingston Road about a quarter mile south of Pine Ridge Road. The total site is about 12 1/2 acres. However, approximately 60 percent of it is encumbered by an FPL easement. What is being requested is to establish the Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane commercial in-fill subdistrict that would allow for professional and medical offices and indoor self-storage facilities. And then there are specific limitations, 91,000 square foot maximum of the office uses or 200,000 square feet of indoor self storage and then with a variability ratio so that the more storage you build the less office that you'd be allowed -- I think I said that correctly, but there's a variability so that you do not get both total square footages as the balance and at a maximum height of 50 feet on the site. The -- the short of this is that staff's analysis is that, No. 1, that we believe that they're -- that the site constraints on this property make it very difficult to be developed under the existing future land- use designation, which would allow for residential development at about 4 units per acre and would allow for some community facility Page 104 April 18, 2002 uses and recreational uses such as a golf driving range, a childcare center, a church, a governmental offices, etc. We believe that the encumbrances on the property, both the FPL easement, the actual dimensions of the property, the long, narrow strip, and its frontage on a major roadway, is enough to support this request. And, also, they have submitted a market analysis actually for the project to the south. But it is of a generic nature for this whole area that it could be applied to this property as well, and that demonstrates that there is some need for commercial uses. In short, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I have a question. Item H has been continued because of some requirements that transportation put on it. It would seem that, first blush, those same requirements might be applied to this one. Is that not correct? I don't know what the transportation requirements are. MR. WEEKS: I don't know either. I certainly can tell you these are in two very different portions of the county. Item H is down by 1-75 and Davis Boulevard, 951 -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. RICHARDSON: And that's a PUD rather than a Petition CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'm sorry. Okay. I notice that access is not going to be allowed onto Livingston Road; is that right? MR. WEEKS: I'll find that language, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: On page 2 of your staff-- staff report. MR. WEEKS: It's -- it's a possibility. The way the language reads is that additional access in the form of a right-in right-out onto Livingston Road may be allowed where compliance can be established with the Collier County access management standards. Page 105 April 18, 2002 So it's yet to be demonstrated as to whether or not they will, in fact, get an access to Livingston or not. This property is located, also, on the north side of Eatonwood Lane, and that's where their -- their -- their primary access would be from. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I see where Item -- Item F is -- is a similar piece of property, isn't it? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. It is. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's what I was talking about. MR. SCHMITT: E and F are almost -- almost adjoining. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. SCHMITT: Almost. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, it seems to me if Livingston Road is going to fulfill its function as one of our three north-south arterial roads or whatever the proper label is that we can't have every little commercial development having access to it. MR. RICHARDSON: Here, here. MS. YOUNG: Here, here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's a wonderful -- the part that's done from Golden Gate to Radio is a wonderful stretch of road, and if we're not watching it, it will turn into another Highway 41. So I -- I, frankly, would -- would not care what any further studies show. I would absolutely restrict it, access from Eatonwood Lane. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. Bob Duane also worked on this petition. Unless you have any real specific questions regarding the petition -- I do want to point out that this was -- the reason the property became basically un -- undevelopable was a result of the take for Livingston Road, and we reached a -- a settlement agreement to where we would come and go through this petition process to prove that the -- the requested uses Page 106 April 18, 2002 we're asking are, in fact, legitimate uses for that site. And I believe staff has come to the conclusion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I agree, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is -- that's how we got here, and that's why we were not in the process at the very beginning. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Very positive staff report, I'd say. MR. STRAIN: Richard-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. STRAIN: -- at this level of input, have you notified the property owners that this is -- that there's a potential change for that property adjacent? I know FPL is right next to it, but then you've got some residential behind that, or does that come at the next stage of development? MR. YOVANOVICH: That will come at the -- that will come at the zoning level. MR. SCHMITT: PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: The PUD, and there are some people who -- similar names and who developed Kensington as to who owns this parcel. MR. STRAIN: Oh, okay. But they're not probably the ones who bought all those individual homes along there. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's a couple homeowners. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: A question for Mr. Weeks: These are unreviewed. Does this suggest they have to go back to DCA, or is this involving DCA? MR. WEEKS: What that means is they were not sent as part of the transmittal package last fall. So DCA has not yet reviewed them. So they are simply going to see them one time only, and they will say yes, these amendments are or are not in compliance with state Page 107 April 18, 2002 statutes. We don't have the opportunity for their preliminary review and comment. MR. RICHARDSON: That's not a requirement then apparently one? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anybody registered for this MR. SCHMITT: No. No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We move on-- MR. SCHMITT: We have one raising their hand. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Bruce, go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, just a procedural point. Since these have not been reviewed by DCA in the first instance as a transmittal item, can you assure us that these set of comprehensive plan amendments that have not been transmitted to DCA have their own separate stand-alone ordinance separate from those that have been reviewed? I would request that so that my clients who did go through the process and-- and had a transmittal hearing don't get hung up if DCA has objections to these amendments that they've never seen before. I would make that request. MR. WEEKS: First of all, no, it's a single ordinance for all seven petitions. Staff doesn't believe that it's necessary to have a separate ordinance. We do have the standard language in the ordinance, the severability clause, that if any portion of an amendment or any one of these amendments is found to be not in compliance, it doesn't throw them all out. It would only be applicable to that -- that particular petition. I do understand Mr. Anderson's concern, but we think we're covered. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If DCA says there's something objectionable, then these fall by their own way. MR. ANDERSON: Is that correct, Mr. White? Page 108 April 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Weeks' view. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'd rather rely on an attorney's opinion. Thank you very much. MR. WHITE: I'm not sure that it's as express as Mr. Weeks as indicated. But certainly we could look to make it more so. MR. WEEKS: If I may read from the ordinance, Mr. Chairman, Section 2, "If any phrase or portion of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portions shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion." MR. STRAIN: That's a court, though; right? MR. ADELSTEIN: But that's a court situation. It has nothing to do with what the -- MR. WHITE: DCA. MR. ADELSTEIN: -- DCA. MR. WHITE: And it's for that reason that I think we could amplify the provisions that more clearly state -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And bring them into it? Bring the DCA--. MR. WHITE: Means by which other provisions could be made severable. MR. YOVANOVICH: And-- and, Mr. Chairman, that was always the intent when we went through the process with the Board of County Commissioners for allowing this petition to come in late. It was never intended that we would somehow jeopardize -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Be a drag on the others. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Any questions of--. MR. ADELSTEIN: It would seem to me, then, that we would need two separate motions. I can't think of any other way to do it. Page 109 April 18, 2002 MR. STRAIN: Well, we're going to need separate motions. I've already -- I'll be taking a different position on most -- on some of these anyway, so we'll get there. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anything further on E at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Let's move to F, Petition CP-21-7, Robert Duane representing Richard Evans. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, this property is -- is just to the south of the preceding property. That is separated by Eatonwood Lane, which is a road that runs into the Kensington Park PUD. And, also, in between the subject site and Eatonwood Lane is the golf maintenance facility for the Kensington Park development. This property is about 6 acres in size. The request is pretty similar to the previous one. It's to allow for professional and medical office uses. It's a smaller site. Therefore, the square footage is less, 52,500 square feet. But the one distinction is that the indoor self-storage facility here is not a freestanding independent use. It is only for the occupants of the office buildings. You could not simply have Joe Citizen or Joe Business out there using that self-storage facility. It is only for the occupants of the office buildings on site. Similarly, it has a maximum height of 50 feet. And, also, similarly, it has a major encumbrance by the FPL easement. Approximately 75 percent of this 6-acre parcel is encumbered leaving about 1 1/2 acres of fully developable property. In both cases, both projects, the preceding one and this one, we do acknowledge that some uses are allowed under the FPL easements, some limited uses, but it's significantly less than if the property were not encumbered. Staff reaches the same conclusion and recommends approval. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What about access to Livingston Page 110 April 18, 2002 Road? MR. WEEKS: This property only abuts one road, and that is Livingston Road. And, therefore, that's where its access will be located. It -- it has no other road frontage. MR. RICHARDSON: It would still be subject to the access management plan for safe and orderly traffic movements? MR. WEEKS' Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: (N o response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY' Questions? Robert? MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, for the record. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Again, this is a settlement and very similar history to the case that you just heard before you. The subject property and after the taking is no longer in our opinion viable for residential use. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Now, what's the pleasure of the commission as to how we proceed? Do you want to go back to No. 1 and work through? MR. STRAIN: I'm -- I'm going to have objections to a couple so-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. How about No. 17 Number 1. MR. STRAIN: I make a motion we approve CP-2001. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. STRAIN: Dash one. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Dash one? Second? Seconded by Mr. Midney. All in favor? Page 111 April 18, 2002 (Unanimous approval.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Unanimous. Number 2, 1-2, do you have-- MR. STRAIN: My motion will be to deny, but I know that it won't carry. So I'll just let someone else -- MR. RICHARDSON: I will move -- move that it be approved. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Oh. Does our approval include reducing that arithmetical error -- MR. STRAIN: Down to one seventy-one three hundred? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: One seventy-one three hundred instead of one seventy-two five. MR. RICHARDSON: Clearly if it's a clerical error, we should correct it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So your motion would include reducing that number to make the bread and molasses come out even; right? MR. RICHARDSON: Right. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Were there any -- was there any other exception that we took to Miss Bishop's --. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, Patrick White had made some recommended changes regarding density. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Oh, that's right. Can you give them to us again, Patrick? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Assuming the motion maker's -- MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. I will certainly be amenable to listening to Mr. White. MR. WHITE: It's in 11-E following the word "development," insert "for multi-family dwelling units," and Roman numeral 4, in Page 112 April 18, 2002 parentheses, the last sentence be modified to read "the Buckley mixed-use subdistrict is subject to the density-rating system, except for the densities established by the subdistrict for multifamily dwelling units." MR. RICHARDSON: That's acceptable. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do I have a second to that? MS. YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Second by Ms. Young. Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? Aye. MR. RICHARDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Aye. MS. YOUNG: Aye. MR. MIDNEY: Aye. MR. FREY: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I could just as a procedural matter go back to -- I believe it's 2001-1. There were some proposed modifications made by the staff, and I'm assuming that the motion was to approve those. MR. STRAIN: That was the intent. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. ADELSTEIN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Having been away, could I have the motion reread? MR. RICHARDSON: For which item? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: For which one? One or two? MR. ADELSTEIN: Did I not -- was not present when the motion was made. Page 113 April 18, 2002 MR. RICHARDSON: Motion for-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Sub 1 or for sub 2? MR. ADELSTEIN: Either one. MR. RICHARDSON: The motion for sub 1, just to summarize, that was Mr. Strain's motion. MR. ADELSTEIN: I did not hear Mr. Strain's motion. MR. STRAIN: I just made a motion to approve, and someone seconded it. And Patrick just reminded us that we should include the staff's recommendations, and I said that was my intent. MR. ADELSTEIN: Well, thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, sub 2, did you hear that? MR. ADELSTEIN: No, I didn't. MR. RICHARDSON: Sub 2, the essence was to ask to approve, and Mr. White reminded us of language that had come up during discussion that the density should be related to multifamily and not -- and the density rating system otherwise would apply. MR. ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So the vote -- did you vote on it? MR. ADELSTEIN: No, I didn't. MR. RICHARDSON: Would you like to vote ? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes, I would. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: For or against? MR. ADELSTEIN: Against. MR. STRAIN: Which item? MR. ADELSTEIN: Well, on both. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: 5 to 2 in favor. Nobody leaves until we finish this vote. MR. WHITE: Does Mr. Adelstein's vote with respect to 2000-1 apply? I'm assuming -- he was out of the room, and it's a 6-0. MR. ADELSTEIN: You can make that one 7-0. Page 114 April 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I don't think we can. You were gone; you were gone. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, let's take No. 3. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, since Mr. Budd, our motion maker, is not here, I would recommend that we approve the dash 3 as submitted. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Were there staff recommendations on that, David? MR. WEEKS: No deviation from your report. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. STRAIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: 7-0. Number sub 4. MR. RICHARDSON: Sub 4, I move for approval. I think we did change the numbers from 500 down to 360. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: 500 to 360. MR. STRAIN: And we changed the word "encouraged" to "must" for the unified plan of development. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Two-stow was the -- MR. RICHARDSON: Yeah, three down to two-story. MS. YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Were there any others? (No response.) Page 115 April 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. There's a motion and All in favor signify by saying MR. RICHARDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Aye. MS. YOUNG: Aye. MR. MIDNEY: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MR. FREY: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. RICHARDSON: Was that on dash 5? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Was that Mr. Strain? MR. STRAIN: That's right. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: 6-1 then. Number 5. MR. RICHARDSON: On dash 5, Mr. Chairman, I would move for approval with the modification of this floating district acreage to be nine -- a minimum of 19 acres. MR. STRAIN: Could I make a comment about the "must" for the PUD requirement? MR. RICHARDSON: Sure. MR. STRAIN: Okay. I'll second it then. MR. RICHARDSON: So we got "must" and 19 are the two changes we've made. MR. STRAIN: And then I think Mr. White suggested some language changes. We're deleting the word "a driveway and/or" -- MR. WHITE: That's small letter i. MR. RICHARDSON: With those changes. Page 116 April 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Must, 19, and Attorney White's -- MR. RICHARDSON: -- driveway. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- driveway change. Any other additions to that -- tack on to that motion? No? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: 7-0. Now we move to E to 2001-6. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, on dash 6 I'd move for approval as submitted. MR. STRAIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, I'm going to vote for it, but I sure hope we can avoid another access to Livingston Road. I'm not happy that the next one be has it but -- MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I'd point out that the map that was shown which was supporting this petition showed only access off Eaton Circle. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Right. I hope -- MR. RICHARDSON: That's my understanding with this motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, the understanding of the motion is that access will be limited to Eatonwood Road -- Eatonwood Lane. MR. RICHARDSON: I'm supporting what they've submitted Page 117 April 18, 2002 and what they've asked for. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That cause you some heartburn, Dave? MR. WEEKS: I believe what Mr. Richardson just said was he supports the language as submitted which states there will be access from Eatonwood Lane but that they may have access off Livingston Road if they comply with the access management requirements. MS. YOUNG: I vote against it. MR. RICHARDSON: I think let's try it with just -- with limiting it to Eaton Road Circle (sic) as the motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. We're -- we're holding it to Eatonwood Road (sic), according to the motion as it's presently stated. Do we have a second for that? MR. MIDNEY: I second it. MR. STRAIN: Well, yeah. Because I-- I was -- I think that-- it's a long, narrow strip. I mean, it goes for a very, very long distance. And being that narrow, they may not -- it may not function best coming out that one road. Plus, the residents may have a problem with that down the road. If we leave it with the option that it can abide by the access management plan, if need be, that might at least prevent any re -- having to redo the comp. plan if we can't get into that kind of detail further down the road. I -- so I can't second it like it's now stated. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Somebody want to second it as is? MR. WHITE: If I understand the form of the motion, it would be to delete the last sentence pertaining to additional access? The idea is that it always has to comply with the access management standards regardless of whether it's stated or not. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, it -- if they are permissive to the point of allowing access on Livingston Road, that's what we're Page 118 April 18, 2002 trying to avoid. We want to say Eatonwood Lane, period. MR. WHITE: That's what it would say if you deleted the last sentence. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. ADELSTEIN: Question: Okay. All right. Is the one right in front of it, No. 7, doesn't that have access on Livingston Road? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Because it has no other. MR. ADELSTEIN: But they're just yards apart. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No, they're not. There's a lot in between, a golf maintenance -- MR. STRAIN: See, the -- the next one down, Item F, the only access is going to be on Livingston Road. So they've got the ability to access Livingston Road, but we're disallowing this other landowner not? I -- it just seems odd. MR. RICHARDSON: We're discussing -- it's not a question of disallowing. We're really trying to limit the number of accesses to this arterial roadway. Wherever we have an opportunity to do that, I think we should take advantage of it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes. I couldn't agree more. The greater good to me is served by making Livingston Road as viable a north/south artery as we can. And every time you give somebody access to it you limit that. My own feeling is that we should have thought of frontage roads a long time ago so that everybody could -- but there's -- of course, there's not enough room for that. MR. STRAIN: I'm just wondering if this is an issue not better left to the process that comes next and leave it a little flexible here in case there's no way to make that work because that is, again, a long, narrow strip. Maybe the applicant can live with it. If he can, that'll stop the problem. MR. RICHARDSON: We're past that part of discussion, I think. The petition that is supported by a map indicates that it will Page 119 April 18, 2002 work that way. So I'm taking that at face value. It shows the access only off of Eatonwood. And if they had wanted to have something different, I suspect they would have been smart enough to put it in the petition. MR. STRAIN: I don't think we're allowed to ask the applicant questions during the discussion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yeah, let's reopen long enough MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may, the question had nothing to do with whether or not the applicant was smart enough to ask for access off of Livingston Road. MR. RICHARDSON: Strike the word "smart." Sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We -- we had met with transportation staff. And the agreement with transportation staff was, we knew Eatonwood Lane was access that was available. The question became whether or not in the future it made any sense to have access off Livingston Road with right-in right-out. The reason it was not shown on the master plan, because it may or may not make any sense, so the master plan did not show that access point. The intent always was, as every other comp. plan issue was, to address specific access points, and at that time we were doing it at zoning. Now we're doing it at site planning. But we always knew that we might be coming back, and we had to comply with the access management. The reason that provision was in there was to protect the county to make sure that we were limited to that right-in right-out only if there was -- that we comply with the access management plan, which I believe is stated anyway. It was just a repetitive provision. So we - - we always intended to comply with the access management plan if it made sense to have a right-in right-out. And the reason it wasn't on the master plan was because we were not trying to pinpoint and Page 120 April 18, 2002 require right-in right-in -- right-in right-out access at this point. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If you had right-in right-out access, would you have an acceleration and a deceleration lane ? MR. YOVANOVICH: We will have to comply with -- yes. We'll have to comply with any mm-lane requirements to get off of-- on our property, we'll have to put a proper deceleration lane to get access off of Livingston Road. There won't be like a lot of points on U.S. 41 where the driveway is right in the traffic lanes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And you'd have an acceleration lane as well ? MR. YOVANOVICH: To be honest you, I don't know. We're not that far along. We'll deal with that when -- when we get to that point if and when we need it. I just hate to be in a position right now where we're prohibited, if it makes some sense from a site-circulation standpoint, when we get to that point. MR. WHITE: And other than that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind you that -- remind the commission that this is before you in sense -- in essence, as part of a, quote, settlement agreement as part of condemnation cases. So I'm not sure to what degree -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The precise terms were previously agreed to? MR. WHITE: I'm merely reminding you that -- that this was what flowed from that settlement. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment on that. The settlement agreement simply provided the opportunity for an application to be submitted midstream, if you will, and also to waive the application fees. There was no suggestion in there that the county was under any -- under any direction to approve the amendment, period. It's simply opened the door for an application to be submitted. Page 121 April 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I want to -- I want to, you know, make sure the record is clear. Mr. Weeks is correct. But the language attached to the settlement agreement included this language for staff to review and see if they could, in fact, support recommendation, and we would go through the process with a staff recommendation of approval. And that was part of the reason we agreed to this settlement proposal. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, I renew my motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt again. Mr. Anderson had expressed some concerns about the way the ordinance reads, most particularly in relation to this and Item No. 7. Did you want to include that in your motion, some modification to the ordinance to specifically provide for some type of severability for this and the next item? MR. RICHARDSON: I have no problem with that on-- at least as it relates to this item. MR. WHITE: I can give you a rough-cut first draft, and you could approve it subject to something substantially similar, if you like. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We'll approve it in anticipation that you will provide that. MR. WHITE: I have something -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You've got it all ready to go? All right. MR. WHITE: It would follow after the word "portion" at the end of Section 2 entitled "Severability" with a new sentence, "Additionally, any amendments not subsequently approved or found Page 122 April 18, 2002 in compliance by the Department of Community Affairs will not affect the validity of any other amendments." MR. RICHARDSON: That's sort of what I had in mind so -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. The motion is, in pertinent part, to limit access to Eatonwood Lane, period. So all those in -- and that was seconded by Mr. Midney. All those in favor of that signify by saying aye or maybe we better have hands raised. All those in favor, raise your hand. For the record, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Midney, the motion maker, and the second, are the affirmative votes. So the motion fails. We need another motion. MR. STRAIN: I'll make a motion we approve CP-2006 with the stipulations and language that Mr. White --. MR. ADELSTEIN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Further discussion. (N o response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All those in favor. Aye. MR. FREY: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MS. YOUNG: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? MR. RICHARDSON: Aye. MR. MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, that leaves F, does it not, 2001-77 MS. YOUNG: Yeah. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'm getting in overload here. What exceptions did we take to 7, David? MR. STRAIN: I believe there are none. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: None? Page 123 April 18, 2002 MR. WEEKS: Presumably you would want to include the same language about severability. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Same language about severability. MR. WHITE: The language regarding severability is in the ordinance which each of these provision S -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's right. MR. WHITE: -- are a part of-- MR. STRAIN: I'll make a motion we approve CP-2001-7. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Further discussion. (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All those in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Aye. Opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: 7-0. All right. Moving right along, Item G is a small-scale amendment, 01-1, Vince Cautero of Wilkison representing Barbara Cacchione of Empowerment Appliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation. MS. FORD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Excuse me. All persons wishing to testify on this rise and be sworn. MR. WHITE: I'm not sure you need to have testimonial evidence introduced as sworn testimony, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. We won't swear them in. MR. WHITE: I believe that small-scale amendments are still considered legislative, not quasi-judicial. Page 124 April 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Go ahead. MS. FORD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Marlene Ford, for the record, with your comprehensive planning section. This is the CPS-2001 -- CPSS-2001-1. It's a small-scale amendment to the Immokalee area master plan future land use map. And you can see on your visualizer and in your staff report, we are pretty much looking at this area right here (indicating). It's an extension of the high residential district into what is currently the commerce center industrial district. And this is a small-scale amendment. Small-scale amendments are typically defined as those less than 10 acres and that don't involve any kind of textual amendment to the Growth Management Plan. And as a small-scale amendment, it only has an adoption hearing process. There is no transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs as there is with the larger-scale amendments. This will have a transmittal with a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners for adoption. Basically this small area here that you see north of Rose Avenue is part of a larger project. It's approximately 17 acres in size. And it will involve, in addition to this area, a dormitory site, which is just to the north right here (indicating), other single family just along this railroad right-of-way here, and a small area of commercial. And this particular site -- that is 2.483 acres and will be rezoned at a later date to a zoning district to allow the single-family homes. The applicant has indicated that there should be about 15 single- family homes. Once it's -- has a new designation as high residential, it could have up to 19 dwelling units per acre on the 2.483 acres -- 19 total units. Around the area is single-family homes. Immediately to the south, right here (indicating), commercial along in here (indicating). Page 125 April 18, 2002 This is all vacant in this area north of the subject site and commercial across Immokalee Road, which is right here (indicating), also known as First Street, and residential beyond the commercial on that side of First Street. The planning staff has assessed the petition and finds no real issues with it and recommends that the Planning Commission forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with approval. And the petitioner is here if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I have a question. I'm a little concerned that you're putting a dormitory of transient male farm workers across the street from single-family residential. MS. FORD: The single-family residential is across the street from the subject site that will be also single-family residential. The dormitory will, in effect, be behind the single-family residential that would be permitted with this change. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: These dormitories residents, if they want to have a beer, which direction do they go in -- from this building, in the -- away from the residential? MS. FORD: Correct. Currently they actually have a walking path that's been created from this neighborhood (indicating) that goes right through this area to Immokalee Road right here, which is where the majority of the commercial establishments are. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. FORD: There is also going to be a road along Barney Street right here, will continue up. And I'm sure the petitioner can address the site-plan issues a little bit more, if necessary. But it will continue up here, and then there will be an access to Immokalee Road from Rose Avenue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But where in the -- on the plot is the dormitory to be? Which end? MS. FORD: The north. The dormitory will be right in here Page 126 April 18, 2002 (indicating). CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Any other questions? Vince? MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Vince Cautero. Just to supplement with what Ms. Ford has said, the project consists of a number of phases. And there are four applications in concurrently, including this one, that the staff's reviewing. And if I may, with your permission, use the -- the map on the visualizer which is better than the color map I have here to show, with your indulgence. The site development plan was approved approximately three weeks ago for the piece of the property north of the subject site for review today. The subject site that we talked about in the application, we gave a project summary and a project description which talks about this in a larger context and work. That's why the Collier County Housing Authority was also involved in giving us the authority to represent the petition today, as well as the empowerment alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation, which actually has a contract to purchase the 2.4 acres for this particular application. The project site is approximately 18 acres and consists of property of 9 acres north of this site, which is where the dormitory will be located, and an SDP or site development plan was approved approximately three weeks ago. The comprehensive plan amendment is being sought because the land use, as Miss Ford has told you, is commerce center industrial for this and not mixed use, but the land to the southwest of this site is in a land use category of mixed use and in two zoning categories, residential and commercial, and there will be a subsequent zone change, which is being reviewed by the staff. Page 127 April 18, 2002 So the project site, which consists of 9 acres north of this 2.4 acres, plus the acreage to the south, makes up what the housing authority and the empowerment alliance are calling the Southeast Immokalee Revitalization Project. It will consist of a dormitory plus approximately 30 to 35 single-family lots. This comprehensive plan amendment, though, would only result in about 15 lots. We concur with the staff report, of course, that the maximum allowed would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 or 19. I'm very comfortable that we're not going to get that based on easements and platting and infrastructure requirements, drainage requirements. Therefore, we scaled it to approximately 15. It might be even 14 in this 2.4 acres. The zone change application to complement it will be a combination of commercial land and residential zoning. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Any questions of the petitioner? MR. STRAIN: Yes. Vince, there's a statement in the staff analysis that says the proposed change will allow a maximum of 19 single-family units aside from any density bonuses, which the applicant has given no indication will be requested. Are you going to be requesting any density bonuses? MR. CAUTERO: No, sir. MR. STRAIN: Okay. That's for the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any member of the public desire to speak on this? MR. SCHMITT: No. No registered public speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Miss Ford, do you have anything else? MS. FORD: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing. Page 128 April 18, 2002 MR. STRAIN: 2001-1. MR. MIDNEY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: we move to now? MR. STRAIN: I'm not sure what. MR. WHITE: I'll make a motion we approve Petition CPSS - Further discussion? All in favor? I think that's -- let's see, what do Old business? Any? I think we beat Mr. White at something here. I'm assuming there were no opposed. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: There were no opposed. New business? Public comment? No addenda. Motion to adjourn7 MR. STRAIN: So moved. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:40 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION KENNETH ABERNATHY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 129