The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC MInutes 08/19/2004 R August 19,2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 19, 2004 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 8:30 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney Kenneth Abernathy Brad Schiffer Robert Murray Robert Vigliotti Dwight Richardson ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Development & Environmental Services Ray Bellows, Chief Planner Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 2004, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NOTE: The public should be advised that two (2) members of the Collier County Planning Commission (Dwight Richardson and Bob Murray) are also members of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 15,2004, REGULAR MEETING; JULY 22, 2004, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JULY 27,2004, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 """"----~..-_.......-....---_.,,>._---,-,-,~..~,-,..._- A. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-52I l, Naples Golf Development, LLC, Naples South, LLC; and Naples Golf Club South LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Boyne South PUD to "PUD" Planned Unit Development also known as Boyne South PUD by revising the PUD document and Master Plan to change the permitted use of Tract B from Commercial/Motel to allow for 34 multi-family units and eliminate the 64 motel units; Increase the number of dwelling units from l54 to 17 I dwelling units; Change the permitted use of the existing Tract "D" from multi-family to single-family; Provide for a new access point east of the existing access road; Reduce the size of the golf course tract from l52 acres to 148 acres; Increase the size of the residential area from 54 acres to 58 acres; and reduce the density from 1.19 units per acre to 0.7 units per acre. The property is located on the south side of US 41, 5 miles east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 242.35± acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) B. Petition: V A-2004-AR-5878, Michael J. Needham and Wendy B. Needham, property owners, represented by Michael A. Durant of Conroy, Coleman and Hazzard, P.A., requesting a 7-foot variance in the PUD zoning district from the required IS-foot rear setback, to allow an eight-foot (8) setback, within which the petitioner wants to extend an existing screen enclosure. The property, consisting of 17,077 square feet, is located at 720 Bay Tree Court; further described as Site 7, Block A, Pelican Bay Unit One, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) C. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-4250, Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District and Waterways Joint Venture IV, represented by Karen Bishop, of PMS, Inc. of Naples, and Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Mixed Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district, to allow development of a fire station with a l35-foot high communication tower and a 75-foot high training facility, and sixteen (16) single- family attached dwellings (including townhouses intended for fee simple conveyance including the platted lot associated with the residence) and customary accessory uses. Property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 340 feet north of Wolfe Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Co11ier County, Florida, consisting of9.38± acres. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) D. Petition: PUDA-2003-AR-4008, Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc., represented by C. Laurence Keesey, Esq., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as the Pelican Bay PUD for the purpose of amending the PUD document to rea110cate 1 2 1 ,000 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the North Commercial Area to the South Commercial Area. Most of the 121,000 square feet of commercial square footage to be relocated wil1 be converted to and utilized for additional retail use within the Waterside Shops. In addition, the Pelican Bay PUD is currently approved to contain up to a maximum of 8,600 residential dwelling units. This petition will reduce the approved maximum number by 800 units, to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units. The property to be considered for this rezone is located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection U.S. 41 and Seagate Drive, at 5555 Tamiami Trail N., in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Co11ier County, Florida and consisting of 2, 1 04 acres. (Coordinator: Ray Be11ows) E. Petition: DOA-2003-AR-4777, Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust represented by C. Laurence Keesey, Esq., requesting an amendment to the Pelican Bay Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to relocate 1 2 1 ,000 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the North Commercial Area to the South Commercial Area and reduce the approved maximum number of residential dwellings by 800 units to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwe11ing units. The property to be considered for this rezone is located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail (US-41) and Seagate Drive in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Sections 4,5,8 and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Co11ier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Be11ows) 2 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA l3. ADJOURN eepe Agenda/RB/sp 3 ...-...~--_."--,_." August 19,2004 1. Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. Roll Call: a quorum was established. 3. Addenda to the Agenda: Russell Budd: The first petition to be heard will be (item C) the PUDZ-2003- AR-4250 - Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue and Waterways Joint Venture IV. V A-2004-AR-5878 (item B), Michael and Wendy Needham requesting a 7-foot variance is being continued. The second item to be heard will be Naples Golf Development, Naples South and Naples Golf Club South (item A). The order will be (1) Golden Gate Fire; (2) Naples Golf Development; and (3) Waterside Shops of Pelican Bay. Continuance of item B is for the September 16th Planning Commission meeting. Lindy Adelstein moved to approve the Addenda to the Agenda. Second by Robert Murray. Motion carried unanimously 8-0. 4. Planning Commission absences - There were no known upcoming planning Commission absences. s. Approval of Minutes - July 15, 2004. Robert Murray: on page 4 statement about riff raff. I think they meant rip rap. Robert Murray makes a motion to approve. Brad Schiffer: on page 10 the sites are 30 feet wide. Second by Brad Schiffer. Motion carried unanimously 8-0. Approval of Minutes - July 22, 2004. Lindy Adelstein moved to approve the minutes. Second by Robert Murray. Motion carried unanimously 8-0. 6. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Report-Recaps Ray Bellows confirms that there were no meetings to report on. 2 August 19,2004 Mr. Russell Webb: As Ray stated I need to discuss with you the scheduling of the second cycle of the LCD amendments. Yesterday our meeting was canceled. As it stands now we have a meeting scheduled for September 22nd at 5:05 PM, however that is the only meeting schedule since yesterday the meeting was canceled. I need to discuss with you if you need two meetings, I have two other dates. If you just want the one date we can stick with the September 22nd meeting. Motion by Mr. Abernathy for the meeting on September 22od. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Mr. Strain makes a motion to leave door open to have two meetings due to concerns about the rewrite of section 2.8. I'm not sure how everybody viewed that so I certainly would like to leave it in the past but we leave the door open for a second meeting. Motion carries 8-0 Mr. Schmidt update to provide a weekly update to provide a calendar from the zoning department. Mr. Bellows no BCC meeting but there was a July 22nd meeting. We discussed that at the last meeting but the paper work was here this time. 7. Chairman's Report - None 8. Advertised Public Hearings (presented in the order listed in Agenda Item 3) (1) Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-4250, Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District and Waterways Joint Venture IV, represented by Karen Bishop, ofPMS, Inc. of Naples, and Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from the rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Mixed Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district, to allow development of a fire station with a 135-foot high communication tower and a 75-foot high training facility, and sixteen (16) single-family attached dwellings (including townhouses intended for fee simple conveyance including the platted lot associated with the residence) and customary accessory uses. Property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 051), approximately 340 feet north of Wolfe Road, in Section 34, township 48 South, range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of9.38 acres. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures: Mr. Murray spoke with the chief and one of the commissioners regarding this matter. Mr. Strain spoke with several of the residents in the area, representatives of the Fire Department, and their attorney on various issues mostly focusing on the training tower. 3 August 19, 2004 Petitioner: Richard Yovanovich: We originally asked for a meeting in July but we asked for a continuance so we could have a neighborhood information meeting and notify all the perspective purchasers in the Summit Place PUD of the proposed project in this Mixed use PUD. We had that meeting. We notified over 280 people ofthat meeting. It was pretty well attended. We took the neighborhood comments in perspective. We did meet with staff regarding their original recommendations. Essentially, as far as what is before with Staffwe are down to two issues. This first issue is the actual site design of our sight where we need the parking to out in front of our building versus behind the building. So that is one deviation. Staff is recommending not to allow that but we are disagreeing with Staff on that recommendation. The second is the fire training tower. I believe that are to only two issues remaining as far as Staff is concerned. The way we are going forward this morning and I have handed out to you a copy of some of the more important pages of our power point presentation. Chief Pearson is going to do a brief Power Point presentation on the fire training and how we got to where we are to let you know what we are going to do on the site and what we are not going to do on the site. Hopefully this will answer a lot of questions that the residence and Planning Commission might have regarding the use of the site and mainly the compatibility issue that Staff seems to be concerned about. After that I will be here, Mr. & Ms. Bishop will be here to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Abernathy: What is the nature of the objections to the tower so I can key them to what the chief has to say? Mr. Yovanovich: From what I understand Staff is concerned that they think that a fire training tower next to a residential area is not compatible. You will hear through the Chief why we think it is compatible and can be made to be compatible. Chief Peterson: We tried, as Rich shared with you in the package we gave you, to give you the most important pages on what the questions may be. Just to give a brief overview ofthe district we are approximately 103 square miles we are over 45,000 residences. We got most all the High Schools, Middle Schools, and Elementary Schools in the county. We've got over 300 buildings and growing of 3+ story buildings we are going through and we are approximately 48 paid staff and growing rapidly as the growth you have seen around us. This is the district boundary to give you a general idea where we are we have a lot of issues. We cover the urban areas and we cover the estate areas. We cover quite a bit of the estates area, as you know with 951 as pretty much the dividing line; we have a lot of estates area. One of the things that we look at in locating stations takes into account the insurance ratings for the homeowners. We have gone through a process to identify that this new station 73 needs to go approximately 1.2 miles south of Immokalee Road on the west side of 951. We've had several issues in the last few weeks come before you. This is a 4 August 19,2004 map that shows some of the approved and or coming PUD' s that are around us. We know we have a lot more residential that is coming. We have been working on this project for some time. The project site is approximately 9.4 plus or minus acres currently owned agriculture and going through a mixed-use MPUD consisting of the station facility and 16 residential units associated with Summit Place. One thing that I would like to share with you, so that there is no misunderstanding; those residential units are completely separate from us. We have a 5-acre partial in there that the district owns. We have no control of those residential units. We don't own them. There is no interest there of those residential unit. This is a rendition of the facility. At the time we had this done we did not get the communication tower in, however when you look at the parking area, it would go into one of the grassed median areas. It shows our main headquarters would go into the facility, also a 3-bay operational station and the facility to the right rear corner is the proposed training tower for the site. Mr. Richardson: Could you tell us where that is again? Is it in that grassy area in front? Chief Peterson: It would be in the rear where you see the three apparatus bay doors. Mr. Richardson: Yes, is it behind that? Chief Peterson: Yes, to the right rear of that - those apparatus bay doors. Mr. Richardson: Does that back up to the residential then as planned? Chief Peterson: Yes, we have a slide in there that will give you a better layout of that. This is a little closer shot, Summit Place is to the North of us, Wolf Creek is on the West side, Palermo Cove, Brittany Bay to the North, Vanderbilt Country Club is on the East side of us and the business park and the commercial Vanderbilt extension is to our South. This gives you an aerial view of the project outlined in the yellow, site is cleared. Summit Place, when this was taken, was not to the construction capacity that they now have. The next aerial view has a little bit closer shot that has a few more ofthe residential homes in it. The actual site is on the left-and side where the cleared area is. The retention pond is in the West side. You are looking from the East back to the West. The Island Walk Community is the largest community you see at the top ofthe photo. We did start the site project back in 1999- 98 trying to locate property in the corridor from Vanderbilt Extension to Immokalee Road and Immokalee Road East and West on the South side. Immokalee Road is actually the divider on the North side of the district. This shows the original 20 acre site that we had and the yellow fork that comes out to 951 is actually the original access we had to the 20 acre site. We highlighted the nursery area to give you an idea of relationship there. The nursery has been there for several years. When we originally bought the 20 acres, almost immediately we had developers approaching us that they were attempting to buy up property completely around us to put different projects 5 ----- August 19, 2004 together, housing projects. There were two other projects that were working with up for several months before the existing Summit Place project was made whole and went forward. In the process of negotiating when Summit Place originally went in we maintain the 20 acres and it was negotiated out that the finger next to the nursery would then be our access to the 20 acres. We knew that there were issues with development. We could not, naturally, drive through the middle of the development and to facilitate access and facilitate being able to do the project, we went on the North side. As we got into it, we found that there was early on discussions with residential relocation. We want to be neighbor friendly. Most fire stations are in the communities, they are very close to the residents. We are trying to work out access issues. The time of day we would be going in and out for the fire station activity. The Commission determined that it was in everyone's best interest, both the residents living in the project and fire district to relocate in front on 951. The original property we tried to get access directly on 951 so we would not impair anybody no matter where we were. At the rate property was increasing and disappearing in that corridor we knew we needed to buy the original 20 acres to maintain and protect us for a site in that area. We worked out an agreement with the Waterways Summit Project to relocate to the front and the piece we would have would be directly on the front and we would have 5 acres. This gives you a little better idea of the relationship. The preserve area that is required is a wet land area. There is a retention lake that is currently in place. It is intended that our site drainage does go into the project. It also shows the relationship of the proposed 16 units there. Again, the site project for us is the new district headquarters. We are currently on Golden Gate Parkway. We have outgrown those quarters and need to move into the new facility. It is more central for us with better access. As we were going through the project, Transportation had come to us about access issues on 951 with the 6 lanes of951 that are going to be accruing. We had access directly onto there originally across from Vanderbilt Beach Country Club. Along the process, we needed to change the access. The long and the short of it is, as you will see, on the bottom in the light area the County has requested that we have an access off of Wolf Road. Eventually, with the six lanes of 951 and the commercial that is going to occur from Vanderbilt to the North. There is going to be intersecting and interior roads there with Wolf Road becoming a major intersection for us. They have requested that we have a road coming out. On the 951, as you know, this is just a shot, as a reminder, ofthe high power lines that do run down 951. Currently with have a grass buffer. With Summit Place there is grass permanence in place and the County is on track to make that a 6 lane road. This is a drawing to give you and idea of the existing buffer that's currently on 951. It's landscaped with trees and also identifies an existing communication cell tower that is to the North of the actual nursery where that tower is currently located. This a little closer shot to give you an idea of the tower. This will show that the antenna on top has a slight bend and I will share with you that after the storm, in the last few days, it has added a few degrees to that bend. 6 August 19,2004 Our intent, right from the beginning, was that the communication tower was to be and is intended to a be a flag pole type of design a mono-pole. It is not the A-frame type or open-construction type of tower. We know that that is a very big issue with the communities and we have tried to identify that we can put a flag pole type pole up that will meet our needs. We've tried to outline what the fall zone is to be able to illustrate to you that if it comes down it is totally on our property. There is an area to the South that does come over the right- away and that area immediately to the South is going to be a retention pond for the 6 laning of 951. There will be no normally occupants there, it will be strictly drainage retention that is going to be occurring. There were public meetings we had with residence expressing concern regarding site and how far we were from them. We've tried to identify for you, on the slide, the location ofthe tower that some of the residents were over 1100 feet and that they are actually closer to the communication tower that is North ofthe nursery property. The area on the left is the Phase that is going to be coming online. The buildings that are currently there are in the light yellow. One of the things, trying to be part of the community, we want to make a good looking project for the community. One of the requirements currently is to have block wall separating and going around us. Working with the developer we identified that we would like a grass berm that is approximately 50 feet wide and we have tried to illustrate for you where that berm is and give you an idea of the proposal there. Also, on the photo, you will see that there is a proposed sidewalk that will go through that berm to allow facilitating the community to reach us and we can reach them. The goal of part of that sharing with the community is if they need to have meetings we are going to have a proposed public meeting room that everybody can use. They want have to drive over from the community, they can walk over. Training facility, we have had a lot of reference to the North Naples tower. This is an illustration of what that facility currently looks like. It is approximately 45 feet in height. Because we are still in the permitting process, you are the first piece of that permitting process, we do not have a vendor and contractor on board yet until we get through this process. This photo illustrates one of the vendor's potential renditions that we have looked at. This is what we are attempting to facilitate at the site. This is one ofthe things that you won't see. I share with you that there has been a lot of communication with the neighbors. There has been e-mail, a lot of general discussion and I didn't know how else to best illustrate for you what you will not see. There is a lot of misconceptions, from what ever it comes from, I don't know where it comes from. I wanted to be able to visually show to you what we can not do there, primarily from a smoke aspect. People think that we are burning there. Weare not actually burning there. You want see this type of smoke. You want see this type of activity in the facility. This is an example of the burning activity that would go in there. What you see here is a simulator for a kitchen stove. It is concrete building and it has a liner inside it to insulate the concrete to allow you to not destroy the building. The units can be either LP or natural gas fed. It is all clean burning. There is a natural gas line that does run down 951 and chances are it would be the natural gas facility. They make the simulators in different configurations. They make a kitchen configuration, bedroom configuration, living room 7 August 19,2004 configuration and the intent here is that we can control the atmosphere. We can't put the fire fighters in the atmosphere that we use to be able to years ago. A lot of this is computer controlled, you can control the temperature and you can control the entire activity. In an emergency you just shut off the gas and the fire goes out immediately. In the Station 72 that we just completed a few months ago, on Beck Blvd, we are right close to the community there. After we had constructed the facility for a few months, one of the resident's father had been in the fire service years ago, Beck Blvd was named after him, they wanted to donate some equipment to them. In the main lobby we had set this up for them. Again, the point we are attempting to stress is that we want to be part of the community. We want to share with the community. We want them to be able to have access to us. We want to be able to have access to them. We want to have a friendly environment. If! can answer any questions, I would be glad to. Chairman Budd: Before we start any questions, I want to clarify something. Mr. White, is it appropriate for Chief Peterson to be a registered lobbyist on this issue? Mr. White: That is an interesting question. He is also the property owner, I expect. In that regard, there is not a requirement for the lobbyist provisions to apply. I think there is an exemption under that particular provision. Although I think that that was a question worth asking, I believe the answer is one where he is not required to spend the $20 or $30. Chairman Budd: I just wanted to make sure that that did not come up later as an issue. So, it is not necessary for you to register Chief Peterson but for all other lobbyist that might be listening on the television or present in the room, the lobbyist account as kept by the Clerk of the Court, everybody's lobbyist registration expires on September 30th. Those that do need to register, it's time to "re-up" and donate your $25 to the County. Mr. White: So that it is clear for the record, Mr. Chairman, the answer that I am giving you is one that is premised on the assumed fact that the Chief and the district does own the property. Chairman Budd: Is that true Chief? Chief Peterson: Yes, that is true and I am also the identified registered agent for the district. Chairman Budd: Very good. With that we will go to questions for Chief Peterson. Ouestions of Petitioner: Robert Murray: Good Morning, Chief. I had forgotten, but I had had conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich as well regarding this matter. Chief, just as curiosity, we know that some of the fire department buildings collapse in other locations. I noticed that because 8 August 19, 2004 of the configuration there is a lot of building mass there. Would we be able to use this as a shelter? Is that at all possible as that being a plan of all this. Chief Peterson: There has been no discussion with the County about using it that way. We do intend to harden the facility for the emergency services to use it as a harden facility in the event of recent storms. As to how much extra space we would have for the community, that we have not allocated extra space for. The intent is more to accommodate general meetings of the community that is around there, governmental types of meetings. Robert Murray: OK, with regard to the operations that you propose to have, if you have a 75 foot tower it is excellent that you would have great opportunities for training. Would you extend that training to other departments? And, if so, what hours of operation would you have that happen? Would there be night operations? What would be the frequency? Is that an income producer for the district? Chief Peterson: As far as other agencies, yes it would be open to anybody. One of the things we talked about and identified that in the case of the North Naples training facility, with the amount of County wide, one facility can not handle and accommodate everyone. The special training the Sheriff Department needs, their SWAT units, they use it at various times. All the fire districts would be included in this. There has been no discussion of charging anybody for anything at this point. Nobody has raised that as a problem. Currently we share everything without charging anybody for it. There may be some potential charges for the purpose of the gas that is used because of high volume there, but there has been no intended charging of anybody for the facility. We've talked about the hours of operation. As you can understand with Emergency Services, things come up at various times. We know that we need to have down time for the residents next to us. Mr. Yovanovich, we had written out some things, I don't have a copy of that. We've got a proposal ofthat regarding operational time. Robert Murray: Well, I prefer that you answer that if you could, but if you are uncomfortable, fine. My concern or interest was really focusing on what your expectation was. You're the author ofthis proj ect, as I understand it. But, if you feel more comfortable with Mr. Y ovanovich, I guess will do that. Chief Peterson: No, I am not uncomfortable. I didn't write the times specifically down. I didn't bring that sheet with me. We had talked about limiting it. Ijust don't have those numbers. Robert Murray: Ok, Chief, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. Mr. Yovanovich: What we proposed was that the training would be predominately during the daytime hours from 8 to 7, Monday through Sunday. We would limit ourselves to only 5 nights per month from the hours of 7 PM to 10 PM. There would be no training beyond the hours of 10 PM. Obviously, fires do occur at night so there does 9 _.,...._,--~_._-- August 19,2004 need to be some night fire training. This is not going to a 24 hour, 7 day a week training operation. Robert Murray: And if it were at night, there would be no flames visible. Do I understand that correctly? Chief Peterson: Correct, all the flames are internal to the facility. It is a multi-floor structure. Those devices are within the structure and there is no way for them to reach the outside. Robert Murray: In the course of the training, the arrival of the units to the facility, will there be horns and sirens? Chief Peterson: No, because it is a training site. We know that the residential units are next to it. We have to enforce the county noise ordinance. The reason we are asking to do Saturday and Sunday is because some of the Federal programs that we need to bring in are weekend classes that for volunteers is hard to bring them in during the week. Robert Murray: Like CERT program and things of that nature? Chief Peterson: Correct. Some of the FEMA classes are Saturday, Sunday, usually 16 hours classes and have to be done during the day time hours. Robert Murray: So other than the motors on the engines, the sounds beyond that is just the man power moving and there want be any other great sounds happening at the training facility. Am I right? Chief Peterson: That's correct. Mr. Yovanovich: No night time training on Sunday. It would be Monday through Saturday, if we were to do our five training sessions at night none of them would be done on Sunday. Robert Murray: Ok. It is interesting that you do not charge. So, you don't really look at that as an income producer in anyway. Chief Peterson: No, because at this point, the Board has supported us that the need is great out there for the training. Outside agencies charge a large fee already. Until it becomes burdensome or the Board gives me other direction, it is not our intent to make money out of that training facility. Robert Murray: Ok, with the regard to the tower, I read that it is a tower where much of antenna operation and equipment is within that cone. Your communications for that or equipment must be at the top or occupy some greater portion near the top. And that's 10 August 19, 2004 your plan, is it not? You're not going to sell space above it and degrade your signal in anyway. Is that correct? Chief Peterson: That's correct. Some of the articles you may have seen and some of the articles that were information were put out ahead of time. Currently we do have a cell tower at one site. We have arrangements with the cell carriers. We do have revenue coming in from that. At the main station we do receive revenue as well as the County off of that stealth tower. Because of the height restrictions and limitations, it is not going to allow us to go out. What we had attempted to do originally, in the project, was to be able to get a private for-profit vendor to construct the facility for us. They would be able to go onto it and the rest of it would be government use. That is what we have done in our site in the Estates. We saved money from the District. We did not have to put out for doing that. Because of our height issues, we are going to have to restrict it for our use and/or government because potentially there would be County Government or State Government usage. We will try to facilitate anything that the State needs, whether it is Division of Forestry, or anybody in that. So I would have to say it would be governmental use only. Robert Murray: Would I also be correct in assuming that the money that you save then benefits the District by lessening the burden on tax requirement? Does that money go into the general fund or does it go into some special fund that you might have set? Chief Peterson: It goes into our general fund, however currently we our structured, all the revenue received from cell from carriers goes into the capital improvement items. If we don't have that money it means much less capital improvement. Robert Murray: That's a reduction in the future. Thank you. That's my questions. Dwight Richardson: Patrick, Ijust have a process question. If fire district owns this whole property, we've only been talking about the potential fire department usage. What about this residents component? This is the first time I've ever seen where the fire district would come in and have an application for residences that would be a commercial operation. Patrick White: I am not sure I understand the essence of your question. Are you asking whether we advertised this properly? Dwight Richardson: I'm just wondering if it is proper to have a governmental agency coming in asking for residences. Patrick White: I think that that is truly a policy question. To put it under any aspect of the LDC. Dwight Richardson: Land owners support the government agencies coming in and promoting private enterprise. 11 August 19,2004 Patrick White: r don't know if it supports it or it works against it. r think what I've told you is that there is nothing that prohibits a property owner, whether it is a governmental agency like a fire/rescue district or other wise, from asking for particular usage under land development code. IfMr. Yovanovich wants to comment about it, I have no objections. Mr. Yovanovich: I do, because factually everything is wrong. If you notice the applicants are the Golden Gate Fire District and the Waterways Joint Venture. The residential portion of the property is owned by Waterways Joint Venture. They are co- applicants. It is Waterways Joint Venture asking for the residential usage on their property and the fire district asking for the community type facilities on their property. Dwight Richardson: I understood the Chief say that they own the property. Mr. Yovanovich: They do own the property that deals with the fire station issues. Dwight Richardson: They don't on the portion that relates to the residences? Mr. Yovanovich: They do not. Waterways Joint Venture owns that property. Dwight Richardson: This is really two applications? Mr. Y ovanovich: One application. They are joint applicants. They have unified control of the property. The "THEY" is Waterways Joint Venture and the Golden Gate Fire District. They are joint applicants. This is not unusual; we have done this on several PUD's where you have multiple property owners joining in to rezone their property. Mark Strain: I have a question to Richard's statement. Two weeks ago we had Summit Place come in here. This residential is obviously a part of Summit Place. Yet it was not applied for under the Summit Place PUD. It was applied for under the Golden Gate Fire District jointly with the neighboring developer. Why wasn't the residential put with the residential PUD and the Golden Gate standing on its own? Mr. Yovanovich: Well, it was a little bit longer than two weeks ago. They are separate parcels and we did not want to want to get tied up with permitting issues related to the Summit Place other phase. There are wet land issues associated with that The District needed to be separate from that so we can get moving forward on our permitting issues. Mark Strain: rfthe District didn't have the five acres that is really a part of Summit Place in this proposal, could they be here today? Mr. Yovanovich: Could they be here today to rezone their property? Absolutely. Mark Strain: As a PUD? Mr. Y ovanovich: Not as a PUD. 12 August 19,2004 Mark Strain: OK, so it looks like the 5 acres were cut of Summit Place so that the department could have the minimum acreage for the PUD? Mr. Y ovanovich: No. Mark Strain: What is the minimum acreage for a PUD? Mr. Yovanovich: It is ten. Mark Strain: What is this property? Mr. Yovanovich: It is 9.4. Before the right-a -way was taken it was 10. Mark Strain: What is the minimum acreage to have an appeal before it has to go before the EAC? Mr. Yovanovich: Ten Mark Strain: OK, so the ten was used to qualify for a PUD, but now because the right- a-way was taken the ten is not used to get before the EAC and avoid the EAC hearing. Is that correct? Mr. Y ovanovich: This has always been a 10 acre parcel of property that was acquired by Waterways. We didn't carve it out ofa 20 acre parcel to try to make it a 10 acre parcel. When this property was acquired by Waterways it was a 10 acre piece of property. It always met the minimum threshold for a PUD and always met the requirements not to go to the EAC. There was no grand plan to try to avoid any Public Hearing process or create an ability to do a PUD. This was a process, as the Chief outlined in his presentation that I understand that most ofthe time you ask us to do, is have the developer work with different public entities; schools, fire districts, sheriff. Were asked to work with them to co-locate facilities. This is a prime example of Waterways development taking a 20 acre piece that would have been an inappropriate use with Summit Place and moving it to a more practical use for the District and a better use for the residents of Summit Place. This was an example of the fire district and a developer working together for the betterment ofthe Community. There was no evil intent in trying to get this done. Mark Strain: Was the 20 acres swapped for 5 acres or 1O? Mr. Yovanovich: We had 5 usable acres ofa 20 acre piece. Mark Strain: Now there is almost 9 usable acres but .33 is preserve. Mr. Yovanovich: No, the fire district own a 20 acre piece because the wetlands issue had approximately 5 usable acres. So we traded 5 usable acres for 5 usable acres in the 13 August 19,2004 project you have before you today. You will notice that Waterways is absorbing the water management for this. We have five usable acres for the fire district. Mark Strain: The 20 acre site that Waterways has acquired, how much are they building on for their modified PUD that came through? Mr. Yovanovich: Staff says that 70% of the 20 acres will be in preserve. Mark Strain: As far as the swap, the fire department needs 5 acres. Is that correct? Mr. Yovanovich: To accomplish what we need to accomplish we need 5 acres. Mark Strain: OK, but you are in here today for 10. Mr. Yovanovich: Yes. Brad Schiffer: Chief, how often will the tower part of the training facility be used? Chief Peterson: That's going to vary depending on the time of the year, in the different training that is required to be done. Currently, and I would say today because of what's happened because of the storms just recently all of the training as been suspended because we are supporting the counties to the North of us. We are going to hit periods of time where there is no training at all. Same thing occurs when we get the major brush fires. There is going to be no activity on our part. Potentially, from reaching out to the other departments, the Sheriff Department they might be able to fill in there but they would all adhere to the schedule that we have proposed. From a fire district aspect it is going to come in spurts. I will share with you that from the nighttime aspect it is going to vary. We have requirements that we have to do a certain amount of training on a monthly basis at nighttime. We also have to do that at night with other adjoining districts that automatically provide assistance to us. They have to train with us at night to maintain standards. Brad Schiffer: Part ofthe fire fighters have to train a certain amount of time every month and this training has to occur in a facility similar to this? Chief Peterson: That's correct. What we are encountering, we had been able to, until the community started to grow and before gated communities came in, we've been able to go into the existing communities and use some of their facilities whether it is under construction or even after construction. What we are finding now, the folks that are coming down, are more particular. We've had to pay for repainting the sides of buildings because we are repelling down, ladders have been put up against them. Because of landscaping and parking requirements it's getting harder and harder to get equipment close enough to them without destroying personal property at the facility. So, with this type of facility the intent of the training facility that people can make mistakes 14 ..--"'.- August 19, 2004 safely. Ifthere is something to be damaged it is on our side. We are not tearing up somebody else's property up. Brad Schiffer: And my question is that is this really necessary, this building. I am not really concerned about limiting. I am concerned that you are really going to use it. Is it a luxury item or is it a necessity item to the fire fighter. Chief Peterson: It is a necessity. There is some discussion that we've talked for years about joint facilities within the county. One ofthe things that we have been trying to bridge for several years, since North Naples have constructed their facility, we have sent people up there and supported that facility. What happens when we do that, our crews are out of our district, they are not able to respond and keep those needs up. For awhile we were able to swap crews, North would provide coverage for us, but as everybody's call load is increased it has become harder and harder. It is expensive to pay overtime to send those people out of the District. The intent here is to be able to get as central as we can, as affordable as we can. There are still needs out there for larger fire training facilities but it would be the more intense and would include more ofthe environmental issues that I believe people are thinking of, including the black smoke issue. We know that those can not be in this area. There is a definite need for smaller facilities like this that can accommodate the fire district training, the law enforcement agencies, the communities. Brad Schiffer: Let's talk about the design of it a little bit. In your slide presentation, you showed the North Naples facility. Then you showed something that is possible for 73. The concern I have is that North Naples is kind ofa pretty facility, the other one looks like a factory in Baltimore. These things are large in the neighborhood. What can we do to make that not be built and something that looks like North Naples. Chief Peterson: That is one of the things that we are attempting to address that because we do not have a vendor on board these are some of the options. The facility originally comes out as a metal facility. The Board identified early on that it needed to look better than a metal building. They weren't going to go through that again. They have talked about whether it is a lighter red or a darker red. They have looked at a Swiss type Chalet type of facility. Constructing a clock tower and these type of things are hidden within that. There are a lot of different versions out there. The intend, as I understand it, is to identify our heights and what is going to go in there. Not the visual. We have listened to the community. We have had comments that it is ugly; they don't like it; they don't want us to have access to them; they don't want access to us. We are working through it. This is the best that I can show you today without having a vendor on board to finalize colors. Brad Schiffer: The concern that I have, couldn't you make it look like North Naples thing? That is a very nice looking facility. Actually the Swiss Chalet is scaring me more than the Baltimore factory. Chief Peterson: Can if look like that? Yes it can look like that. 15 -"-... August 19, 2004 Brad Schiffer: If you can look at that facility, if you can go back one more, can you see the way the roof is orientated on that. Could that be orientated to protect the neighbors from view of activity on top. Joe Schmitt: We are not here to design the facility. The architectural standards in the 2.8 ofthe LDC will dictate that. I really want to caution that we do not attempt to try to design this, because that is not the purpose of the rezoning request. Certainly the administrative process will dictate the architectural standards for this facility. Dwight Richardson: Joe, the staff has brought up the compatibility issue and I think it is appropriate to probe ways in which compatibility can be addressed. Joe Schmitt: It is clearly spelled out in our staff report in regards to compatibility and we can certainly go over that. We, in our review process, will insure that the architectural requirements are met in accordance with the LDC and that is all I can do. Certainly is you want to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners other criteria in regards to that, I understand and appreciate your views on that. Brad Schiffer: I don't want to get away from the esthetics of this. We just established the parameters. One of the parameters could be good design. I don't think it should leave this room, for the comfort of the neighbors, without that to be guaranteed. I certainly understand what the architectural standards can do and they don't guarantee good design. Chairman Budd: Weare not going to get into esthetics and design beyond the rezone and I am not going to recognize questions going down that road. It is not the code. If we want to rewrite the code there is another process to do that. That is not what we are here for today. Are there other issues we want to discuss? Robert Murray: Mr. Y ovanovich, we had a discussion, you and I, with regard to any purchasers of any residential property near by or adjacent or within this tract. An offer would be made to them if they were unhappy with this event, should it be approved. The repurchase would be made by the organization. Does that still stand? Mr. Y ovanovich: Yes. The developer ofthis property that signed off on this project would be concerned if this project would somehow impact the value of the product they were trying to sell. They were comfortable that it would not impact the value of what people were buying. Our developer of Summit Place has agreed that if somebody believes that this is going to hurt the value of what they have purchased, they will either let them out of the contract or buy it back with an interest rate of prime rate. Robert Murray: How long will that offer be held over? Mr. Yovanovich: It will be a reasonable amount of time. I not going to give someone 2 or 3 years. 16 August 19,2004 Robert Murray: It would help me to know what you and me consider reasonable. Mr. Yovanovich: Can I say one more thing about the tower? I think we can agree that this is going to look nice. And two, I don't know if anybody caught this, in our version of the PUD the height has been brought down the 50 feet, the zone height, and 65 feet for the elevator shaft maximum height. I don't know that has been pointed out in the presentation. Our version of the PUD has brought the height down some to make it more compatible with our neighbors. Dwight Richardson: So actually where it says 75 feet that is no longer 75 feet? Mr. Yovanovich: It actually says on page 16 of our version of the PUD, which is in your packet, says that the fire training facility and the fire training tower is limited to a maximum height of 50 feet as defined by the LDC and no greater than 65 feet of actual height as defined by the LDC. So with the truth in advertising, that is now being required, that number has been down . Chairman Budd: Anything else, Mr. Murray? Robert Murray: No, I was just hoping that he could give us an answer to that fairly quickly. Kenneth Abernathy: At the risk of running afoul with the Chairman's mandate, I wonder if you would tell me Chief why North Naples can accomplish this task in 45 feet? I am looking at a visual, what a person a block away looks at rather than these femoral heights that we constantly look at. If they can do it in 45 feet why do you need 65 or 75 feet and they are not in a residential area? Chief Peterson: One of the things that we have look at as far as the esthetics part of it, the facility that you see North Naples has. One of issues you have is esthetics, with the light color, with people climbing down the side it becomes marred. We tried to look at a durability type of finish. Weare certainly sensitive and through the two or three year process the only issues of esthetics concerned has been in the last 30 days. Kenneth Abernathy: You are asking a question that I didn't ask. I am not talking about the color, I'm talking about the height impact if we are talking about compatibility with the neighborhood. Chief Peterson: I'm sorry. With each facility you construct it to do certain things with the activities that people need to train. One of the hardest things we find is finding buildings that we can train from a height. Repelling activities and throwing ladders on high buildings. There is no question that 45 feet can meet a lot of those needs but also 45 feet is not able to meet other needs. We have tried to identify in-house, working with commercial vendors to donate equipment potentially to do elevator construction to provide a training facility to do that. What we believe to be the needed height for the 17 ~.-.~._.--.-.~.... August 19,2004 elevator shaft equipment to provide a different scenario on different floors and being able to provide enough stairs in the facility to properly test the people without going out to the community facilities is one of the reasons we have asked for the increase of height. Kenneth Abernathy: I guess we are getting to philosophical. It is something that you would like to have. I would just point out that the city of Naples and North Naples have all those high-rises along the beach and somehow they manage with much shorter towers. Let me move onto the communication tower for a moment. The limit that has been placed on the communication tower is 135 feet. Is that right? Chief Peterson: That is correct. Kenneth Abernathy: All right. My questions is as long as this has been dragging on and assuming that the height that you need to place your equipment is subjected to some sort of scientific calculation by people who understand radio and what not. Why hasn't that number been established long ago? There must be people around that can tell you exactly how high your gizmo ought to be. We could a finite limit on that tower instead of this 135 feet and somebody has got to police whether you rent space above where your gizmo ends up. What's the answer to that? Chief Peterson: The answer is that the height of the tower could be and we shared with staff in going through the project, the document was developed we identified 135 feet was satisfactory because the Golden Gate Parkway station we currently have 135 feet. Through the process it came up late, I would say later toward the end of the project, the request was to quantify the analysis. In that process, I shared that the quantified analysis and I just got a e-mail yesterday and I was told that the request of analysis was not going to be forth coming. However, County Staff member provided a document that they recommended 150 feet. Kenneth Abernathy: They who? Chief Peterson: John Daley, with the IT Department. Through the process, if I can I have worked with the County system since 1994 through the development ofthe 800 mg system. We have worked with the communication issues in the County for 20 something years. We know we have issues with the pine trees, we know we need to be above the pine trees. We know that there is mobile data coming on board. Telemetry is requiring increases in height. I share with you and the request to quantify that is potentially going to end up increasing that height. Our original goal was 135 feet, since that time, and that is one of the issues getting through the permitting process not having the contractors on board to give all this to us at this point, that is an issue we are attempting to work through here. Kenneth Abernathy: Well, take these numbers out of the air, I don't have any inbred objection to 150 feet if that is what you need but we are just here shooting in the dark and saying that it may be 135 feet and if we don't need that we promise not the rent space to 18 August 19,2004 all of these cell phone people above where we end up. There is something sort of hit or miss about that. Who is paying for this tower to start with. You? Chief Peterson: Ifwe were allowed to have a commercial vendor on this we would be. Kenneth Abernathy: I thought you could have commercial vendors as long as they were below your altitude. Chief Peterson: There has been objections of having us renting out space to the commercial vendors. That is why we have shared that we need other governmental agencies in there. Currently we have arrangements with the private folks, they have constructed the tower, turned it over to us, we receive the revenue from that tower from other carriers. In this case of the lower you go the less people can use it the less communication capability we have, therefore we would not be able to lease/rent that space out. Kenneth Abernathy: On this day and age, the kind of tower that you are building does not require a bunch oflollipops hanging on the outside, does it? It's all within? Chief Peterson: That's correct. If you recall the Italian-American Club has a big one, 951 and Golden Gate Parkway has one. Those are just under 200 feet. Those are larger than the 135 feet because they have the capability of 5 carriers on them. The 135 feet only has the capability of 3 vendors in there. Kenneth Abernathy: What then is the objection to having other people on the tower? If it doesn't show and you have to be told that they are there, then what is the objection? Mr. Yovanovich: Actually, Mr. Abernathy, it is not staffthat is objecting, Staff have said that as long as the commercial user is below us that it is ok with Staff. The community is questioning whether or not we really need this communication tower. They think that it is a commercial venture that is going to make us rich. Kenneth Abernathy: There has been some of those in the past. Mr. Yovanovich: And you are right. There is an encouragement to share towers so that you do not have a bunch of towers through out Collier County. It makes some sense that if the public entity can get the private sector to get build an essential tower, that we need to build anyway, it surely does make some sense to get someone else to pay for it and if we can generate some revenue I think that that is good stewardship of the tax payer's money. Kenneth Abernathy: And that is what's happening in this case? Mr. Yovanovich: That is what is suppose to happen. 19 ,.,.,....-.,.--,.,,-- August 19,2004 Mark Strain: I have two questions of Rich. Hopefully, they will be short depending on his answers. Question was asked earlier about the buy-back provision that the developer to the North was offering to the residents of those units who may not want to live there now. Did that buy-back value include the appreciated value of the units, since possibly two years some of those people have been waiting, the cost that they may have wrapped up in selling their current homes since they have anticipating moving in a few months to their new home and any other expenditures that they may have occur or is strictly what they paid at the date they bought their unit at couple of years back? Mr. Yovanovich: Well it is kind of ironic, ifthis going to truly effect the value of their property, there wouldn't be any appreciation in value now that they have learned that these usage's are going to be next door to them. We were going to pay them prime on their money as a return on their investment. Which is better than most of us have done in the market. Mark Strain: So you are going to basically going to pay them for what they paid for the unit plus interest? Mr. Yovanovich: Theoretically, if the unit has gone up in value, I would think that they would want to keep it. Mark Strain: The next question that I have, Richard, is a question that I asked previously and I want to here your answer so that I understand it. The 20 acres that the fire department did have. How much of that acreage in the Summit Place PUD is actually being used? I think you said that 70% ofthat is preserve? Mr. Yovanovich: Ifit is 20 acres times .7 that would leave you with 6 acres. And I would like to point out that when this was originally continued the Summit Place PUD was on the agenda for the Planning Commission because they were tracking together, we actually amended the Summit Place PUD to recognize that we were lagging behind. Mark Strain: You are answering questions that I did not ask. What is place there right now? The area that is penciled out, I believe that that is the 20 acres by the fire department. Can you show me the 70% of that 20 acres that is in preserve? Dwight Nadeau: Of the entire Summit Place PUD 70% of the project.. ...Hold it, please identify yourself. I'm sorry, Dwight Nadeau planning manager for RW A, I'm representing the developer, Waterways Joint Venture. Mark Strain: Now the question that I asked of Richard, that he got an answer from someone in the audience prior to this, how much of the 20 acres that the Golden Gate fire department use to own is being used for development by Summit Place PUD as approved some time ago whether it be two weeks or two months? 20 August 19,2004 Dwight Nadeau: It appears that there may be 2/3rds of the property being utilized. Mark Strain: So 14 to 15 acres? Dwight Nadeau: Potentially. Mark Strain: So the fire department have a 20 acre parcel that they believe they can use only 5 acres of. They swapped that for 5 acres along 951 and gave up 14 to 15 acres of prime residential developmental acreage to Summit Place. Did the fire department get paid in addition to the swap for their value, do you know? Dwight Nadeau: As far as monetary compensation, I'm not sure what they were paid. What they were given, and part of the commitments ofthe land swap agreement, was the provisions ofsewer facilities, the provisions of water management, the provision for fill for the site, the construction, the maintenance of the bermed facilities. It was an infinite cost savings that was offered through the structured improvements of Summit Place. As far as monetary compensation, I would have to refer to the Chief. Mark Strain: That's ok. It is irrelevant to the rezone. The reason that I was pointing it out is that I'm a tax payer of that district. To give up 15 acres in that acres for 5 acres along 951 seems to be a stretch. But that is not an issue ofthat rezone today. Lindy Adelstein: Chief, you were talking about sometimes you have problems and have to help the other fire stations and send your men over to help them. Let's put that out of the picture for the moment. Assuming that there would be none of that available, necessary, how much scheduling would you have each day for the use of that tower? Chief Peterson: On a daily basis, just for that tower, is not going to be on a daily basis. Lindy Adelstein: OK, what would it be? Chief Peterson: I can not give a definitive, we know that each person has to average 20 hours per month. On their shift time that have to put in some of their training. Some of it is going to occur at this site, so of it is going to occur at other sites. When we bring new employees on there is going to be a 3 to 4 week window of orientation required for new employees. Currently that would be a 5 day, 8 hour a day for at least one week that they are going to have to be doing different activities with that tower. Above and beyond that depends on were we are in the whole training schedule because they have other issues besides the elevated or the search and rescue issues this tower would provide for. There is a classroom in the admin. building they would be using as much are more than the actual tower there. In offering it up to the other agencies, it would depend on how much their need is and how many agencies come on board. It is just us by ourselves it would not be a daily thing, it is not to say that the crew that is on duty that day which could be between 2 or 13 to 14 people, if they are there on a shift they could be there working out 21 ~---_. ~----,~"<... _.'"-"'~ August 19,2004 some Issues. As a structured, scheduled normally everyday of the week, it would not be used. Lindy Adelstein: So we don't have a fixed schedule where it is going to be from the morning till the night. So, that that type of thing is not going to be an everyday type of situation? Chief Peterson: Our single agency usage alone, no. Lindy Adelstein: My second question is this, when you first started you were talking about 75 feet for this tower. It is actually going to be down to 65 feet. My question is if it can go down from 75 to 65, is there any logical reason that it can not go down to 55 or 50? Chief Peterson: As a firefighter, I would share with you some of these things we have been working through and the County Staff has shared with us what we can do within these height limitations. We've identified that in order to still facilitate the training we need the building as a minimum of 50 feet. We understand that the code allows us, in the case of the elevator equipment for the elevator room could be above and we can buffer that with the things to esthetically improve that. From our prospective, we were sharing with you what total height would potentially be and not from the technical code. That is where everybody shared with us that is not actually 75 we can do 50 and still put that equipment up there. Lindy Adelstein: So, therefore, the total height of the building will be 50 feet. The only thing that goes above that would be the elevator shaft. Those 50 feet would include the roof of it. Mr. Yovanovich: That 75 foot height that we had in the PUD was to the top of railing. That was an actual height versus the LDC height when we asked for the 75 feet in the first place. All we have done is kind of refined the numbers to show you that the building as measured by the LDC will be 50 feet and then when we do our elevator it will be 65 feet to the top of the elevator. Lindy Adelstein: That includes the bars around it and all that? That would be at 50 feet? Mr. Yovanovich: The flat of the roofwill be at 50 feet. The elevator shaft will go above that. Paul Midney: It seems that every time that I have been on this Board that a fire station, EMS, or coast guard proposal comes in. They all want their own fire tower. Is it that each time a fire station is built that it needs its own tower? It that true? Chief Peterson: That is not true. 22 -'~""-..._,-., August 19,2004 Paul Midney: Why in this particular case do you need a separate tower? Chief Peterson: In this case, we are moving our administrative headquarters and we've have tried to tie that training into the administrative headquarters area because of the nature of the size of the training room that would be needed to support having the training tower there. Fortunately or unfortunately we have tried to work with the community and save money where ever we can. Try to not spend the extra money. So we have tried to low ball it and tried to work with the community to do that. This is the only acreage of this size we own to be able to do this. Ifwe don't do it here, we would have to purchase additional acreage some place and then we will run into the location issues and different things. Paul Midney: I was asking about the communication tower not the training tower. Does each fire station need it's own communication tower? Chief Peterson: To the extent of this one, no. However, if it was not this type, it would be an open galvanized smaller version of tower. What we found, not only in the past few day, what Charlotte, Lee counties are currently going through. In order to maintain or have some kind of reliability built into our communication capability, cell carriers go down very quickly, phone line issues occur, so we need to have line of site communication with our different stations. The only way, because ofthe nature of the Florida vegetation, unfortunately, we have to have elevation to that. The counties 800 mg system that is out there. Those go down. When it goes down the low power for the 800 mg being use, you use a much lower out put wattage. You are using less than a watt in most cases. Where as this towers reliability requires you to run 50 to a 100 plus watts to be able to get that line of site communication through the vegetation. Paul Midney: So you are saying that the reason that you need your own new tower is because of what happens during a hurricane? Chief Peterson: Not only a hurricane, the big Summer rain storms that come through and the fire seasons. When we have the major fire events we have mutual aide provided by the State and Federal agencies. They currently only use VHF equipment. It requires a straight line of site, contact point to point. The intended administrative use of the facility, and a major headquarters in large events, we need some reliability to have the higher elevation. Our other station, other than the main one currently, has a 135 feet with an antenna on top of that making a total overall of about 145 or 150 feet. Because of the type of communication you need elevation to reliably maintain that. Trees grow, that is one of our issues that we have talked about. Could we reduce the height of the tower? Potentially, today. However, in 5 or 10 years we would have to come back and replace the tower to get an increased height. So we are attempting to build in some capacity so that it is years down the road before it has to be replaced. Paul Midney: So trees would interfere with the reception. 23 . .~""';-_'~"~~' August 19,2004 Chief Peterson: Yes, very much so. Paul Midney: And you would not be able to use the 135 tower you have? You wouldn't have a line of site to your whole area? Chief Peterson: Currently it is questionable to the East, however, as you get a year, two years, three years, I have had a 70 foot tower that was 5 to 10 feet above the trees, now the trees are at or above that height in the last 15 years. If they take down the trees, we would be ok, but the Estates growth that is occurring out there is increasing and it is going to cause problems. Paul Midney: How high are the tallest trees out there? Chief Peterson: It depends on where you are in the Estates. I would estimate probably averaging 45 to 60 feet in areas. A lot of the area where they have replanted, probably 35 feet. Once you get into that 50 to 60 foot mark, they are in there. Paul Midney: So you don't have enough coverage right now. That's why you need to build this new tower? Chief Peterson: Correct. One ofthe things that it would also provide us with is communication with the other stations. One of the things that happens when a system goes down, Immokalee is left out there by themselves. With the VHF capability, direct station to station, this would afford us the opportunity to still have communication with them or the fair grounds, which is identified as a backup EOC, should there be a problem. The goal is to be able to communicate in the County, wherever it is needed, because it is emergency servIces. Chairman Budd: Mr. Murray is next. Robert Murray: Chief, with regard to Commissioner Adelstein's questions, Ijust wanted to get something qualified for myself. I am a CER T member, as a result I have a little bit of knowledge, just a little. It was my understanding that from time to time various departments, districts, will go to the city and train in the tall buildings, but it has become much more difficult to train on those buildings because of the ladder usage and maintenance issues that they have. Is that true? And even if you did not have this tower you would have to train in some fashion for mutual aide in those areas, is that a fact? Chief Peterson: Correct. The facility not only provides training for heights, it also provides the other accessory internal type of training that is needed, the simulator, the burn activity and associated activity. There are insurance issues we have going onto the other properties. As the gated communities improve, they are reluctant to let us come in to dirty up, destroy. It has always been our position, if we damage something, we are responsible, we replace it. In some cases, over the years, we have had to repaint the sides of buildings. 24 August 19,2004 Robert Murray: So in clarity, although you could work without the 65 feet, it is definitely beneficial to work with the 65 feet to provide the training that would otherwise, eventually be limited. Is that a fair statement? Chief Peterson: Yes it is. Lindy Adelstein: They call this a flag pole type pole. Is there actually going to be a flag on it? Chief Peterson: Yes. Lindy Adelstein: I have seen this before. They are going to make an especially large flag for it? I have that Kleenex on top of that before. That is not what I want to see there. Chief Peterson: I understand. Currently the one on Golden Gate Parkway is replaced, I believe, three times a year. Approximately, it is around $250 a flag. This, being a larger flag is going to be over $300. Lindy Adelstein: Money is not the point. Ifwe are going to put an American flag up, I want it to be there and look like it is an American flag on a flag pole. Not something that is that small that you can't basically see it. Joe Schmitt: Mr. Chairman in may indulge, I appreciate the interest ofthe Board in some ofthese issues but in regards to zoning, in could ask, that you keep on subject. Chairman Budd: Yes sir. Any other questions for Chief Peterson on his presentation? We will have another shot, we have the Staff report. Rich is there any other presentation on your owners team? Mr. Yovanovich: No. Kenneth Abernathy: I have a question for Rich. I can't find in the PUD anywhere a list ofthe principals in Waterways Joint Venture IV. Could you read into the record who those people are, so we protect the record from some of our members here who are in the workforce and might have a conflict. Mr. Yovanovich: Mr. Abernathy, I don't have that readily available, but I will go into my file and pull it out, if I can do that, and get it into the file before it goes forward. Mark Strain: Rich, I have that information here, if you would like it. Mr. Yovanovich: Sure. 25 August 19, 2004 Mark Strain: Would you like me read it in for you? Richard Davenport, President of Waterways Development, Inc; Armon Golden, Director; Robert Miller, President of DSNI, Inc; and Brian Felderman, President ofPriPro Ventures Inc. Mr. Yovanovich: Those are all of the principals, Mr. Abernathy. Patrick White: I am just going to point out, Mr. Chairman, for the record, that Commissioner Strain read that from the previous Staff report and it is part of the record. Brad Schiffer: Can we talk, quickly, why we need variance for parking with this shopping center look that this thing is starting to have? Mr. Yovanovich: Frankly, this is not a shopping center, it is an emergency services area and we need to keep the general public out from behind our building where our apparatuses are going to be. It is a safety concern. We have got to put our parking out in front of the building, because people can not be behind the building. That's the bottom line. Also, if you look at the site plan we come out about the mid-point. The vehicles that come out are actually going out about midway back on the property, so the station has got to be back to function. Brad Schiffer: OK. That is a good reason. Chairman Budd: Rich, is there anything else on your presentation? Mr. Y ovanovich: No, sir. Chairman Budd: Our next item up will be the Staff presentation followed by Public testimony. We have been going for an hour and a half and before we go to the Staff presentation will take a 10 minute break. BREAK: 10:00 AM RECONVENE: 10:10 AM Staff Report Kay Deselem: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I am a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I am here to discuss the Staff report that was prepared. You have a Staff report dated July 15, 2004 that has most of the detail in it. Then you have a supplemental report dated August 19, 2004. As noted so far, we have narrowed the areas of disagreement on this particular petition down to basically two issues: 1. The training facility and 2. There is one deviation that is still unresolved in that Staff is denying and the applicant is asking it to be approved. I will go back to the original Staff report that was dated July 15th and I will keep my particular presentation brief because you do have all the information, hopefully that you 26 -_. August 19,2004 will need, within this Staff report and you have had it before you to review. Narrowing and limiting my comments to the outstanding issues, I would direct your attention to page 8 of the original Staff report and note that in the 2nd full paragraph, it is important that you understand that Staff has no problem with locating the fire station itself here. We believe that it is a good location, appropriate location for a fire station. We don't necessarily believe that it is an appropriate location for a training tower, because of the fact that it is adjacent to residential usage. The training tower itself would be most approximate to those residential usage and we understand, however, that this is the site that the fire station owns and this is where they want to put it. However, Staffhas to look at things beyond and above financial constraints. We need to look at the compatibility Issues. I would direct your attention to page 10 ofthe Staff report. It talks about those compatibility issues, recognizing that they are several methods. I might read to you from that staff report, in may, and below the picture, the 4th paragraph down. General planning practices recognize several methods to help manage potential incompatibility issues, such as a review of the projects development standards, regarding the proposed building height and set-back, as well as information concerning building mass, building location and orientation, potential softening architectural features, the amount and type of open space and it's location. Those are the things that Staff is looking at. In this particular petition we haven't had a great deal of information to go on to try and make any kind of a recommendation that would allow us to approve this training tower. We haven't had those details. As far as the architectural features or the amount and type of open space, the building mass, we do not know what it is going to look like. You have seen several pictures and yourself, among you, have had some concerns with the different designs that have been provided to you. At the meeting the Petitioner had with the neighbors there were issues raised about the same things you were talking about. The Clock Tower. You are seeing different pictures. That is what the Staff is seeing. The applicant has not narrowed it down to anything. We really don't know what it is going to look like. All we know is that it is going to located adjacent to residential usage. Identifying and looking at those compatibility issues, Staff again would direct your attention to the Staff report, page 11 and note that our conclusion states that the training facility should not be approved at this site because it is incompatible. As far as the deviation, we are in agreement on deviation 1,2,3 and 4. The only deviation that is still up in the air is deviation 5, dealing with the parking. Staff at this time has not had the information that would lead us to a conclusion that would recommend approval of this particular deviation. It appears that you are being offered more information today than what was made available to us, other than the fact that it was a safety concern. With the way the code is written we did not see how we could support it based on that. I did want to mention two things in the presentation with the Chief, just to bring them to your attention. There has been some discussion of a building height 150' versus 135'. I need to make it clear to you that the 135' for the 27 August 19,2004 communication tower was what was advertised and what you can act upon today. If in fact, the Petitioners wish to go to 150' for that communication tower they would either need to continue this particular Petition, to have it re-advertised or come back at another time to amend it to seek that height. The other issue that I noticed when the Chief was making his presentation, when he was talking about the limits and how much the training facility would be used. He made mention of "our single agency alone". I don't know exactly what he is limiting that to or if he is agreeing to some limitation when he responded to the questions about how long, or how many day, or hours that that facility would be used. Is he talking about the fire department use? Is that the "agency"? If it is, is he agreeing to limit it to that or was just an illustration for purposes to make you understand? I don't know and Ijust wanted to mention that to you. I don't have any other things to mention. Ijust went over the highlights ofthe Staff report. I would ask however, if you do see that you are going to change the recommendation that you forward on to the Board from what Staff has recommend that Staff be given an opportunity to clarify and perhaps look at any conditions that you are proposing so that we can make sure we understand what it is that you want so we can clearly understand what enforcement would be required and how the PUD document is written. Kenneth Abernathy: Kay, I am a little confused. When your speaking of compatibility you talked about the absence of specificity as the architectural features and the like. Now, your boss Mr. Schmitt and our Chairman has gently admonished us to stay away from those features because they will be taken care of by architectural standards for commercial buildings. How can you be using them when we can't? So what is the difference? Kay Deselem: I understand, it is confusing. In this particular instance we have a very detailed site plan which raises issues that in many cases we would not have because you don't know the details of where things would be. In this case, there has been references by the Petitioner as to what he mayor may not do to soften the effects. I think that was one the terms that they used. When we try to consider if it approvable or not, or whether it is going to be compatible or not, since they are offering these ideas to us I need to understand, you need to understand. Perhaps it is just as simple as making it very clear by including a statement in the PUD document that states that this project in its entirety, every building, would be subject to compliance with architectural standards which is 2.8. I don't think it is clearly stated in the PUD document. Kenneth Abernathy: It's operation of law that would bring that result, wouldn't it? Patrick White: Commissioner Abernathy I believe that conclusion is correct. I think perhaps what the Staff is postulating to you is that those things that were offered by the developer that are more akin to site planning are in the nature of conditions. If they are willing to have a stipulation, or as portions of the provision of the PUD, in an effort to address the concerns that this Commission, the Staff or the Public may have with respect 28 --~ ~-_.._- ,.- August 19,2004 to compatibility. Although that might not be an area that may be commanded to be provided by an applicant, when properly ordered or reasonably offered, and included as part of the approval conditions, they are appropriate to the process. Brad Schiffer: In the PUD you make reference that it has to be a light building. So, in other words, you are putting design issues into the PUD. I don't see why we can't make further requests of that paragraph. Chairman Budd: Kay, you have had a meeting with your staff? Kay Deselem: Yes, Staff is now willing to support deviation number 5. That would allow parking to be shown as it is on the site plan based on the testimony that was provided this morning. Chairman Budd: OK. Anything else in your presentation? Are we still open for questions? Brad Schiffer: Kay, are you comfortable, here is one thing that I don't want to do, as they reference that it meets the standards of architectural standards, but there is a lot of exemptions in there. Have you checked to make sure that this projects isn't exempt from those standards? I would hate to throw us into that and have us bounced out immediately. Kay Deselem: No, I'm not aware that they are. That was why I was saying that if you wanted to put that particular clause in it, it makes it very clear and you can clarify that regardless of any exemptions that may exist to allow otherwise. So normally, like we were saying, ifit doesn't specifically state otherwise, as in a deviation, it is assumed that you will comply with the land development codes and all other applicable codes. Just to make it extremely clear so that is no room for discussion or disagreement later. Patrick White: Similar to the comments that you made previously, that is something that the applicant is willing to agree to as a provision of this PUD, but it otherwise would not apply as a matter of or by operation of law. That is again something that can be committed to and should be detailed in such of way that it can be applied and enforced by the Staff when it gets to that point in the process. Chairman Budd: It seems to me, Mr. Y ovanovich, that you run the risk of being punished for providing too much information and that if you didn't say anything, we wouldn't hold you to it, but because you were trying to be forthcoming we are not going to hold you to things intended, implied, surmised or in other ways believed. Would you be comfortable, rather than designing your building here on the floor during a rezone process, would you be comfortable in agreeing to a compliance with architectural guidelines, Section 2.8, and move the architectural issues to a different menu that would be more appropriate. 29 --->,....--- August 19, 2004 Mr. Yovanovich: Yes, I think you are right. No good deed goes unpunished. We did in an effort to make everybody know what we planned on doing, give an abundance of information. Yes, we believe we are subjected to the architectural standards. If Staff is not sure what their code says, then we will go ahead and put in our PUD that we are subject to it. Chairman Budd: I think they know what the code says. They just want to make this petition clear. Brad Schiffer: But, Mr. Chairman, the architectural standards, and I sat on the committee that did the re-write, doesn't address fire training towers. It is something that was never really considered. Chairman Budd: Before that, the request by Kay, and what I thought I was getting out of Mr. Y ovanovich was that this entire proj ect, the complete structure, every building in it, tower, and everything would be under the compliance of the architectural guidelines, Section 2.8. Is that true? Is that what we understood? Mr. Yovanovich: Yes. Patrick White: I hate to add more words to this. Will that be understood as 2.8 exist today or as though provisions may exist at the time that this comes in for site planning because there are amendments contemplated in Section 2, LCD amendment cycle 2, this year that this board will see on September 22nd. Chairman Budd: We are seeking that it would be as it may exist. Is that agreeable, Mr. Y ovanovich? Mr. Yovanovich: I believe that they PUD says that. Dwight Richardson: Kay said if we get information here that tells us that the operation of that tower would be better, from the fire district's standpoint, at 150' versus 135' then we would have to re-advertise and continue the meeting. That kind of puzzles me. We hear changes on the fly all the time on these PUD's and these rezones. I am not sure that that 15', ifthat came out as a result of this testimony, and was supplementary agreed to by this Commission, that that would constitute a basis for are-hearing. Patrick White: I don't know if you can't sever that issue. If you want to have it separately decided at some supplemented, properly noticed hearing that it couldn't go forward in that manner. I think, Kay is correct in saying that because the intensity, the height was specified, if you are going to increase the intensity beyond that which was advertised then I think that there could a due process and notice issue that may require re- advertising. 30 August 19,2004 Dwight Richardson: If they came in an said that they wanted 16 units per acre and somehow we came out with some other number that was one number larger, that would require re-advertising? Patrick White: Assuming, for the sake of argument, that that was the limit. Yes. Dwight Richardson: So you can always go down but you can never go up? Is that the story? Patrick White: You can't increase. You can do anything within the limit that was advertised or less. Now, sometimes are regulations work in reverse so I don't want to say "up", "down", but the notion generally is that you can do less but you can't do more. Kenneth Abernathy: Mr. Chairman, let me clarify something. This came up in my discussion with the Chief, I did not understand him today to be advocating or asking for 150' nor was I indicating that I wanted to do that today. That was all hypothetical and out in the future because that isn't before us today and I did not intend to put it there and I don't think the Chief did either. Chairman Budd: I think you are correct. Mr. Y ovanovich can you just settle that issue. You are not requesting anything more than the 135' advertised. Is that true? Mr. Yovanovich: Correct. Chairman Budd: Another great one word answer. Mark Strain: Kay, I read your report and the Staff's version, and I want to compliment you on a lot of good research that you did. Even to the point that you rewrote the whole thing. It is tremendous. I don't if everybody appreciates the amount of effort you put into it I saw it and I definitely agree with what you have done. In your research you had compared it to other towers that you actually went out and looked at. Are any of those other towers adjacent to residential properties? Kay Deselem: No sir. Mark Strain: The one in Ft. Myers, how many towers are there in Ft. Myers? I know that you have one in there as an example. Do you know if there are multiple towers? Kay Deselem: To my knowledge, there are only the two that we saw. There was one off College Pkwy and one down by the University. Those are the only two towers that I am aware of. There is talk of others, but those are the only ones that I am aware of. There have been, as noted in the Staff report, others that were proposed but died for whatever reason, were never sent forward, were never built. Mark Strain: Even in Lee County, they are not adjacent to residential, are they? 31 August 19,2004 Kay Deselem: No, sir. Mark Strain: In the Public Meetings that were held, the presentation materials presented, was the tower show in that presentation material? Do you know? Kay Deselem: The neighborhood information meeting, that is required by code, was never "held", There was no meeting because no one showed up. They were there, it was advertised, but no one ever showed up. There was a subsequent meeting that was sought and arranged for by the Developer and the information that was provided by the Fire Chief was pretty much shown as well. Mark Strain: That first neighborhood meeting, I'm assuming that the legal owners of the adjacent property were notified, Since there were no closings on Summit Place then the notices probably went to the Developers. Is that what you are thinking? Kay Deselem: That is what I understand, sir. Mark Strain: My other question, I noticed that on the aerials that the fire department showed us, this property is cleared, the lake is dug, the excavation is even filled. I thought we changed the LDC to allow clearing and filling after certain governmental approvals were obtained, They don't even have a PUD yet. So, did how did all that clearing and filling and excavation take place on that property? Kay Deselem: It is my understanding that there is a site development plan approval on this site for a landscape nursery and all activity done on site, to this point, was done in conjunction with the current zoning and the current County approval. Mark Strain: So the current zoning is "AG", so under "AG" they submitted a request to clear and excavate of a nursery that just happened to be the same exact footprint of the site plan for the fire department and the 16 unit which is here today. Kay Deselem: Seemingly so. Mark Strain: OK, that is interesting. I guess that is one to clear property ahead of time. Chairman Budd: Other questions on the Staff report? There are none, we may have some later, are they registered Public Speakers? Rei!istered Public Speakers: Vincent Sullivan: Good morning. My name is Vincent Sullivan. I am a home owner within the Golden Gate Fire District. I recently purchased a home in Summit Place for my daughter and family. No one wants to live next to a fire department and no one wants to live next to a 135' communication tower but there are civic needs so we bend and accept and I certainly support our great fire fighters and their need to have additional fire 32 '---' ..~""----- August 19, 2004 stations and their need to train for future events in multiple storied units. Part of the plan is a 65' training tower. No one should have a 65' training tower about a football field from their home. I spent five years as a firefighter on Long Island. I trained at the Nassau County Long Island Academy, I trained at the New Haven Connecticut Fire Academy, I went to the National Fire Academy, I know about fire towers. I have a picture there of the flames that is going to be inside that fire tower. I went to a neighborhood meeting and I asked the times of the training. They said that they would try to get them done by 10 PM. I asked about the days of the week and they said five days a week usually, but the Federal trainers and the State trainers are only available on weekends, so it will probably be seven days a week. So, I will now have bright lights, fire hoses, firefighters repelling off buildings, loud truck motors, steam from water on hot surfaces. A training tower does not belong a football field away from homes. There was another point that just came up today, when the Chief was asked about the days and times, he said single agency use. And he told us how long it would be. He then said that the Naples Fire Department, the North Naples Fire Department and the Immokalee Fire Department, possibly County police, State police.. . are we talking about SWAT training? I mean, I spent 30 years as a police officer. SWAT training means blanks, flash bangs, screaming and yelling. Gentlemen, my understanding that one of the functions of the Planning Commission is suppose to prevent poor planning. A training tower with bellows of steam, noise, fire hoses, repelling, lights, seven days a week up to 14 hours a day, 300' from my home is an example of poor planning. Thank you very much. Bob Galasso: Good morning, my name is Bob Galasso. I am a homeowner at the Summit. We purchased our property back in 2003 and there was never any disclosure, what so ever, that this was going to be a training facility. There was only one sentence in our contract that read this land would be used for an elementary school or for a fire station. After reading all of that, and finding out that this is going to become a training center it became very upsetting. We went to a meeting on August 3rd, with Fire Chief Peterson, he told us that a deal was struck with the Developer, that Summit Place would incorporate their utilities and sewer for the fire house. This was never proposed in the budget or anything in the contract. Because we pay taxes, that provides services for the residents of Summit Place. Those fees should have been included in those taxes. Now we are being asked to subsidize the water and sewer. Also, I asked if there was an existing training tower, he said there is. Why can't they just add the additional 40' to the tower that is existing to meet their needs? I would like to give the rest of my time to Len Stout. Len Stout: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Len Stout. I want to mention that there were four home owners that wanted to come here and speak today, but they were unable to make it. They wanted me to speak for them in their behalf. We did have a meeting, we discussed a lot of the issues and I tried to put them down and cover them so that everybody's issues are being heard today. I just hope if I can be allowed just half of the time as the Petitioner that I can get all of our points discussed. 33 ~._._--_. August 19,2004 Chairman Budd: We will give you the discretion as long as you are presenting confident and creditable testimony. New information we will be reasonable and here it, but we will run out of patience if start becoming redundant. Ray Bellows: And the letters he gave us will be put into the record. Len Stout: All the owners, we think that Summit Place has beautiful homes. They are a great value and we recommend it to anyone. We like to live there. We are not interested in having an unplanned next door neighbor come in to ask us to move. In fact, just a few weeks ago, there was a church school that was denied because the neighbors objected. Now if a church school is denied, we would love to have this church come next door to us. The church mentioned that this is their show case facility. Number 1, please. This is the boundaries for the Golden Gate Fire District and the Chief mentioned that this is a show case facility and he also mentioned that it is going to be centrally located. If you look to the left of number one that dot is the location of this petition. It is less than a mile from the edge of the district's Northern boundary and the dot to the left ,right below the "F" in North Naples Fire District, that is an existing fire station that is already there under the North Naples Fire District. And the "T" on the left is less than six miles away with the existing training tower of North Naples Fire District. I was out there last week and it was sitting there all by itself, no residents nearby, it is not being used at all. And the other thing #4 which isjust to the left of that #1, up there, top left is the Heritage Bay Shopping Center that I'll be discussing in just a little bit. Number five, which is the dot on Vanderbilt Beach Blvd., that is the Mission Hills Shopping and the Nagel Creek Business Park. I just wanted to orient everybody on some of the items I'll be covering a little bit later. Development usually occurs under two situations. This is a unique one here for us. It usually occurs after the adjacent homeowners have already moved in and they have an association. Then the Developer comes in and he discusses their project with this association. I refer to the June 15th Planning meeting, when Richard Yovanovich was representing the Developers of Wolf Creek and the Planning Commission said have you talked to the neighbors to find out what they think. He said, yes, we have had four meetings with the people of Island Walk and we are resolving all their issues. Or, development occurs before individuals sign a purchase contract for the adjacent neighborhood. If development had occurred before we bought our unit, we would have seen the 8 story training tower with the sirens and the large diesel engines and the bull horns in the night drills. There is a major governmental Greentree type shopping center proposed here. That has not been mentioned here yet. This is where they have paid for their vehicles to be inspected, they pay their alimony payments, they buy their various hunting and fishing licenses and they pay their criminal fines. That is what they do at the Clerk of the Court office, Property Assessor's office and that is what is being proposed here. That is the same thing that they do at Greentree Shopping Center. We would have seen 135' commercial antenna. The fire district is motivated by the money that will be received from Horizon, Sprint other cell towers. If I had seen my complex, as proposed today, 34 _..~_.~..-- August 19,2004 absolutely not. I'm not interested in selling. Since we are not an association, we don't have an attorney; we are just a few people getting together trying to protect our neighborhood. We were not notified of the elaborate details ofthis project. We looked to the County for assistance because this is a unique situation. 1'11 discuss our contract issue a little bit later. Under the growth management plan, policy 5.4, new development must be compatible with and complimentary to the surrounding areas. We should ask is this petition compatible, being approximately 100' from the living rooms of a residential community. We have two groups here, one group is the County Staff, they did research, they visited several sites to find out what other fire districts were doing. The other group, the Golden Gate Fire District, did no research. The Staff visited three fire locations, like you said, they did an excellent job. None of these fire stations were within 600' of a residential community. One fire station, in Lee County, they wanted to build a fire tower and a communication tower and the residents protested and to be a good neighbor, the fire district pulled their request back. These folks lived 600' away. Like I mentioned, recently in Collier County, a church school was denied because of home owner's complaints. Conclusion on Staff report, page 6, overall the Staff says that it does not appear this site has been designed with sensitivity to the proposed usage. Briefly, I want to discuss the various items proposed in this Petition. Training tower, August 3rd neighborhood meeting where we were guest of the North Naples Fire Department and 1'11 elaborate a little bit later on the results of this meeting. Number 2, please, the District published frequently asked question. They provided the questions and they provided the answers. But the underlying question, I just wanted to read it because you can not read it there, it states that "We hope to continue to offer you superior service with our new station, Station 73 and we hope to have your support as we construct it. So you can see that they were not looking for an input, they were looking for a blessing. Number 3. Other frequently asked questions are F AQ's. They made the statement that this design keeps it pleasing to the eye and avoids the appearance of an unsightly mono-colored structured. Now, obviously, I take issue with this statement. When you compare the fire tower to the beautiful homes of Summit Place. And again, these are excellent homes, high quality, I would recommend them to anybody. So based on the sirens, loud engines, bumper noises and so forth, and night training. In the Staff report, the Staff does not recommend placing the 75' training tower that close to residential use is appropriate. I would like to speak about the 135' commercial training tower. From our viewpoint this height is just being profit motivated and being driven by the cell folks of AT&T, Sprint and others. We believe that this height is not needed to protect the health and safety of the citizens. Today, the fire district can communicate from their existing base stations on Golden Gate Blvd and Golden Gate Parkway. These are 135' antennas already. They can talk to the fire trucks visiting this location on Collier Blvd. These trucks can talk back with these existing 135' towers. In this location, if they installed a shorter flag pole style antenna. With the use of repeaters the district would easily be able to communicate with the other fire stations and fire trucks. So they are already talking from two 135' towers to our Summit Place location to the trucks. So you know that any type of tower 35 --.-.. ^----_. August 19,2004 has better communication ability than a truck does. If you had a 50' or 60' antenna, they would easily be able to communicate throughout the district. Number 4. This is a site plan submitted to the County and a little bit later I will explain the "top secret" classification. If you take a look at it, you will see the training tower, the place for the engines and the one thing that we haven't discussed at all is that whole row on the right. They are talking about a huge auditorium, they are talking about all the other usage, like Greentree. This has not been discussed yet, but that is what has been proposed for the buildings on the right. Number 5. Number 5 is a rendering on the FAQ's meeting and what the proposed site plan looks like. And also at the August 3rd neighborhood meeting they had a nice scaled model of this project. No where on these two photos plus that site plan, that model did they show this 135' tower. They brought up two flag poles already today. One on Golden Gate Parkway and also one on Golden Gate Blvd. No, I'm sorry, Airport Rd. Airport Rd has a flag pole and also Golden Gate Parkway. These are both none residential, not even close. I asked at the August 3rd meeting on this model, I said why aren't you showing this tower. Showing the tower would distract from the esthetics of the various building heights. Let me digress, just a bit for 10 seconds, when I was a teenager, believe it or not, I had some blemishes and what did I try to do, I tried to cover them up. The auxiliary usage, I would like to speak to now. They talk about a library, EMS substation, Sheriff's substation, Tax Assessor's office and other governmental usage, which some of these are at the Greentree Shopping Center. Then they talked about how this antenna can only fall into the woodsy area. What if it fell to the other area on top of all these people buying their hunting and fishing licenses. An antenna has to fall more than one way. I don't know how many people know this, but as we speak, less than a mile North of here, Collier County already owns 7.7 acres in the Heritage Bay Shopping Center and most are all ofthese uses are already permitted. Other possible locations for the uses could be the Mission Hills Shopping Center or the Nagel Creek Commercial Park. All three of these locations are high traffic areas. You can do your grocery shopping, you can buy your hardware, you can go buy your fishing license, but what they are proposing here is making a special trip to come in and buy them at this location. Now, if these buildings are allowed to be built, and some of these requested uses that they are looking for go elsewhere. The fire district would come back before this Commission and claim a hardship. We have to have some other uses, we can't fill up these buildings. We request that these uses not be approved. If they where, no construction for these buildings on the right should be allowed unless the district gets signed agreements from the tenants and pre-approved by their neighbors at Summit Place. Then they talk about a conference room. I believe that should have a fire station and a conference room for staff meetings. No one has a complaint at all about that. But they are asking for, in the Staff report, for an auditorium up to 225 seats to be used for fire commission meetings, and other public functions. I am not aware that fire commission meetings attract this large of an audience. So what are these other functions, weddings, church services, private parties. We don't need it at Summit Place because we have our own club house. That's where we hold our 36 August 19,2004 meetings. This is not appropriate for this location. I do believe that the conference room at Golden Gate Blvd is equipped for fire commission meetings. On top of that, it is centrally located. The Chief said that he wanted to have a facility that was centrally located. This facility is at the North-West border of their district. In the FAQ, that they provided to us, one of the questions was, what do you do to assure that the noise is minimum and the training facility is not an eyesore to our neighborhood. I have already covered the eyesore issue. They said that they would exceed requirements of Collier County code to install barriers between Station 73 and Summit Place. A retention lake will separate the campus from the neighborhood. Number 6. This is not as nice as the other one, but the three buildings for Summit Place, and we absolutely have no issue with that. The colored in triangle, that is the fire tower. For the lake to be a buffer, I'm not sure what type of buffer that they are referring to unless you've got campers in the woods over there. The lake isn't providing any kind of buffer for the residents of Summit Place. Then they said that they would exceed the requirements of County code. The first thing the fire district did to exceed County code is to request a deviation from County code. Staff report, page 13, deviation 6 the code requires a masonry wall. Now I ask, number 7, have we ever seen the rear of a non-residential building to be attractive? No matter where they are, non-residential back ends of buildings are never attractive. The bottom photo is basically a relationship to this rule of auxiliary uses to the homes of Summit Place. The auxiliary uses has not been talked about before. Bristol Pines, which is right across the street from us, that was approved in February of this year, by a 4 to 1 vote of the BCC. Because there was a single family home at the South property line a masonry wall was required. Now as property owners affected by this petition, we respectively request the same consideration. Number 8, this is the type of wall and landscaping that we would request. From a lot of the neighbors vantage point, and again we are not an association, we are just here talking for ourselves, we believe it to be presumptuous for the fire district to assume that we unrestrictive access to their property. As I mentioned earlier, I want to briefly discuss the purchase contract and the August 3rd meeting that we went to. As Richard mentioned earlier, we're going to try to make everyone clear on what we are doing. The Chief mentioned that we didn't have any complaints on a couple of issues until about thirty days ago. That's because there was a public notice in the paper that there was actually going to be a Planning Commission Meeting. That's the first that we knew of these towers. Number 9. These are the terms that are in our purchase contract and I direct you to the Southern boundary. It could be the Golden Gate Fire District, it could be a private kindergarten through sth grade, and elementary school or it could be undeveloped residential land. Now Karen Bishop sent us an invitation to this neighborhood meeting on July 20th, were she stated that a public meeting was held on July 22nd ,2003. Thirteen months ago. And she said "as part of our application we held a meeting for the neighbors to make them fully aware of our plan, 2003". At our August 3rd neighborhood meeting, a resident of Summit Place, who has already closed, she asked the question, "Why weren't we notified of this 2003 meeting?" Karen indicated that she was very surprised that no one didn't show up for this meeting. 37 August 19, 2004 Then she realized that no one was living there. This resident said, if you had driven by the site you would have seen that there weren't any buildings. From my viewpoint if there were no buildings, no one living there, I'm not sure that I would be surprised that no one showed up for this meeting. Now County Staff indicated that fire district submittal a year ago in preparation of this neighborhood meeting, July of 2003 did identify a communication tower and a training tower. As the fire district claims that they want to be a good neighbor, did they ask Waterways in July of2003, have you sold any units yet. Number 10. Waterways would have said, yes. We have permission to sell 202 units and we have signed contracts for 167 units. Did the fire district try to contact us? Number 11. Would they have been able to? Would it have been difficult? There is my purchase contract. It has got my name, my address and my phone number. Did the fire district call me or send me a letter, they did not. So as Karen stated in her July 20th invitation, "In the district's effort to make the neighbors fully aware of our plans", why did the fire district not mail this site plan to these 167 buyers of Summit Place or post their site plan in the sales office of Summit Place? There is perception to some of us that the fire district made a conscious decision to hide this secret project from the buyers of Summit Place. Neighborhood meeting, August 3rd. Number 12, please. When we expressed our opposition to the tall antenna, the training tower, the large auditorium and the alternative uses, Commissioner Mast asked iftheir plan would be ok with us if they deleted all of these issues and just went with a fire station and a conference room for staff. We said yes. When I suggested that the district could use North Naples training tower less than 6 miles away and avoid spending impact fees unnecessarily, Commissioner Hudson said that he had the right to build this tower. He also said that he did not want his firefighters going six miles out of the district. Please remember the North West location for this site is already non-central for his district. I went by North Naples district tower, sitting there, totally unused. I guarantee you that if you get night training the North Naples district will be glad to come out of their district and come over and visit us. Commissioner Hudson then went on the say, where can we put this training tower? Do you want me to spend more of the taxpayers' money? Well in just a minute, I'll recommend where Commissioner Hudson can put his training tower, on free land. Can you imagine if the Developer of Wolf Creek became confrontational with the residents of Island Walk? As we see here today, Commissioner Mast recommendation to link these uses must have fallen on deaf ears. Most Developers look forward to explain their projects with their neighbors, as they did with Wolf Creek. This Developer, the fire district, they do not want any questions. They don't want any deviations. It is either our way or the highway. And Chief Peterson, bless his heart, I really think he is trying to do the right thing. The Chief made an interesting statement, you know that we were here first. Basically, what he was saying to us, you folks should not be questioning our plan. Who was here first? Was the Golden Gate fire district? Was it the elementary school or was it undeveloped residential land? I'll tell you who was here first. Waterways Joint Venture was here first. They were here before this 38 August 19,2004 Planning Commission and BCC in 2002 and they got permission to build 202 units and that is exactly what they are doing. The fire district is just coming in here right now. Two years later, they are just starting the process and guess what Growth Management Plan Policy 5.4, new development must be compatible with and complimentary to the surrounding areas and that is Summit Place. We are not looking to move out. Let me quickly read two items from the Staff report. Staff recognizes that it is important to have a fire station near the residential uses that may require the fire stations services, however it feels that it is not appropriate to place a training tower near a residential area. They go on to say, that throughout this review of this rezoning petition, the Petitioners agent has raised the issue that the North Naples Fire District has a training tower so that the training facility use should be appropriate for the Golden Gate Fire District. What does that tell me. The Golden Gate Fire District is saying, they've got a tower, we want one too. There is no desire, by the various fire districts in Collier County to combine their assets to better utilize this spending of these large piles of cash to generate an impact fee. I have one paragraph and I will make my recommendations and be through. Collier County has one Board of County Commissions, one Sheriff s Department, one EMS, and one School Board. All have strict controls on expenditures. One can only imagine the lack of control if all these entities have separate elective Commissioners with their very on part of impact fees to stand on. Can you imagine the raft that would be generated if the Board of County Commissioners paid manager, Jim Mudd, several hundred thousand dollars to retire early. What recommendations. We request a masonry wall and landscaping on the West and North boundaries to isolate the fire station from the residents of Summit Place. Number 2, deny the Petitioners request for all of these auxiliary uses, including the large auditorium, the Sprint cellular tower, and allow these to located in high traffic areas like Heritage Bay, Mission Hills and Eagle Creek, where all the residents can use them. Number 15. Construct a fire station, similar to the one that already exist a mile and a half away on Immokalee Rd with a staff conference room, but with a shorter flag pole style antenna. So what is left, Commissioners Hudson's training tower. There is ample room on that large grassy knoll on Golden Gate Blvd where you are not going to bother anyone. On the South you have the existing fire station, on the West you have the EMS station, on the North you have the library and on the East you have that 135' tall communication tower. The land already exists. The Commissioners can have night training, it is centrally located throughout the district and heavens know that this North West location where we are now is not centrally located. There is no residential impact. On top of that the land is free. You don't need a show-case facility, you don't need a large auditorium, you don't need a Sprint antenna, you don't need a government center and you don't need a training tower at this site. What you do need is a fire station and a conference room for staff training. The Golden Gate Fire District is an asset to the community, you have great fire fighters that continue to protect the safety and health of the residents, but let the profit motive ofleasing not be a primary objective. Thank you. 39 August 19,2004 Chairman Budd: Thank you Mr. Stout. I just wanted to comment that you have been afforded a great amount oftime, far in excess of that normally rendered, and that is out of respect for your well organized presentation. Thank you for that. Mr. Strain has a comment. Mark Strain: Mr. Stout, I have one comment to make. I appreciate you wanting to have this tower away from your home and I would agree with you on that point; however you want to move it closer to mine. Summary comments bv the Petitioner: Chief Peterson: Emergency services have unique issues and problems. We know that recently we have had many fire stations destroyed; in fact Charlotte County lost four. It certainly was not our intent to use recent events to play on the hearts of anyone. However, the reality is that our service has unique issues that we need to address. I understand that they are not 'user friendly' to communities. I can assure everyone that we have always have had the best of intentions. We have always had public meetings and kept everything very open. I have learned that it is beneficial to use the "Future Home of' SIgnS. County government, on an annual basis, does contracts with cell phone providers. It is in a county ordinance that government entities are primary and private vendors are secondary. 951 will have six lanes; it is not a residential highway. There is a fire station on Davis Boulevard that has residences closer than what is proposed here. Each government entity has different needs. I would share with you that communications are a major malfunction in emergency services. We have attempted to be good stewards to provide back-up communications. The responsibility of emergency services is to put order to chaos. Normally, unless you see us in the community for public education activities, the only time you see us is when there is an emergency event. Over the years we have tried to change that and reach out to the community more. I share with you that I do serve on advisory committees presently and in the past. One of the challenges is finding meeting space. Communities have problems getting people together. As a general rule our fire commission meetings do not generate the need for the amount of meeting space proposed. However, as good stewards, we are attempting to provide something to meet those needs in the event of a major incident. We certainly do not need that; we can discuss that. We attempted to contact residents and advertised for the public meetings as required. There were no homeowners in Summit Place; only one property owner was listed. It 40 .--,'-.---..'" August 19,2004 certainly was not our intent to exclude anybody. We required in the Summit Place contract to identify that we were a fire station. We will certainly take the hit for that one. A training facility and fire station is a single facility to us, we were not attempting to slip anything in. Mr. Murray: You indicated on cross training with different departments, there would be no charge. If there were other governmental entities on your property, would there be lease arrangements? Mr. Schmitt: There is apparently a significant difference in the copy you have and the staff recommendations. Some of those uses have been eliminated. Mr. Murray: With regard to the question that I had asked earlier, the consideration for buyback or purchase from the developer, I would make a suggestion that at least a year from the date of approval. Mr. Schmitt: I believe that it was publicly stated that the developer would buy back the unit. Mr. Murray: I think a year's time is fair. Mr. Midney: Could the Golden gate Fire Department use the North Naples Fire Tower which is 6 miles away for training purposes? Chief Peterson: Yes we could; we could not use it at night. There are issues with getting staff outside the district and properly maintaining emergency coverage for our home district because we are sending them out of our home area. Six miles is not very far, however, getting from one place to another has a significant impact and could take 30 minutes depending on the time of day and traffic conditions. Yes, it can physically be done, however it is cost prohibitive, which is why we asked for the tower. We are confirming that if we sent our staff out for training we would have to bring in overtime staff and potentially bring in staff from another district. Mr. Schiffer asks why they could not use the North Naples facility at night and Chief Peterson answered that it is due to restrictions. In response to a question regarding uses, Ms. Deselem directs the commission to the staff version clean copy. In the LDC we have a specific use for fire station service ancillary; that would include a training tower. We did hone the list down somewhat from what was proposed. Library was removed. General Government Service Offices and Essential Public Service Facilities were also removed. Replying to a question regarding the 135' communications tower Ms. Deselem confirmed that staff did not look to see if it was necessary; we accepted it as an exception that was allowed by the LDC to address essential service facilities. I believe that it is appropriate 41 August 19,2004 as limited. We tried to include the limitation for the radio frequencies that would hopefully preclude redundancy and show the true need for this tower. That is another reason why those are in there. Mr. Strain: The maximum listed now is 135' pending research. If research shows that they can function with 75' or 25'; that is all they get. They get the minimum of the two, no greater than 135'. Ms. Deselem confirms that the staff is not recommending approval of a training facility on this site. Mr. Yovanovich: Regarding the communications tower, there is a need for redundancy. It is a safety issue. If one tower goes down, it's nice to have another tower out there. Keep in mind that there is a 200' tower near this site already and as staff pointed out, the developer sold out this project pretty quickly with a 200' communication tower there so we don't think the stealth flag pole is going to create any issues from a market standpoint. Mr. Y ovanovich uses a visual display to indicate the difference between the berm and the wall and the landscaping. Mr. Strain: How high is the berm from the grade the property is filled to? Mr. Nadeau: Six feet. Mr. Yovanovich: I feel I need to comment on Mr. Stout's accusation that the fire district was trying to hide something. The swap contract between the district and Waterways Development was presented at a public meeting. It also had some disclosure requirements; I know you were aware of those requirements. They were not only to disclose the fire station but the communications and training towers. The developer of Waterways thought he met the requirements by disclosing the fire station. That is why we continued the first hearing before all of you; because we wanted to make sure we got out to all ofthe public and clarify everything. That is why the developer of Waterways has said, if I have somehow misinformed you and you think you got a bad deal, I'll buy back the property. The fire district was not trying to hide anything. That needs to be clarified on the record. Mr. Vigliotti: What are the details of buy back contract? Mr. Yovanovich: We have agreed that we would buy back their unit plus interest calculated at a prime interest rate. Mr. Strain: I make a motion that we recommend PUDZ-2003-AR-4250 for approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the Staffs final version of the document. Included in that will be the removal of staffs objection to deviation number 5 and clarification in the uses that an EMS would be an acceptable use as well. 42 August 19,2004 Mr. Abernathy seconds. Discussion Mr. Strain: Being it is a flagpole and not a tower I think that it is acceptable. I believe that the staff version of the buffer is acceptable as well. Motion carries 8-0. LUNCH BREAK 11:40 AM TO 12:40 PM (2) Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5211, Naples Golf Development, LLC, Naples South, LLC; and Naples Golf Club South LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Boyne South PUD to "PUD" Planned Unit Development also known as Boyne South PUD by revising the PUD document and Master Plan to change the permitted use of Tract B from CommerciallMotel to allow for 34 multi-family units and eliminate the 64 motel units; Increase the number of dwelling units from 154 to 171 dwelling units; Change the permitted use ofthe existing Tract "D" from multi-family to single-family; Provide for a new access point east of the existing access road; Reduce the size of the golf course tract from 152 acres to 148 acres; Increase the size of the residential area from 54 acres to 58 acres; and reduce the density from 1.19 units per acre to 0.7 units per acre. The property is located on the south side of US 41, 5 miles east of Collier Boulevard (C.R.951), in Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 242.35 acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures Mr. Strain: This project is contiguous to a piece of property that my employer owns and I will not be participating or voting on this. Mr. Schmitt: Although Mr. Strain is not eligible to vote on the matter he is still able to participate in the discussion. Petitioner Mr. Yovanovich: This is an unusual project. The existing master plan includes the PUD and some existing platted parcels. The platted parcels (indicated on the map in white) are not part of the PUD. We are asking to convert the motel site to a multi- family site and convert the multi-family site to a single family site. We believe we are reducing intensity with this request. The net effect is 17 more residential units, but we are eliminating the hotel. 43 '·.____'__.0... August 19, 2004 One ofthe changes we are making is to elongate two of the cul-de-sacs. As a result, all of the lots have amenities now and it will add value to the community as a whole. Mr. Murray asks about the space around the homes and if it is all golf course. Mr. Y ovallovich confirms this. Mr. Yovallovich: We have two points of disagreement with the staff report at this time. (1) We do not agree that a playground is necessary for this project. It is not required by the LDC. (2) We do not agree with the requirement to put a sidewalk on both sides of Royal Hammock Boulevard. We have no problem putting a sidewalk in the new phase on one side. Putting a sidewalk next to the lots makes sense. Mr. Murray asks if this is a deed restricted community with respect to age. Mr. Y ovanovich confirms that it is not. Gordon Lewis, Golf Course Architect uses a visual display to indicate specific attributes of certain fairways. He displays how several fairways are not functional and flowing as currently designed. Mr. Lewis continues to use visual displays to illustrate how improvements will be made to the design and function of the golf course. Jim Boughton, Boughton Architects, indicates the display of the clubhouse and the addition to illustrate that there is a need for an addition of 5,000 square feet and extensive renovations. This will include the club house and golf cart storage facility. In addition a new gate house will also be constructed. There is an entry boulevard off of US 41, as you come in there is an existing driving range facility. It is not a gated facility now. The club house is more in the center of the site. The club house will be a great improvement of what they presently have. Mr. Yovallovich: As you drive in this is one project. You cannot tell that it is straight zoning on one part of it and a PUD on the next part. They share the roads and they have the ability to use the golf course. There is a property owners association out there, but not all ofthe lot owners are members. It is correct that the intent is to have all amenities available to all the residents. Mr. Murray: Will there be a requirement that the owners become members of a club or association. Mr. Yovallovich: They will be required to become members of the property owners association but not members of the golf course. They can elect to be members of the golf 44 August 19,2004 course but it is not a requirement. Furthermore, they must be members to use the golf course. Mr. Schiffer: What lots are part of the PUD and what lots are zoned? Mr. Y ovanovich indicates the map to illustrate the answer to this question. George Hermanson assists with answering the question. Mr. Murray asks for more clarification of the map displays. Mr. Hermanson continues indicating the display to clarify information. Mr. Hermanson: The project has been there since the mid seventies. It was constructed before the South Florida Water Management District existed. Weare going through the permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. We are increasing the lakes from 51 to 72 acres (indicating visual display to point out lakes). All of the piping in the project will be rebuilt; we will have a much better plumbing system. The owner has agreed to maintain all the roads and all of the drainage systems. The county has never maintained the roads; the developer and the property association have been maintaining them. The county does not maintain the water; however they do maintain the sewer. Mr. Murray: There is a discrepancy in the general description that indicates 3 miles where the staff report indicates 5 miles. Regarding common area maintenance and landscaping requirements, is the property owners association responsible for that as it would seem to be written? I would expect that the developer would usually be responsible for that. Mr. Yovanovich: The property owners association will maintain all of the improvements after it is turned over by the developer. There will be an assessment and that will be turned over to the property owners. I did want to clarify one thing; we do have a current petition in to vacate the roads. The county has never maintained them. Weare asking to essentially create a gated community which is another benefit to the community. The cost to maintain the roads will be passed over to the property owners through the association. Mr. Murray: With regards to model homes use, is that conditional use in this situation? Mr. Duane: There was no language in the prior PUD that pertained to model homes. Mr. Yovanovich: We have tied the provision to the LDC. 45 August 19,2004 Mr. Murray: Also, on page 12, there seems to be a difference of about an acre in the paperwork and my calculations. In addition, you are obviously focusing on an older group, although this is not a deed restricted community. Children do not play golf. I can imagine that the county is trying to look into the future and determine what that development would produce in terms of family. If families were to live there they would probably want some type of a playground. How much of a problem is that really? Mr. Yovanovich: For one, this is predominantly a single family home community. I have a swing set in my backyard for my children's use. We do not believe that this community needs an amenity of a playground to serve children from two to twelve. We think that can be taken care of on individual lots. Mr. Murray: Aren't there also multi family units there? Then do they have the space to put playground units there? Mr. Yovanovich: There will be one multi family parcel with 34 units. The remainder will be single family homes. It may be that people without children choose not to buy within the multi family project for that reason. It is not a code requirement that we provide that type of amenity. Mr. Richardson: It is in the Growth Management Plan. It is very clear that neighborhood parks should provided whenever there is an opportunity. I happen to be somewhat of an expert on neighborhood parks and I know how difficult it is to get them in after the fact. I would very much want to support the recommendation that property is set aside for a neighborhood park. You can't guarantee that the demographics of this are will always be people 5 and over playing golf. Mr. Yovanovich: We just don't think that this is necessary for this community. Mr. Adelstein: I don't know who decided to hire Gordon Lewis, but he is absolutely terrific. Mr. Murray: What does 'back of the sidewalk' mean? Mr. Hermanson: It may be the side that is further away from the street. Mr. Murray: What is the width of the sidewalk that is being put in? Mr. Hermanson: I think the code is five feet for local streets. Mr. Richardson: With the discussions about smart growth we are concerned about interconnectivity. There is no development around this project. Mr. Yovanovich: I can't really see anything to connect to. On the north and east side is a farm. 46 _.....,'-,--~_. August 19,2004 Mr. Richardson: I just don't want to miss an opportunity; this is the only time we have to look at this. The purpose is to create interconnections to keep traffic off of major roads. Mr. Schiffer: The road is running right along the eastern property line. It would be very easy to coordinate to attach to that road system. Mr. Richardson: Okay, that wasn't clear to me. Mr. Hermanson: There was a staff recommendation to put sidewalks on both sides of the main road. The new streets that we will be putting on the east side will all be guttered roads with storm sewers. That does support sidewalks. This does not because there is a swale. It would hinder the draining and the swale would end up looking like a ditch. Staff Fred Reischl: With the exception of the playground and the sidewalk issue we found this petition compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the growth management plan. Don Scott is here to address questions regarding the sidewalk. I spoke to Marla Ramsey regarding the playground and I have some information on that if you have any questions. The impact fees that they will pay will go towards Parks and Rec, but Mr. Richardson is correct that the GMP has an encouragement for parks and playgrounds. Mr. Adelstein: I would like some information on the sidewalks. Don Scott: The request was to get more consistent with LDC requirements now. Obviously, there are some design issues. Weare looking at more of a paved should on the side of the road. Mr. Reischl: The neighborhood information meeting was well attended and there were a lot of questions on view, which the petitioner brought up. The majority of the other questions were on storm water. I spoke with Stan Kryzanowski and he stated that the South Florida Water Management Permit will take the entire subdivision into consideration, not just the PUD. Mr. Schiffer: Does the fire department review these plans? Do they know about the thousand square feet? Mr. Reischl: They do review these plans and I haven't seen any objections to them. Mr. Richardson: Regarding the site development plan and whether or not the interconnection might be encouraged. Is it appropriate for me to rely on your site development plan process to examine what is being submitted for any possibility of interconnection with adjacent undeveloped sites? 47 ~"""~""-"-~-' August 19,2004 Mr. Reischl: I believe the primary interconnection will be on the east side. The couth side would be the canal and the west is not part of the PUD. You are tree to put that interconnection into your recommendation. This is in a neutral are so it is one unit per every five acres. Public Speakers Deborah Donnelly: I'm a property owner in Naples Golf Club South. I don't want you to have the impression that this is a very old neighborhood. The golf course and the streets are old and there are about 20 older homes in the neighborhood. Most of the homes are new, like mine. I bought this home about 18 months ago, adjacent to the 18th fairway. When we bought this home we looked at the existing plans for the neighborhood and the golf course. They showed a golf course expanse of 5 or 6 fairways behind our house before the street would wrap around and there would be any homes back there. After we purchased the home we spent a lot of money building a pool and an outdoor living area based on the space shown on the plans. Now we have the two cul-de-sacs that are cutting through the golf course. I don't think it is very clear on the chart how long they are. I paid a premium for a house on this street, on this side ofthe road because I didn't have those houses behind my house. Now I will have the width of the 18th fairway, three trees and those houses. In addition, I am not at all clear on what this will cost the homeowners. Currently we pay about $500 per year in neighborhood association fees. I agree that this is very inexpensive. Right now I can afford to play on the golf course. Ifwe turn it into something that costs too much for the people to live there and we cannot even use the facilities, then I've just, once again, bought a house that is a completely different living situation than what I purchased. Robert McCarthy: I bought my lot three years ago. I built a home and a 65 foot pool because ofthe view I had (five fairways.) Now I will have one fairway. The drainage backs into our ditches. Ifthey raise the golf course I don't understand where that water is going to go. Hole-Montes told us they have no way of fixing that. David Lambert begins by indicating where some of these houses are on the display. When we first bought these lots the developer told us there would be land set aside for a pool, a fitness center and a tennis court. It has never been mentioned again. Not everyone can afford a private club. Why isn't the golf course getting assessed for maintenance? They are talking about the property owners association getting assessed for it. This is dual use. There is as much 48 August 19, 2004 use on the roads, the gate, the sewer systems and other items. The roads are in desperate need of repair. The dump trucks are driving on them all the time. It's growth, but why are we expected to repair them? We do have a lot of sewer problems there that connects from the existing lots that they may have sold. Why does the association pick up the price of the sewer taps and not the developer? I bought the two lots across from the cul-de-sac. I literally brought my wife out there and picked them out. I paid top dollar, did not try to nickel anybody down, it was the asking price. I committed a lot of money and time and built the house according to the view. They say it's only a football field away, but when I bought it was much bigger. If you go out there the views are stellar. Even a compromise would be nice. David Elliot: Mr. Heberlin was prepared to address you but unfortunately he had surgery scheduled for this afternoon. I have his prepared statement and I would like to read it to you. 'My name is Richard J. Heberlin. For the past four years my wife Margaret and I have lived at 1831 Greenwood Drive in the PUD under discussion this afternoon. I am a retired state licensed general contractor who built quality, upscale homes for over 20 years on Marco Island and in Naples. It was my intention to close out my career by developing what was then known as Naples Shores Country Club in conjunction with the principals who owned the land at that time. My company purchased six lots and took options on two groups of twelve more each in preparation for this project. I followed the history of the project with the stages of Big Cypress Country Club, Royal Palm Golf Estates and Naples Shores Country Club and felt the time had come to introduce this diamond in the rough to the general public. To describe the saga of this misadventure would be more than the time I allotted. Suffice to say that the Naples Shores Country Club was not to be and the Boyne Corporation took over in 1992. Boyne started right off and probably would have been successful if September 11, 2001 had not adversely affected their development in Petarsky, Michigan. Needing cash for that endeavor, Boyne sold the Naples property to the principals who now own it as Naples Golf Club South. Not one of the previous owners, including Boyne Corporation ever demonstrated the dedication, commitment, vision or personal involvement that the current developers have demonstrated. For this reason, my wife and I, as well as 17 other landowners, whose endorsing letters I have here, are in full support of all the upgrades that the developer has proposed and requested in this PUD revision. Does anything that they have requested mean they have the potential of making more money? Of course it does. They are business people and deserve to be rewarded for their efforts. But everything they are proposing also improves the property and increases the value to the present and future owners and residents and upgrades the whole image presented to potential buyers. Just think, no motel, no multi family residents, improved drainage, a gated community and a large clubhouse. Sure they'll be some sub-division changes, but to the few objectors who think their views will 49 August 19,2004 be compromised, may I suggest that they actually walk the property and plant some white visible markers where the new cul-de-sacs will end. There will be some compromise to their views. It will not be a significantly negative impact. The closest any residence will be to the yard ofthe concerned property owners is over 500 feet. The views will be over waters and fairways. Having endured the frustration and heartache, not to mention the financial loss that my wife and I have had over 16 years of previous ownership we are beating down the doors to get this PUD approved so that the completion of a beautiful, affordable golf community can proceed as soon as possible.' Linda Gutierrez: I personally own 3 lots in Naples Golf Club South and pay taxes and property association fees. I also represent Gulf Stream Homes, a builder in that area and we currently have over 30 contracts for new homes out there. Property values have more than doubled since they have taken over the community. Willard Giansanti: I have three lots and my nephew has a lot as well. There are families in the development now. It is not an elderly golfing community. I know some people are upset because they are not going to have a larger view. Changes have to be taken in the golf course because it is a dangerous course. The golf course is wet and it has some drainage problems. Boyne South is a deed restricted area. No sheds, no fences and I don't even know if you are allowed to have a playground in your yard. The lakes are part ofthe golf course; why would the residents maintain the lakes? Ninety percent of the traffic is going to be golfers. I would hope that the golf course itself, which is a separate entity, has a large responsibility for the maintenance because it is going to impact a lot of the maintenance. I'm in favor of the project; Ijust want some stipulations as to what is going to happen. If this is going to be a new improvement area, it should be treated as a new PUD, which in most cases, the amenities go in first. Summary Comments bv the Petitioner Mr. Yovanovich: Just so everybody understands, the residents pay $500 per year and the difference is paid by the developer and the owner of the golf course. It is being subsidized quite a bit already for the ongoing maintenance. We don't have a problem with agreeing to maintain the lakes as part ofthe golf course. Mr. Richardson: Currently, it is $500 per year for the residents. How long is that going to continue and what is the cap? Mr. Y ovanovich: They basically pay $40 per month and that includes cable television so there is quite a subsidy right now. When the residents totally take over there will not be a developer to subsidize. The golf course has committed to take care of the lake maintenance issues. I am committing to that right now on record. We will make the same commitment to take one of our lots to make a neighborhood lot. 50 August 19, 2004 Weare going to go forward and make the golf course and extensive improvements for the overall community. We can also provide some additional landscaping by the cul-de-sac if there is an issue there. Mr. Schiffer: If this property were to be developed today you would be able to do one unit per every five acres. Essentially they are asking for more units that is increasing that. Mr. Reischl: However we are decreasing density by going from hotel to residential. We used a variety of factors to determine this. There is no hard and fast conversion. We looked at the number of trips, number of units and came to the conclusion that it is not an increase in intensity; therefore we can make the conversion. It's subjective, I agree. We used criteria in the GMP. Mr. Yovanovich: We did a comparison of what the impact would be of the 64 motel units versus the 34 multi-family units and the impact to the infrastructure was less. Mr. Schiffer: However you also increased the number of single family lots. Mr. Reischl: The density changed in essence because in the existing PUD you have to subtract the acreage for the commercial/hotel-motel; so you had less acreage. Now, you are increasing the units but you are also increasing the acreage and therefore the density goes down. Mr. Schiffer: Single family lots on the old scheme, how many were there? Mr. Yovanovich: We had 127 lots under the old scheme; we are going to 137 single family lots, adding 10. We are adding 7 multi family (from 27 to 34.) This is in exchange for the motel. Mr. Schiffer: In the old plan were they along the canal on the southern boundary? Mr. Y ovanovich confirms. Mr. Murray asks for additional clarification on why they are unable to install the sidewalks next to the old roads. Mr. Hermanson: It's impossible to put a sidewalk in adjacent to the lot lines. The definition of a sidewalk is one that is separated from the roadway. It would be in the middle ofthe swale. Ifwe filled the swale the drainage won't work. So we can't put a conventional sidewalk in. in order to upgrade the roads you would have to rebuild the entire road, to drain into storm drains. It's roughly a $2 million project. 51 August 19,2004 Mr. Schiffer: Would it be a problem to plant a really dense row of trees in front ofthe ends of your cul-de-sacs? Not only is the buildings getting closer but the lights of cars will now shine into them. Mr. Y ovanovich: Yes we have a landscape plan that would do that and provide that buffer. Weare willing to do that. We will use additional landscaping to address that Issue. Mr. Vigliotti: Regarding the upgrades of the roads and the maintenance afterwards, who is going to carry that cost? Mr. Yovanovich: The maintenance of the roads will be a property owners' expense. Technically, the golf course does not have to, but we have agreed to work with the property owners to come up with a fair share percentage that the golf course will have to pay. We have to meet with the property owners to come up with a figure. Mr. Richardson offers a motion of approval of petition PUDZ-2004-AR-5211 to the Board of County Commissioners. This would include the provision for sidewalks as specified by staff along all roads and for a playground which Mr. Y ovanovich cheerfully agreed to put in. In addition, I would like to see the following conditions: (1) the cul-de- sacs not be granted, that they be limited to 1,000 feet, according to our code; (2) shield the cul-de-sacs at the end as much as possible; (3) keep the connectivity capability to the east; (4) the streets remain public and not become private; (5) drainage be maintained according to South Florida Water Management District; (6) maintenance of lakes handled by the golf club and; (7) any road improvements that do take place be shared on a fair basis with property owners. Mr. Richardson: I was listening to Don Scott and he spoke about a paved shoulder being a reasonable solution, so I was taking staff s recommendation on that. Mr. Schiffer confirms that it would not be a sidewalk, but a paved shoulder. He also confirms that the length ofthe cul-de-sacs as designed is 1400 feet. Mr. Schiffer seconds the motion. Discussion Mr. Budd: I cannot support the motion. I do like the parks and playground requirement and I do like the idea of preserving some interconnection for future development. I am not in support of the paved shoulder sidewalk; limiting the cul-de-sacs to 1,000 feet; or keeping the roads public. While I am in support of the project, I am not in support of the motion. Mr. Adelstein: I also cannot support the motion as given by Mr. Richardson. 52 August 19, 2004 Mr. Murray: That is also the case for myself. Motion is denied 6-2 (Mr. Richardson and Mr. Schiffer voted in favor.) Mr. Adelstein offers a motion of approval of petition PUDZ-2004-AR-5211 to the Board of County Commissioners subject to staffs recommendation for a playground and that there be a barrier behind the cul-de-sacs to block off the light and the view. Mr. Murray seconds. Mr. Adelstein confirms that he does not agree with staff on the sidewalk issue. He supports the possible option for an interconnection. Mr. Murray agrees. Mr. White: Can I have more clarity on the degree of barrier behind the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Budd confirms landscaping sufficient to block out headlights. Mr. Bellows: For the record can we make it subject to the drawings submitted by the petitioner? Mr. Duane: It's very conceptual. Mr. Schiffer: I think in the motion that it functions to block the light is enough. The only question I have is that you want a private road but an interconnection will take that away. Maybe the way the interconnection should be worded is that ifthe site developing next door wants to interconnect, you can't deny him that. Mr. Reischl confirms that the LDC states 80% opacity after the period of one year. It is clarified that the golf course will take care of the lakes and there will be a fair share arrangement on any road improvements with existing property owners. Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Murray agree to include this in the motion. Motion carries 8-0. BREAK 2:07 PM - 2:17 PM (3) Petition: PUDA-2003-AR-4008, Waterside Shops of Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc., represented by C. Laurence Keesey, Esq., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as the Pelican Bay PUD for the purpose of amending the PUD document to reallocate 121,000 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from 53 August 19,2004 the North Commercial Area to the South commercial Area. Most ofthe 121,000 square feet of commercial square footage to be relocated will be converted to and utilized for additional retail use within the Waterside Shops. In addition, the Pelican Bay POD is currently approved to contain up to a maximum of 8,600 residential dwelling units. This petition will reduce the approved maximum number by 800 units, to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units. The property to be considered for this rezone is located in the northwest quadrant of the Intersection U.S. 41 and Seagate Drive, at 5555 Tamiami Trail N., in Sections 32 and 33, township 48 South, range 25 East, and Sections 4,5, 8,and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida and consisting of2,104 acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) (3) Petition: DOA-2003-AR-4777, Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust represented by C. Laurence Keesey, Esq., requesting an amendment to the Pelican Bay Development of regional Impact (DR!) to relocate 121,000 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the North Commercial Area to the South commercial Area and reduce the approved maximum number of residential dwellings by 800 units to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units. The property to be considered for this rezone is located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail (US-41) and Seagate Drive in sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Sections 4,5,8 and 9, Township 49 South, range 25 East, Collier County Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) Mr. Budd: The next two items (listed above) will be heard together because they are interwoven but we will take separate, specific actions and separate motions. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures Mr. Strain has had some conversations with the applicant's representative, Mr. Keesey. Petitioner Mr. Keesey: I represent the joint applicants: The Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities Inc. They are joint applicants for both amendments. My comments will be addressing both; when I refer to the PUD I am also referring to the DR!. Pelican Bay was originally approved in 1977 as a POD and a DR! with 9,600 residential units and about 610,000 square feet of commercial use. There have been several changes over the years. There was the addition of the Philharmonic Center for the Performing Arts in 1987. In 1989 there was a substantial deviation which approved 8,600 residential units within Pelican Bay and 1,095,000 square feet of commercial use. At that time it 54 August 19,2004 assigned a maximum square footage of commercial use for the North and for the South. The retail commercial use in the South is the Waterside Shops which is located on approximately 28.3 acres. Mr. Abernathy: Can you tell me what the 1989 change amended? Mr. Keesey: The 1989 change reduced residential units by 1,000 and increased the commercial use by 485,000 square feet. As you know Pelican Bay has been extensively developed. The Waterside Shops is a very unique and successful shopping experience. Due to the closing of Jacobsen's, the Waterside Shops is at a crossroads. They decided that they had to expand. That is why we are here today. Waterside Shops joined with WCI. WCI agreed to sell all of the commercial space that still was not committed in the North and to transfer that space to the South to be attributed to the Waterside Shops and expand the retail use there. Our original application was files in April, 2003. At that time our application was to transfer a total 170,000 square feet down from the North to the Waterside Shops. The traffic analysis was based on that application. The Forbes Company is the new property manager. At the end of2003, after our last meeting they determined that they wanted to reevaluate the needs of the Waterside Shops and assess what they really needed. This year we reactivated the application and reduced the amount requested to 121,000 square feet. Exhibit C has the numbers that we are requesting. We are still requesting 1,095,000 square feet. There is no increase in the total commercial use. The total amount in the North area is 333,600 which represents a decrease of 121,000 square feet from what is approved today, the South commercial area total being 761,400. Mr. Richardson: Why was it hand delivered to my home and that chart is not in this report? Mr. Keesey: The chart is in the attachments to the PUD application that was in my copy of the staff report. Do you not have a copy of this? Mr. Richardson: No Mr. Keesey offers a copy to Mr. Richardson. Mr. Keesey: We are requesting a decrease of residential to 7,800. Mr. Richardson asks for clarification of a figure listed in section 9. 55 August 19,2004 Mr. Keesey: The correct number there is 41,576 square feet and it states as of the date of approval a maximum of 41 ,576 remains un-built and uncommitted within the North commercial district. This square footage can only be built in the north. Mr. Richardson: This 41,576 square footage has to be considered for traffic at the Vanderbilt intersection as opposed to the Pine Ridge intersection. Mr. Abernathy: Many people in the city are of the view that this is a giant that is bearing down on them. Back in 1977 and again in 1989 there was a fine balance of units in the North and the South. You seem to see this balance as something that is easily shifted. There is no mention of US Trust being increased by two stories or the parking garages. All of this is headed south. I think we should look at this in a historical context. The people in the city of Naples are alarmed by this because of the traffic problems. Mr. Keesey: Part ofthe amendment is a 36,000 increase in office space. 20,000 ofthat would be the US Trust Building. It would be done by going vertical. The office is not what is driving this. It is the retail use which is expanding by a total of 85,000 square feet in addition to the current 285,000 that is there today. In terms oftraffic, an analysis was done on a shift of 170,000 square feet. Obviously when you take commercial square footage from the north and give it to the south you expect Vanderbilt Beach Road to have less traffic and Seagate Drive to have more. That being the case, the total was still a minus 1.8% for all the traffic of Pelican Bay. The housing unit decrease is part of the analysis. We attribute the decrease to the change in residential units. Weare not increasing or decreasing the commercial. This improves the situation in the north and makes the south a little worse. The study states and the staff agree that we are not lowering the level of service on any of the roads. Mr. Adelstein: The traffic studies are basically stating regional. There are no references to specific roads. What is the region being used? Mr. Keyes: Our application included extensive traffic analyses. I believe the staff can address that. There has been a complete DR! analysis. None ofthe intersections lowered the level of service. Regarding Seagate, there is a single left turn lane going north on 41. Staff has asked us to take the median that is there now and turn that into another turn lane at our expense. We agreed to do that. In terms of the facts in how this shopping center operates. The Waterside Shops does not open until o'clock. Therefore, none of the employees or customers affect the morning peak hour at all. The other factor is that during season, the Waterside Shops is open until 8:00 p.m., so there are no employees coming or going during the evening peak hours. But they did ask for the turning improvement and we are giving it. I hope that answers some questions about the traffic. 56 August 19,2004 Mr. Abernathy: Plumber and Associates created a clause that if either Collier County or the DOT determine if it is not feasible that you are not required to do that. Ifit is determined to not be feasible, shouldn't you find an alternative? Mr. Keesey: We would not want to be tied to a condition that we have no way of meeting. There is already a problem at that turn. This is classified by the RPC as a non- substantial deviation. Mr. Abernathy: That is a regional determination. Mr. Keyes: We don't want to be put in the position of our expansion being jeopardized. Ifthere is other alternative language that we can agree to we are certainly willing to work with you on that. Mr. Abernathy: Has anyone thought about putting a traffic light up on 41 where the Waterside Shops main entrance is, forcing the traffic to go into Waterside rather than on a Naples city street? Number wise Seagate may not lose some level of service but functionality wise it is difficult to come out of Saks and make a left on Seagate. Mr. Keyes: If you want more detail, I think it would be more appropriate for county staff to address it. The county staff has recommended approval. There are no issues of compatibility of use. WCI has addressed the environmental issues. Mr. Adelstein: Have you had a discussion about SCOOT, the electronic traffic light? Mr. Keesey: I personally have not but perhaps Mr. Leung has. Mr. Strain: In the staff report it said the community of DCA has not written any correspondence objecting to this. Is that deemed as approval? Is there a time frame? Mr. Keesey: I would deem that as just what it says. They were aware of it when we applied back in 2003. Mr. Strain: There is a separation requirement between intersections, can there be any other intersections added to 41 or Seagate with lights that would help the situation? Steve Leung, David Plumber & Associates: No, there is not an opportunity to add signals north of Seagate on 41. I believe a traffic signal is also not consistent with the road on Seagate. Mr. Strain: If the geometry doesn't prove to work out at that intersection can there be additional stacking at the left turn lane or is that already maxed? 57 August 19, 2004 Mr. Leung: I believe the stacking ofthe northbound left turn lane can be lengthened. We would have to go through engineering evaluations. When we did the traffic analysis we have to look at the entire DR!. At that point the RPC did not believe that this change wouldn't have an impact to the adjacent roadways. The RPC continued that we needed to look at the local intersections. We looked at the PUD requirements and worked with county staff. After all of the analyses, because we do have a reduction in the overall traffic, there is no additional traffic in terms of impacts. With that, we can acknowledge that the intersection of 41 and Seagate will be impacted. You do have a shift in circulation in terms of movement but not necessarily an increase of traffic. There will be an increase in demand of the northbound to westbound movement; that is why we agreed to additional turning lane. Mr. Strain asks about traffic signal alternatives using left turn in and right turn out movements. Mr. Leung states that would create a problem with stacking. Mr. Strain: In your analysis to come to the total impact can you give us the individual figures for that intersection? Mr. Leung: I believe it was an approximately 1 % increase in the overall delay of the intersection and if we add the 2nd northbound left turn lane that decrease in delay would be approximately 10%. I think there is some modest improvement in the intersection with the 2nd left turn lane. Mr. Richardson: Can you tell me about southbound traffic? Mr. Leung: Yes we have considered all the directions. Mr. Richardson: You TIS is done on the total residential, office and retail build out. Do you consider different factors for retail and office? Mr. Leung: There is separate trip generation for the different uses. Mr. Richardson: It says 800 family units are converted to 99,343 GSF of commercial and retail. How is that done and did you use those numbers in your traffic analysis? Or did you just use the total? Mr. Leung: In the traffic analysis we looked at what is approved and what is requested. All of the units are factored in. We used a build out year of 2006, all of our calculations use that date. Mr. Adelstein: Have you had an opportunity to discuss SCOOT? We could really make an improvement with that. 58 August 19, 2004 Mr. Leung: Yes we have discussed that with Mr. Don Scott. Mr. Murray: Double left precludes a southbound right on red, correct? Was that part of your analysis as well? Does that increase a queue? Mr. Leung: There is a very low volume of southbound right turn movement. In response to a question from Mr. Vigliotti, Mr. Leung states that the original DR! traffic study was completed in September or December of 2002. The PUD study was done in April or June of2003. The original DRI traffic study shows the benefit of 1.8% and they did take into consideration the increase in office space at peak hours. Mr. Vigliotti points out that the improvement in traffic conditions is repeatedly referred to as not making sense. Mr. Leung: We are not disagreeing that particular movements are affected. Mr. Abernathy expresses that he is still concerned about the intersection. The one left turn lane that exists there is minimal and just to the south of it is a median cut where the northbound traffic can make a u-turn. Wouldn't you suppose that you should have had two left turn northbound lanes? Is everybody assuming that it is symmetrical, has anybody measured? Mr. Leung: We have looked at that and we would have to remove the median to the south. It is correct that we cannot go very far south. Mr. Abernathy: The automobiles that the residential units would have generated do no exist because the units do not exist. Has anybody gone out there and taken a traffic count of what goes on in the real world and make the comparison with that? Mr. Leung: I believe Collier County has traffic data on Seagate. I believe we looked at that and considered that in our overall analysis and I believe that they support that in the overall reduction. Mr. Budd: We will have a presentation by staff and Mr. Scott will contribute to that. Ron Weaver: The word phantom has been used and has been important. Phantom trips are trips that could not happen. If you look at the middle of Pelican Bay, especially to the south you will see many places where re-development is not only appropriate but encouraged where those trips could actually occur today. This proposal is leaving 800 units behind. I asked if these 800 units were phantom. I saw many places in Pelican Bay where these 80 units could occur. Mr. Abernathy: They are potential and yet there is actual traffic going on. 59 August 19,2004 Mr. Weaver: Those potential trips could be going on with those 800 units that we are leaving behind plus the wife and two kids each. We are leaving those 3200 people's trips behind. Mr. Vigliotti: Would the 3200 be more towards the northern end or down towards the southern end? Mr. Weaver: About 80% of all this would be in the south. They would be entering from about 8 different places but the concentration would be in the southern half. They would have been on Seagate Boulevard anyway. Mr. Richardson: There are 1625 units remaining. It would be appropriate for you to consider where they will be distributed. Are we accurately accounting for the impact of the units that will be developed in the analysis? Mr. Weaver: I looked at redevelopment opportunity in Pelican Bay would be disproportionately distributed in the southern end. Mr. Leung: I think that we do make some assumptions and we do put more emphasis on the south. Of the 800 units some would have access to the northern area and some to the southern area. Mr. Richardson: We are all concerned about the imbalance of commercial opportunity and that imbalance has to have an impact down here. Statisticians and traffic people can give us all sorts of figures. The reality is that the situation is bad right now. I'm not comfortable with the solutions that you have offered as far as mitigation is concerned. Mr. Leung: We looked specifically at the additional square footage at the Waterside Shops and the build out date of 2006. Keep in mind that we now have 6 lanes on US 41. We have the Livingston Road extension; even now it has taken a lot of burden off of 41. That is all factored in to our 2006 analysis. The situation is better than what we have today without the parallel routes. The 10% improvement includes consideration for the additional left turn lane. Mr. Richardson: You said build out would be by 2006. I was speaking of build out in terms of a concurrency management stand point. I was surprised by 2006; we would normally say about 7 years. Which build out now are you referring to? Mr. Leung: I'm looking at the build out with Waterside Shops. Mr. Richardson: Which does not take into account the units that are waiting in the wings that you said you did take into account. Mr. Bellows: The traffic impact statements that the county reviews look at existing conditions plus committed traffic for the phases as it is built out. Now, in any project 60 . -----'"~-,-~ August 19,2004 anywhere in the county there are going to be units that are approved but not accounted for. The county is initiating a process to look at those PUDs that have additional build out units. This project will be consistent with that effort. Any PUD that has an amendment, we look at approved units and take that into account of the overall traffic that is possibly generated and what is currently generated. We add that to the traffic that is reallocation with the shift of square footage and we get a traffic study. There is no evidence of a decrease in the level of service. We have worked with them to address the traffic concerns. Mr. Abernathy: About ten months ago this came before us for the first time. Part of the package called for the opening of Crayton Road in Pelican Bay down through the city of Naples. Were you involved in any of this at that time? Mr. Leung: I was only involved in objecting to it. I'm not really sure what that was for; I think it was to take the traffic away from 41. Weare not sure where that came from. Mr. Richardson: There is only a 30 foot grass strip between the two Crayton Roads. In terms of traffic planning we felt it was an issue that should be looked at, along with other alternatives. We have developed effectively that there is an imbalance. Mr. Vigliotti: Ifthis study, from two years ago, were done today how would it fair, would there still be a decrease? Mr. Leung: The latest PUD was done less than a year ago so I would say that it would be the same. Mr. Adelstein: There were 3315 trips as of October 2003. How many will that increase with this expansion? Mr. Leung: I believe our analysis anticipated 9000. I believe speaking with Mr. Archibald that the city is working on some traffic calming strategies and we are willing to participate depending on what they have in mind. That is a very over estimate that we do to make sure that we do not underestimate. Staff Presentation Mr. Bellows: The staff looked at this project for consistency with the comprehensive plan. The traffic study that staff reviewed in conjunction with the transportation department states that there will be an increase in the traffic but not at a level that will significantly impact the level of service of the roadway or the intersection. There are some impacts to the intersection that will benefit, the two lane left turn lane. Transportation has recommended approval subject to that condition. There was some language about ifit is deemed not possible that there would be a way out of that. The increase in height will not impact views. They are eliminating phantom units. If we can eliminate those from the books it will impact future traffic data. 61 August 19,2004 Mr. Murray: I have not heard anything about parking. Is the amount of additional parking allocated to handle the additional square footage? Mr. Bellows: I believe it is. I hope you received the conceptual site plan. (Mr. Bellows indicates on the display where the additional parking will be located.) Mr. Scott: The reason why the left turn lane is in there is because we believe we can do it. There may be issues with utilities. Based on how they want to go forward, they are not going to get a CO before it is done. I would estimate next year. It is going to have to be designed first before we can address that. The state will have some input in the process. Mr. Adelstein: Are you trying to put SCOOT into this project? Can we make that a commitment as part of this project? Mr. Scott: Yes we are looking at putting it into Seagate; Pine Ridge and 41. I would love to see that as part of this project. Having the dual lanes does not back up into that opening. The other issue that was raised was the traffic on West Boulevard. Obviously 25 peak hour trips times 24 hours a day equals nowhere near 6000 additional trips. There is something wrong with that analysis. SCOOT takes a lot more loops out. You look at the traffic leaving the intersection and the traffic signal down stream constantly changes its timing based on what is coming into the intersection. Algorisms are done constantly show a 5-15 percent increase in service and it has a history of being very successful. Mr. Abernathy: Do you know ifthere is a physical reason why that second lane could not be added? Mr. Scott: We believe it can fit in. Mr. Richardson: Is there anything else you can think of to alleviate the problem. Mr. Scott: That is why SCOOT is considered. We are at our max with lanes. Mr. Richardson: Is there any way to go back and true up the counts in the PUD? Mr. Scott: That is what we are trying to do with a lot of the developments. Unfortunately it is in the system at the moment. Public Speakers Doug Nelson: There are concerns from other members of my community. I'm here because any increase in this PUD will have a negative impact in the south and east. My study indicates that the county did a 10 month study instead of a 12 month study. That is 62 August 19,2004 a huge issue that needs to be addressed by people who understand it. One car a day will mess up the Naples studies as they are now. (Mr. Nelson indicates the map display to illustrate that certain areas have not been considered in the traffic studies.) West Boulevard is already maxed out. Is the density swap legal? There are attorneys that seriously question the ability to swap densities. Is there such a thing as build out or max density? We have hit max density in the south. It was done that way for a reason. For that matter we can steal density from the Everglades all day long. What is the impact on the city? The city was opposed to this when it was originally presented. Not much has changed since then. Where is the benefit? Waterside Shops wants to expand. Where is the benefit for the people ofthe county? We get more high class shopping but is it a needed thing? Terry Lenick: I represent Musca Properties, the property where the down zoning will occur to create the up zoning of Waterside. The reason why you are having so much trouble with this is when it was originally approved it was supposed to be boutique shops with very little traffic generation. That is over 25 years old. Regarding re-development, Mr. Musca's property has the potential for re-development as well. Let the intensity of use increase in the north, where it was meant to be. If Waterside came into you and the DRI was gone it would not stand on its own. I recommend the denial of the transfer of the intensity of use south. Your county ordinance requires that the owner must be the named applicant. Mr. Musca is not a named applicant. Mr. Strain: When your client purchased this property on the north end, what did he purchase in terms of square footage? Does the movement from the north to the south take away any of the square footage? Is the project in the north in any competition with the project in the south? What is his argument? Mr. Lenick: There was a limitation of the square footage when we purchased. They are taking away any potential use for the future. My client's project is not in competition with the project in the south. His argument is that they are taking away zoning and property development rights. This allows someone who is not an owner of the property to take away development rights. Kyle Kinney: I am representing the Pelican Bay Foundation. The Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors unanimously support the proposed changes. The first phase of development is the 30 retail shops which will encompass the Jacobsen's site. This does not need approval. What is really being approved today is the second story of Saks. I know there are a lot of questions about WCI transferring the rights. Ifthat is the case I believe that is for a court of law to decide and not this commission. 63 August 19,2004 Anne Doher: I am a homeowner on West Boulevard. One of my neighbors also provided a letter because he is unable to be here. In the late 70's WCI assured him that there would be no egress to West Boulevard and Crayton Road. He is upset that the hearings are in August and September when many residents are not in town. I am concerned about the safety on West Boulevard. I wanted to register our concerns for the impact of traffic. I'm wondering ifthere are new tenants for all of this space. Erika Cook: I live in Pelican Bay. Pelican Bay is a residential community with a very nice shopping mall at its southern end. Greed can be the only incentive to increase the traffic to this area. The October 2003 county staff report states that the shifting of square footage to the Waterside Shops will significantly impact the area and traffic. If someone were really truly interested in knowing the traffic figures why would 2 months of traffic figures be dropped? The two busiest traffic months have been deleted, February and March. Perhaps we should insist on seeing all 12 months traffic figures. I think the residents of Pelican Bay would not object to shops as replacements for vacant space. I'm concerned about the potential of multi level parking garages. To protect Waterside we must ensure that the wording is amended to maintain only the highest level of shops. Mercedes Russo: We own a lot on West Boulevard and one on Anderson. We are opposed to this project. Many members of our community are opposed to this project. Today all of the residents are away. The developer does not even own the property that they are shifting to the south. Why don't they get legal rights before applying for this? I would ask that you wait for all of the residents to return before making a decision. Gary D. Lind: I live at 4851 West Boulevard. I am opposed to this plan because of the increase of traffic that this would cause on West Boulevard. The other thins that concerns me is that the developer comes back again and again. I have lived there for 18 years. Having a 4 or 5 level building at US Trust with a multi level parking garage is rather unsettling. (Mr. Lind uses the visual display to illustrate the history of aggressive development in the area.) Limitation to access to West Boulevard would be greatly appreciated. We also have to consider the impact of a multi level parking garage at Clam Pass Park and additions to the Registry Hotel. BREAK 4:40 PM - 4:50 PM Mr. Strain reconvenes the meeting and will now chair. Dan Mercer, Public Works, City of Naples: Our concern is not commercial expanding. My concern is the traffic impact. I'm not yet convinced that the traffic analysis is a global aspect. Possibly the process does no offer that at this time. The side streets will be affected. West Boulevard and Crayton are at a level service C at this time. I have seen the traffic situation on the side streets and it is very poor. I want you to consider those citizens when you make your decisions. There is a school there and sometimes citizens cannot even get out of their driveway. 64 August 19,2004 Mr. Richardson asks how many months the City of Naples use for traffic studies and Mr. Mercer replies that they mostly use 12 months. Mr. Strain asks if the city council has taken an official position. Mr. Mercer replies that they have not. Mr. Keesey: I want to clarify that one of the parking structures is 150 spaces and the other is 230 spaces. The developer is not going to overbuild parking. We want to do whatever is provided by the code. Secondly the traffic study does extend beyond the area indicated by Mr. Nelson. Mr. Murray: How long have the stores been vacant? Also, when was the traffic study done? Mr. Keesey: Jacobsen's has been vacant for two years. The initial study was done at the end of2002 and in May of2003 were the analyses required by the PUD. Mr. Scott: Regarding the traffic count on US 41 of75,OOO we have no documentation of that count. I don't know where that is coming from. Mr. Richardson: Mr. Keesey said they did a 12 month study. Can you tell me more about the length of the studies? Mr. Scott: There were turning movement counts done in February. The counts that we have are from peak season. Mr. Murray: I assume you are in favor of putting a double left on US 41, what is the state's opinion of that? Mr. Scott: We maintain US 41 as a part of an agreement with FDOT. Based on how it operates now I believe they would agree with that. Mr. Murray: With the SCOOT, is the double-left necessary? Mr. Scott: We still need the double left to store enough vehicles. Mr. Weaver: We appreciate our neighbors asking if we have authority to reallocate the rights of development in this property are set out in section 3.01 of the general declarations. These documents limit the amount that a particular person is allocated. Mr. Strain confirms that they are looking for two separate motions and that stipulations have to be on the PUD. Ms. Student confirms that stipulations should be on the PUD because the DR! is regional. 65 August 19,2004 Mr. Strain calls for a motion on the DR!. Mr. Richardson asks if they could address the PUD first. Ms. Student confirms that it is okay to take the items out of order. Mr. Richardson: What we have is either an opportunity to deny this or to approve it with stipulations. From my standpoint, I would offer the motion that on PUDA-2003- AR -4008 we make a recommendation of disapproval on the basis of several of the re- zone findings. Re-zone finding number 6 is whether the proposed change will affect living conditions in the neighborhood. In my view this would have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Another is whether the proposed change will increase traffic congestion and affect public safety. Our own staff report says it will increase and exacerbate congestion. Rezone finding number 12 whether the proposed change will constitute or grant a special privilege to an individual owner that will contrast with the general public welfare. We have heard some conflicting testimony on that. This is bottom loading the Pelican Bay PUD. Finally on item 17, the impact of the development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with levels of service adopted in Collier County and the GMP. This is a judgment call, we have the question of whether they are using 1 month or 12 months and my opinion is that there will be a level of deterioration at the southern end of this complex. Mr. Adelstein seconds. Mr. Strain confirms that Mr. Richardson is recommending disapproval based on re-zone conditions 6, 7, 12 and 17. Discussion Mr. Midney disagrees with the criteria. He sympathizes with the concerns for traffic. However we do not have the right to deny them the right to develop those 800 units because they are vested. They are offering us a trade-off. I think the traffic situation will be better served since they are taking the 800 units off ofthe table. Eventually in time I think those residential units will be developed. Mr. Strain: I am not in favor of the motion because I believe we have an opportunity to improve the conditions overall. The basis of the approval is an improvement of traffic conditions because of the two left turn lanes. I think they are such a critical component of this that I suggest recommending approval based on the creation of these lanes. Furthermore, ifthe lanes are not completed then all the remaining density be eliminated. That takes it off the books for Don Scott's department to not have to worry about it in the future. At the same time, regardless of the conditions of the left turn lanes, that the 66 August 19,2004 SCOOT improvements suggested by Don Scott be a mandatory component of the stipulated approval of this project. Mr. Adelstein confirms that Mr. Strain would put the SCOOT into the motion. Mr. Murray: Can we attach a technological condition to a future by including the SCOOT as a criterion? That is a technological feature that can be changed over time. Ms. Student affirms that if the technology exists now, it would be possible to include it. Motion fails 4-3. Mr. Strain makes a motion that PUDA-2003-AR-4008 is forwarded with the recommendation for approval with the stipulation that if the dual left turn configuration, for any reason, does not go forward, that the remaining residential densities within the Pelican Bay PUD be reduced to zero. That will provide incentive. The second stipulation is that the SCOOT improvements, as they are now or can be configured in the future at the time of the DO, will be incorporated into this program to the intent that Don Scott has indicated here today. Mr. Adelstein seconds. Mr. Weaver: Ifthe vested rights are in jeopardy of one pocket veto for those turn lanes would you at least entertain the dollar amount of that lane being tendered in escrow instead? Mr. Strain: I would not consider such an option. Mr. Weaver: If they absolutely can't for reasons beyond their control, they lose everything? Mr. Richardson: I would like to support your motion. It doesn't seem to me that it is addressing the concerns ofthe people of the City of Naples, those living on West Street and Crayton. I don't see that this goes far enough. Mr. Strain: I do think that the dual left lane will be a tremendous improvement. We can also give computerized improvements. Motion carries 5-2. Mr. Strain moves to make a recommendation for approval of DOA-2003-AR-4777 to the Board of County Commissioners subject to the same traffic conditions that we have previously made. Mr. Adelstein seconds. 67 August 19, 2004 Motion carries 5-2 Petition: V A-2004-AR-5878, Michael J. Needham and Wendy B. Needham, property owners, represented by Michael A. Durant of Conroy, Coleman and Hazzard, P .A., requesting a 7-foot variance in the PUD zoning district from the required 15-fool rear setback, to allow an eight-foot (8) setback, within which the petitioner wants to extend an existing screen enclosure. The property, consisting of 17,077 square feet, is located at 720 Bay Tree Court; further described as Site 7, block A, Pelican Bay Unit One, in section 4, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) This item was continued until September 18. 9. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Murray asks about the internet and e-mail issue. Mr. Bellows will get someone from IT to address the issue in the future. The length of this meeting may have precluded a representative from the IT Department from being able to address the group. Mr. Adelstein has experienced some problems with internet access due to some telephone line problems in Lee County. The group is able to assist him with this issue. 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN Meeting Adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Russell Budd 68 , FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS )A TE ON WH CH VOTE OCCURRED - \ C\ ~ D4 COUNTY , C.O ~\^ t \2, NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR C~MIiTEE .. e> 1'e Co ~ .p1~-1 c.unrrn~~1.i'ò,J THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSI N, AUTHORITY OR CO ITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: o CITY COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: C~t ¡(c-r COlio N t MY POSITION IS: APPOINTIVE AST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME n S'fR-I\\' A (J..¥- yp,.'Il."C- Co tAILING ADDRESS 'þc"e¡ 5 \..t..c Nt {j", ;ITY . WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending )n whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before .::ompJeting the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES .1\ person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each eiected or appointed local officer also is prohibited fiOm knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or· to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 01 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form-with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above. you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and J..'hether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) ,-----.Q..:::...!:"-C!::\'.....__nn n C:\ I 1 ~,>____.,~ PAGE 1 ~.,.._--~_._."".".... . ....- .. --~~-- -'i APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and tile it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is tiled. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, \V\ f:I. (l v:. ~. ~'t)(. ~ \.J , hereby disclose that on ÅM<J0...0+- \~ . -ffi ~: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of ~ 'Òð \e.. ,~ C~'t. L \...C-. . by , which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: "U'CQP~~ ~ a.. C!~'ùr d\¡..L. ~ ~ \c.c14,,"",'~ o~ r4t~.\.lð.J ^<- ~~l) 'øe~:J Þr~ik e,J-i -h ~ ~,è)d lt~~ c,~\::: f~"e'cl. rs-- I ~ -0 i Date Filed sC4~p~, NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALA~Y. REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENAL"FY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - REV. 1/98 . PAGE 2 LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME ~l t-f -YL - f \ ì ~\iVìLll~V\. MAILING ADDRESS 'S 2.,') S· 'C...J.;).tZ- ~"lrVIi LAUe FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COÚNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NA:vIE OF BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITIEE Ç" AJlIJ[, (C'\/I./\~l ») () ) THE BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AlJTHORITY OR COMMITIEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: o CITY Ci-éÓUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Ú,U í'i': C,(lt1.\) , . MY POSITION IS: o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY 1\JtJ~\.~) COUNTY ("CLl i€~L DATE ON WH~CH ~OTE OCCURRED '15 '<1 . o ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other localleve! of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. L_ INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143; FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her speciàl private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local oHicer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he orshe is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are nct prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-Ia'w, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for reco,-ding the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) r.F FC1RM 88 . REV. 1/9B PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATIEMPTTO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. I, r~~(ì :':-4ì\ f tE Y:.-- DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST kJD~~'j- j~i , hereby disclose that on "-7 ' , ~ ..XX)'I: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, '\¡/ inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or We\ , by I ¡ inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , which füD~\- 2Cf13 .~w..... '40l)<ð / r / ~/f1) i (1 Date Filed Sigm ure NOTICE; UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAI~RE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT; REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 . REV. 1/98 PAGE 2 FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COÚNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS 1ST NAME-ARST NAME-MlDDLE NAME ':L 'Y,VÈ~.__ ßQ)t' '~"iÜJ 1\ ~IUNG ADDRESS f>Z..O "'N{~ ç''\iut LêiU~ rv'i1\ZtS COUNTY {eLL\ C<-- NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE LttLWtt (!l}..)Ã}Ji r: 1 l' . {' ');"', . ~>" . 'Á,: THE BOARD. COUNCIL COMMISSION. AlJfHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT 9F: o CITY r¡(COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POUTlCAL SUBDIVISION: 6~ .~. t.j¡}J1I'. '\ MY POSmoN IS: o ELECTIVE ~PPOINTlVE ITY WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board. council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143; FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her speciål private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or lass of a relative; or to the special private gain or lass of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a -relative" include~ only the officer's father, mother, son. daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, lather-in-Iaw, mother-in-law. son-in-law. and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer. coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed an any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure an which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations descnbed above, you otherwise may participate in these maners. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. - IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recofding the _;~..to., nf thA mAP-lino. who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting. who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, \3) \,&(' 'S( IÓ- \\: \~l <- . hereby disclose that on AcctJ'§ jet . 't!} 2,(,0<\ (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, V" inured to the special gain or loss of 11\., ( .\ whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent org~nization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , by . which "y.JJ, ~ -,. fY(' v_ 1'I.ç - 1~l17 t-v'\J .....vv ~) Q " , I i Date Filed ~1fi ì Signature , \ NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317. A FAILURE'TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT: REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.