CCPC Minutes 10/07/2004 R
October 7, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida October 7, 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
at the Collier County Community Development & Environmental
Services Building, Suites 609/610 at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd
Lindy Adelstein
Paul Midney
Brad Schiffer
Mark Strain
Robert Vigliotti
Donna Caron
Kenneth Abernathy
ALSO PRESENT:
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
David Weeks, Chief Planner
Raymond Bellows, Chief Planner
Glenn Heath, Principal Planner
Jean Jourdan, Senior Planner
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2004, AT THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES BUILDING, SUITES
609/610 LOCATED AT 2800 N. HORSEHSOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL. 34104.
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 - AUGUST 19, 2004, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - Not Available at this time
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1
A. Petition: NUA-2002-AR-2995. Holiday Manor Cooperative, Inc., represented by Bob Reed, requesting
non-conforming use alteration approval, to enable unit owners to replace existing non-conforming
structures, in conformance ~ith the Fire Code and so as not to increase the existing non-conformities.
The subject property, consisting of 32 acres, is located at 1185 Henderson Creek Road, in Section 3,
Township 51 South, Range 215 East, Collier County, F]orida. (Coordinator: Kay Dese]em)
B. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-4150. D. Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and
Anthony P. Pires, Esquire of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, representing The Bryan W. Paul
Family and The Bryan W. Paul Family Limited Partnership, requesting a rezone from the PUD Zoning
district to the PUD zoning district, for mixed use Residential and Commercial Planned
Development. The property is located on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road, approximately 1
mile east ofImmokalee Road, in Sections 13, 14, and 24, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Section
19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, and consists of616± acres. (Companion
to PUDA-2003-AR-4227) (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
C. Petition: PUDA-2003-AR-4227. D. Wayne Arnold, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., and Anthony
P. Pires, Esq., of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A., representing The Bryan W. Paul Family and The
Bryan W. Paul Family Limited Partnership, requesting an amendment to the Orangetree PUD to
reflect the removal of approximately 616 acres from the "Orangetree PUD" Planned Unit Development to
be rezoned to the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD. The 6]6 acres to be removed is located on the north and
south sides of Oil Well Road, approximately I mile east of Immokalee Road inside of the current
Orangetree PUD boundary. The Conceptual Master Plan has been revised to reflect the amended PUD
boundary. The Orangetree PUD is located on the northeast corner of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and
Randall Boulevard, in Sections II, 12, 13, 14, 23, and 24, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and
Sections 18 and 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PUDZ-
2003-AR-4150) (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ADOPTION
PETITIONS:
CP-2002-2. Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use MaQ to
modify Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands, to add "Naples Big Cypress Commerce Center
Commercial Subdistrict", allowing commercial uses for a +/- 9.70 acre parcel located at the northwest corner
ofUS-41 East and Trinity Place, in Section] 7, Township 51 South, Range 27 East.
[Coordinator: Glenn Heath)
CP-2003-1, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to
expand Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, and to restrict some uses in this
expansion area, to include +/- 15.88 acres located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Y4 mile
west of CR-95 I, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. [Coordinator: Glenn Heath)
CP-2003-2, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to
establish Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, allowing commercial uses in the C-3 district
with a maximum of 50,000 square feet, for a +/- 5 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Livingston
and Radio Roads, in Section 36, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. [Coordinator: Jean Jourdan)
CP-2003-3. Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to
establish LivingstonlVeteran's Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict, allowing commercial uses
in the C-I district with maximum of 50,000 square feet, for a +/- 2.25 acre parcel located at the southeast
corner of Livingston Road North-South and Livingston Road East-West, in Section 13, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East. [Coordinator: Jean Jourdan)
CPSP-2003-10. Petition requesting Phase II amendments to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP)
text and Future Land Use Map and Map Series. primarily as a result of the recommendations of the GGAMP
Restudy Committee to include:
A. Changes to the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map (FLUM):
1. To establish a new commercial subdistrict, the "Collier Boulevard Commercial
2
Subdistrict", in Golden Gate City on the west side of Collier Boulevard, between Golden Gate
Parkway and Green Boulevard.
2. To establish a second new commercial subdistrict, also in Golden Gate City, to be known as the
"Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict," located generally along the eastern portion of
Golden Gate Parkway.
3. To expand the existing Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict designation one block further east.
4. To amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map to show all Neighborhood
Centers.
5. To amend all maps relative to the Everglades BoulevardlImmokalee Road Neighborhood Center
to exclude the fire station site at the SW corner of this Intersection.
6. To amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map to correct the title in legend
and Map body for the Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict. Also, to amend the
Subdistrict Map to correctly show the Estates Land Use pattern extending north of Vanderbilt
Beach Road.
7. To delete Map 17, showing the South Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection Agency.
8. Renumbering of Maps 15 and 16 to reflect order referenced in Table of Contents and text.
B. Changes to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Text:
I. Revisions to text regarding the Conditional Uses Subdistrict to prevent any new commercial or
conditional uses from being established on Golden Gate Parkway, between Livingston Road and
Santa Barbara Boulevard.
2. A revision to exceptions to the Conditional Use Subdistrict clarifying that conditional use
permits related to model home center temporary use permit time extensions are not subject to
locational criteria.
3. Addition of a new policy related to the 1-75 Interchange at Golden Gate Parkway
complementary to the proposed revisions to the Conditional Uses Subdistrict.
4. Revisions to the criteria for the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict recognizing permitted and
conditional uses relative to the Estates Future Land Use Designation, and establishing
landscaping and architec.tural criteria.
5. Addition of text reflecting the creation of the Collier Boulevard and Downtown Center
Commercial Subdistricts and the expansion of the Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict.
6. The addition of new Goals, Objectives and Policies related to rural character, transportation,
Golden Gate City and Emergency Management.
7. Revising the title of the "Agricultural/Rural Designation _ Settlement Area District" to
"Agricultural/Rural Designation - Rural Settlement Area District" to be consistent with usage in
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map series.
8. Revising the text of the Southern Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection Area.
9. Revising the text of the Everglades BoulevardlImmokalee Road Neighborhood Center to
decrease the acreage for the southeast corner.
10. Any text changes or revisions necessary for the purposes of format
consistency. Coordinator: Glenn Heath)
CPSP-2003-11. Petition requesting various "glitch" amendments consisting of technical corrections, clarifications and
additional terminology to the Future Land Use Element, Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Capital
Improvement Element, Transportation Element, and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, pertaining to the Rural
Fringe Area and the Rural (Eastern) Lands Stewardship Area. [Coordinator: David Weeks)
CPSP-2003-ll A portion of, Petition requesting "glitch" amendments to Policy 5.5 of the Future Land Use Element,
and Policy 7.1.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, pertaining to the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay. [Coordinator: David Weeks)
CPSP-2003-12.. Petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map
(FLUM), Transportation Element (TE), Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and Capital
Improvement Element (CIE) to include:
~ Amend CCME and CIE to clarify the FLUE determines allowable density in the Coastal High Hazard Area.
amendment petitions for impacts upon public facilities.
3
-----
~ Amend the Density Rating System in the FLUE to further explain how density is calculated; to further clarify
accessory dwellings not subject to the Density Rating System; to identify when density may be allowed
beyond that permitted by the Density Rating System; and, to further limit the applicability of the Conversion
of Commercial Zoning Density Bonus.
~ Amend the FLUE to delete the requirement to have access onto Eatonwood Lane from the Livingston
Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict.
~ Add two maps to the FLUM Series, one depicting the Copeland Urban Area and one depicting the Plantation
Island Urban Area to show greater detail of these two Areas.
~ Other minor and incidental text changes. [Coordinator: David Weeks)
CPSP-2003-13, Petition requesting amendments to the Capital Improvement Element to update the Schedule of
Capital Improvements and table of Costs and Revenues, and to add Level of Service Standards for government
buildings. [Coordinator: Stan Litsinger)
CPSP-2003-14. Petition requesting amendments to the Transportation Element to revise the functional classification of
various county and/or state roads. [Coordinator: Don Scott)
CPSP-2003-15. Petition requesting Phase II amendments of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory
Committee, to amend the Future Land Use Element, Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan,
to implement the Community Character Plan by promoting pedestrian-oriented, human-scale development and
interconnection of neighborhoods and developments. [Coordinator: Jason Sweat)
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
eepe AgendaIRB/sp/mk
4
October 7, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Everybody take their seats. We're going to
come to order.
The first order of business for this meeting of the Collier County
Planning Commission. If you would please rise and say the pledge of
allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning. I would like to ask
everybody to be particularly sensitive to any noise or background
conversation. We don't have our normal microphones so it's going to
make it a little more difficult for people to be heard.
So could the speakers please speak up or the audience please
make every effort to be quiet. If you have any conversations, please
take them in the hall outside so that we can proceed.
There are sign-up slips over here on this side next to Ray
Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Or the tablet.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Or the tablet. There is a sign-up tablet.
So if you wish to speak on any item, please go over there, sign your
name up, turn it in to Mr. Bellows and you'll be recognized at the
appropriate time for each petition.
We will begin with our roll call.
Our new commissioner, Ms. Caron.
MS. CARON: Present.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Present.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy.
MR. ABERNATHY: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain.
MR. STRAIN: By the way, she's not new.
But I'm here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's true.
MR. STRAIN: She was here last meeting.
Page 2
"--~
-- --".._._ "-_~W_~'"__"'__......__,,,.
October 7, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's true. I wasn't. You were me.
Budd is here.
Mr. Adelstein.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney is absent.
Mr. Schiffer.
MR. SCHIFFER: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Murray is absent.
Any addenda to the agenda for today' s meeting?
MR. ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that
we first have an election of officers because we're hearing without
them.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Our terms are expired. Okay.
We'll make that the first item of business.
Any other addendas to the agenda this morning?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none.
All those -- motion by Mr. Adelstein. We got a second?
MR. STRAIN: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Strain.
All those in favor of the amended agenda say aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. STRAIN: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good.
Any announced absences in the upcoming weeks? None that
Page 3
October 7,2004
we're aware of. Good.
Approval of minutes from the August 19th minutes.
MR. SCHIFFER: I have a couple of items.
First of all, the votes are all 8-0 yet there are nine people shown
to be in attendance. I have a problem with that.
The other thing, on Page 47 where -- down at the bottom where I
discuss -- it wasn't a thousand square feet, it was a thousand foot
length.
And then on Page 54 it should be noted that I abstained from
voting on the item that Mr. Beasley brought up with WCI.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. I'll take that as a motion.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Adelstein.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor of adopting the minutes
as amended by the motion say aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. STRAIN: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Minutes are adopted.
Ray, is there a Board of County Commissioners report?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On September 28th, the Board of
County Commissioners approved the development order extension of
Pioneer Lakes, made it subject to the petitioner preparing a traffic
impact statement and to look at the possibility of interconnections to
Page 4
October 7, 2004
other adj acent lands around Pioneer lakes.
And that is to be submitted in 2005 when they have to reapply
for another extension. And in fact the region requires a regional
analysis of the PUD issues.
Then on the 21 st the Board of County Commissioners heard the
Waterside Shops amendment to Pelican Bay and both petitions were
approved, the development order and the PUD document. The
development order was approved three to two, and it was unanimous
on the PUD document subject to participation in the SCOOT program
and to provide an additional left turn lane off of Seagate Drive going
onto 41.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else?
All right. Before we start our advertised public hearings let's go
into our election of officers.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I nominate Russell Budd as chairman, Mark
Strain as vice-chainnan, and hopefully someone will nominate me as
secretary .
MR. SCHIFFER: I'll nominate you as secretary.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's, with modesty aside, if you would
just make your motion for the three officers, Mr. Adelstein.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And nominate yourself. And Mr.
Schiffer, can we take that as a second for those three officers?
MR. SCHIFFER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And we're open for discussion now,
discussion on the officers which are a mirror of our tenn that has just
expired.
MR. STRAIN: I certainty don't like changes. I would hope that
nobody would be voting for a change here.
Page 5
October 7, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor of the proposed slate
and by motion, please signify by saying aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. STRAIN: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Well, then, things remain the
same, so I'm not moving my chair. And we'll move into the advertised
public hearings.
Our first hearing this morning is petition NUA-2002-AR-2995, a
request for nonconforming use alteration in the Henderson Creek
Road area.
Are there any disclosures by planning commissioners on this
item? There are none.
All those wishing to present testimony on this item please stand,
raise your right hand and be sworn in.
(Witnesses sworn.)
(Mr. Midney is now present.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you very much.
If we could hear from the petitioner -- just anywhere you are
comfortable.
MR. REED: My name is Bob Reed. I'm director of Holiday
Manor Co-op.
I'm representing the co-op in their request for your approval for
nonconforming use alteration petition.
Page 6
-."..
October 7, 2004
First, I would like to thank the department of zoning and land
development and also the department of code enforcement. Kay
Deselem and Michelle Arnold have been great to work with __
THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, could you keep your voice up,
please, so I could hear you over here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Actually, sir, without the microphone, if
you would like to stand over by the court reporter it's all the same to
us, and it's a little bit closer to her.
THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
MR. REED: First, I would like to thank the department of
zoning and land development, also the department of code
enforcement. Kay Deselem and Michelle Arnold have been great to
work with. They both understand the problems we have had internally
and they both have been very patient and understanding.
Holiday Manor is a cooperative -- is a 55 senior community. It
was built in 1968 by Bob and Leo Kavin. The co-op purchased the
park for $6 million in 1996. We have 32 acres of land. We are 187
mobile home sites, 125 RV sites.
The original developers had a set of plans and used them only as
guidelines. Homes, trailers and sheds were placed in there randomly
on various sites. As a result, all sites are not equal size. Also the
placement of the units and sheds have been a problem.
Because the co-op is one parcel of land, the co-op agrees that we
must adhere to see that the required setbacks along the outer perimeter
-- relief is needed internally on the side-yard distance and back-yard
setbacks.
Sorry about that. It is also important that we were granted for
stand-alone sheds. Seasonal motor coaches are required to have sheds
for personal storage. Any relief granted should also increase our
potential to sell the vacant 1 7 R V sites we now have.
Again, I thank you for your consideration of this petition. And if
you have any questions I would be glad to try and answer them.
Page 7
--~.,
October 7, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Strain.
MR. STRAIN: I don't know who attached it but part of your
application included a copy of an organizational meeting minutes.
They were January 14th --
MR. REED: Yes. And they should be in the petition I
submitted to Kay.
MR. STRAIN: What was the purpose of your including those
minutes in the petition?
MR. REED: In order to show that the whole co-op wanted to
get this NU A through.
MR. STRAIN: I don't think those minutes reflect that. I
couldn't find language in there. And I thought that's why you did it.
MR. REED: Yes.
MR. STRAIN: And I looked -- and I read it trying to find that
reference, and I couldn't find it.
MR. REED: Yes. I brought one of those with me.
MR. STRAIN: If someone could -- in your group could look at
that while the rest of the petition is being presented.
I don't want to slow everybody down for that purpose but that's
the wrong minutes. Maybe we might want to find the right ones.
MR. REED: Yes. I think Kay asked for not only the president's
but also that particular letter showing the minutes of that particular
meeting, yes.
MR. STRAIN: The minutes of this meeting also reference
something that brought up a question. It says under legal issues, we
also have the attorney engaged in trying to resolve the dispute
between Mrs. Fiorelli (phonetic) and Ms. Britton (phonetic) on a
boundary area.
Is it anything to do with --
MR. REED: That's been all resolved. No, no.
MR. STRAIN: It has nothing to do with what we're here for
Page 8
._-~-
. ..--.--_._~...~.
October 7, 2004
today?
MR. REED: No.
MR. STRAIN: Other than, I couldn't find a reason why this was
submitted to us, so maybe it's the wrong set of minutes.
MS. DESELEM: If I may. For the record Kay Deselem.
It's not -- yeah, it's on Page 4. Talks about nonconforming use
alteration request. And it states that -- it speaks of the nonconforming
alteration request of the Collier County planning services and it said
the motion passed by a majority.
MR. STRAIN: Kay, I don't -- I have a Page 1, Page 2 and Page
5, okay; 3 and 4 are not in the packet.
MS. DESELEM: Well, that's why you don't have them.
MR. STRAIN: Okay. I'm glad I asked the question. Does
anybody else have Page 3?
MS. DESELEM: Apparently it was a copier glitch. I will make
those available to you if you wish to see them.
MR. STRAIN: I would. Just for my record -- if it's in there,
that's fine. I didn't have it. But can you get me copies for my records
so I have one as well?
MS. DESELEM: Yes. The copier must have eaten those two
pages.
MR. STRAIN: Okay. And the other questions I have will be of
staff, so I'm -- at this point I'm done.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any other questions for the
petitioner? There are none.
Can we hear from staff, please?
MS. DESELEM: I think you'll be able to hear me but I'll come
over here just in case.
Good morning. For the record my name is Kay Deselem. I'm a
principal planner with the zoning and land development review
section.
And you have the staff report and hopefully most of the
Page 9
--
"-...--.
October 7,2004
application copy.
I do have some letters that we received after this particular
petition application was sent to you and I will make those available to
you. There are three letters included in here. One has a rather large
attachment list of exhibits to it. I did not have the ability nor the time
to copy all those. If you want to see it, it's obviously available to you.
But at least you get the gist of it.
MR. STRAIN: Depending on the outcome of to day's meeting I
might like to see it.
MS. DESELEM: Okay.
MR. SCHIFFER: Is that an opposition letter or --
MS. DESELEM: Actually, I don't know how you would
characterize it.
I hesitate to try to characterize exactly what it says because I'm
not sure what the point is the gentleman is trying to make.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: And that's about all I can say. It was actually
addressed to David Weigel at the county attorney's office but I did get
a copy and, like I said, I really can't characterize what it might say.
You did get a background of this particular petition from the
petitioner's agent so I won't belabor that. You have a copy of the
aerial photograph in your staff report. And you have a location map,
so you are familiar with where the site is and what's around it.
And in light of time constraints, I won't go into any great detail
other than to say that staff is recommending approval of it. We have
determined that it is deemed consistent with the growth management
plan, specifically Policy 5.9, and we have quoted that policy in the
staff report.
And on Page 4 of the staff report we have provided you the
analysis that contains the findings that are required by the land
development code and we have positive findings to support the
request -- or the recommendation that we have provided to you.
Page 10
--
October 7, 2004
And the staff recommendation contains two conditions. One
recognizes the development that's on-site, that is the 312 units and the
mix of units of the single-wide mobile homes -- double-wide mobile
homes, whatever, and the RV trailer park model-type sites.
And the other condition addresses that separation distance of 10
feet.
And I don't have anything further. If you have questions I would
be happy to address them.
MR. ABERNATHY: That separation often feet raises a
question for me because earlier in your dispositive, Page 2, you stated
it's not required if they are physically connected to the principal
structure or any other accessory structure. So they are not consistent, I
don't think.
That exception, the separation distance for accessory structures,
would allow a zero separation distance if the accessory structures are
physically connected to the principal structure or an accessory. Well,
that sounds reasonable but that's not what your recommendation says.
MS. DESELEM: I understand. I guess I have been involved in
it so long -- yes, you are right, we need to clarify that particular
condition so it states you're either --
MR. ABERNATHY: The conditions are either separate or
attached.
MS. DESELEM: -- clearly 10 feet or zero setback.
MS. CARON: Also, Kay, on Page 4 when you are talking about
the fire codes you said, And further will specify that the perimeter of
property setback requirements be maintained. But then when you go
to your recommendations you didn't include that.
MS. DESELEM: And that's because they didn't seek a variance
from it, it's implied that they must meet those setbacks. So we didn't
believe that we needed to actually -- it would be redundant to include
something that is already required.
MS. CARON: Okay.
Page 11
-
October 7, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer.
MR. SCHIFFER: What's going to happen to the permanent
structures? I'm sure on-site there is a clubhouse or something,
correct?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, there is a clubhouse.
MR. SCHIFFER: Are there any -- is nothing going to be
affected by that, no rezoning of that or --
MS. DESELEM: It's not contemplated as part of this NUA.
Now, what might happen to it in the future, I don't know. It's not
contemplated as permits.
MR. SCHIFFER: But there's no setback issues with the
permanent structures.
MS. DESELEM: No. As long as structures meet the perimeter
setbacks for the overall lot, because we don't recognize as the county
any particular site that that clubhouse sits on within the confines of
their proj ect.
MS. SCHIFFER: And how are the trailers treated; are they
primary or accessory buildings or what are they?
MS. DESELEM: I would assume they are primary buildings
and their sheds would be accessories.
MR. SCHIFFER: And when you say it's going to meet all fire
codes, that's all governing fires codes -- because a concern is that the
roadway system, you're not going to make it a cul-de-sac at the end of
it or something are you?
MS. DESELEM: No. And again those are private drives,
they're not roadways by county standard.
MR. SCHIFFER: But if there is a fire, the fire department has
access to those roads, right?
MS. DESELEM: Oh, yes.
MR. SCHIFFER: But could this be -- but then you would have
to have that cul-de-sac for the truck to turn; they're greater than 150
feet.
Page 12
October 7,2004
MS. DESELEM: As far as I know there is no contemplation of
any changes to the street layout internal to the proj ect.
MR. SCHIFFER: But that is a fire equipment problem. The
concern IS --
MS. DESELEM: It goes back to they're not going to make it
more nonconforming than it already is. It doesn't comply but we
didn't get into the details of changing that street or driveway
configuration. That just wasn't part of what we were looking at.
MR. SCHIFFER: So do you think we should word it that it's the
fire codes in regards to the buildings? Because I mean, somebody __
NFP A 1 is a fire code that governs and that would cause us to redo
the site plan.
MS. DESELEM: Perhaps it might be clearer -- I don't know
exactly how to phrase it, but if you want to alter the wording -- I can
understand what you're saying, yes, it sounds like we should make it
clear but --
MR. SCHIFFER: And you say fire codes, there are no -- all fire
codes.
MS. DESELEM: Well, we can't give variances from that in this
venue anyway so -- but perhaps there is a way to make it clearer.
MR. ADELSTEIN: It's my understanding then that all buildings
will now be 10 feet apart or zero feet apart.
MS. DESELEM: We're only addressing the sheds. We're not
addressing the principal structures, because pursuant to county
regulations, there are no internal lot lines. All we can deal with is the
accessory structures.
MR. ADELSTEIN: You mean the actual living buildings will
not be 10 feet apart?
MS. DESELEM: I don't know that they will or they won't be.
Knowing what is there now I can tell you that there is many that are
not.
But, see, the county just doesn't recognize the quote, unquote lot
Page 13
October 7,2004
lines that exist in a mobile home park. If you look at the locational
map there is one big tract of land, and we don't have any requirements
for exception or setbacks from those particular roads in zoning. So all
we could deal with was accessory structures, that's what the zoning
addresses.
MR. ADELSTEIN: So basically this whole issue is over the
accessory buildings.
MS. DESELEM: Basically, yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: If I may. This is County Attorney Patrick White.
I think it also addresses, Kay, and correct me if I'm wrong, any
replacement units, and those replacement units would then have to
meet those separation standards; is that correct?
MR. ADELSTEIN: If there are no lot lines why would it be any
different for the new ones or the old ones? I still believe, my feeling
would be that the old ones would be to have 10 feet apart in order to
meet the fire code.
MR. BELLOWS: That involves the planning manager for
problems like these -- but the way to address nonconforming mobile
homes or trailer parks is -- are such that it will not allow residents
within the nonconforming parts to obtain replacement units. Because
of their nonconforming nature we can't allow them to obtain those
permits. By obtaining the NUA we've gone through a review process
where we ensure that there is adequate fire protection, there was
adequate ingress-egress to the site and therefore we would allow for
the replacement of these if the NUA is approved.
MR. SCHIFFER: When you said "ingress-egress", do you want
us to keep site and fire code and that in?
MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me. Say that again.
MR. SCHIFFER: When you said "ingress-egress", I assume
you mean fire access.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. If the fire department objects then we'll
try to work on ways of resolving those objections. As far as I'm
Page 14
---
._---"",,,.~.
October 7, 2004
understanding there is no objection from the fire department on this.
MR. SCHIFFER: Is this a unique situation in this trailer park?
MR. BELLOWS: No. This is about the fourth one I know that
has obtained NUAs.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain.
MR. STRAIN: Kay, this park is in a CHAA ~nd the GMP
doesn't allow mobile homes in those areas. You said this is consistent
with the GMP. I'm assuming because you're considering it
grandfathered in?
MS. DESELEM: It doesn't allow new mobile home
development. This is not new development. You can't rezone to
mobile home, they are not rezoning to mobile home.
MR. STRAIN : Well, you could -- that whole mobile park could
be rezoned to single family if it wanted to. The county attorney has
already opined that you can change the zoning as long as you give
them seven years to change it.
My question is, are we doing anything to worsen conditions as
far as hurricane preparedness goes? Where are the nearest hurricane
shelters for this park, what is their capacity and what is their wind
load? Do we know that? Do you have any information on that?
MS. DESELEM: I have no information. I have contacted -- and
I'll have to say that it was at the last minute -- two days ago I
contacted Dan Summers at emergency management and asked if he
could attend the meeting. And I tried repeatedly to contact them and
get someone.
I did speak with someone, a warm person, real body this
morning and -- other than voice mail and E-mail-- and they are busy
doing their reassessment this morning. They are all involved with
meetings for the reassessment for the four hurricanes. They had no
one available on staff to come to the hearing today. They sent their
apologies for that but one, due to the short notice and the fact that they
had already had meetings scheduled and -- they were unable to attend.
Page 15
October 7,2004
MR. STRAIN: Do you remember the EAR, there were a lot of
questions from this panel at that time. They again didn't show up for
those questions. I don't know what their excuse was but they always
seemed to have one.
I'm concerned that I do not want to make a bad situation worse
by something we do here today involving hurricane damage. I do
know that structures such as mobile homes, manufactured homes,
temporary shelters or facilities, sheds as they may be here, are prone
to extreme damage and flying debris during hurricanes. I learned in
the last two months how bad that can just be, with the prediction it
could happen for years to come.
I'm very uncomfortable moving forward with this without
information from emergency services to understand where the
hurricane preparedness efforts are for this community. For example,
transportation to and from a shelter that's rated according to the
growth management plan and it has the capacity to house these
people, we don't even know if one exists near their area.
So I'm just letting you know at this point I don't feel comfortable
with this until I get more information.
MS. DESELEM: What I can state is they are not increasing the
intensity or the density, so quote, unquote it's not going to make a bad
situation worse in that there will be no more persons in the future,
based on this NU A, than there are today.
I know you have more concerns other than that but I did want to
clarify that.
MR. STRAIN: When we have an opportunity shouldn't we be
making a bad situation better? We have an opportunity here to make
it better.
And I want to make sure that whatever these avenues are as
recommended by the emergency services department in regards to
mobile homes in coastal high hazard areas that we at least have that
knowledge and benefit and possibly include it in whatever comes out
Page 16
-..
October 7, 2004
of today's meeting. And obviously that's not going to happen without
the cooperation of that department.
So I can't say anything more at this time.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Yes, sir.
MR. REED: I think George Tomlinson is here. He is an owner
here in the park.
MR. TOMLINSON: My name is George Tomlinson. I'm the
emergency manager of the park.
Weare in the process of now -- we talked to Storm Smart in Fort
Myers. We had an engineer down, he's drawn out all the plans to
make our buildings safe for hurricanes and storms like that. So we
are making progress on doing that and we expect before this year is
out that we will have that done.
MR. STRAIN: And I know you are not the gentleman that is
doing the design, but I would be curious to see how they are going to
revamp older units to come up to current wind loads.
MR. TOMLINSON: I will see that you get a copy of everything
I have that the engineer sent to me.
MR. STRAIN: Do you happen to know in your discussions with
this gentleman where the shelters are that you would evacuate to and
what the wind loads of those shelters are, their capacities. In case you
have to evacuate from the high hazard area?
MR. TOMLINSON: Lely High School is where we would
probably go right now. But we are trying to get our building up to
code now and that's why I went and talked to these people, Storm
Smart. And the fellow that works there, he wrote most of the laws for
Florida. So--
MR. STRAIN: Ifwe were to continue this meeting, would he be
willing to come here and discuss with us the applications that he
would be applying to your facilities to make them storm smart?
MR. TOMLINSON: I really don't know. I couldn't speak for
him.
"-
~----,-,..
Page 1 7
October 7,2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me. Mr. Tomlinson, is it? I
don't believe you were sworn in originally, so if I could swear you to
testimony. Raise your right hand.
(Witness sworn.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of this gentleman?
MR. STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for staff?
MS. DESELEM: If I may, Michelle Arnold is here and she said
she is willing to answer any questions you have if she can address any
of your concerns as well.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: That would be more code enforcement
rather than hurricane.
MS. DESELEM: Right. But I wanted to make you aware that
she was here if you wanted to speak with her.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? Yes, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: I would also like to point out that the purpose
of an NU A is to upgrade or allow for the upgrade of the units. Right
now the residents are not being permitted to upgrade to safer units
because of the way the codes are written.
And I think Kay has discussed the issue with our building
department, and I think you've mentioned something about how they
are required to have storm certified tags on the units when they come.
The ones that are out there mayor may not have those current tags
and -- could you just update.
MS. DESELEM: Yes. I spoke with some of the people in the
plans review and permitting over the last few days and they told me
that -- because there was a concern about, you know, going out to
Uncle Henry's 20 acres and getting a mobile home that's been sitting
back there for 25 years and bringing it on-site and, you know, what
would you get if you allowed a replacement and you didn't specify
what it was replaced with?
And in checking with the permitting and plans people I
Page 18
October 7,2004
understand that they do check for certain things when they get a
tie-down, and they are required to have a tie-down permit. Some of
the older mobile homes would allow a tie-down over the top.
The newer mobile homes have a stamped certification that's on
either, usually, the electrical panel, sometimes it's on the outside of the
unit, but in any case it's been certified by the state to meet the wind
load of this area, which is different than perhaps, say, Orlando even,
because of the wind load that we have here.
And they can only put that mobile home there. And it has to be
tied down with the new standards which requires a tie-down through
the belly of the mobile home rather than the overstrap.
So they are going to check for the fact that it has the tie-down
and it meets current code, not an older code, and that it has
ingress-egress. My understanding of their idea of ingress-egress is
specifically into that unit; steps, stairs, some way to get into that unit.
And then they check for the electrical. And so there is the potential
that the units that go in here with this NUA will be better, if you want
to phrase it that way, than what might be there now because they'll be
newer units and they will meet a better code.
MR. STRAIN: Ray, something you said -- a gentleman here has
taken a very proactive approach and got somebody involved. I find
nothing in these documents stating that it's going to be a mandatory
upgrade of all of the existing structures there to wind loads that
would be sufficient to put to hurricane preparedness.
We're also talking about, now, sheds and accessory structures.
I'm not sure if that's in the umbrella of having Smart Storm or
whatever the company is, looking at as far as making sure those
structures -- but all the damage in a hurricane, we've learned, comes
from other structures blowing apart and hitting other structures. Even
though the other structure may be wind sufficient, if it's hit by a piece
of flying debris from something that isn't you've got damage all
around.i
Page 19
October 7,2004
I really feel that we need to get that kind of information. And it
all dovetails back to one of the questions in the staffs report, Item F.
It stays such alteration, expansion or replacement will not present a
threat to health, safety or welfare of the community or its residents.
Based on what I've heard so far, I haven't heard that addressed.
I've seen it addressed here but only to the fire code. Without
emergency services here to at least tell us what their thoughts are
there is a pretty big blank right now.
MR. BELLOWS: Only in regards to permitting for sheds.
MR. STRAIN: In the coastal high hazard because that's the
difference here.
MR. BELLOWS: The building department requires those
property owners or homeowners associations in applying for their
permits for these sheds or accessory structures, they have to
demonstrate that they meet the building code requirements and they
have to be tied down to meet those standards.
The ones that are out there mayor may not meet those standards
depending on how old they are and how they were built and when
they were built. The purpose of the NUA, like I said before, is to
allow them to upgrade to safer units, safer structures that meet current
code. It's not any intensification of the project. It's not anything to
allow the hazards that could be deemed storm hazards to exist.
If we didn't have this process, these parks would continue at the
-- continually aging and degrading and not allowing for the proper
maintenance for those nonconforming structures.
The beauty of the NUA is to allow for those nonconforming
parts to upgrade to safer units that meet current code.
You make a great point though, about hurricane preparedness,
and I think it's fantastic that the residents saw what happened in the
adjacent communities and took action in their own hands to address
that. I mentioned that to Patrick when he raised the issue the other day
that maybe we should look at this comprehensively, not just this park
Page 20
October 7, 2004
but all of the parks, and look at ways of improving emergency
evacuation procedures. And that would be something that emergency
management would have to be heavily involved with. But if we
address it in a piecemeal fashion with this NUA petition, I'm not sure
that -- it's a start but I'm not sure that that solves the overall problem
we have in this community.
MR. STRAIN : You mentioned that the new structures going in
will meet the current codes. I think that's a given.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MR. STRAIN: I think that the results of these past hurricanes,
the newer structures fared much better. That's not a concern. Ifwe
have an opportunity here to go back and see existing and older
structures brought up to standards, I think we ought to take it.
And I don't have enough information to know that the standards
that we're trying to put on the new are going to do any good to help
the old. And if the old blow apart and hit some of the new, the same
damage is going to occur. So at this point I don't feel comfortable
with this, myself.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer.
MR. SCHIFFER: And Mark, there is no way we can go back
and harden those old trailers. The new codes are essentially tie-down
but a trailer is still -- two frangible buildings in the building code,
trailer, you know, and they are not designed for hurricanes, they have
to evacuate and then I --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Speak up a little bit for the court reporter.
MR. SCHIFFER: And they have to evacuate and they're not
going to go to the clubhouse; they are going to leave the site in the
coastal high hazard area. If I was concerned if I was them, it's what do
I come back to, where can I stay when I come back.
But Mark, there is no way you can require these guys to bring
the old trailers up to code.
MR. STRAIN: Well, what I was -- they volunteered. They
Page 21
October 7, 2004
already have someone looking at that. I don't even know what the
results --
MS. DESELEM: No.
MR. SCHIFFER: No. They are looking at their clubhouse.
MR. REED: Our clubhouse.
MR. STRAIN: At the same time, Brad, we can suggest a
rezoning of the property, and that's a pretty tough stance to take.
MR. SCHIFFER: I mean, trailers exist, and the reason they are
weak is because they provide a form of housing that wouldn't be
available otherwise. You can't -- this isn't the front line of that issue.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for staff?
MR. REED: I've got--
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Hold on a second, sir, we need to go
through our routine.
Any other questions for Kay?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. From the petitioner. Yes, sir.
MR. REED: I have some pictures of some of the old ones and
some of the new ones we're putting up now, if you would like to see
him.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: You're welcome to pass them down and
pass them through, but anything you present we keep as part of the
testimony.
MR. REED: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ray, are there any speakers on this item?
MR. BELLOWS: The only speaker that registered has not put
the item number, so I'm not sure if Mr. Sullivan wants to speak on this
issue or not.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. So there is no speaker for this
item. Okay.
Any other questions for the petitioner or staff on this item?
(No response.)
Page 22
.-.
"'----~,-
October 7, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll close the public
hearing.
Do we have a motion?
MR. ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion that we forward the
petition NUA-2002-AR-2995 to the board of zoning appeals with the
recommendation of approval subject to the stipulations of staff plus
with the addition of language about attached structures, attached sheds
and the like.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy.
MR. MIDNEY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: A second by Mr. Midney.
Discussion on the motion.
MR. STRAIN: Just the fact that -- about making a bad situation
worse doesn't sit well with me.
MR. BELLOWS: Ifwe can get a clarification on the motion
concerning the sheds. You were saying the sheds should be --
MR. ABERNATHY: I said her second recommendation be
amended.
MS. DESELEM: If I might suggest for the record -- Kay
Deselem -- if I might suggest, perhaps, since we wanted to make it
clear, if I understood the concern that it just be the separation distance
regarding the fire code, if we remove the portion beginning with "and"
to the end of the sentence and just said, minimum separation distance
of 10 feet.
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, there are fire codes that regulate
separation. We certainly want that.
MS. DESELEM: Well, like I said, we aren't in this avenue nor
are we addressing any variances from fire.
MR. SCHIFFER: I think let's leave it exactly as it is.
MR. ABERNATHY: Well, I want to insert language excepting
attached structures from the 10- foot separation.
MS. DESELEM: For the zero -- to allow zero or --
Page 23
October 7, 2004
MR. ABERNATHY: Zero or 10-foot.
MS. DESELEM: -- 10-foot.
MR. MIDNEY: That is also my second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's fine with the second. So the
motion is clarified, second fine with it. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: No further discussion. Call the question.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed.
MR. STRAIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. It is 7-1. Motion carries.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: For those of you who are not interested in
the next item you are free to leave and we'll move on to our next
agenda item.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will reconvene the planning
commission meeting. I just want to remind everybody to take the time
and effort to speak slowly, clearly, enunciate for the benefit of our
court reporters. They have had a heck of a time during the first
agenda item this morning just trying to hear everybody.
So planning commissioners, if you get involved in discussions
among one another, at the least split the difference and, Brad, this
would affect you most of all, that even if you are addressing someone
down here, try to point somewhere in the middle that the court
reporter can hear your voice clearly. And again to request everybody
Page 24
October 7,2004
in the back of the room to not have any side conversations, please step
out into the hall. We're dealing under difficult circumstances this
mornIng.
The other item I would request is that Mr. Pires is appropriately
located for where we would like to have all our speakers this
morning, again, in some consideration of our court reporters. Our
previous item had people forward of that so that their back was to the
court reporter. They couldn't hear, to make things difficult for
everybody. So you are in the right spot, Tony. Good job.
Okay. With that we will announce our next items. The next two
items will be acted on separately but we'll hear them together as they
are related items. And that is Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-4150, a rezone
from the PUD zoning to the PUD zoning district for mixed use
residential and commercial planned development on the north and
south sides of Oil Well Road, as well as petition
PUDA-2003-AR-4227, an amendment to the Orangetree PUD.
On disclosures on this item, I spoke with Mr. Pires and Mr.
Arnold. Any other disclosures on this?
MR. STRAIN: I spoke with Mr. Pires and Mr. Arnold as well.
We went over the same issues I'll be going over today.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other disclosures? None. Yes, sir.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Is there a notice of public hearing on that
item 4150? I didn't find one.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: The second item?
MR. ADELSTEIN: The first one, 4150.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh, the first one. Okay. You found the
AR-4227 but you didn't see the AR-4150.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Correct.
MR. PIRES: I believe they were side by side but I think that the
staff would have that. I believe they were noticed at the same time.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I couldn't find it. I would assume so, but I
took them out myself and I didn't find it.
Page 25
'-'
October 7,2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ray, any light on that? Do we know if
we have appropriate advertising on that first item?
MR. BELLOWS: My understanding that we had everything
done properly.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Didn't find it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's -- it's a possibility that Mr.
Adelstein didn't notice it. If we don't have any evidence to the
contrary and with the staff representation that it was properly sent
over to the Daily News --
MR. ADELSTEIN: Fine.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- we'll proceed with the reasonable
assumption that it was properly advertised.
MR. BELLOWS: If you would like, I think we can track it
down.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: It would be nice to put that to bed and
know for sure.
Any other disclosures? I think down here there are none. Okay.
On to swearing in. All of those wishing to present testimony on
number -- this item, please stand and raise your right hand.
(Witnesses sworn.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Start with the petitioner presentation,
please.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tony Pires,
Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, representing the petitioner in this
instance, as well as Wayne Arnold ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates.
And initially, from a perspective of disclosure, I have had brief
discussions with Ms. Student from the county attorney's office. There
is a party that is a contract purchaser, a contract vendor for the
residential component of this particular PUD, and that's Pulte Homes.
And I have to file for the record a copy of the corporate officers
and corporate information involving Pulte Homes. I'll make that part
Page 26
October 7, 2004
of the record, and Mr. Bellows, if I could approach you and the court
reporter. Thank you very kindly.
And with regards to this particular application, we also have
Dave Schmitt from Grady Minor Associates, Reed Jarvey on
transportation issues. And Mr. Paul is also here today.
This has been a long time coming for us to go through the
processes and we've had a very good working relationship with the
staff and community as we've proceeded forward. Just a brief
overview, and Mr. Arnold will do the planning presentation and any
other issue that you may have to address.
But in this particular property, it's approximately 1616 acres, and
it's a component of the Orangetree PUD. They are, basically, they are
pulling out of the Orangetree PUD to make it the Orange Blossom
Ranch PUD, a separate planned unit development.
To the north is an approximately 200-acre parcel that Mr. Paul
and his family sold to the county for a water treatment plant,
wastewater reclamation and other governmental uses. And that will
be before you, I believe, in the next few months as far as a rezoning
application.
To the south is a school site -- the high school is there. It's an
approximately 135-acre parcel that Mr. Paul and his family sold to the
school board a couple of years ago for purposes of a high school.
Additional public accommodations will become part and component
of this PUD.
There is a lake, a 90-acre lake approximately, that at a point in
time will be conveyed to the county. There is a 60-foot right-of-way
that will come off of Oil Well Road that will provide access to this
county lake, this county public amenity.
And additionally, at the request and discussions with the utility
department, there are well field easements that will be provided by the
developer within the rights-of-way to provide well fields for the water
treatment facility for this county regional facility.
Page 27
October 7, 2004
There are a couple other language changes that we have made
recently based upon discussions with county transportation staff. We
believe we are in total agreement with each other as far as the
transportation language, and Ms. Student may have some other little
scrivener items we need to rectify.
But we would request that there be a recommendation of
approval of this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with
the staff stipulations as contained in your staff report and any revisions
and modifications that we've discussed in the last few days with staff.
And after the public speakers, if there is an opportunity for just a
few moments of rebuttal in case any additional issues arise, we'd be
very appreciative of that.
Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, everybody. I'm Wayne Arnold
with Grady Minor engineering.
Mr. Pires indicated the basic overview of what it is that we're
trying to achieve here today with the creation of the new Orange
Blossom Ranch PUD. Tony did point out the relationship to
surrounding properties. And I would just like to go over that again
because I think there had been some question early on about exactly
who we abutted and who we did not.
And in fact the county bought the northern 200 acres adjacent to
the fairgrounds property. They also bought what's referred to among
the locals out there as the stovepipe. And that is the area between
Waterways subdivision that's part of Orangetree and the lake parcel
that is presently an agricultural reservoir and also serves as a water
management function for a portion of the project. That serves part of
the canals that you see on the aerial photo here.
But in essence, we abut county property to the north, the west;
school board property to the west; and then to the east is the Golden
Gate canal and Golden Gate Estates. And those are the relationships.
On the south side of Oil Well Road, which is shown here, this
Page 28
October 7,2004
property is part of Valencia golf course and the balance of Orangetree
development. And that is also going through its own amendment
process.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me. We can't see this
because he's standing on the side. Can you go to the other side?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you wouldn't mind just standing on the
other side then the audience can see it and it will be all the same to us.
Okay?
MR. ARNOLD: No problem. We can reorient that or move it
somewhere where it's easier to see. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: That would be far enough or then Mr.
Schiffer is out of the picture.
MR. SCHIFFER: I'm fine.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. This is a color image of the conceptual
master plan for the project and it highlights a couple things. Oil Well
Road bisects the property. There's approximately 165 acres that lie
south of Oil Well Road. That's designated entirely residential/golf.
To the north of Oil Well Road is really the more mixed use
component of this project.
We have the community facility parcel, which is the lake that is
to be dedicated to Collier County.
We have the residential/golf component that lies in that north
and east component, recreational empty area.
And then there's approximately 44 acres that are shown as a
commercial component to this proj ect. And these are handled as
separate areas in the PUD document itself.
A couple things that were mentioned by Mr. Pires. We have
been working with county staff to provide for a future right-of-way
reservation of an additional 100 feet in width along Oil Well Road for
its future expansion. That's consistent, it's my understanding, with
how Ave Maria, that's about five miles farther east of us, has dealt
with some other reservation issues. So we now have a consistent
Page 29
-"-
October 7, 2004
corridor that we're dealing with there.
And the language that I would like to hand out in just a moment
is a clarification of how that will be handled. When we started this
process, and at the point which Ray Bellows started drafting his staff
report, we had had language that talked about the county acquiring
this at the value prior to the zoning action taking place, so that it
wasn't -- there was no increase in value because of the new zoning
action, they would be buying it at its agricultural base rate.
The language that has been discussed with staff is now instead of
buying that with fee simple dollars it would be -- essentially the
language is more specific than that, but the big picture issue is that it
would be for impact fee credits in lieu of a cash payment for that
property .
There is some additional language in here referring to the time
frame of transfer of title, et cetera, that are clarifications. But I know
that Reed Jarvey, our transportation consultant, and from -- Mr. Alon
EI Urfali from staff have discussed the language. They are in
agreement. Weare in agreement. I know that Ms. Student has looked
at it, and I don't know if there are any other minor issues but I'll get
back to that. We can circulate that language and discuss it more
specifically if we need to.
MS. STUDENT: I have looked at it very briefly. I will need
time to --
MR. ARNOLD: The other component that Mr. Pires talked to
you about was to define a corridor that would be a minimum 60 foot
in width that would serve as a public access point that would be open
to the public in perpetuity to get to that lake parcel, and that would be
connecting Oil Well Road. And of course the county's property
connects back to Immokalee Road, which theoretically provides that
interconnect between Oil Well and Immokalee in the future when the
county takes over that property.
We have provided an interconnection to the adjacent high school
Page 30
October 7, 2004
property. The aerial that I had wasn't the most up to date. I had a
smaller one that would have been appropriate for the visualizer, but
since we're in this location, I was using a larger scale image that
didn't show the high school in place.
But what we've done is tried to connect, show potential
interconnects at locations that were very consistent with the school
board, high school site, so that it -- even if it were pedestrian
interconnects, that was a far better cry than having any resident here
having to then get out onto Oil Well Road and then drive to that high
school location. So we think that's an enhancement.
We've also shown cross-access over and to the county's future
lake parcel as well.
For the most part those are sort of the planning issues. I know
there's probably more specific questions. I think we've done -- as
Tony mentioned, this thing started, and some of you were on the
planning commission's time -- compo Plan amendments about two
years ago that dealt with the settlement area -- settlement district area
and establishing some of the parameters for that.
And then of course we started this zoning action just a little over
a year ago trying to establish this new PUD. So we have been
working with staff over that period of time.
And I think, as Tony mentioned, as part of that give and take
over that year, we've defined five well field easement locations that
the county will take over to serve their future water and wastewater
facility .
We've talked about the right-of-way reservation, public access to
the park and then of course dedication for regional park impact fees of
the 90-acre lake to Collier County with terms that I believe are
acceptable to the county.
And I know that Ms. Student may have some specific questions
about the actual dedication language that's there, but I think in concept
we're all in agreement and that's something that we've worked out with
Page 31
..---.---
October 7, 2004
Marla Ramsey and her staff over the past year.
That in essence is my presentation of what the project is.
And I guess, just to touch on the Orangetree component if I
could. Weare amending the Orangetree PUD to extract ourselves
from it. We have made minor changes to the Orangetree PUD
document itself to reflect the reduced acreage calculation for our
project and some other very minor changes. That's been a little bit of
a moving target, because at the time we entered the process the school
board was also in the midst of its amendment that provided for the
new school park site that has the high school on it presently.
The developer for Orangetree also had an amendment pending,
so that document has been moving.
And then the county of course has now hired a consultant to
amend the Orangetree PUD to make provisions for its water and
wastewater facility.
So that document will be an evolving document over the next
several months. But at this point in time we believe we've reflected at
least everything that is encompassing of the last amendment, which
was the school board's amendment.
I would be happy to entertain questions. And if I could I would
like to mention just two things. And I guess maybe it's the appropriate
time to hand out the transportation language. If we can have
everybody look at that.
Okay. Has everyone had an opportunity to read it? I know that
it's a lengthy paragraph, and with the strike through and underlining
it's a little bit hard to read. But I think the gist of it is that we're not
dealing with impact fee credits in lieu of that acquisition fee simple by
the county.
I know Mr. £1 Urfali is here, and if necessary, we can get his
affirmation. But I think that it's the same language that has been
wordsmithed with him over the last several weeks.
The other -- I know he's coming forward. I don't know if you
Page 32
October 7, 2004
wanted him to -- nod, say yes, that's okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions on this item from the
planning commissioners? Mr. Schiffer.
MR. SCHIFFER: Yes. And I'll talk directly to her, so I'm not
being rude to you, sir.
The calculation for gross density, that's based on all of the
parcels, correct?
MR. ARNOLD: It's based on the entire property, less out the
commercial pile.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. Do you have the calculation for
density without the right-of-ways and stuff like that?
MR. ARNOLD: I do not. They would be included in the
calculation for the overall project in terms of gross density.
The other thing I would mention. The comprehensive plan
doesn't establish a maximum density for the settlement area of this
portion of the county. It's an area that -- just a little bit of history --
was originally platted as North Golden Gate Estates. It was to allow
8,000 dwelling units out here. And it was going to be essentially a
duplicate of Golden Gate City as we know it. And those plats have
been vacated, and Orangetree and the agricultural lands then became
what they are today.
MS. STUDENT: There may be a way to look at a baseline,
though, Wayne, and correct me if I'm wrong, but -- because it's been
awhile since I had read the Orangetree portions of the compo plan.
However, if there is a number of units established for Orangetree for a
certain amount of acreage, you can come up with a baseline that way.
MR. ARNOLD: That's true. You could. That language no
longer exists in the settlement area district in terms of a reference to
any maximum numbers of units.
But Mr. Schiffer, the density that we've requested is about 2.8
units per acre when you less out the commercial tract. The
right-of-way itself I don't have an acreage calculation. I could
Page 33
October 7, 2004
certainly do that and tell you exactly what that hundred-foot
reservation is across the frontage of our property, for instance.
What the internal right-of-way is will really depend on what the
ultimate plat becomes for that land because right now it's a conceptual
road network that is shown. It mayor may not look identical to that.
MR. SCHIFFER: But the density does include the lake --
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
MR. SCHIFFER: -- that hopefully will go to the county.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Before we go any further on density or
all of the other issues, I would like to look at this new PUD
transportation language that was just passed out. We have the
gentleman here that testified on it. Is there any question on this
specific issue?
If there is not --
MR. ARNOLD: If I might, just to point out that actually would
replace Paragraph L under Section 6.7 in the PUD.
MS. STUDENT: The only observation -- I've read it and it
looks fine -- that we need the parallel cite to the UDC.
We reference a citation to the land code that sets out the
procedures when there is dedications and how they are going to be
valued, so there should be the parallel cite in there to the UDC.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I think we've -- the document that you
have does have cross-references to UDC in it. And if that's one of
those we need to correct, we certainly will between now and the board
meeting.
The other minor point that I did want to make, and I wanted to
go back to it, was I mentioned to Mr. Bellows about this and Brian
Paul actually did speak to Jim DeLony, your utilities administrator,
about it. Bleu Wallace, I understand, has been out with medical leave
so we haven't had an opportunity to discuss that with him.
But there was a minor change to the utilities section, 6.4,
Page 34
October 7, 2004
Paragraph C, that we wanted to make. There is a reference in there
that is old language that we were borrowing and it referred to private
wells and individual sewage disposal systems. And in essence we
would ask to change that language to refer to interim potable water
and wastewater systems. It's a little bit more generic term and a little
bit more current term than "individual" into the -- some of the utilities
lingo.
And I have some language offered. I gave Ray Bellows a copy
of that. And I know he has not had a chance to discuss that with Bleu
Wallace either. And I think that's something that, if necessary, we
would certainly be happy to do. He just, unfortunately, has been
unavailable.
But I think -- and Mr. Paul is here -- but I can tell you that from
his perspective, Mr. DeLony had no issue with the minor
wordsmithing.
One other just -- thing I didn't mention is that we talked a lot
about our involvement with the school district, and I know that Amy
Taylor is here and she is also registered to speak about the school.
One thing I would point out is that we did make specific
provisions on our commercial tract for the ability to have public or
private schools. I know she's going to be referring to the residential
component of the project but I know that -- I just wanted to point out
specifically, we did make provisions in the commercial tract for that
type of use.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone else from your
presentation team?
MR. PIRES: No, sir. We're just here to answer any of the
questions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Strain.
MR. STRAIN: Start on Page 1 again, guys.
Page 35
October 7, 2004
Actually, the first question is for Ray. In your staff report on
Page 4, second paragraph, you end up with a sentence that says, It is
unknown for certain but appears that DCA was not consulted about
these changes -- other than --
THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear you. I'm sorry.
MR. STRAIN: It is unknown for certain but appears that DCA
was not consulted about these changes; however, there are no
increases in the major DR! thresholds determinants.
Now, that's talking about some past actions from the existing
PUD.
My issue here is if DCA has to be notified about all of this,
which obviously they do, is the county intending to notify DCA about
its use for that regional sewage plant, the wastewater treatment plant
they are putting in the north end of this property. And if they are, why
didn't they dovetail on the back of this DR! amendment so we could
save some money.
Do you know anything about these issues?
MR. BELLOWS: I have had some discussions with our regional
planning -- for the record, Ray Bellows. Can you hear me now?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: I did discuss this with the regional planning
council and they had sent me information that they determined this
project not to have any regional impact. It's not a DR!, it's part of the
settlement agreement. And there is a distinction to be made there.
In regards to utilities and wastewater, I have -- just have to defer
to utilities and Jim Delony.
MR. STRAIN: I was reading that point. I thought it had to be
done. Why are we just doing it now? It's not necessarily an issue of
this meeting. I wanted to point it out to you. It's probably too late to
do anything about it, so I'll get into the issues in which I have
questions from my meeting with these gentlemen.
On Page 2-6 of the PUD document there is a section calledi
Page 36
October 7, 2004
Development Standards. Item 3, minimum distance between
structures which are part of an architecturally unified group is five
feet. I would suggest 10 feet as a minimum. As Dave just said, it's
somewhat of a standard for this board, so that access to fire control
and all that is a little easier. If I recall there wasn't much opposition to
that in my discussions with these folks.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me. I didn't get that. Which table?
MR. STRAIN: 2-6, Item D3, under general permitted uses.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay.
MR. STRAIN: We haven't gotten to the development standards
table yet but I'll get there.
On that same page, Ray, in 2.12, Open Space Requirements,
there is no minimum open space requirement applicable to the
commercial office area. We have a code that requires that, but with a
PUD they are allowed to offset that open space in the gross area of the
PUD.
In theory that means that the commercial area could be solid
pavement with the exception of the minimum buffers required. I'm
not sure that would be a good design. I asked yesterday if you
considered a minimum percentage of open space for the commercial
area just to make sure it's a nice looking commercial area -- or better
looking.
Did you guys come up with any number that might be
applicable?
MR. ARNOLD: I did, Mr. Strain. I went back and looked at the
concept plan that we have and looked at some other standards for
some other projects that we were involved in that were constituting
mixed use. And I think a 10 percent commitment ensures that we
have more than minimum buffers and additional open space.
In all likelihood, when the final footprint is there we may exceed
that. We've got two well field easements that we're trying to
Page 37
October 7, 2004
accommodate on that commercial tract as well that have a little bit of
uncertainty in terms of how those will actually function.
But I think we could indicate that there would be a minimum 10
percent open space for the commercial tract. And I think, just so
everybody understands, in a mixed use project it's looked at as an
overall number. And obviously for a project of this type with a
90-acre lake, the open space numbers are far exceeding the county
mInImums.
But I think that's a good -- a good point to make that we will
provide that minimum 10 percent on the commercial tract.
MR. STRAIN: I'm not so worried about your planning efforts,
Wayne, you usually do a good job. I'm more concerned what happens
if this is sold and someone else picks it up. He may look at that and
liberally interpret it as tight as they want to make it.
MR. BELLOWS: I understand.
MR. STRAIN: Page number is missing but it's Section 3, Item
3.5 F(C). And your rear setback under your development standards--
this is under residential! golf standards -- is zero if abutting a golf
course or lake, 20 feet if abutting a residential tract.
I'm assuming then that the property lines don't go to the water,
they hold the 20- foot maintenance easement from the water, so that
your zero still provides for a 20- foot maintenance easement.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think one of the clarifications, and I
think it was an omission on my part, was simply that typically we
would add language that says something to the effect that however,
there should be no structural encroachment into required drainage
easement.
And I think that's typically something that staff and the applicant
agree on. I know I wouldn't get through the plat process showing a
structure in the easement, but obviously that's something that we
should clarify for the PUD document.
MR. STRAIN: And under the Number 4A, parking
Page 38
October 7, 2004
requirements for non-residential uses, the restaurants in there have a
different parking requirement if it's not open to the public, which most
private communities aren't. If it is open to the public, the parking
requirement would be larger.
Are you stipulating it's going to be not open to the public or open
to the public?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I don't think we were trying to stipulate
either. But I understand your point after we discussed that, that if it is
open to the public there obviously is more of a demand on that use.
I think that for clarification, and we have no problem in doing
so, that is if there would be any of the restaurant facility open to the
public, we would provide parking at the typical restaurant rate. If
that's -- I think is the concern that you had when we discussed that
point.
MR. STRAIN: Okay. On the development standards table,
Table 1, in the bottom it says "distance between detached principal
structures". You have 12 feet with an asterisk 5. Under the asterisk 5
it says, "Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum
of zero feet where attached garages are provided".
Now, I'm assuming you're saying zero feet from the accessory
structure to the principal structure, but I want to make sure that your
intention is that if the garage is attached to the principal structure and
therefore really becomes part of the principal structure, that that
garage still has a minimum 12 feet between the neighboring property.
And is that a clarification that -- do you understand what I'm
trying to get at?
MR. ARNOLD: I do. And I guess it's really one of distinction.
And maybe -- I think I understand exactly where you are headed. And
typically what happens, it would be like a carriage home complex
where the garage is probably physically attached to the actual
principal dwelling, but in some cases the garage units themselves are
attached to each other.
Page 39
October 7, 2004
But it was never intended that we would end up with zero
setback between the next building and its set of garages.
And I don't know exactly what language satisfies the planning
commission to make that the case, but I understand when we discussed
it am I going to have 400 garages attached to each other along the
street, and that's certainly not our intent.
I know that typically you end up with, in those carriage homes,
eight units, and you end up with eight or ten garages because the end
units could end up with a two-car garage configuration. But I think
our intent was that we have a separation, obviously, to the next
grouping of buildings.
MR. STRAIN: I know that your intent was probably that way.
But again, you're selling the property --
MR. ARNOLD: I understand your point.
MR. STRAIN: -- your mass builder may look at it more flexibly
than you are.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I discussed this
issue with Wayne, too, because I had the same concerns. And we
looked at different kinds of language getting more and more
confusing. Then he showed me a detail and that pretty much cleared it
up. And maybe the only way to really solve it and make it clear is
maybe to have a detail of that.
MR. ARNOLD: I think that's certainly something we can do.
And I think our idea would be that -- the intent here was to allow the
actual garages to be attached for those units that they serve. It was
never to allow multiple buildings to have unified garages, if you all
understand that distinction I'm trying to make.
And I don't know if we simply need to add a maximum number
of units in anyone grouping or a number of garages on one grouping
or simply indicate that there will be a separation between --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: -- the next building. Because in some cases we
Page 40
October 7, 2004
would physically have ownership. If this were a townhome or an
attached structure you would have potentially a land and ownership
interest of the unit and the garage and that those then would be
attached with zero setback. But then obviously there is going to be a
break between the next series of buildings.
And I guess whichever way satisfies the planning commission
and staff in terms of specifying that. If it's a diagram that makes it
easier, I'm happy to do so.
MR. STRAIN: Ray, if you have an attached garage, isn't it then
considered part of the principal structure?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MR. STRAIN: Then why do we have asterisk five at all?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, I think that's where that graphic came
in, explains it pretty well when you have -- where the two-family
homes I think is where that really comes in where they are basically
attached at the garage end.
MR. STRAIN: That's okay there, it's only the -- if you have a
duplex, the next duplex has to be retained at least 12 feet away under
any circumstances. That's all I --
MR. BELLOWS: I think he had another depiction of detached
attached garages.
MR. STRAIN: Do you feel though -- I mean, I understand what
Wayne said --
MR. BELLOWS: Then it gets confusing--
MR. STRAIN: Do you know how to get there from this
document?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: And I understand Mr. Strain's point as well, I
mean, assuming that the garages are all attached to their dwelling
units in some form. I think you're absolutely right, it may not even be
necessary to have the asterisk at all.
MR. STRAIN: Right. So that's what brought the confusion.
Page 41
October 7, 2004
MR. ARNOLD: Here is the one clarification I would make,
Commissioner Strain, is that in some cases a garage, if it almost serves
a courtyard function -- and in some of those carriage homes where you
enter between the garage into a courtyard that then serves the home --
the intent was that those garages -- maybe that's where we need to
specify it -- I know that in some other proj ects that's been held to a
minimum of 10 feet, for instance, where they are detached or they
could be attached, which isn't a problem under this language.
So maybe it is the diagram that gives the greatest comfort. But I
understand the intent.
MR. BELLOWS: Let me tell you--
MR. STRAIN: Clear it up, that would be a very big help.
MR. SCHIFFER: Do you have a copy of that diagram?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't have one with me but I -- I mean, it's a
little sketch that I doodled for Ray --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it was a sketch.
MR. ARNOLD: -- but I think the real issue was where you have
a grouping of buildings, that we're not somehow going to just have a
series of attached buildings that carries on for an entire block or the
entire street. Not so much that, for an eight-unit or ten-unit building,
that you have its garages all attached to serve that building, it's when
you make the break to the next building that you aren't going to end up
with a line of garages that are all attached and then the buildings are
physically separated, at least as I understood the concern from both
Commissioner Strain and Ray.
MR. STRAIN: I had some questions on the uses but you have
basically everything in the ends. I see there's a use but I would rather
hold off on any comments I make until I see if there is any public
comments on them, if there's no concerns from the public -- area.
MR. ARNOLD: I know that one comment that came up during
our conversation, Mr. Strain, and I know Mr. Bellows also caught it, I
think there was an error, potentially, in the commercial. It's Page 4-2.
Page 42
October 7, 2004
One of those issues was under laundry and dry cleaning services, et
cetera.
MR. STRAIN: The power laundries.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think the classification that was there
referred to the power laundries, and I think what occurred is that one
of the 7211 to -- I think it got cut off. It should have been, I think,
7215. I have my SIC code book.
But when Ray and I discussed it this -- it may be just as easy --
all we really want, we're looking at something that's a pretty
traditional shopping center configuration for the commercial tract.
We would like the opportunity to have a dry cleaning, potentially a
coin laundry.
But if it's easier to simply say that we could have a dry cleaning
station and a coin-operated laundry and not have to worry about the
SIC codes for that specific thing, then that -- because the nuances of
that are odd, I've never seen a coin-operated dry cleaning facility, for
instance. If you read those classifications, that's how they read. And
power laundries also include some other uses that also don't seem to
be nearly as intense.
So if that satisfies Mr. Bellows' concern and potentially yours,
Commissioner Strain, that would be the way I would proposed to
handle that.
MR. STRAIN: That was one of the issues. The rest of them are
really up to the area needs.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MR. STRAIN: On Section 4, Item 6.2D, you are asking for a
sunset time limit "shall be three years from the date of approval".
And Ray, I was concerned on how that time limit is affected by
the commercial aspects of the project because, while they may be able
to commence the residential in that three-year time period and meet
the percentage requirements, the commercial might likely be put off
until the area builds out more.
Page 43
October 7, 2004
Does that come under a separate thing because it's -- how do you
guys look at that now?
MR. BELLOWS: I had a discussion with Mr. Arnold on this
and I believe it was our agreement that you were going to just make it
consistent with the LDC. And I thought that changes had been made
to the document. I apologize for that.
MR. STRAIN: These should be struck?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Because it's going to be consistent with
the LDC.
MR. STRAIN: Is that -- Wayne?
MR. ARNOLD: I think our intent was simply to be consistent
with the land development code. Initially, as this evolved over the
past year, we started out with five years because there were a lot of
questions relating to Immokalee Road, Oil Well Road, Ave Maria.
Things have fallen into place over the period of the year that we were
here, so the five got changed to three, which is consistent with the
sunset provisions under the land development code and now UDC,
and our intent was to be consistent with those.
MR. STRAIN: My next question -- to save the board, I'm nearly
done -- 6.5A under water management it currently reads, "In
accordance with the rules of the South Florida Water Management
District, this project shall be designed for a storm event of a three-day
duration, 25-year return frequency".
I would suggest that it should read, "This project shall be
designed for a storm event in accordance with the rules of South
Florida Water Management District at the time of permitting" .
Who knows how the rules may change as a result of the last few
months' worth of water we received. I would just want to make sure if
the rules change we're not locked into something different because of
this document.
Is that acceptable?
MR. ARNOLD: I think that satisfies us if staff is happy.
Page 44
October 7, 2004
MR. BELLOWS: That's acceptable.
MR. STRAIN: Under 6.5B it talks about excavation material. It
says, "Excavation material may be moved within the limits of the
MPUD, which is not to be considered off-site excavation". I would
just want to make sure that when you excavate Jim's lake that the
material coming out of that can cross that part of the -- well, it's not
part of the PUD, there's a separation there that shows up on your
master plan between Jim's lake and the PUD residential area.
You are allowing -- I mean, they should be allowed to move
across that. It isn't part of the PUD though, so I'm assuming the
language that's stated here will allow that flexibility.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MR. PIRES: We may need to clarify that -- it also goes back
and forth between Oil Well Road but also separates the proj ect,
though.
MR. BELLOWS: I think I'll work with Marjorie Student and the
petitioners to make sure that language is acceptable and clarify it.
MR. STRAIN: In the past we have had some PUD terminology
come through in which the transportation staff has added some
ambiguous language. Somehow it got back into this PUD.
And under the page under transportation, Section 6.7, just a few
of them, F, H and I as an example all refer to the county's right to
modify and close any such road determined to have an adverse effect
on health, safety and welfare of the public or as determined by
Collier County staff. It's in H.
I think it's as the codes are written, not as determined by staff,
unless it's as determined by staff in consistency with the code. I know
I brought this up before and it was eliminated --
MR. ABERNATHY: It was eliminated.
MR. STRAIN: Yeah. It was eliminated on the other PUDs but
it's back in this one again. And I just want to make sure there are no
arbitrary decisions, that everything's pursuant to what is in place.
Page 45
October 7,2004
MR. BELLOWS: I have no objection to adding "to be
consistent with current applicable codes in effect at the time of the
site development plan" or --
MR. STRAIN: That's already been resolved. Should I ask any
questions about the next item during discussion, because I have one
question about that item.
MR. BELLOWS: I have no objection to doing that, because
those they are really companion items.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll take separate actions as far as our
motions go but we can ask questions on that now.
MR. STRAIN: Okay. There is a master plan shown as an
attachment and there is language in here that talks about reservoirs
being included in the prior PUD. I believe that language is going to be
corrected and omitted because the agricultural reservoir that is Big
Jim's Lake is not included in the prior PUD or is going to be used for
your PUD as well. Is that --
MR. PIRES: We'll make that correction. That's correct.
MR. STRAIN: And then in the prior PUD itself I understand
your need to make the acreage changes and they are logical, but I see
that on Section 2.04, and it's Page 5 of the prior PUD, there is another
change. And what it does, it says "for site development plan
approval". It used to say "the provisions of Section 10.5 of the zoning
ordinance shall apply".
Now it says "the provisions of Section 3.3 of the land
development code shall apply".
Are they identical in terms of what they say, because your --
MS. STUDENT: Yes.
MR. STRAIN: I don't want to put the owner of the prior PUD in
the position that somebody else is changing their PUD.
And other than that paragraph, the rest of it is simply an acreage
change, which is understandable.
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Strain, that was a question that I had
Page 46
October 7, 2004
addressed with Mr. Bellows and had asked him about. Because when
we amended this before for the school we didn't touch any of the other
citations.
If you recall there was an amendment to allow some educational
facilities back in the, it was either late winter or early spring, and I had
just asked Mr. Bellows why that one was being changed since it was a
mere acreage change.
MR. STRAIN: Is it something that should not be changed then
at this point?
MS. STUDENT: I'm just trying to go through here real quick
and see if there are any other references to old code that were not
changed. I don't know that it really makes a difference because 10.5
was under ordinance 82-2, the site development plan criteria, and 3.3
is under the existing land development code. And under our new land
development code it's going to be something else.
So they would -- if they come in to do site plan they have to
follow what's in effect at the time anyway, so I don't know that it
really makes that much difference.
MR. STRAIN: Well, I'll rest my case then.
That's the last question I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions from any of the
commissioners for the petitioner?
MR. ADELSTEIN: I have one.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. ADELSTEIN: In 4.6 you state that the maximum height
would be 45 feet plus possibly 60 feet --
THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear you. I'm sorry. Speak
up, please.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. The maximum height you
specified in 4.6 is 45 feet. And in Section 5.2 you have made the
maximum height of 35 feet.
Is that strictly a difference between residential and commercial?
Page 47
October 7, 2004
MR. ARNOLD: It is. We don't foresee anything other than
possibly two-story office-type buildings that could be constructed on
the commercial tract, so we limited that height to 35 feet.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of the petitioner?
There are none at this time. There may be some later. Ifwe
could hear from staff, please.
MR. BELLOWS: I'll come over there. For the record I'm Ray
Bellows. Maybe it's best over here.
This petition is a companion item to an amendment to
Orangetree where basically the petitioner is requesting to remove 616
acres from what was known as the Orangetree PUD to create a new
planned unit development known an Orange Blossom Ranch.
The petitioner has done an excellent job of explaining what the
project is all about so I won't go into new detail there.
The staff has reviewed this proj ect for consistency with the
comprehensive plan and with the settlement agreement for Orangetree.
And our comprehensive planning staff has recommended approval
that they found this consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The transportation department has also reviewed this for
consistency with their applicable codes and regulations and have
recommended some additional right-of-way be provided for
improvement of Oil Well Road, which is part of their ongoing plans
to improve traffic circulation in that area.
There is also improvement plans already in place for
improvement to Immokalee Road confronting this project. So they are
also recommending approval of this project.
Staff has done a review of the compatibility of the project with
Orangetree and, based on the mixed use nature of this and the mixed
use nature of Orange Blossom Ranch, we are finding this project to be
consistent and compatible.
The issue of water and sewer is definitely a concern with staff,
and we have been working closely with the utilities department and
Page 48
October 7, 2004
Jim DeLony, who is the director there, to ensure that we have proper,
adequate public facilities. And at the present time I have received
correspondence from them that those issues, there is capacity; and if
there's not, they will have to provide capacity at the time of
permitting.
The new language that's passed out on the transportation issue, I
do not object to. It is consistent. And the language concerning the
potable package treatment facilities, I'll have to coordinate with
utilities to make sure that they're acceptable with that. And we'll
bring that recommendation to the board.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for staff?
There are none at this time.
Ray, do we have any registered speakers on this item?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we do. Mr. John Sullivan, followed by
Amy Taylor.
MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning. Thank you for hearing me.
I'm here -- I'm a resident of Waterways. I'm also the president of the
association there, although mostly I'm talking as a resident not as a
president of the association because we have two members here with
me.
We really want to see this proj ect happen, okay. I want to go on
the record to say that. Because we definitely need some commercial
activity out there. But we don't want to put the cart before the horse.
I know you all, you have to be aware of the traffic problems that
we're suffering out there. And you know, to just add to that. I heard
three years -- I'm dying to know when this thing is going to be on
schedule here because we can't possibly do anything else out there
now. It took us a half an hour this morning just to get outside of our
development onto Oil Well Road, which is about a hundred feet.
And we can't possibly deal with any more traffic out there. With
the addition of the new high school and the golf course construction
Page 49
October 7, 2004
that's going on now, I mean, we're riding on pre-Civil War roads here.
And we're trying to accommodate the equivalent of a small city out
there.
The discussions we've had with the county over the six laning of
Oil Well Road from Camp Keys Road to Immokalee Road -- I mean
they are not even going to get onto this, this was just added to the
MPO's long-range transportation plan on June the 11th. They are not
even slated to look at this thing until 2007. I don't think we'll even get
any traffic on it until 2010.
I cannot believe for the life of me that the staff has completed a
comprehensive evaluation of the transportation needs. All I've heard
is that the -- that they are going to give you right-of-way to be able to
extend the road. Well, that's great. We're all for that, that our tax
money won't have to pay for that, that you're going to give them some
kind of impact fee credits for that.
But we need to have the road before we put 1600 more dwelling
units out there and another 3,000 cars, not to mention the cars that are
going to go to the commercial space.
I don't buy the thing that people are going to have just short trips
to use the commercial space. That's not true. Because everybody on
Oil Well Road this morning is going to work, okay. And at 4:00,3:00
in the afternoon they're all coming home from work. So the road has
to be expanded.
The other thing that really troubles us is the fact about the
sewage and the wastewater and the drinking water plant. We're
dealing with a utility now, gentlemen and ma'am, that can't handle the
load that we've got now. I mean, we just received a notice the other
day that they have been in violation of DEP standards with regard to
our drinking water, and we're talking about adding another 1600
dwelling units onto the capacity of that plant. I mean, I've heard
nothing that there -- and I see nothing in here that there is a stipulation
to hold up any certificates of occupancy if the county plant isn't on
Page 50
October 7, 2004
line in time to address these dwellings.
And as far as we know, the county has only purchased the
property. I mean, we've heard here today that you've contracted
somebody and you are making plans as to where you want to put it.
Every time we ask questions as to where this facility is going to go,
nobody seems to want to answer our questions.
The other thing is that we're afraid if this PUD is accepted with
the school parks stipulation in it -- I guess the PUD now, you can
correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a
zoning attorney. But the PUD now did not provide for the three
schools that we have there. A special exception had to be granted by
the Board of County Commissioners to accept those schools and to get
them underway.
With this PUD here there will be a school park designation in the
PUD. But my question then is, what would happen to ancillary
facilities? As you mayor may not be aware, we had a situation with
the school district where they wanted to build a transportation facility
out there, a bus garage, adjacent to our property line. And we asked
the Board of County Commissioners not to approve that and they
didn't.
I'm afraid that this may bring this back if this happens, if it goes
from agricultural to the special designations. I don't know, maybe you
can answer our questions.
MR. STRAIN: I'll tell you something, the young lady that can
will be asked that question when she speaks.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. I think that's about all I have right
now. That's our concern. I just want to say before I sit down that we,
we are very grateful to Mr. Paul for what he has done out there to this
point and we look forward to this project being completed, but I
think, you know, we want the county and the planning commission to
think about what you are doing here.
We don't -- you know, we want to see it but we want to see the
Page 51
October 7, 2004
improvements first.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir, Mr. Strain has a question for you.
MR. STRAIN: I have one question for you, sir.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.
MR. STRAIN: This is a sizeable project, no doubt. It's got
commercial and a lot of residential.
But immediately to the east it's a monster of a project. And
that's been through this panel a couple times on different issues. And
I've heard no one object to the traffic that it's going to generate.
I'm wondering, are we being very selective in our choice of
which ones to choose to object to or are you going to be objecting to
the Ave Maria as it comes aboard?
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, that would depend on what
improvements they have made so far to direct traffic away from us
towards Immokalee. You know, we've received information that, you
know, there is going to be a boom in Immokalee and that most of this
traffic is going to be directed out towards Immokalee or towards 29 to
get to 75. That -- so it really hasn't been much of a concern of ours.
Where this thing is right -- going to be right less than a mile up the
road from us.
MR. STRAIN: There's a couple things I would suggest is that
that university telling you that they are going to have people in
Immokalee, it will be the same condition for this community too. If
Immokalee is going to boom that fast, their direction may be to the
east. I'm not trying to defend them, I'm just trying to --
MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I wholeheartedly understand what you're
saying. And I believe that what you are going to see is a lot of these
people that are going to be working or whatnot at Ave Maria are
probably going to be the people buying these homes and living there.
MR. STRAIN: That helps your situation.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.
Page 52
October 7, 2004
MR. STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. And also Ave
Maria, I understand, is trying to be open around 2006, which would
put them ahead, most likely, of this project. And I'll ask that question
in a few minutes of the developer.
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, getting back to -- you know, the county
is depending on impact fee money from Ave Maria before they even
begin the study phase of the widening of Oil Well Road. And I've
asked Commissioner Coletta and Don Scott and Norm Feder to look
for other sources of funding, that we just -- we can't wait until these
people start paying their impact fees to widen this road.
You know, it's a very dangerous situation out there as it is.
We've got a gazillion dump trucks a day out there competing with
young kids that are just learning how to drive that are going to that
new high school, as well as kids that are crossing Oil Well Road to go
to those elementary schools and the middle school.
And to just compound the problem with more traffic is crazy. I
would ask that we kind of look at this. Yes, we want it approved, we
want it to come. But we need to do it in a way that is safe and
amicable to the community that's there and to the people that are going
to be using that roadway.
MR. STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Amy Taylor.
MS. TAYLOR: Good morning. Amy Taylor from Collier
County public schools, for the record.
I was under the impression that we would have the viewer thing
so I brought a very tiny map of what I'm going to be talking about.
But I'll go --
MR. BELLOWS: I can hand it to them.
MS. TAYLOR: Okay. And I didn't bring enough copies. I'll
bring this one because it has scribbles on the back.
But the first one, map I wanted you to look at was the
Page 53
October 7, 2004
elementary school zoning' map, as our zoning districts are attendance
boundary districts, in other words, and kind of reference that as I
speak.
But first I wanted to address Mr. Sullivan's question about
whether we would have any interest in going back and requesting a
conditional use change to the Orangetree PUD for the transportation
facility. I can unequivocally say absolutely not. The superintendent is
absolutely not interested in going that route whatsoever with that
particular piece of property. Absolutely not. And you can call Mr.
Baker on that one.
Weare actively, though, pursuing looking for property to
provide a transportation facility out to serve the Golden Gate Estates
residents, and we are doing that, but we will not consider that
property again for that purpose.
MR. STRAIN: Please don't consider Golden Gate Estates
property either.
MS. TAYLOR: I can't say a complete no to that. Okay.
The reason I'm here before you is not to pick on this particular
PUD. We have been so extraordinarily grateful to the applicant, and
the benefits that we have been able to provide to the Orangetree
community that's surrounding the Golden Gate Estates community,
for the property that has been made available to us through purchase
for Palmetto Ridge High School.
In addition, also a clarification, for what was allowed in the
original Orangetree PUD as far as schools, Corkscrew Elementary--
there was a specific acreage, 29 acres, I think it was, for schools in the
Orangetree PUD. That just about fit Corkscrew Elementary.
So in the correction that we made in the recent amendment to
provide for the high school and the existing middle school was to
correct that so that it would allow for schools within the Orangetree
area.
That gets back to my concern and the school district's concern
Page 54
'-~---'--'^"-'-
October 7, 2004
about provision of schools within the Orangetree area and the wider
Golden Gate Estates area.
As you'll see as you look at this map, this is our projection of
what -- the first map -- of the elementary schools that we will need in
the next five years. The color blocks are those attendance boundaries
of schools that already exist and are open and operating.
The teal area is our newest elementary school that was opened
up this year. That relieved -- that area was going to Corkscrew
Elementary. The red area is Sabal Palm Elementary. That was
opened two years ago and that relieved Corkscrew Elementary.
Our -- as you'll note, the two newest schools, our two schools
that are within the five-year plan are located in a strategic position
also to relieve Corkscrew Elementary.
The zone, the green area -- I'm just going to focus on elementary
because it's easier to illustrate. The green area is the Corkscrew
Elementary school zone at present. That has been -- it used to cover
almost the entire Estates. That has been whittled away over the last
four years to include that area.
And if you'll note if you are familiar with some of the uses out in
that area, a good portion, four sections, is Heritage Bay, which has no
units at this time. And so it's -- once that, actually, Elementary L will
be open and Heritage Bay also has a school site within there that will
be broken off the Corkscrew Elementary attendance boundary.
We almost have to build an elementary school probably no less
than every four years to be able to relieve Corkscrew Elementary. It's
one of the fastest growing areas in the county, one of the fastest
growing schools in the county . We constantly have to be conscious
of it.
There will be -- with 2100 units already approved for the
Orangetree PUD, 900 have been built as of a September PUD list.
This -- we took the Orangetree area and calculated how many students
from that 900 units that are already developed are students attending
Page 55
~...~._---- ~
October 7, 2004
public school. There are 517 students that are attending public school
from the Orangetree PUD area alone. This means .57 students per
household.
If you, if you multiply that by the 2100 units already there,
already approved, all that they need -- all they need is a building
permit, that's -- equates to about 1197 additional students within the
Orangetree area as it is.
And also, these communities, we're already factoring in
historical growth in coming up with that .57 per household. As you
know, some of our areas in the county -- and it's hard to predict, you
know, you can kind of look at various factors -- their existing homes,
the families are converting. They are converting into maybe retiree,
from retiree concentrated areas to young family concentrated areas.
And certainly Golden Gate Estates is an area where families have been
attracted to. And that may happen more and more with the Orangetree
area as we go along. So the .57 only accounts for what the growth
has traditionally been in the past five years.
With an addition of 1600 dwelling units in the area, if you do
your math or if I did the math for you, it's 912 additional students that
we need to account for. In the interlocal agreement between the
county and the school district, there is a provision in there that
recognizes that PUDs, since they are the most prevalent zoning
district in the county, that we will be giving special consideration
when PUDs come before you, that we will request for consideration
that we be a permitted use.
Just recently with the adoption of the interlocal and a new legal
determination supported by the school district as well as county staff
-- we don't question it -- is that there was a change. In the past schools
really located in areas where they thought, irregardless of zoning
district, where they thought schools would be needed and where --
and that was dependent on where the students were located so that we
could locate near student populations for walkability and access, and
Page 56
October 7, 2004
to become integrated into that community. That worked well. And if
you look at the zoning districts that we are now located in, they are
residential zoning districts.
I understand from this that we are actually listed as a permitted
use in the community facility. That won't work. Weare listed as a
permitted use in the commercial. We have never located in a
commercial district. And I think there are probably -- the argument
that there really is a need for additional commercial would kind of
take that out of the picture, and it's only 44 acres.
We have traditionally located in residential district and/or PUDs,
residential PUDs. One that comes to mind is the Vineyards is a PUD
that we've located in. Calusa Park Elementary, it's in the Bembridge
PUD. There are -- most of the schools that you see and we interrelate
with and find as part of the network of your community is -- Pelican
Marsh, that's within a PUD. Some are in residential Naples Park,
Lakes Park and so forth. So I think there's a good case and I think we
all agree that schools preferably should be part of residential areas, be
linked to in some way.
I'd hate to see -- because about 80 percent of the urban areas are
PUDs, that we find that we have to distance our schools away from
where students live, that -- I'm going to be here all the time. This is
my first time, in coming here and talking about this issue, but I will be
here very, very consistently with regard to the PUD issue and making
this request of the planning commission and the Board of County
Commissioners on allowing simply this, that we be listed as a
permitted use within the residential district of a PUD or a community
facility if that land is adequate -- and in this situation it's not -- that
we be at a minimum listed as a permitted use within that PUD.
Not -- we're not asking for a dedication as you would in a DRI,
this is under that threshold. We're not asking to be below market
value or anything like that. We're asking at fair market value we have
the opportunity to be able to -- if needed.
Page 57
"..,,-~--~
October 7, 2004
Now, we're not saying we're going to actively pursue this, but if
needed, we can approach the owner of the property and begin
negotiation to move forward to build a school.
So we're not picking on these -- this particular PUD for any
particular reason other than that area is, is an area that is growing
significantly. I ask that you consider this.
We have made some heroic attempts on both parties to meet
with each other and talk with each other, and we keep missing each
other. About the time that the hurricanes started, I know that's an
excuse for everyone right now, we began to start trying to meet with
each other and never were able to. I think there is an understanding of
our situation with the property owner, from what I understand, and we
just -- we just ask you that you consider this as -- to list as a permitted
use in the PUD.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain has a question.
MR. STRAIN: Amy, the property that the school bought from
the existing developer adjacent to this project, I don't know what the
school board's intent was at the time they both that property, but I do
know they got an extremely good buy on that property --
MS. TAYLOR: Absolutely.
MR. STRAIN: -- far, far better than they should have hoped for
at the time. There were lucky.
Were there any provisions in this contract of sale that" talked
about the use of that school for these students from this PUD or an
agreement with the school board not to pursue additional lands within
the PUD as part of the sale of that initial property?
MS. TAYLOR: There was agreements about interconnectivity
between the -- between the Palmetto Ridge High School and the
adjacent property. We were aware that he was going through the
amendment process, through the state in evaluating, pulling out of the
settlement area, that currently -- that his property that's before you
Page 58
October 7, 2004
today for consideration is within the attendance boundaries that will
attend those three schools.
MR. STRAIN: If you knew that he was going through this
process, why then didn't the school purchase more properties from him
at the time and get a big enough site rather than come in at the 11 th
hour at this point?
MS . TAYLOR: Yes. The 11 th hour is for this reason.
MR. STRAIN: Hurricanes, right.
MS. TAYLOR: At the point at which we were talking with him
and all of that, there hadn't been a significant change in -- coming
from DOE, the state, that resulted from the class size reduction
amendment. And I failed to go over that today.
The five schools that you see in -- located as new schools for
Collier County, five elementary schools, are a result of class size
reduction amendment.
In our five-year plan we had only scheduled one new elementary
school. As a result of class size reduction, where we have to actually
physically build more classrooms to accommodate, instead of 24
students in a classroom, 18 students in a classroom, that means more
classrooms. That means more schools.
So since that time that has been a big shift. There have been
some battle -- not battle but kind of a delay in the state providing that
we were what the guidelines were, you know, what its impact was
going to be, what our work plan ought to look like, and until probably
just a couple months ago we didn't have any real clear guidance as to
what they were going to say, how we were supposed to prepare our
work plans.
When we did get that guidance, one resulted, one elementary
school resulted in five elementary schools based on the calculations of
the impact.
So that, again, is the sense of -- you'll see a sense of urgency,
particularly when in 80 percent of the urban area we're locked out. So
Page 59
October 7,2004
MR. STRAIN: Is that in addition you're asking to have a
permitted use school system, school site?
MS. TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. STRAIN: Does that open the door for any involuntary
taking on your part, because you had the opportunity to voluntarily
work with a developer and buy more land. I would hate to see you
now use his need for a PUD to leverage an involuntary position on the
school board's part.
And I don't know if an attorney here can answer that question or
not. But I would want to make sure that if it's a permitted use it's on a
voluntary basis and negotiations the school mayor may not be able to
work out with the developer are not used to force him through some
involuntary action.
MS. TAYLOR: I'm not sure about all of the eminent domain,
you know, requirements or powers that the school district has. It's a
separate issue from whether you are permitted in an area or not
permitted in an area as far as actions either by the board of planning
commissioners or by -- through an eminent domain and judge
process.
I could say, you know, this about that. Even if it was not
permitted, we could still going through that kind of action if we chose
to. One isn't predetermined on the other.
MR. STRAIN: Then why do you need it?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record Ray Bellows. I think -- I
discussed this with Amy Taylor and I think the intent is so they won't
have to amend the PUD afterwards, and it's claimed that's what
happened in Orangetree -- in going through the PUD that school is a
permitted use. It just eliminates that step.
If they find they really need that -- residential lots or lots within
Orange Blossom Ranch, they are making whatever -- taking whatever
steps they have to take to acquire that property, it's just one less step
Page 60
October 7, 2004
that they have to do to amend the PUD, also show that as a permitted
use.
MS. TAYLOR: And there is a prerequisite for that. I mean, like
I said, in Vineyards, Lely PUDs, we're listed as permitted uses. In the
Lely PUD, for example, we have an elementary school site that's
located in there. There wasn't -- there wasn't a specific property area
defined for it. We were able to locate property in there. So it's --
there's a -- Vineyards, I think, was the same way. There is a precedent
for that being permitted as a use within a PUD.
Residential districts, we're permitted uses, we don't -- we go
through the site development plan process which is very, very
articulated now in an interlocal agreement in the land development
code.
MR. STRAIN: The projects you cite are substantially larger
than this project. They have a lot more acreage to potentially give up
in a percentage of the ratio basis, to what you would need.
And I don't have an objection to schools. Think they ought to be
wherever they are needed. But I certainly think that in planning
ahead, and I know you weren't with the school at the time this was
done, you were with the county. But good planning would have
predicated them to negotiate that when they bought the other property
and not come in now and try to do this at this hour.
And I understand your position, and I'm not saying you're
wrong. I just think it's difficult.
MS. TAYLOR: I think that's where we're going to have to head,
though, with PUDs. I don't think we have much of a choice, because
there is nothing in the land development code that says, before an
applicant can come in with a PUD amendment or a PUD, new PUD,
there's nothing that says in the code you must meet with the school
district, you must demonstrate that you've met with him or anything
like that and they've kind of said you're fine or go ahead or we're not
interested or anything like. And that is the most prevalent subdistrict
Page 61
October 7, 2004
in the county, you know.
MR. STRAIN: Why don't you propose an LDC amendment to
have that language added. And the next time the cycle comes up we
could -- that sounds reasonable. I don't know why we don't do it
anyway.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT: I don't think there is any problem in having it
added to a list of permitted uses because it just means they have the
ability to do it, it doesn't mean that we are saying to the developer you
have to dedicate a certain amount of land to the district for the school.
It just would give them the ability, if they can negotiate
something with the developer, to do that and not have to come back to
us to get the PUD changed to reflect it. But by putting it in there it
doesn't mean that we're saying that it has to be. It's giving flexibility
in the document for the school district to be able to negotiate with the
developer.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Pires, can you address that item?
MR. PIRES: If I could briefly, yes. And as you can tell from
the negotiations and discussion that we have had in the past, I think
Amy graciously also mentioned it and the planning commission
mentioned that the fact that Mr. Paul about three years ago, I believe,
sold 135 acres to the school board at well below market rates. And
he's just that kind of individual, very civic and community minded.
And what we've done in the PUD by virtue of having the
commercial area, it's typical of the, what -- the school she mentioned,
Pelican Marsh Elementary, it's on Airport Road, a major arterial, and
it's about 20 or 30 acres out of a 2000-acre PUD.
Vineyards Elementary, it's on Vanderbilt Beach Road, is now
being expanded over by I-75. It's on the fringe of, again, a
multi-thousand acre community. It's a relatively 20 or 30-acre
elementary school site.
Here we have 135 acres this individual has already conveyed or
Page 62
October 7,2004
sold to the school board, and we have provided it, as Ms. Taylor
mentioned, in the commercial area, which is 42 acres. That is a
permitted use. And it abuts, guess what, a major roadway, and it's on
the outside, which is typical of the representation that she made.
To say in the other 500 acres it be located anywhere creates
uncertainty for the residents in Orangetree. You heard Mr. Sullivan
mention before that, you know, they went through the rezoning
process on the school site and they had the opportunity for good
public participation.
If it's an eminent domain proceeding, if the school board decides
to utilize it, we have an unwilling developer or seller or property
owner. Then arguably it could be acquired anywhere within here,
which creates uncertainty for them in their marketing and developing,
as well as any other members of the community within this area.
We are not talking about a designated site. We believe a
designated site has already been indicated on the commercial and
that's adequate. We believe that that's well addressed.
If they wish to acquire additional property and then rezone it,
that gives the public a complete opportunity to have the full
participation and involvement that's the hallmark of this commission
and the county commission.
So we don't oppose the school board but we have concerns at
this late moment. We've been working with them, like I said, for
almost three years.
MR. STRAIN: I agree with you, Tony. I don't like this coming
in at this late hour, but if there's a way to accommodate it maybe we
can.
I want you to consider, your examples showed that the schools
in the other locations are on major roads. If they were to stipulate
that schools be a permitted use only if located along Oil Well Road
frontage, would that work? Then they can negotiate with your
developer. If they get to the price and they get to an agreement, fine.
Page 63
"--
October 7, 2004
If they don't, they move on eminent domain, and your attorneys can
take all of the money on the issue.
MS. T A YLO R: I'm going to maybe provide __
MR. PIRES: Could we put that clause in there also.
(Laughter. )
MS. TAYLOR: I really want to provide some assurance that we
have no designs on it at this point. We have the locations within our
five years that we are going to be locating in. It is just, it is just -- the
changes that may occur in Orangetree, there's the fact that we're not
permitted, we're not going to be permitted in these PUDs, that is of
great concern with the additional amount of units that has not been
factored in before.
So that may, again, influence our five-year plan.
MR. STRAIN: I think if you were to stir the pot to get the
county staffs attention to include schools into consideration, I think
you did it.
MS. TAYLOR: That's my purpose.
MR. STRAIN: You are there.
MR. BELLOWS: And if I might add, I suggest you coordinate
with Russell Webb and myself and we can discuss how that could be
done.
MS. TAYLOR: Great.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer.
MR. SCHIFFER: Just a quick question, more for future
projects. What is the acreage that an elementary and middle and a
high school need?
MS. TAYLOR: Currently it is 20, 30 and a minimum of 40. We
like 60. However, land costs, different ways of being able to develop
property and schools, that may change. We may try to map -- because
-- we may try to put it on a smaller footprint as a result of the land
costs and competitiveness with various properties. But that could be
imminent, that change.
Page 64
-"
October 7, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein.
MR. ADELSTEIN: No.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Thank you, ma'am.
Other speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No other registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: You have a question for Mr. Bellows?
MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. Has there been a traffic study on Oil
Well Road?
MR. BELLOWS: The petitioner submitted a traffic study with
this project. And I have Alon EI Urfali here and maybe he can--
Alon -- provide some information about the traffic study.
MR. EL URFALI: Alon EI Urfali, good morning.
Transportation planner.
We saw a TIS on this with the application and we've reviewed it.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I didn't -- I have a copy.
MR. EL URFALI: What I would like to say, a couple things
about the traffic congestion in this area and concerns, one thing I
would like to add is that, number one, we're running concurrency in
the county right now, and that basically we would not issue any COA
if a future development comes on line that will impact the level of
service up Immokalee Road.
Oil Well Road and Randall currently is not in our concurrency
segments. We are planning to add those next year with the new UAR.
We're also planning on widening Oil Well Road and Randall. We're
looking into a four or six, we don't know yet.
Currently Immokalee Road is being constructed to a six lane
facility from 43rd to 951. And from 951 to I-75 we're looking to do a
design-build on that, so --
MR. ADELSTEIN: I gather from what you are stating that there
has been no traffic study on Oil Well Road.
MR. EL URFALI: I haven't seen one in particular for Oil Well
Road.
Page 65
~"-,'----, ..
October 7, 2004
MR. ADELSTEIN: So as far as we're concerned it could be an
Fnow.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: It's got to be.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I'm just --
MR. EL URFALI: We have some counts on Oil Well Road.
MR. ADELSTEIN: The question is, if it's an F how can they get
a building permit. I mean, how you can we approve a building permit
if we're dealing with a road right now that's an F?
MR. EL URF ALI: I see your point.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Jarvey, can you shed some light on
that?
MR. JARVEY: I'll try. And it may be a confusion. If you're
talking about a traffic study, like a corridor study, for Oil Well Road
for what they need, four lane, six lane, whatever, I don't believe we're
to that point yet. So, you know the predesign-type traffic study. If
that's what you're talking about we're not there.
But as part of our traffic study that we did, which is just about a
year old now, we did evaluate Oil Well Road with this project, and I'd
have to look at it exactly, but it's roughly at 40 or 50 percent capacity
of Oil Well Road now with the traffic as of last year.
THE COURT REPORTER: Can you identify yourself, please.
MR. JARVEY: I'm sorry. Reed Jarvey.
MR. MIDNEY: What is the rating of the roads leading out of
Orangetree onto Immokalee Road now, because I've seen horrible
traffic there.
MR. EL URF ALI: We know about it. We're addressing right
now -- we're addressing some concerns when Oil Well Road intersects
Immokalee Road.
MR. MIDNEY: But there is no letter rating there currently.
And if not, why not?
MR. EL URF ALI: Well, like I said, I think we have some
counts and Don Scott has done some preliminary work on it. And I
Page 66
October 7,2004
don't think it's at a level of service F. Don't take my word for it,
though.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I know that's a problem. And as far as I'm
concerned I can't vote in favor of this if there is a possibility it's a
letter F. And we know that they have -- it's got to be fixed within two
years. I have to know that that's available.
MR. MIDNEY: How can we not know what the letter rating is?
MR. EL URF ALI: It's not on our inventory right now for
concurrency but we do have some numbers on it. We do have some
figures on it.
MR. JARVEY: Reed Jarvey again. It is not on the concurrency
management system as of today, we speak, is what Alon is saying.
And it's going to be put on it because of all of the interest.
Remember, the concurrency management system was done over
a year ago and most of this interest in Oil Well Road specifically has
happened within the last year. So they are putting it on the system but
it has not been there yet.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I'm not faulting you for that, I'm saying __
MR. JARVEY: No -- and I have -- I'm following up. And I
have counts. This is counts we got from 2002. I don't have 2003, but
assuming it's roughly the same, Oil Well Road west of the project,
which I'm sure is east of Immokalee Road, is what they are looking at,
6,667 as of 2002. That's daily traffic. That--
MR. STRAIN: What's that road rated for?
MR. JARVEY: And I have to convert it so -- because I do peak
hour and I have a peak hour number.
MR. STRAIN: -- gives you level of service --
MR. JARVEY: Peak hour is -- peak hour, peak direction is
about 350, and that road would probably be in the 9 -- I think it was
920, is that road? So it's roughly in the 40 percent-50 percent range as
of 2002. Now 2003-2004, yes, it's probably a little higher than __
obviously it's gone up a little because of construction, but it should be
Page 67
"~'_..._,.,_..~,
October 7, 2004
roughly in the same area as it is now.
MR. MIDNEY: I know that if you are trying to go from
Immokalee to Naples it takes a long time to wait because all that
traffic is trying to come out of there and you just have to slow down to
a crawl, it's bumper to bumper.
MR. EL URFALI: On Immokalee?
MR. MIDNEY: Yes. To try to get from Immokalee through
that area, past it, that's the worst part of the whole commute from
Immokalee to Naples, is right at that intersection.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Are you talking Oil Well Road?
MR. MIDNEY: Yes. It's that whole area, it's not just Oil Well,
it's just traffic coming out of Waterways and Orangetree, it's really,
really slow. And I cannot believe that that's not an F.
MR. JARVEY: You're talking Immokalee Road.
MR. MIDNEY: Yes.
MR. JARVEY: Immokalee Road is in the process of being six
laned, I mean, as we speak, so --
MR. MIDNEY: I know there is construction going on there, but
I also know there is a big wait, that that's a real big bottleneck right
now. And I'm surprised that there is no rating for that. What is the
criteria where you do decide to put a rating on the road.
MR. EL URFALI: The rules for the concurrency is to include
the improvements to the road within two years.
MR. MIDNEY: Well, I'm interested in what the road is now.
MR. EL URF ALI: On Immokalee?
MR. MIDNEY: Yeah, at that point.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Immokalee and Oil Well.
MR. EL URF ALI: Well, you see, that's what I'm trying to say is
that the added capacity that we're going to -- once the construction is
complete, is already on the books because of the two-year rule.
MR. MIDNEY: What about now?
MR. EL URFALI: Now it's probably at capacity.
Page 68
October 7,2004
MR. STRAIN: This proj ect, if approved today, is not going to
be on the road now. And my question to you is, when will Oil Well
Road be approved. And my question to Tony would be, when is this
project's first CO going to be theoretically obtained. If those two are
dovetailed together, you've got a pretty good situation.
MR. EL URFALI: Yes. Well, we have it on our five-year work
program so we're going to -- we're going to add it to the concurrency
segments next year. So once it's on our concurrency segment and
within our database, we wouldn't issue a COA if it's over capacity.
MR. STRAIN: So if you have it on your five-year work
program --
MR. EL URFALI: Yes.
MR. STRAIN: -- and if they came in and applied for a permit to
build in one year, but your five-year work program, it didn't happen
until the fourth year, you wouldn't give them a permit if it happened
within the one year, so that you could time their issuance of building
permits to the completion of that road, then you would give them a
permit.
MR. EL URF ALI: Right.
MR. STRAIN: That's what I thought. And my question to Tony
then is, when do you think your first units appear to even remotely
come on line in a project of this size and what you still have to go
through involving Corps permitting, South Florida permitting, Collier
County permitting, which is longer than the Corps sometimes, but all
those issues you have to go through.
MR. PIRES: From brief discussions with Mr. Arnold while this
issue was being discussed and brought up, I'm going to anticipate
possibly late '05, early '06 for the first units to come on line, by the
time we go through the ERP and the planning process. That would be
the optimistic time frame. We all know that that's pretty aggressive
and optimistic but I've seen it much later than that in many other
instances. Wayne, correct me if I'm wrong.
Page 69
October 7, 2004
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
MR. PIRES: I think late '05, early '06. We're not talking all of
the units coming on all at once but, you know, a typical development,
one or two.
MR. ADELSTEIN: One of the comments we got from this
gentleman was that it wouldn't even be on the agenda until '07. So
that means it would start at '07 to be created.
Now you're talking about it being, you're going to need it in '07.
Those two things don't add up to me.
MR. PIRES: Well, I think one thing that we did hear from Mr.
J arvey, though, was -- at the time of the traffic impact, Oil Well Road
-- to go back briefly. The concurrency management system, which is
the legal mechanism that needs to be utilized as to whether or not
development orders and building permits can be issued for certificates
of adequate, you know, public facilities can be issued, a roadway
segment needs to be on that concurrency management plan. And Oil
Well Road it not currently at the present time. But it will be within
the next year.
So from the technical legal perspective that's why people are
getting their COAs out there at the present time even though there
may be issues.
But then Mr. Jarvey indicated that there isn't an issue. At the
time of the traffic study it was 40 to 50 percent on Oil W ell. We're not
talking about, you know, the bottleneck that occurs on Immokalee
Road but Oil Well Road itself. And Immokalee Road is being taken
care of by that road proj ect, which should make it six lane the latter
part of '06, early '07, to the best of my knowledge, at the latest and
that's 18 months.
So I think what we're saying is that this particular project, the
timing, we believe, all works out well by virtue of the current
capacity of Oil Well, the fact that it can handle additional traffic, that
it won't be on the emergency management system until at least a
Page 70
.~---
October 7, 2004
year. But even then it will be in the five-year work program at that
time so we believe it will all come together. And all 1600 units don't
come on line all at once. I think everybody has that particular possible
thought of that happening, but the county's concurrency management
system will provide adequate protection for the roadway networks
and utilization of it, that's why it's there.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain.
MR. STRAIN: Are their intersection improvements scheduled
for Oil Well and Immokalee Road with the current improvements that
are going on with Immokalee Road right now?
MR. EL URFALI: Yes, we do. We have some constraints,
though, because we don't have the same right-of-way at the
intersection with Immokalee Road as we're going to have with this
PUD going through, so we're going to have some constraints here.
And that's where we're thinking maybe a four-lane facility here on Oil
Well and then a four lane on Randall will suffice.
MR. STRAIN: North of that intersection of Oil Well, isn't that a
lake there?
MR. EL URF ALI: Yes.
MR. STRAIN: Why do you have constraints then?
MR. EL URFALI: Well, the right-of-way constraints, in other
words --
MR. STRAIN: That's owned by Waterways and they are the
ones complaining about the roadway . Won't they give you the
right-of-way needed to alleviate those constraints?
MR. EL URF ALI: There is already build infrastructure, there's
already development right there on both ends.
MR. STRAIN: I know there is on the south. I thought there was
a lake on the north.
MR. EL URF ALI: There is a lake on the north. It is actually
this stretch right here, the development to the south and of course the
school and this development over here. So this portion right here is÷
Page 71
October 7, 2004
where the bottleneck is for right-of-way. And when you come to the
intersection right here, of course, you know, we're going to need some
additional turning lanes to accommodate the impact to this
intersection.
MR. STRAIN: And you couldn't get those by expanding your
stacking capabilities at that intersection through right-of-way
expansion just at the end where the lake is?
MR. EL URF ALI: To the north? Yeah, we're looking at it right
now.
MR. STRAIN: That's what I was asking.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer.
MR. SCHIFFER: In the concurrency do you rate the
intersections or just the roadway?
MR. EL URF ALI: Just the segments.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney.
MR. MIDNEY: Is the reason why the traffic is so bad there now
that concurrency was not in place at the time all these units that are
now recently going into that road came into play? How has it gotten
so bad?
MR. EL URFALI: I really can't, you know, I have been here
two years. The segments that we have had have been basically taken
over from the AUIR, which you know of. And so far these two
roadways were not considered at that time. And we took over the
concurrency segments in March of -- March 15th of this year from the
AUIR for 2003, and the 2003 AUIR didn't have those.
MR. MIDNEY: I'm just concerned that at the time when
supposedly we have concurrency that this situation could have now,
it's just recently become so bad; am I not correct?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Jarvey had --
MR. JARVEY: Let me address two parts of that. First off,
Commissioner Strain's comment. I don't have the Immokalee Road
improvement plans with me because I didn't know this would come
Page 72
October 7, 2004
up. But I have looked at them, and if I remember right the Immokalee
Road improvement plans do add another lane for turning on, I guess it
would be westbound to southbound on Immokalee Road. That's what
I remember seeing. So there is some improvement with the six laning
of Immokalee Road. Obviously it will be improved greater when they
look at doing Oil Well Road.
And the other thing is the concurrency management system,
we've talked about it for like three years now, but it really didn't come
into the land development code until March or late -- early in the year,
actually fonnalized in March. So, I mean, there's some catching up
on the concurrency management system itself that we haven't got to.
N ow the building and road program has been going on since
about four years now seriously into accelerating roads, and one of the
problems with Immokalee Road if you might remember is first was
their environmental pennitting issues that delayed it a certain time,
and then there was a little issue with the clerk of courts that delayed it
a few months also. So that Immokalee Road is a little behind what it
was originally planned for.
And I don't know exactly, I don't know if Alon knows, but
probably in the year or so range behind. So I think it's getting there
but we're not there yet. But in another 18 months Immokalee Road
will be six laned in this area or will be approaching six laning in this
area and that will clear up a lot of the backlog on Immokalee Road.
And it's in the construction stage now so it's, you know, construction
stages there is going to be problems with getting clear capacities.
MR. MIDNEY: How often are roads rated, or re-rated, I should
say?
MR. EL URF ALI: We take counts every year.
MR. MIDNEY: So every year --
MR. EL URF ALI: Every quarter we take counts.
MR. MIDNEY: And so this road, why hasn't it -- why hasn't it
recently been re-rated for this segment, I should say.
Page 73
October 7, 2004
MR. EL URF ALI: The rating for Oil Well Road is a two lane,
basically rural highway, and there's standards for that level of service
that we use from FDOT, and that's what we're using right now for that
road. And that's what was used, you know, as of -- as basically a
gauge for us to know where it's at right now.
MR. MIDNEY: But you say the last time it was rated was
around 2000-2001 ?
MR. EL URF ALI: Y es. Well, we look at it -- according to Don
Scott we look at it every year with the inventory. But if it's a rural
highway and it's basically FDOT rated, then you know, we don't, I
mean we don't put it into the AUIR until it becomes an issue.
MR. MIDNEY: I agree that in 2000,2001 that road was doing
well, but, you know, it hasn't been doing well now for some time, and
it concerns me that it hasn't been re-rated in the last three or four
years.
MR. BELLOWS: If I may, for the record, the purpose of this
petition is to determine the impact of buildout or as the phases of this
proj ect go along and up to buildout. And my understanding talking to
the transportation staff is we have plans in place or that will be in
place for concurrency management that will prevent the building
permits from being issued unless there is concurrency.
MR. EL URF ALI: Development orders.
MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me, development orders.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain.
MR. STRAIN: I think all my questions have been answered at
this point in time. I understand your capacity issues and I understand
your intersection improvements, and I'm satisfied. I'm satisfied with
your responses.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer.
MR. SCHIFFER: None.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Okay.
Page 74
---
October 7, 2004
Are there any other public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any wrap-up comments by the
petitioner? No issues I'm aware of. Is there anything you particularly
want to address?
MR. PIRES : Nothing unless there is specific --
MR. STRAIN: There is one issue. You were going to talk to
your developer about the possibility of using the school as a permitted
use along Oil Well frontage road if such a deal could be negotiated.
MR. PIRES: If it could be on the north side, that would be
appropriate, designated along the north side of Oil Well.
MR. STRAIN: That's where I was thinking it would be anyway.
MR. PIRES: Once again, this is something that we have been
drawn to that particular condition because we have worked with them
so long in the past, and this is an issue that has arisen at the 11 th hour,
unfortunately.
MR. STRAIN: If it was along the north side of that Oil Well
Road and there was a stipulation that if the school did negotiate a
location there, that any movement needed to accommodate the school
that would be required by the commercial, that could be done along
that same frontage with no -- and then be considered an insubstantial
change -- so you wouldn't have to go back through the whole process
because of something the school board did.
MR. PIRES: I think that would be acceptable.
MS. TAYLOR: I just want a clarification. The north side
limited to --
MR. STRAIN: The whole frontage. And if you guys -- what I
was trying to say is if you negotiated a section contiguous to the
school you have, which is logical, instead of having to come back in
for a plan amendment to move the commercial over to the east, we
would provide language now that -- it would become an insubstantial
change we could give them administratively without a lot of process in
Page 75
October 7,2004
that regard, because that's logically where commercial would go
anyway.
MR. PIRES: And we would also like to limit it to no more than
20 acres because, again, to go bigger than that would substantially
alter the development scheme.
MR. STRAIN: Okay.
MS. TAYLOR: If I could say that there are three schools
already on the north side. There are no schools on the south side.
There are -- so that is also a concern. You're going to have people __
kids crossing the street and so forth. I just want to maybe leave that,
hopefully, as an open question that -- still say Oil Well Road but that
it could be on either side.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We'll close the public hearing.
MR. PIRES: If it could just be an education facility . We don't
want a bus barn being on the north side either.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're trying to correct a motion that
hasn't been made, so we'll have that discussion when we get to the
motion. Okay.
Any final comments, Mr. Arnold?
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. Mr. EI Urfalijust
asked me if I could put on the record that there are apparently a couple
of our standard conditions that are in the PUD language under
transportation that have been modified slightly since the version that
we're working from. It's the standard language that we're seeing in all
the PUDs.
I have no objection to inserting the most recent standard
conditions. I just wanted to put on the record that that may be a
modification that we would be making between now and the board
meeting to the document.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Sullivan, I'll exercise extreme
discretion and hear your comments.
MR. SULLIVAN: I have to do that often myself.
Page 76
October 7, 2004
I would like to offer -- these were provided to me by the MPO
and they are traffic counts that they proj ect now for Oil Well Road in
the future, and that's why they accelerated it and put it on their 25-year
plan.
And I would just like to say that 2001, that study, as you can see
on there some of those are projecting 96,000 vehicles at peak time in
that certain area that we were discussing on Immokalee Road, not on
Oil Well Road, but you can see a jump on Oil Well Road.
And also 2001 is when they did the last traffic study. Well, that
was before Waterways was built out. That was before we had the new
high school. That was before we had any of this real construction
that's going on out there.
And I would just ask that some sort of stipulation be placed so
that we don't have an additional burden on what we have got now.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
Mr. Pires, your final comment.
MR. PIRES: I believe Mr. Sullivan indicated 96,000, but it's
probably more like 9600. I think Mr. Jarvey will be able to tell you
that --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: He was talking about Immokalee Road.
Mr. Jarvey was referencing Oil Well Road.
MR. PIRES: But even Mr. Jarvey will tell you even the
interstate doesn't have 96,000 trips.
MR. SCHIFFER: It's 9600.
MR. PIRES: Ninety-six hundred. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Now, we are closing the public hearing.
If we're looking for a motion, Mr. Strain, would you like to offer
one?
MR. STRAIN: Yes. And before I start, Ray, we've gone
through the PUD, we have made a lot of stipulations on the record. I
wrote most of them down, but do you need all those repeated in the
motion or are you comfortable with --
Page 77
"-"'
October 7,2004
MR. BELLOWS: I wrote every one down. But if you can
follow up with maybe sending me a note afterwards.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Or do you want to read them into the
record? We have a court reporter.
MR. STRAIN: I'll read them into the record.
I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval
PUDZ-2003-AR-4150 to the BCC with the stipulations that were
placed on record today, amongst which I hope to include all of the
following:
One, that new transportation language be accepted, Item L.
Two, that the temporary potable wastewater systems, the
individual potable wastewater systems be referred to as interim
potable wastewater systems.
Three, that there be 10 feet minimum between structures under
the general development standards.
Four, that 10 percent of the commercial area should be allocated
to open space.
Five, that the lake maintenance easement language that is
generally used in the PUDs be put in here so that structures can't
intrude in those areas.
Six, the parking calculations for the CF areas and especially
including restaurants, if they are going to be open to the public, will
be taken into consideration in the design submittals of this project.
Seven, the clarification to the garage setback would be the same
as the principal structure. Staff was going to work on some
appropriate language for that.
Eight, that the laundry section of the commercial references be
limited to coin-operated or dry cleaning, whatever the proper SIC code
is for that regard.
Nine, we would strike Section 6.2D, which is a reference to the
sunset provisions.
T en, modify the language in the transportation sections that the
Page 78
October 7, 2004
determinations be pursuant to codes.
Eleven, that we would allow excavation and movement of that
excavated material from the lake -- from lakes within the PUD even if
you were crossing segments that are easements that are not part of the
PUD.
Twelve, the clarifications that are referenced to the South
Florida management district rules would be "permitting requirements
at the time of permitting" not necessarily as written as the PUD
currently shows.
Thirteen, that the schools would be added as a permitted use
with a maximum of 20 acres for educational facilities along the north
edge of Oil Well Road frontage, and if this requires a movement to the
commercial, that that movement of the commercial, as long as it
remains along the Oil Well Road frontage, can be done as an
insubstantial change to the PUD.
And lastly, that the standard language for the last item that was
discussed by the applicant be added. I don't recall exactly what that
was at this time.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Mark, you did nothing about the correcting
of the drinking water.
MR. STRAIN: Yes, I did. That was my second note, interim
potable wastewater systems. I think that's everything I can
remember.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Strain, second by Mr.
Adelstein. Discussion?
There being none, we'll call the question. All those in favor of
the motion signify by saying aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. STRAIN: Aye.
Page 79
."'..>._-...."'--~-
October 7,2004
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. It is unanimous. That is passed.
Mr. Strain, do you have a motion for the next petition, related
petition?
MR. STRAIN: I would like to recommend approval for Petition
PUDA-2003-AR-4227, Orangetree PUD, with the stipulations of
acreage corrections and references to the code as provided by staff.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Strain, second by Mr.
Adelstein. Discussion?
There is none. All of those in favor signify by saying aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. STRAIN: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries again. Thank you. This
petition is complete.
Before we move into our next order of business we'll take a
ten-minute break.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you all very much.
(A recess was taken.)
Page 80
October 7, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll bring the planning commission
back to order. And it seems appropriate coming off a break we need
to discuss the most important thing, and that is when is the next break.
The lunch hour is coming upon us in 45 minutes. I know Mr.
Abernathy needs to leave at 12:00 noon sharp. And barring objection
I suggest that we break for lunch at 12:00 noon, take a one-hour lunch.
If there is a five-minute move one side or the other depending upon
the topic that we're discussing at the time we'll do that, but we'll break
on or about 12: 00 for one hour for lunch.
So with that, we will open with Mr. Weeks.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you. For the record, I'm David Weeks,
the chief planner. Excuse me, I've been reclassified. I am the
planning manager of the comprehensive planning department for the
county.
First, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I want to do a very
brief overview of the process. What we are dealing with are growth
management plan amendments, not rezones of conditional uses as the
other petitions that you deal with more frequently.
Secondly, this is the adoption hearing. This will be your final
action on these petitions. You'll be making a recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners to either adopt, not adopt or adopt
with changes the various amendment petitions before you today.
Once the board has taken their final action, then the amendments
will be sent back to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for
their final action, their final review and determination that these
amendments are or are not in compliance with Florida Statutes.
This is a legislative action, not quasi-judicial. There is no
requirement to swear in the participants nor are you required to
disclose any ex parte communications you may have had.
There is a, what is called a Notice of Intent sign-up sheet. It's a
legal sign-up sheet that is on the table facing the exit doors over on the
right-hand side. This is a document where any individual may sign up
Page 81
October 7, 2004
their name. That sheet will be sent to the Department of Community
Affairs and, in turn, once the department issues its notice of intent to
find these amendments in compliance or not, those citizens will be
notified of that notice to be issued by the state department.
As is your typical protocol for the private sector petitions, and
we have four of those in this batch of amendments, this cycle, the
petitioner will go first and then be followed by staff. But in the case
of the county-initiated amendments, the staff will make the
presentation.
Commissioners, we'll be as brief as possible because you have
seen these petitions before in transmittal. Our focus will be on any
changes that have been made since these items were last reviewed at
the transmittal hearing.
And finally on the process, the last comment is, the binders that
you have, if you do not wish to take those with you for your own
keeping, for whatever reason, we would ask that you leave them here
on the table, and at the conclusion of the meeting we will correct
those and reuse those for the Board of County Commissioners and
hopefully send up to the Department of Community Affairs.
One thing I would like to draw to your attention in particular, we
had some public -- we received some phone calls from the public
about this. You might recall that as part of the Petition Number 12, a
county-initiated petition, at your transmittal hearing part of that
petition included a proposed change to the future land use element and
the conservation and coastal management element -- excuse me, the
capital improvements element and conservation and conservation and
coastal management element change to clarify that the density within
the coastal high hazard area is determined by the future land use
element.
And your recommendation unanimously was do not change
those policies. The Board of County Commissioners, though, on a
split vote made the same recommendation, they did not transmit that
Page 82
~*-- .-'--'^"'-"""'-"'-~
October 7, 2004
proposed change. So it was an error on staffs part to have included
that in your staff report and in the legal advertisement that we
prepared. I just wanted to ensure you and the public that might be
here we do not intend to present that as part of a proposed change.
That part of the petition was not transmitted to the Department of
Community Affairs.
And the final bit about housecleaning is that Jean Jourdan is
going to pass out to you a schedule of costs and revenues. This is
related to petition CPSP-2003-13, capital improvement element
changes. We failed to include this in your binders but this is not new
information; that is, this information was provided to you at the
transmittal hearings. So when you took your action at the transmittal
hearing it included this information. Again, we failed to include it in
your binder today, so, since it is part of that petition that you're acting
on, we wanted to make sure that you had that before you.
MR. SCHIFFER: Excuse me a second. David, a question. You
said that Item Number 12 was not transmitted to the department?
MR. WEEKS: Only the portion of it that dealt with the coastal
high hazard area density change, just that portion of it.
Moving on to the staff report, Mr. Chairman, a couple highlights
and then we'll get to the specific petitions.
We do note your transmittal hearing dates that you had on these
and the county commissioners. In most cases your votes were
unanimous, with a couple of exceptions mostly pertaining to private
sector petitions.
The Department of Community Affairs issues their ORC report,
objections, recommendations and comments. Just as you can think of
your transmittal hearings as being a preliminary approval if you, in
fact, recommended transmittal, we can think of the ORC report from
DCA, the Department of Community Affairs, as being their
preliminary approval or preliminary finding that these petitions are in
compliance with state statute.
Page 83
October 7, 2004
The department did not issue any objections, and objections are
what would form the basis of a finding, after they have been adopted,
of not in compliance with state statute. So unless we make significant
alterations to the petitions since they were transmitted, the department
has no grounds to find the adopted amendment not in compliance
with state statutes. The short of it is they didn't have any big problems
with any of the amendments you submitted. That's good news.
MR. ABERNATHY: They had a couple of suggestions that you
seemed to have stonewalled or --
MR. WEEKS: A couple of comments, and I'll move right into --
MR. ABERNATHY: They fell on fallow ground, I would say.
MR. WEEKS: One comment was from the -- I'll take them out
of order actually -- the South Florida Water Management District had
a comment about the proposed changes to the Golden Gate area
master plan, specifically a discussion that was presented to you at
transmittal hearings regarding using Everglades Boulevard as an
evacuation route.
Ultimately the county did not transmit those policies that
provided for Everglades Boulevard to be used as an evacuation route.
The water management district -- I think I'll sum it up this way -- they
did not recognize, they did not understand that our staff report, once it
is written and presented to you, it then becomes a historical document.
We don't go back and amend our staff report. It's there and it will
stay that way forever.
When they received their transmittal package after the board
acted on these petitions, they were reading it and still see this policy in
there proposed that says Everglades Boulevard will be used or may be
used as an evacuation route. So they were reacting to what they were
reading in the report but in fact your action and ultimately the board's
was not to transmit that specific policy. So there is no issue there, no
reason for any type of change to occur.
The department did raise -- have one comment to proposed
Page 84
--...'"-.---.>
October 7,2004
Petition Number 12, a staff petition regarding a future land use
element, where we proposed to clarify density, how it's calculated and
that portions of a project for which -- well, I'll read it verbatim.
"Portions of the project for land uses having an established
residential density in the Collier County Land Development Code".
Though in those cases we would not calculate -- they would not be an
exception to the density calculation. I'm sorry if I'm mumbling and
fumbling this up.
The short of it is, the DCA was saying, Collier County, you're
deferring to the land development code. We don't think that's
appropriate. We think you should establish what the maximum
densities are in your growth management plan itself.
Our response is, thank you very much. We disagree. Generally
speaking, we agree with your comment, but in this particular case, we
have a similar circumstance already in our comprehensive plan which
DCA in the past did not raise issue with, and I gave the example in
your staff Policy 5.8 in the future land use element which talks about
group housing facilities such as a nursing home or an adult living--
congregate living facility. The future land use element defers to the
land development code to determine those regulations, including
density, and we see this as a parallel circumstance. So our response is
we disagree and we do not propose to make these changes. We did
have one word, but it was not a response to the comment, it was just
further clarification and to be consistent with the land development
code.
MR. ABERNATHY: Is that good policy to have a growth
management plan with sort of an open door that you can change it
through the LDC?
MR. WEEKS: Generally speaking, I would say it's not. The
reason you do this differently is this is not talking about density as far
as residential dwelling units, houses, condominiums and whatnot.
This is talking about uses that have an established equivalent
Page 85
~'_._-""--
October 7, 2004
residential such as a nursing home and they allow -- I'm not sure if
something like hotel would fall under this category -- but certain types
of non-traditional residential or institutional uses. So for that reason
we view it differently.
We've identified, as you know, in your staff report,
commissioners, each of the separate petitions. We've very briefly
introduced the petition, basically by title, just to give you the general
concept of what that petition is about. We've identified what your
transmittal action was as well as what the county commissioners'
transmittal action was and any recommended changes that occur.
And again, in the staff report we have only identified for the
three petitions where the staff is proposing some type of change from
what was transmitted, and that's petition, the very first petition, the
private sector one for Mr. Basik.
And then Petition Number 10, which is the Golden Gate area
master plan proposed changes.
And the other one is Number 12, the one I was just speaking
about, future land use elements, very minor changes.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn it over to Mr. Nino. He's
here for the first private sector petition.
MR. STRAIN: Just for the record, I have to abstain for
participating and voting in this. I've already filed my sheet with the
court reporter for a perceived conflict of interest with my employer's
location of the property nearby this property.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Good morning. For the record, my name is Ron
Nino. I'm with the firm of Vanasse and Daylor out of Fort Myers. I'll
try to be brief because you want to make your 12:00 luncheon
appointment.
But I need to briefly reacquaint you with the site. When you
dealt with this in, I believe, back in May 20th you split four to four in
terms of recommending this compo plan amendment to the Board of
Page 86
October 7, 2004
County Commissioners.
We're dealing with approximately 10 acres of property on South
Tamiami Trail. This is the Krehling Concrete batch-making plant
down in that area.
THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, can I ask you to step back so I
can hear you, sir. Thank you.
MR. NINO: My clients, the Basiks, own approximately 9 acres
of C-4 and C-5 zoning immediately to the west of the subject
property. They also own 10 acres of industrial to the north of the
commercially zoned property.
MR. ABERNATHY: Excuse me, Ron. Why don't you get
around to the other side. You've got your back to the reporter and all
of us.
MR. NINO: Okay. Thank you.
And in this area here we have 25 acres of land that is zoned
TTRVC. And here is another conceptual look at that in color in terms
of those three areas. This is commercial, commercial parking lot for
the proposed Big Cypress flea market. And you see this red line here,
this is industrial.
We currently have four buildings under -- completed or
industrial warehouse type buildings that are being subdivided into
smaller functions for permitted industrial uses.
And then the TTRVC part. I think it's worth noting that under
your land development code the TTRVC zoning is in fact
commercially recognized zoning. If you look at the land
development code it says, "Commercially zoned properties includes
C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5 and TTRVC." I mention that because I want
to impress upon you the extent to which a commercial industrial
mode has been established in this area. And this land here is
agriculturally zoned land. Well, in other words, this agriculturally
zoned land is bound essentially on its entire west side by
commercially zoned property.
Page 87
October 7, 2004
We have a more recent aerial that kind of shows the condition, if
you haven't been out to the site, the condition of that, of the
surrounding properties. As I said, we have the -- we have a site
development plan approved for the flea market, Big Cypress flea
market, and we have four industrial buildings under construction.
The condition of this agricultural land here, in terms of -- you're
thinking in terms of compatibility. Quite frankly we have a lot of
problems with what is happening in this industrially zoned area.
If you've been out to the site, I suggest to you that our code
enforcement people need to take a look at what's going on there,
because certainly what would occur as a result of commercial
development on this property, if anything, is going to visually and
aesthetically contribute to what's going on in that area.
And I want to give you an appreciation of the plans that are in
place for the Big Cypress flea market. You see it's certainly not your
traditional looking flea market that you might encounter in north Fort
Myers. However, it is much akin to the Flamingo flea market on
Bonita Beach Road.
And what we hope to do is complement that. As a matter of
fact, the way our application is structured is that 40,000 square feet of
the flea market has to be in place before we get the ability to proceed
with using that property, in the event we're successful in getting it
rezoned, in order to take away the speculative aspects of it.
N ow when you dealt with this petition the last time, your
concern, as I discern from the record, was that you were concerned
that it affected the integrity of the TDR program, which said -- the
area that we're in is called a receiving area, and its development was
supposed to be contingent upon drawing development rights from the
sending area around it, the more natural pristine area.
And -- however, you'll recall we pointed out that the land
development -- the comprehensive plan clearly says that properties of
40 acres or less, the TDR program doesn't apply. So that in fact we
Page 88
October 7, 2004
were not required to comply with the TDR program since we're only a
parcel land that is 10 acres in size.
Well, the argument was, well, it might be aggregated with the
adjoining property some day to become 40 acres. And I'm going to
suggest to you that you have to believe in the tooth fairy to think that
this 10 acres is ever going to be aggregated with a number of 5-acre
parcels that are currently in the agricultural area. So that really was
never going to come to pass.
However, when we went to the Board of County
Commissioners, you know, it became apparent that if we wanted to be
successful in having the compo plan appeal be successful, whether we
qualified or not, we had better ante up to the table some development
TDRs, and we agreed to do that. We agreed to acquire four TDRs
even though legally this property is not subject to the TDR
requirement.
And the amendment that David transmitted -- the board did
agree to transmit the amendment, however the transmittal language
then included the requirement that we acquire four TDRs.
So that if that was one of your legitimate concerns why we didn't
get a majority of you to support the application, that issue ofTDRs
and the possibility that we're affecting the integrity of the TDR
program has gone away.
There were some concerns about traffic. Reed Jarvey of our
office is here. I would like to just comment on that. You know, at the
time we submitted our application I think even under today's
conditions there is no loss sufficiency issue here.
Concurrency really should be dealt with at the zoning phase and
not at the comprehensive plan phase. And we only realize too well
that we have to comply with concurrency should we subsequently be
successful in having this property rezoned.
This is not a rezoning process. It's a compo plan process, which
merely establishes the base upon which we can come along later on
Page 89
--.-----..--
October 7, 2004
and ask for a rezoning action.
Staff continues to support this application, as you have witnessed
in your agenda package, and we only note that we're appreciative of
that consistency in staffs position.
I don't think there is a question about, you know, whether this,
whether the need for this commercial land is justified. We did a
market analysis. Staff agreed with the market analysis. And that issue
should really be put to bed.
There was an issue came up with the Board of County
Commissioners by one commissioner that this property may not be
compatible. And traditionally, when you talk about parameters of
compatibility, you're really talking about its relationship to adjoining
property. We're contiguous to commercially zoned property.
Traditionally, when you think -- when you think of agriculturally
zoned land you think of land that is in transition, that is going to be
eventually zoned to some other use, and therefore, compatibility is
usually not a parameter when you think about its adjacent
relationship to agriculturally zoned land, given the fact that that
agriculturally zoned land is transitional.
We hope that you will concur with staff and support
transmitting, recommending this to the Board of County
Commissioners with a majority approval.
We have only two concerns. When we made a presentation to
the Board of County Commissioners, and in the heat of debate and
trying to get your client's project approved, we agreed to four -- not
only did we agreed to acquiring four TDRs, but we said that we
would donate them to the county. And quite frankly, that was dumb
of me, I must say, and I did my client a disservice by agreeing to that.
You know, morally and ethically that just is wrong. TDRs is a
commodity. My client is a developer. He has the opportunity to use
those on another proj ect within a qualifying area.
Now, obviously our position ought to be, and I hope you agree,
Page 90
October 7, 2004
that the requirement that we donate them to the county be eliminated
but we still acquire the four TDRs.
One other of the conditions that we had offered in the subdistrict
development criteria and which I now in reflection think is overly
constraining, is the commitment that we made not to exceed a height
of 20 feet. And quite frankly, I think the buildings that our client is
erecting over here, these industrial buildings, for example, they are
more than 20 feet. And I suspect th~t -- that this building that we're
constructing and that we will add to it is itself more than 20 feet.
Now 35 feet is generally considered the lowest height in Collier
County. And we would ask that you support a modification to our
development criteria that all of the buildings would be not to exceed
35 feet.
Otherwise we are in total agreement with the rewrite of the
subdistrict as proposed by staff. We find it perfectly acceptable, with
the exception of those two items.
I would be happy to answer any questions. Reed Jarvey is here,
as I said, and can answer any transportation issues that you might want
to talk about.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy.
MR. ABERNATHY: You had two county commissioners vote
against your proposal. You say one of them was on the basis of
compatibility. What was the other, what was his objection, or hers?
MR. NINO: One was compatibility. The other was -- I really
can't say. I think that that commissioner basically thought that all of
the land -- if I was to paraphrase it I would say that he's made up his
mind that all the land in the sending area, all sending areas has to be
developed with residential purposes.
MR. ABERNATHY: The receiving.
MR. NINO: The receiving, the receiving land has to be
developed with residential uses in order to justify the aspirations the
county board has with the flow of TDRs from the sending areas to the
Page 91
-.-..--.«
---,..,.--
October 7, 2004
receIvIng areas. But that objection, quite frankly, commissioner,
should have gone away when we agreed to buy the four TDRs, but it
didn't.
MR. ABERNATHY: But now you want to welch on the four
TDRs. If you buy them and keep them and use them somewhere else
or turn around and sell them on the market, you haven't done
anything.
MR. NINO: That's the way it's supposed to work, though.
Anybody else, anybody else that is applying for a project in the
receiving area and is using TDR is only going to get their objectives,
their development objectives satisfied in the receiving areas by
transferring TDRs. That's exactly what they are doing. They are
going out and buying those TDRs and bringing them into the receiving
area that qualifies for one unit per five acres in order to bring the
density up to one unit per acre.
Are you going to apply that requirement to all of them as well?
If you were, I can assure you the TDR program would simply collapse
on its face. That was -- that's not the way it works.
MR. ABERNATHY: But we didn't impose that, the county
commissioners did.
MR. NINO: Well, the county did impose that. The county said
we want you to buy four -- we want you to acquire four TDRs. The--
donating to the county was -- I don't think was really part of the
arrangement. It just happened to be blurted out and it became part of
the record.
MR. ABERNATHY: So you are going to have to argue it up
there.
MR. NINO: Yes, we'll have to argue it up there.
MR. MIDNEY: To my own knowledge, if it's one unit per five
acres why did you buy four TDRs for 10 acres?
MR. NINO: Because -- because -- how does it go, Glenn, I
forget the math.
Page 92
October 7, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Heath?
MR. NINO: Yes.
MR. HEATH: I don't remember exactly how four was arrived
at, but in the discussion with the commissioners it came -- it was
eventually decided that they would be responsible for four TDRs.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So would it be fair to characterize it
wasn't a mathematical calculation, it was simply the number of TDRs
necessary to make the deal?
MR. NINO: Yes. Yes, it was.
MR. HEATH: That basically was it. Now, Mr. Abernathy
asked a question earlier about why the second commissioner
dissented. It was, basically, that commissioner felt that they should be
responsible for even more TDRs.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Does that address your question, Mr.
Midney?
MR. MIDNEY : Yes. It still puzzles me, though, I thought it
was a rule, you know, one for five.
MR. ABERNATHY: That's on the sell side.
MR. MIDNEY: No, the buy side.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer.
MR. SCHIFFER: Glenn, one question. Were you involved,
Glenn, in drawing the outline of the sending -- or the receiving areas?
MR. HEATH: Kind of, sort of.
MR. SCHIFFER: And was there ever any consideration that
some of these like commercial type zoning along the main roads
would not be in the sending areas?
MR. HEATH: Well, this is it. We're talking -- first off, we're
talking about the receiving area.
MR. SCHIFFER: Receiving, I'm sorry.
MR. HEATH: We were aware at the time again -- Glenn Heath,
Collier County comprehensive planning staff. We were aware at the
time that there was commercial property along this part of U.S. 41
Page 93
October 7, 2004
that, in many ways, was not consistent with the idea of this land as a
residential receiving area.
I think quite possibly the whole -- the rural fringe and the TDR
program process took so long that much of the development in this
area was kind of occurring in the meantime, and so we just kind of
caught up with it.
We're aware that there are some areas down there that may
develop outside of the rural fringe program and, frankly, from a staff
point of view, it was difficult to figure out how to capture this type of
development with existing commercial zoning into that receiving type
of situation.
And -- which is one of the reasons that staff, I think, was in
support of this, basically in support of this amendment was we felt that
this property really wasn't appropriate for residential. It's on U.S. 41.
It's got -- it's got commercial property nearby. And it's a heavily
traveled corridor. But at the same token we realize that this is a
receiving area and--
MR. SCHIFFER: But is it a receiving area based on thought or
just based on a broad brush when you were doing the outlines?
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Schiffer, it was based on a broad brush. The
designation of sending, receiving and neutral areas for the rural fringe
was based on a, we'll call, a landscape or very broad view of the
properties. We did not get down to the very site-specific view of this
5-acre parcel or this 10-acre, et cetera, we did not do that.
The primary basis was the environmental values of the property
when we looked at the panther habitat and we looked at the panther
movement, where the panthers were traveling. We looked at the
forested wetlands and the forested uplands. So several different
environmental layers were placed on top of the maps of the rural
fringe area to determine if this area should be a sending area. And
then the areas that didn't fall within that essentially say that should be
a receiving area. And then neutrals, unless you want to know I'll skip
Page 94
October 7, 2004
that for now.
I want to make sure it was clear that the particular property to
the west that Ron was referring to, the industrial and the two
commercial C-4 and C-5 with frontage on 41, those are not within
rural fringe mixed use district. They were excluded. The sending
area excludes those. Those in fact are designated industrial.
MR. SCHIFFER: So again, because of the broad brush, what
you've done is you've picked up multiple little small parcels along 41,
and that isn't the intent of the whole process, is it?
MR. WEEKS: Well, depends on how you view it. Now, if you
look at the site specific, this 5-acre tract or that one, we might agree
that that's not appropriate for such and such a development, low
density residential, rural density residential.
But again, because it was done with a broad view, we didn't do
things at that level because there are parcels, not just on 41 but on
Immokalee Road and other areas of the rural fringe, again, that whole
area is approximately 93,000 acres, that if we got down to that
parcel-by-parcel analysis, we might think something differently. But
we have to keep in mind that aggregation is a possibility. And Mr.
Nino has his opinion and maybe he's right about this particular parcel
being aggregated with others, but we can't discount the potential,
again go back to the broad brush, whether we're looking at somewhere
on 41 or Immokalee Road or somewhere else in the rural fringe that
aggregation is possible. An individual 5- or 10-acre parcel might be
aggregated with others so that you do get to the point of having 40
acres and therefore qualify to acquire TDRs, and you can increase
your density up to as much as one unit per acre.
MS. SCHIFFER: But it was never your intent to force that
aggregation, was it?
MR. WEEKS: Absolutely not. The TDR process is strictly
voluntary .
MR. SCHIFFER: The reality is there are a lot of people who
Page 95
.-".,,~------~-"-
October 7, 2004
own small pieces of property that are not caught in some way that
really is indeed -- and it has nothing to do with the success of the
process either, does it. Do you think nibbling away, as it was called at
the last turn, hurts the TDR process?
MR. WEEKS: Depends on how many nibbles we have. It's a
cumulative impact. That's -- part of the staffs position of this petition,
as Glenn stated, was its location next to some higher intensity zoning,
and we did consider the fact that it's only a ten-acre parcel --
nine-point something acres -- but you're right, the nibbles are okay as
long as they don't add up to too substantial a bite.
MR. SCHIFFER: In this case you're saying the boundary line is
one of the boundaries of the property.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. That's correct.
MR. SCHIFFER: It's not an island.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct, it would not be an island.
I would remind you too, though, that the sending designation is
something that just came about when we adopted the growth
management plan amendments of 2002. Prior to that this property
was still designated agricultural rural and still limited one unit per 5
acres.
MR. SCHIFFER: But it's on 41.
MR. WEEKS: Yes. My point is just a before and after scenario.
We're still-- the difference is now there's the potential through
aggregation for higher density on that property than there was prior to
the rural fringe amendment.
MR. ABERNATHY: I have a question for you. In regard to
this, are there going to be other PUD problems that we turned down,
the county turned down, that we're going to get back to us today?
What I'm saying is, I don't have the infonnation in front of me
not knowing that this was coming up, so I can't really recall.
I remember going no to it, but I haven't looked at it or seen it in
an awful long time and I can't remember what the purpose was. We've
Page 96
October 7,2004
done over 320 them since this happened. Are there any others that are
going to come up that we turned down and make a decision on it
again today?
MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry, I don't quite -- are you asking if there
might be other properties that --
MR. ABERNATHY: Other PUD situations that, that we turned
down that are coming back up at us like this one. We've already done
this once and made our vote on it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT: Maybe I can clarify. For the record, Marjorie
Student, assistant county attorney. These are compo plan amendments
and this is the adoption stage. And you had seen this before at
transmittal to the DCA, so that's why you would have seen it before,
because it was a transmittal, but it's coming back for adoption now.
And I don't know that this has ever come as a PUD. There may
have been some way back when some zoning action was asked for on
the property, but right now this is just to amend the compo plan so they
can proceed with further development orders.
MR. ABERNATHY: We had it in front of us several-- another
reason why I can't remember what it was.
MS. STUDENT: Yeah, I think there was another one involving
this gentleman or this property some time ago.
MR. NINO: No. You've only seen this as an initial application
for transmittal.
MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer.
MR. SCHIFFER: Is this the appropriate time to discuss limiting
access on the Trinity Drive or would that be at the PUD?
MR. WEEKS: You could do it at this case -- at this point. In
fact, one of the conditions right now is that the access would be
limited to Basik Drive and Trinity Place. Because we've already
doubled access, and certainly if you wanted to discuss that, we could.
Page 97
October 7,2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Weeks, at what point do we make a
change that is so significant that it's not -- that it goes back to DCA?
Where is that threshold that we mess with it too much, because it's
been through the roof? We're at adoption. When do we start
resubmitting and starting all over again -- using that issue as an
example?
MR. WEEKS: You never know for sure but -- I think DCA's
view of the private sector petitions, all of them on today's agenda, and
these are typical in that they are relatively small, five, ten, 15 acres.
Generally speaking our privately initiated petitions are relatively
small in size. And it's our belief, both based on the reports we receive
each year, but also in verbal discussion with DCA staff, they view this
as a local issue because it's such a small parcel. And I believe that
unless we did something just beyond comprehension such as allowing
an industrial nuclear plant or something by having a regional impact, I
just can't imagine DCA really getting involved. Their view, I think, is
it's a local issue; whatever you decided is okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So Mr. Schiffer's inquiry as to access is
well within our local jurisdiction.
MR. WEEKS: Absolutely.
MR. SCHIFFER: Is it the owner's intent to have access on the
Trinity?
MR. NINO: Yes.
MR. SCHIFFER: He wants that?
MR. NINO: Yes. And I would think that if the transportation
department were here they would say we want you to get access from
Trinity. As a matter of fact, they might not allow us access on 41,
Tamiami Trail.
MR. SCHIFFER: But if they didn't, you would come in on that
other internal road. It's like a double boulevard. In other words, I
would not want you to go out on 41 either, but wouldn't that be--
would that mess up the plans for this thing?
Page 98
October 7, 2004
MR. NINO: Well, the long-range plan is, of course, we would
have to go through the parking lot. This is an easement dedicated for
road purposes. A road is going to happen here eventually and
terminate in a cul-de-sac. So it would be a circuitous route to get into
that site from here, but when we talk about access from Basik Drive,
we are basically talking about access through the parking lot and into
this road here.
MR. SCHIFFER: Is not that building that's on Basik Drive part
of the flea market or -- it seems like a -- it's a more older color.
MR. NINO: No. This plan is the footprint of the SDP on --
MR. SCHIFFER: So if you are successful today, wouldn't you
just merge these two sites together and do a bigger and better flea
market rather than --
MR. NINO: Possibly . Yeah, this is subject to change.
MS. SCHIFFER: Right. So if you are limited to Basik Drive --
because that's a nice little boulevard you got there and that would be
less access onto 41.
MR. NINO: Well, but there will be other buildings in addition
to an expansion of the flea market. We're -- we have the ability to do
another 76,000 square feet if we're approved. We're certainly not
going to do 76,000 square feet of additional flea market. I think we're
limited up where -- we've offered up maybe 25 percent of that. But
we may end up with a hotel over here. That's one of the uses that we
would seek in the subsequent PUD applications.
MR. SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. NINO: In other words, there, you know, there is a part of
the overall site plan that's going to be dependent on access from
Trinity Place. And if you're a transportation guy, you're obviously
going to say if you have a local street interconnecting with an arterial
at a comer, you come in from the local street, and even though that's
not what residents like, but transportation experts say that's the route
you should use; am I correct, Reed?
Page 99
.-........---"-...-
October 7, 2004
MR. JARVEY: Reed Jarvey for the record. What you typically
want to do on an arterial is limit as much as practicable the number of
access points. So what I would suggest you do is, I think from hearing
Mr. Weeks talk, that this is within your purview to talk about access.
But since it really wasn't studied as part of the application, I
would suggest you defer that to the PUD stage and let the -- let's work
with the transportation department on that. I mean, I think that would
be more appropriate in my opinion rather than just arbitrarily trying
to say, well, let's just do this, because we don't know the issues.
That's my suggestion.
MS. SCHIFFER: But again, the neighbors' concern may make
you wish we had talked about it.
The -- but you don't agree that you could redesign that whole
parcel if you added 10 acres to it, coming off of your boulevard and
redesigned your parking, designed your additional uses. I mean, it
would seem to be very common nowadays to limit the access.
MR. JARVEY: Once again, that seems to me that's more of a
PUD type question.
MS. STUDENT: I would like to make an observation. I've
noticed with the creation of these different subdistricts we've gotten
very specific and probably more specific than compo plans are
supposed to be because they are supposed to be more general.
And the only problem with that is the more specific you get the
harder the thing becomes to amend.
And I have had an ongoing concern, that I've let our long-range
planning staff know about, as to the greater specificity of these compo
plan amendments, because it is really supposed to be more like a
constitution and not, you know, a specific statute as opposed to
constitute -- what you would find in the constitution.
So that's something -- it's not that it's illegal or there's -- DCA is
going to find anything wrong with it, but there are some practical
implications of it.
Page 100
October 7, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Other questions of the
petitioner on this item?
Mr. Heath.
MR. HEATH: For the record again, Glenn Heath with Collier
County comprehensive planning.
I just want to first off point out a couple little background details
about this amendment. This was originally submitted in 2002. It was
held up due to the administrative issues surrounding the rural fringe
amendments and then it was further held up, as were all of these
amendments, due to other matters associated with the compo planning
process.
And so it's -- it was submitted in 2002 and here it is 2004 and it's
just now going to adoption.
When you saw this item at transmittal you essentially failed to
act on it. There was a split vote, both in terms of a recommendation
not to transmit and a split vote in terms of recommending to transmit.
So it went to the Board of County Commissioners with the language
recommended by the petitioner and the language changes that were
recommended by staff, and then that's what the board acted on. What
we've highlighted in the report, the staff report, are the changes that
were actually -- we're recommending from staff some changes that
occurred since transmittal or because of transmittal and these are in
double strike-through underline. If you see regular underline that's
the language that was transmitted. The newer changes are the double
strike-through underline, and that's on Page 3 of the staff report.
The full text of the amendment is in Exhibit A of the ordinance,
and you can look at that if you need to.
I would note actually that the petitioner has requested this
morning to remove the height restriction for the 20- foot height
restriction and go 35 foot. Our language as recommended by staff had
a 20- foot height requirement for the flea market buildings but allowed
a motel or hotel to go higher.
Page 101
October 7, 2004
Access would be limited right now to Basik Drive and Trinity
Place. That means at this point in time no access on the Trail.
And the -- we mentioned the four TDR credits that the petitioner
is to transfer, I would call your attention to that, to Collier County.
N ow from my standpoint and from the staff standpoint, I think transfer
could include either a donation or a sale as to -- as it simply says that
they were -- they were in the possession of petitioner and then they
were now in the possession of the county.
Since the county does not have any kind of a TDR bank
program, what would actually happen to these credits, once they were
transferred to the county they are basically gone, they are done.
MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger --
THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, I can't hear you. I'm sorry.
MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning
director. And I'm sorry, I forgot my jacket.
Clarification on the TDR purchased by the petitioner. That was
a legislative negotiation process relative to an agreement in order to
achieve the necessary votes to transmit this petition to DCA.
And the understanding, as I believe the record will show from
the transmittal here from the board, is that the petitioner would
purchase four TDR credits on the open market and donate those
credits to Collier County to either use to incentivise some other goal
or program or to raise revenues for some other program that we may
have ongoing.
At the time of transmittal there was not an intent that they would
purchase the TDRs and go about their business in the marketplace
with the TDRs. That has no relationship to the intent or the
negotiation process on the purchase of the TDRs.
MR. SCHIFFER: Question on that. So that means is that in our
action today we can't discuss whether the purchase ofTDRs is
relevant, that's a done deal, right?
MR. LITSINGER: It's a legislative policy decision. You
Page 102
October 7, 2004
certainly -- it's within your purview to make a recommendation to the
board on that. I'm not sure it's relative to the decision on the compo
plan amendment. It's certainly a legislative negotiation position.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Heath.
MR. HEATH: That's about it, unless you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of Mr. Heath or staff
presentation?
Mr. Weeks, is there -- are there public speakers on this item?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So with that we need a motion to
adopt.
MR. SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion to -- make a motion to
recommend --
MS. STUDENT: It's a recommendation of adoption.
MR. SCHIFFER: To recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners. In that motion I would like to support the height to
be 35 feet. And the reason is, I mean, a flea market 35 feet means it
would be a tall roof. A hotel 35 feet means the neighbors have people
on the third floor looking in their house.
MS. STUDENT: For clarification then, then would that
language just say no building shall exceed a height of 35 feet?
MR. SCHIFFER: Correct.
MS. STUDENT: Because you wouldn't need the exception
language anymore. Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHIFFER: And then, I mean, the TDR thing I have a big
problem with, and this isn't part of the motion yet. But it seemed to
me since this is on the borderline, this is a small site, it wasn't the
intent of the whole TDR process that -- I don't know the right word to
use -- but to force these guys to buy TDRs to get approval. I
personally don't think it's in good taste, so what -- you want to say
something, Glenn?
MR. HEATH: If it would help, Mr. Chairman. Glenn Heath.
Page 103
October 7, 2004
The way that the discussion went with regard to this concept was
there -- the board was concerned that -- the board understood, I think,
that this type of project was too small to meet the thresholds of the
TDR program.
But at the same token -- by the same token I think there was this
feeling among the board members that we have to have, we have to
somehow tie development in the receiving areas to the TDR program.
And how do you do that when you have a small proj ect like this that
doesn't, doesn't qualify to buy -- actually to buy and use TDRs. And
then as Mr. Litsinger said, the legislative decision was made by the
board to require them to purchase four TDRs and to transfer those.
MS. SCHIFFER: Right. But my big concern with that--
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Brad, what I need you to do is form the
motion, because we're negotiating the details of a motion before it's
even on the floor. Make a choice either way.
MR. SCHIFFER: Then my motion would be to remove Criteria
J.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Anything else?
MR. SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Hold on, we need a second. It's
on the floor for discussion. Is there a second on that motion? Going
once, going twice. Failing for lack of a second.
Do we have an alternative motion?
MR. SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, one thing. Sometimes it's nice
to discuss things prior to a motion.
MR. ABERNATHY: You can't without a second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: What we really want to do -- I mean, is
get a motion and then we'll beat it up there.
MR. SCHIFFER: I'm not up on Robert's Rules of Order, so I
won't make a comment.
MR. ABERNATHY: On that basis I will second the motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will get a motion and we'll get your
Page 104
October 7, 2004
input.
MR. ABERNATHY: I'll second the motion to bring it to the
table.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We have a motion and a second
right there.
MR. SCHIFFER: Is the concern that the reason they are in the
TDR process -- and it was really -- you guys substantiated it, was
because of the broad brush. In other words, so the county is throwing
property lines around not even -- the intent of why we're doing this
really wasn't focused.
It should have been in fairness of the property owners, because a
lot of people got caught up in this that maybe shouldn't have been.
And the success of the program isn't based on these little bitty little
properties.
So the concern I have is that these guys somehow got caught up
in the TDR process, not because of the intent of what we're doing with
the sending and receiving but with the fact that nobody spent the time
to do a detailed analysis of the boundary line.
The fact that they are on the edge of the boundary line means
that it wouldn't be a problem to include them out of the system, to the
sending areas.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Nino, do you have something
relevant to this discussion?
MR. NINO: I appreciate that discussion, and it's the same
discussion we made with the commissioners who drove that concern.
And we don't have a problem acquiring four TDRs. And I can tell you
that the Board of County Commissioners, the Board of County
Commissioners is not going to transmit for final approval this proj ect
without a TDR element in it.
The rub is, donating them to the county. That's like giving the
county $100,000. It's almost akin --well, we're on the record.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein.
Page 105
."'.~..--....'--
October 7, 2004
MR. NINO: We don't have a problem buying the four TDRs.
We would appreciate an amendment -- we would appreciate a
recommendation that says that it ought not to be a requirement of the
four TDRs that they be dedicated to the county.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein.
MR. ADELSTEIN: The only way I can go for this is -- the
TDRs stay in.
MR. SCHIFFER: I'll take the TDRs out. So let's remove that
from my motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So you're going to amend your motion.
MR. SCHIFFER: So the motion, the only difference than the
resolution from the county would be the height requirement of 35-feet.
And here's the problem --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Hold on a second. Does the second agree
with that?
MR. ADELSTEIN: No.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So you have an amended motion
that amends the height to 35 feet.
MS. SCHIFFER: No, no. That was in the motion when he
seconded it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: No -- you came back and you pulled out
the TDRs so now you have a new motion. You've amended it.
MR. SCHIFFER: You can't pull out a little piece of it?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: No, you can't, not without your second
and your second fell out.
They have to go together. So let me clarify what your motion is
and you might pick up a new second.
Motion to transmit with the 35 feet height limitation.
MR. SCHIFFER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Great. Is there a second on that motion?
MR. MIDNEY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney. Very good.
Page 106
October 7,2004
Now let's discuss that new motion.
MR. SCHIFFER: The -- a flea market I think would be
appropriate to have a nice -- I think the 20 feet should be the inside of
the walkway of the flea market, and the roof system would then not be
able to be built on part of it.
So if they wanted to build a flea market with a tall center area
with the booths at the side, you're guaranteeing a flat roof. And I
don't see what the benefit to anybody is.
Why you would allow it for a hotel, which again, is what you're
saying is a three-story hotel where you're going to have people
occupying that height, I think that's a mistake.
The 35 feet is not tall, that's a telephone pole. So you're not
giving up -- this isn't a height issue, this is, you know -- a good 20 feet
is -- I mean, this room may have 10- foot ceilings. You're really
talking about doubling the height of this room.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Discussion on that motion? And I can
support that motion. I wasn't comfortable with the original one but
this amended motion with the increased height for the flea market
area, not for the hotel, I think makes sense. So I'm comfortable with
that.
Other discussion on the motion? There is none.
We'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed?
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And I assume that was your aye also.
So we have a five to one motion in favor of transmittal.
So, with that, it's nine minutes after. Let's call it 1:10. We'll be
Page 107
October 7, 2004
back in an hour and a minute.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Call the planning commission back to
order.
Mr. Weeks, we're going to move into the remaining petitions. If
I'm not mistaken most, if not all, the petitions remaining were a
unanimous vote on the first time around. So if we could have a
summary presentation.
If commissioners have problems we'll certainly take all the time
necessary to dip into them, or if members of the public have problems
or if advocates on behalf of petitioners wanted to talk and snatch
defeat from the jaws of victory, we'll do that.
But if we could try to approach it in a summary fashion, sir. I
think it's CP-2003-1 is the next one up.
MR. HEATH: Good afternoon, commissioners. Glenn Heath
with comprehensive planning again.
When this item came to you for transmittal you voted
unanimously to transmit it with four changes: To allow residential
units at a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre or the
promotion of mixed use development. To allow a building height of
four stories if at least two floors had residential uses. To clarify that a
mixed use commercial building is allowed up to three stories with
retail use on the first floor, office use on the second and third floor.
And finally, to clarify language regarding the capital improvement
element Policy 112 and its relationship to concurrency management
regulations.
When the item went to the board for transmittal it was
transmitted four to zero without any changes except for the -- except
for your recommendation.
And that's what you are looking at today.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Any questions on this item?
MR. STRAIN: Just one. The change in the height that was
Page 108
,...<.,_"__,,,...-.... ,'~. _ _",·,,~,m'
October 7, 2004
recommended by the CCPC at the time, was that an advertised height
or is there a concern that -- because I know that was a surprise to the
applicant that we had recommended -- to go higher. That was a
surprise to me.
MR. HEATH: As I understand the -- from what I remember of
the original proj ects, the original heights were something that were
negotiated between you and some of the nearby properties.
MR. STRAIN: He's begging to speak.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Go right ahead.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Against my better judgment. Rich
Y ovanovich for the record.
Just to address that issue. We were further along in our planning
for what we're actually going to do and have talked to our neighbors.
We don't need four stories for our project, when we include a
residential proj ect. Three stories would be fine just like it is for the
office and retail buildings.
So if you wanted to bring that down to -- if we have a mixed use
with retail, office and/or residential, limiting it to three stories, we're
fine with that.
MR. ADELSTEIN: So moved.
MR. STRAIN: The reason I'm suggesting is we had another
proj ect come in where height was an issue. I hate to see this set a
precedence of others are going to come back and argue they should
have the same thing when we know it's objectionable in other areas
close by.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're comfortable with a three-story
limitation.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions on this item?
Mr. Weeks, are there any speakers registered?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With that we'll close the public
hearing.
Page 109
October 7, 2004
Mr. Adelstein, you have a motion.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I move that we approve this -- CP-2003-1.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- with the height.
MR. ADELSTEIN: With the height restriction to three stories.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there a second?
MR. MIDNEY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr.
Midney. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. All those in favor, signify by
saYIng aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. STRAIN: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
Next item, CP-2003-2.
MS. JOURDAN: Good afternoon, Jean Jourdan, comprehensive
planning, for the record.
This was a request to establish the Livingston-Radio commercial
infill subdistrict to allow commercial uses in the C-3 district with a
maximum of 50,000 square feet.
The commission recommended to transmit this to the BCC with
a recommendation to transmit it to DCA.
You did request some changes to be made which are
implemented into your staff report.
Page 11 0
",~,-",---,..",.~,~-~..-
October 7, 2004
And the BCC approved the transmittal of the petition to the
DCA.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Great.
MR. STRAIN: This came at the same time the previous one did.
And the idea of height was an issue then as well. When they -- item
two, it says, "allow an additional floor of building height if the
building contains residential use".
If you did that would it still fall within the height restrictions of
C-3 or would that put it beyond the height restrictions of C-3?
MS. JOURDAN: That I don't know. I'm sure David will be able
to respond to that.
MR. WEEKS: C-3 is, I think--
MR. STRAIN: I'm comfortable with the C-3 height, but I don't
want that number two to be construed that it not only allowed what
you would have up to the C-3 height but an additional floor of the
building if it's a residential use.
So if we could get a clarification on that, that it's within -- it still
retains the 50-foot maximum overall height for C-3 zoning, I think
that would help clarify it for any future petitioners.
MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, in the resolution we're limiting it to 45
feet?
MR. STRAIN: Whatever height it's limited to. I just wouldn't
want that extra floor to be added on top of the maximum height that's
allowed. I don't know what's allowed. David's looking for it.
MR. SCHIFFER: The way the resolution is written, it's -- the
maximum height is four stories not to exceed 45 feet.
MR. STRAIN : Well, then does number two mean that we're
going to allow it to go five stories above 45 feet?
MR. SCHIFFER: Shouldn't we be looking at the resolution that
they are actually sending forward?
MR. STRAIN: I'm asking the question, I can look at it but--
MR. SCHIFFER: It says, "However, for mixed use buildings,
Page 111
October 7, 2004
those containing residential uses over commercial uses, the maximum
height is four stories, not to exceed 45 feet."
MS. JOURDAN: Correct. He's correct in that it says not to
exceed 45 feet if it's a residential use over commercial.
MR. STRAIN: No matter how many floors it is, it still can't be
over 45 feet.
MS. JOURDAN: Correct.
MR. STRAIN: Does that need to be clarified, David, in this as
an addition to this, or are you comfortable with it as it's just been
stated?
MR. WEEKS: I think it's okay the way it is, including the
understanding of what your intent is. If you're going to adopt this
language, we'll take a look at it further between now and adoption, a
board hearing. And if you think we need to modify it to make that
perfectly clear, we'll do that.
MR. STRAIN: Then I'm fine.
MR. SCHIFFER: David, isn't what's going to be adopted the
material that falls under the tab ordinance?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
MR. SCHIFFER: So the other stuff, whatever is -- doesn't really
apply. What it says here is what is going to go forward.
MR. WEEKS: But this language that is in the ordinance reflects
those changes from your transmittal.
MR. STRAIN: Brad, the court reporter is having a hard time
hearing you.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm not sure, did we cover -- are there
identified speakers?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Does that conclude the staff report. Any
further questions? If there are none we'll close the hearing.
Do we have a motion on this item?
Page 112
October 7, 2004
MR. SCHIFFER: I make a motion we forward CP-2003-2 with
the recommendation of approval.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Schiffer, second by Mr.
Adelstein. Discussion?
There is none. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. STRAIN: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Thank you.
Moving on to CP-2003-3.
MS. JOURDAN: Jean Jourdan, comprehensive planning.
Okay. This petition was to establish the Livingston Veterans
Memorial Boulevard commercial infill subdistrict allowing
commercial uses in the C-l district with a maximum of 50,000 square
feet.
The planning commission recommended to forward to the BCC
to transmit to the DCA. And the BCC voted four to zero to transmit to
the DCA.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? There are none.
Mr. Weeks, any speakers?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. We will close the
hearing.
Do we have a motion?
Page 113
October 7, 2004
MR. SCHIFFER: I move for recommendation of approval for
CP-2003-3.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Schiffer, second by Mr.
Adelstein. Discussion? There is none.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. STRAIN: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR.'MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
CPSP-2003-10.
MR. HEATH: Once again, Glenn Heath with comprehensive
planning.
When this came to you for transmittal you voted unanimously to
recommend transmittal but with quite a few changes. And at the
board transmittal hearing they relied on your recommendations and
voted unanimously to transmit as well.
I do want to, again, to state again that the changes that have been
made since transmittal are identified in double strike-through
underlining. There are several and I'll try to go over them.
In our staff report we did something a little bit different, though,
and I want to call your attention to it. It begins on Page 7 of the staff
report.
With regard to the two proposed commercial subdistricts in the
Golden Gate City area, we have three versions here for you to take a
Page 114
October 7, 2004
look at.
The first version is the version that was transmitted and that we
are -- is coming back to you today.
The second version is some staff tweaking of that -- well, I'm
sorry. The second version is a version that was worked out by an ad
hoc committee, the Golden Gate Commercial Overlay Ad Hoc
Committee, and there are some representatives of that committee here
today to talk to you if you would like to hear their points.
MR. STRAIN: Glenn, excuse me. Before we go further. The
purpose of to day's adoption was to forward what's happening as a
result of a transmittal hearing which was approved by the BCC, which
was approved by the CCPC, which was approved by the DCA.
Between that time and now, some group self-appointed itself and
as you say, they are unofficial and -- but you did say they're there to
extend the work of the sunsetted Golden Gate area master plan restudy
committee.
Where and -- when did the commissioners do that, because I was
chairman of that restudy committee and I sat there for two years. And
we were not extending any work from another committee.
MR. HEATH: I can tell you how the committee came about. It
was an initiative by Commissioner Henning and folks associated with
the city civic association. And it sort of evolved into something that
now has a staff liaison, Mr. John-David Moss of our staff was
working with the overlay committee.
MR. ABERNATHY: It's an ad hoc, self-appointed rather than
being appointed by the commission.
MR. HEATH: Not appointed by ordinance or resolution.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Hold on. In all respect to the
court reporter, let's just argue one at a time.
So Mr. Strain, what's your question?
MR. STRAIN: It did not meet under the sunset provisions. My
understanding of the committee that I had heard about was that they
Page 115
October 7, 2004
were supposed to take what the restudy committee had put into the
J &P and look at implementing that through LDC recommendations,
not going back and rewriting everything that the prior boards,
including the committee I chaired for two years, recommended to this
board.
I mean, I read this for the first time and the first time I even
heard about it was when this package came out last week, and I was
utterly shocked.
They are not a group retained by the county commission so I'm
curious as to how they even got this far. How did they pay the fees to
have a -- to suggest a GMP change? And if they didn't require fees,
then why did developers and environmentalists and all the rest of them
have to require fees to have GMP changes?
This isn't a -- group. If they wanted to work on what they are
supposed to work on, that's fine. But to come back and slam the
committee that spent two years putting this restudy committee
recommendation together and having it go as far as it did is utterly
wrong.
So -- I don't know -- I personally don't care to hear the rest of the
details on this because I as chairman with the responsibility of moving
this forward as it was presented, I can't go along with it, I just think it's
wrong.
MR. SCHIFFER: To clarify that. What you're saying is after the
board heard it -- after we heard it, the board heard it and this work was
done, now what you're saying is you want to change it.
MR. HEATH: Some of this work was actually going on at the
time of the transmittal hearings.
MR. SCHIFFER: But it was some committee or was it the --
MR. HEATH: I'm not sure exactly how long the committee has
been in operation.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Since December.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Would it not be true to draw a
Page 116
October 7,2004
comparison, and maybe I can understand this better. This is a
community or civic association that's gotten involved in the process,
and that's great, that's commendable.
Would it not be true that the Collier Building Industry
Association can then meet on an ad hoc basis on a growth
management plan related issue and come in and inject itself in the
middle of the process and just not respect the appropriate process of
planning commission, county commission, DCA?
How does somebody just inject themselves, however worthy
their cause, however positive their input and they're a citizen's
community, fine and everything, but we should stick with the process.
How in the heck did they get in the middle of the process?
MR. ADELSTEIN: They have a commissioner on their side.
We have--
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm not sure that's true.
MR. ADELSTEIN: We received a first reading on this. We
approved it. I would like to add that is what we will vote on today and
that only.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I also would like to comment that
if the sentiment of -- it sounds like at least two members think so. If
the sentiment is you are not interested in even considering the
proposal from the ad hoc committee, then by all means just skip that
-- just be looking at what was transmitted and then the modifications
that staff has recommended since then.
The modifications staff has made is primarily in the interest of
making the language more clear, putting it into ordinance format, and
wording. Our position is that if you recommend adoption at all and
the board adopts the version that was transmitted, it's going to be
problematic because it's, in some cases, unimplementable, it's simply
not clear. And again, we tried to make it more clear and so that's why
the staff has some significant revisions in its version --
MR. ADELSTEIN : Your revision is on what, ours or the second
Page 117
October 7, 2004
one?
MR. WEEKS: It starts with yours because yours is the base
language.
MR. ADELSTEIN: And does it finish with ours or does it
continue with the second?
MR. HEATH: No. It's based on the language that was
transmitted.
MR. ADELSTEIN: That I accept.
MR. WEEKS: That's what is referenced in the staffreport, all of
the double strike-through, double underline in the staff version is a
change to what the board transmitted.
MS. SCHIFFER: And then, David, the ordinance proposed,
does that show the revisions made by that new subcommittee or is it
MR. WEEKS: The Exhibit A language in the ordinance reflects
staffs revised recommendations.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Of our --
MR. WEEKS: Of what you transmitted.
MR. SCHIFFER: And does not include the work of that
subcommittee?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Unless it happened to be the same.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. I think we're getting on track with
that.
So with that manner of presentation, Mr. Heath, is there anything
you wanted to provide in that Exhibit A language?
MR. HEATH: Yes, sir. The staff version begins on Page 11 of
the staff report.
The first change is to the introductory -- and the way that this is
formatted is to the introductory paragraphs for the downtown center
commercial subdistrict. We tried to clarify what we believed was the
original committee intent in that regard.
And there's some there's a number of changes to that, to that
Page 118
October 7, 2004
introduction -- the introductory descriptions of what the subj ect
district is intended to do.
MS. STUDENT: I need to interject something here, because I've
gone through this stuff and I was out sick for a couple weeks, but I
don't know that I ever was given any of the committee changes to
review for legal sufficiency. I just -- I have one thing here that looks
like it's, you know, from what Mr. Heath described was the staff
verSIon.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't think we're considering the
committee change.
MS. STUDENT: Okay.
MR. STRAIN: But at the same time, Marjorie, there's some
changes in the staff version that are more extreme. For example, in
the transmitted version the requirement to cease existing reservation
uses along Golden Gates Boulevard does not apply to owner
occupied dwelling units.
MS. STUDENT: That's been there for --
MR. STRAIN: I know, but they struck it. The new version
doesn't include that.
MS. STUDENT: Well, it needs to, because you've just taken--
the reason for the distinction is because if you rent it you can
depreciate the rental unit on your taxes and recoup your investment,
and you can't do that it if it's your own home, and that's a taking.
MR. STRAIN: That's why I'm bringing it up --
MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
MR. STRAIN: -- if you haven't reviewed what the staffs
version is, how do we know what is being presented and forwarded to
the BCC is legally sufficient.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Weeks.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if you look at the bottom of Page
12 of the staff report, the last full paragraph, you'll see that language
does exist about the owner occupied.
Page 119
.-'-- '-'-'-
October 7, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Where is it?
MR. WEEKS: I'm talking about in the middle of that last
paragraph, the third sentence starts with "to reduce potential
conflicts". Non-owner occupied residential units have to cease after
seven years. And that's based on--
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I agree.
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. And I was talking about what other
changes may have been made, not staff, but what other changes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And we're also not interested in
considering those other changes.
MR. STRAIN: Have you reviewed staffs changes, Margie?
MS. STUDENT: I've reviewed rather quickly some of it
because it was in line with the comments that I made before. If you
recall, there were questions about -- there was an issue about news
racks and things like that, so I have -- you know, in the time -- I was
sick to the point where I couldn't read or anything, so I had done a
quick and dirty review. And if there is anything else that needs to be
fixed between now and the board, we will. But this is generally in line
with what was transmitted, and I'm okay with it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Heath, want to pick the ball up?
MR. HEATH: Picking up on Page 13 of the staff report.
MR. SCHIFFER: Before we go to 13, these cross-throughs on
Page 11, for example, the parking requirement in F is changed. Is that
something you wanted changed or -- the concept of having an artist
being allowed to have a manufacturing store. Number 3 at the top the
page. It's crossed off. Is that something that you changed?
MR. HEATH: No. You're looking at the committee version.
The staff version starts at the bottom of the page.
MR. STRAIN: You have to start at the bottom of Page 11 and
look at the same section, you could go over on Page, I believe, 13.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Go ahead, Mr. Heath.
Page 120
""--
October 7,2004
MR. HEATH: Okay. Back to Page 13. You can see the staff
changes this. We clarified -- we attempted to clarify, and in some
cases, I think, kind of fine tuned some of the original requirements.
Some of them were a little bit shorter in the amended staff version.
Page -- A on the top of Page 13 is the -- what -- the kinds of
things that have to be included within the downtown center
commercial subdistrict.
MR. STRAIN: Glenn, when you have prohibitive uses stated,
and you took out some pretty intense prohibitive uses, did you take
them out because the intent of the district is not either C-l, C-2 or
C-3, and those wouldn't work in those districts anyway? Is that why
you took those out?
MR. HEATH: Yes. And also, I think, upon -- just upon further
reflection and trying to look back at what the original restudy -- the
kinds of uses that the restudy committee intended to have in the
downtown center commercial subdistrict, there were some things,
upon reflection, that didn't seem to fit as well.
MR. STRAIN: Like scrap and salvage yards. They wouldn't fit
under C-1, C-2, and C-3 anyway, so to take those out isn't doing any
damage. I just want to make sure that you're looking strictly at C-1
through C-3 like the committee had suggested.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, that's correct. The specific
example of number three, manufacturing, storage of distribution solely
as a primary use is not allowed in C-l, 2, 3. So, as you're suggesting,
we're deleting what you can't do anyway.
MR. HEATH: And E on about the middle of Page 14 has been
changed to reflect an emphasis on multi-story buildings, and the
reason we did this is we realized as we were going through this that
there were, although maybe the original concept of the committee was
to have multi-story buildings with mixed uses, that there were
circumstances under which you could have a single-story building that
could still comply with these criteria. So we wanted to emphasize
Page 121
-" "-"""-~"'---
October 7, 2004
multi -- we have a condition on E now for multi -story buildings and --
we have a restriction on -- staff has added a restriction on single-use
structures that they can't be residential, because that would be going
back to what was -- the committee was attempting to remove anyway.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Keep the ball rolling, Mr. Heath.
MR. HEATH: The -- everything else is the -- we clarified an
issue on H at the bottom of Page 14 and going over to 15, we clarified
an issue regarding the relationship of outdoor restaurant seating areas
to the public sidewalk and -- to say that basically an outdoor
restaurant seating area could encroach on the public sidewalk as long
as there is a 5- foot clear way between the edge of the seating area
and the street edge.
And the next item is on Page 15. It is the Collier Boulevard
commercial subdistrict. If you'll remember, this is a proposed
commercial subdistrict along Collier Boulevard between the north
side of Golden Gate Parkway and the northern edge of Golden Gate
City and running along Collier Boulevard.
And the purpose of this as originally intended by the restudy
committee was to allow an expansion back of some of the commercial
uses along this portion of Collier Boulevard in reaction to some of the
road widening that's going to be going on there.
MR. STRAIN: Glenn, on Page 16 of the staff version, again, I'm
not -- may not be following this right, so, I mean, you can correct me.
The struck out last sentence of the first paragraph of the staff version
limits to 35 feet in height, but the second to the last sentence on the
page says not to exceed 50 feet in height. Are those two supposed to
correspond?
MR. HEATH: I think the thinking there was -- to allow for--
the 50 feet allows for three stories whereas the 35 feet really only
allowed for two stories.
MR. STRAIN: But the committee recommendation was for 35
feet, so how can you do a substantial change like that? You told us at
Page 122
October 7, 2004
the beginning these are just clarifications. That isn't a clarification,
that's a strong change. Are there any more of those like that?
I didn't review this with the intent of critiquing yours, I viewed it
with the intent of looking at the transmitted version, so I'm -- go
ahead, David.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'm making the comparison here
between the transmitted version, the staff version that Mr. Strain's
referring to and then the committee -- ad hoc committee version,
which I understand clearly that you do not want to consider. And I
see in the ad hoc committee version they have made the
recommendation of 35 to 50 feet.
MR. STRAIN: There is my concern.
MR. WEEKS: So I think Mr. Strain is correct. In fact, in this
case staff did follow the ad hoc committee's recommendation, which is
contrary to what we had presented to you, and we were just making
clarification changes. I think -- do you agree that it would be
appropriate to go back to 35 feet, because that would be consistent
with the staff position of not trying to modify what you transmitted,
only to make it more clear?
MR. ABERNATHY: Is 35 feet with parking under
approximately the same as 50 feet inclusive of under building
parking?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Weeks, is there an opportunity to
continue this particular item so that we could actually read it, because
I know Mr. Strain has expressed that, with his understanding that we
were reading a committee recommendation that wasn't part of the
process, we haven't given it the full evaluation. I had some of the
same impressions myself. And honest but nevertheless present
mistakes may have gotten included in it. And we're either going to be
here for many, many hours or we're going to just pass something
through that we haven't given appropriate consideration.
Is there any opportunity on the calendar to --
Page 123
October 7,2004
MR. WEEKS: Yes, at your next meeting. It would be October
21 st. And the board will hear these on the 26th, so we can --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So administratively, it would be possible
to continue this item?
MR. STRAIN: I have got another suggestion. I don't mind
continuing, because there's probably only, based on the way we're
heading, maybe a few sentences of discussion to finish it off. But if
we were to recommend approval of the staffs version under the
presumption that the changes are only for clarification, not for
substantive issues, I would be comfortable with that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So a qualified clarified motion clarifying
that, barring any oversight, it was an intention that there be no
redirection or rewrite of the original recommendation.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Would you review it before the 28th
meeting?
MR. STRAIN: I would do that automatically.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Heath.
MR. HEATH: Can I get some clarification on this, Mr.
Chairman. Is that just relative to the two Golden Gate City
subdistricts or is that relative to all the amendments?
MR. STRAIN: All of number ten is what I would do, because
that's what you guys said.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron, do you have something?
MS. CARON: No. I was just going to ask Mr. Strain how he
would be sure there were not substantive changes made.
MR. STRAIN: I'll see the copy that goes to BCC.
MS. CARON: I mean, I'm not sure staff would have caught that
had you not brought it --
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't ordinarily recommend
this, but in this case, because of the complexity of this, I think it
probably would be best if we continued the item. The reason I say
that is because, as one of the two persons that chiefly worked on these
Page 124
October 7, 2004
two subdistricts trying to take the transmitted version and clean it up,
as we called it, there were a few cases where we were not exactly
clear of what the intent was.
I'll give you one quick example. I saw nothing in the transmitted
language that would indicate that a residential -- mixed use of
residential over commercial was intended as a use by right; however,
in some discussions I'm under the impression that maybe that was the
intent of the restudy committee.
And if that's accurate, then that's a case where the transmitted
language did not reflect that. What we have modified, staffs version,
still does not reflect that. It would in fact be a conditional use unless
and until a zoning overlay should be adopted that would change that.
The point is that I'm not -- I'm a little bit uncomfortable, because
of the lack of clarity in some cases in what was transmitted, that staff
can in fact be a hundred percent certain that our version has not
changed some of the original intent.
MR. STRAIN: Well, but if you -- if we passed a motion
correcting that through the language that we would stipulate, could
you fix it between now and the time of the BCC?
MR. WEEKS: If we are going to identify today any changes,
such as the 50 feet, that you see, this is not what we had intended, not
what we transmitted, then absolutely staff could make those changes,
absolutely. My concern, if you made a blanket, staff, go back and
check and make sure you didn't do any more goof-ups like that, I'm
not certain that we can, since the intent in some cases was not clear.
MR. STRAIN: I would just as soon continue on today. I think
we may have a concern about the 21 st or the 22nd.
MR. ADELSTEIN: If you go back in on the 28th, just make
sure we're right.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's press on through it with what we
have today. Let's take our temperature at the end of this and figure out
how comfortable we are. And then in a motion we'll decide whether
Page 125
October 7, 2004
we're going to continue it or pass it on with qualifying language.
Mr. Heath, please pick up where you were.
MR. HEATH: Okay. On Page 17, going beyond the two
subdistricts, these are proposed changes to the introduction section and
the overview section of the Golden Gate area master plan, primarily to
describe the progress of the phase one and phase two amendments
through the process.
There were some errors made originally because part of this had
been written before there were some delays in the amendment
process, so there were some -- in the second paragraph there, there
were some errors in the citing of the particular months. We've tried
to fix that.
There are some changes to the -- changes -- there were no
changes to the transmitted version of the overview section.
The next, Goal 4, there were no changes to Goal 4, Objective
4.1, or Policy 4.1.1 -- there was one change in 4.1.1, and you'll see this
in several places throughout the amendments. We've changed the
reference to 2005 to 2006, simply to catch up with where the
amendment process is as opposed to where we thought it was going to
be when we made the original amendment language.
Same thing in 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. On Page 19 now, Goal 5, there
was a change to Objective 5.1.
MR. STRAIN: And I was going to ask you why did you change
5.1 and why did you strike 5.1.1.
MR. HEATH: I think we felt --well, there is a new Policy 5.1.1
that --
MR. STRAIN: Right.
MR. HEATH: I think it was just felt to be -- we felt this is one
of those things that we couldn't quite figure out how to apply that to an
implementation.
MR. STRAIN: But I thought the purpose of the committee was
that there was going to be a series of land development code
Page 126
---. -"'---.
October 7, 2004
recommendations to implement the changes by the restudy
committee.
And those changes to the LDC would have responded to 5.1's
need for a specific rural design standard and Policy 5.1.1 about
compliance with those design standards.
Wouldn't you normally use the GMP for a vehicle to get to an
LDC implementation?
So again, you really think you need to cross those out? Wouldn't
they be better left in and then the LDC implement rural design
standards?
MR. WEEKS: The reason we've made this change, first of all,
in Objective 5.1 we deleted the phrase "within Golden Gate Estates",
because the only mention of specific rural design standards are in
reference to neighborhood centers.
MR. STRAIN: So anytime it says neighborhood centers it's
assumed it's in the Estates.
MR. WEEKS: Yes. Right. The distinction there is that there
are a handful of other subdistricts that allow commercial development
in Golden Gate Estates. Those would not be covered by any design
standards. It's only neighborhood centers.
And that's why 5.1.1 is deleted, because it would be applicable
to commercial, any commercial in the Estates mixed use district,
which would include those other subdistricts besides neighborhood
centers.
MR. STRAIN: And by delegating that you still are able to tie
the neighborhood centers into the rural design standards.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Absolutely.
MR. STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. Thank you.
MR. HEATH: Now, former Policy 5.1.2, new Policy 5.1.1 there
is a change to the title, of course, and there were some spelling and
grammatical changes. There were no substantive changes.
Policy 5.2.2, at the bottom of the page, again, we changed the
Page 127
October 7, 2004
year from 2005 to 2006, and that's the only change.
On Page 20, Objective 5.3. Again, it changed the year and we
added the phrase "be amended as necessary so" just to clarify the
intent of the objective.
MR. STRAIN : Well, 5.3.1 talks about the 70- foot wide lawns
with staggered requirements. That came about at some discussions on
variances that we had on some odd-shaped lots in the Estates, I think
on Randall Road or somewhere in that area. How is that -- how are
those now addressed if that paragraph is struck?
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Commissioners, the way this language was
transmitted, it says the LDC will provide for staggered structural
setback requirements for adjoining 75-foot wide lots. Well, setback
requirements are minimum standards. So you have a, in the case of
the Estates, you have a minimum front and rear setback of 75 feet.
If someone chooses to develop farther back than 75 feet, they
have the ability to do that. So it's -- we were reading this and saying,
required a staggered setback wasn't quite sure what the intent was.
What do I -- make one person have a greater setback than 75 feet than
the other one, and then how do you decide who has to build further
back than the other person?
MR. STRAIN: Well, that was a staff-initiated request to the
restudy committee in regards to some odd-shaped lots that had both
two fronts, apparently they are --
MR. WEEKS: Through lots.
MR. STRAIN: Yeah, it was a through lot, and there was some
concern about how they lined up. I think it was Randall they didn't
line up on, but the other road they did. I can't remember all of the
particulars.
But staff initiated this request and it was in response to variances
that repeatedly tried to correct. And we said we'll correct it one time
over by putting this in the GMP.
I don't care if you take it out at this point, but you guys initiated
Page 128
October 7,2004
it. But if you don't have a solution to it, we're just going to be back
here in the same box like we were before this happened.
MR. WEEKS: I'm still not clear on--
MR. HEATH: My understanding Mr. Strain, was not that it was
completely staff-initiated but that there had been some discussion
among the committee members about the need for something like this
on these particular lots.
What Mr. Weeks was saying, basically, is that homeowners
could decide to do this anyway without us having to tell them that
they have to do it.
MR. STRAIN: If it meets your intent, I'm fine with it. I just
was trying to point out that it got there for specific reasons. If you
guys are comfortable, I don't have a problem with it.
MR. HEATH: The next major change is Policy 5.3.2, it was
5.3.3. The first thing is to not -- is to require the land development --
we felt that there was some things that the land development code
actually allows that were consistent with this, and we wanted to make
sure that it continues to allow them but it doesn't have to be amended
to allow them.
And the second issue here was, upon reflection, we were not
really sure from the staff point of view is as to how you define, for
instance, a wooded lot. If it's a wooded lot -- I mean, I think, you
know, conceptually we all have an idea of what a wooded lot is. But
is it a wooded lot if there are two trees left? Is it a wooded lot if there
are 15 trees left? What constitutes a wooded lot?
And we were afraid that we were getting into kind of a messy
area with trying to have that as a requirement.
Also, the other issue too that the original language encouraged
and we felt that it was something that the code allows now and it
should continue to allow. It's not necessarily encouraged but it's
almost a right, it's an allowance.
Goal 6 deals with transportation improvements in the Golden
Page 129
October 7, 2004
Gate area.
Objective 6.1, there were some minor grammatical changes.
Objective 6.3, we changed the name of emergency management
to emergency services to reflect two things. One is, emergency
management could be interpreted as applying only to an emergency
management office, say, at the county level, whereas emergency
services we felt was more general and could apply to any emergency
responder.
Objective 6.3.1, we changed the date in this case to 2005.
Again, emergency service -- we changed emergency services officials
to providers to be more general.
On Page 21, Policy 6.3.2, again, changed the year and again,
changed officials to providers.
Goal 7 now on Page 21, Obj ective 7.1, talks about the Collier
County Bureau of Emergency Services, which is the new name of the
county's emergency agency. And Golden Gate fire control and other
appropriate agencies, made this a little bit more general.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: This whole page reflects the same
changes on emergency responders.
MR. HEATH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's go to the next page.
MR. HEATH: Item Number 6 down there is the Santa Barbara
commercial subdistrict. The Golden Gate area master plan restudy
committee recommended some changes to the subdistrict to
essentially expand it back into Golden Gate City by one block.
And the numbering of the subdistrict changed but that was
already at transmittal, that hasn't changed. I don't think there was any
actual changes to this. Well, there was one minor change at the
bottom of Page 22. We took out an extra "and".
Page 23, it states mixed use district neighborhood center
subdistrict. Part C, this is a -- this requires a change to one of the
bullets. If you remember the neighborhood center language, it talks
Page 130
--.,.-,..--
October 7, 2004
about the kinds of requirements and features that are allowed in
neighborhood centers, the language has a series of bulleted items.
We took out the term commercial subdistrict because it's the
neighborhood center subdistrict, so we didn't need to say commercial.
And there was a change to some older language within -- on the
next bullet there was a change to some older language within the
requirement. We changed "designation" to "subdistrict".
Item 5B, Golden Gage Parkway and Collier Boulevard special
provisions. This has to do with the conditional uses subdistrict.
MR. STRAIN: On that particular one the commercial zoning
was a very, very strong issue in the restudy committee because we had
a petition brought to us by the residents of the area wanting the
strongest language possible included in this GMP to make sure that
that intersection would not be commercialized. Why are you now
taking that stronger language out that they put in the committee?
MR. REA TR: Two reasons. One is that we felt that the -- this
is a conditional uses subdistrict that doesn't allow commercial as a --
within that category anyway. And also there is a -- if you recall there
was also a companion policy that went along with this in the goals,
objectives and policies portion of the plan and that remains, that is still
there.
MR. STRAIN: And if this same issue was discussed at the time
in the committee, and the comment was that well, putting it in
wouldn't hurt anything, and it made the community feel better in
regards to the strength of the amendment. In fact an attorney, the
guy's name is Thomas, his first name, presented it and suggested it.
I'm just wondering where is the need to take it out. It's not
hurting anything and it does strengthen it with the citizens'
understanding of that paragraph. Do you really need to take it out?
MR. WEEKS: It's just a matter of appropriate organization.
This section of the master plan only pertains to conditional uses.
Talking about commercial uses simply doesn't belong there.
Page 131
October 7, 2004
As Glenn said, there is still very similar language to this
elsewhere within the plan that very clearly says the same thing, no
commercial development allowed between Livingston and Santa
Barbara Boulevard. That language is still there.
We're just removing it here because it doesn't belong. It's talking
about commercial development under a conditional uses section.
MR. STRAIN: This is the last issue I think you guys have to
bring up in this whole petition, though.
My comment is simply, you know, we had two years in the
restudy commission, you guys had almost a year before you brought it
to this board -- before you brought it to the BCC, why are we now at
the 11 th hour coming in with these changes?
What was -- how did it get -- all of those years not having
reviewed these issues. I'm puzzled.
MR. WEEKS: I should respond. I'm the one that recommended
most of these changes. Personally, I'm the staff member with the most
experience in code writing language, having worked in current
planning, zoning, planning before. I'm a very detail-oriented person
and I'm the go-to person for the code language in the department. And
I simply did not have time to review this prior to transmittal. My
workload was such that I just couldn't do it.
So we viewed it as -- I know I viewed it as a work in progress
similar to what we'd done a year or two ago with the community
character/smart growth amendment. You had one come before you
which, in fact, you recommended don't transmit, because it was in
such rough shape. But we were recommending, let's go ahead and get
it done, transmit it. We know we're going to have to work on it prior
to adoption.
And same thing here, except I think this is, for the most part this
is -- these changes are very minor in nature. Clearly, two subdistricts
in Golden Gate City, that's a different matter. But these other type
changes are, I would say for the most part, cleanup changes.
Page 132
October 7, 2004
MS. STUDENT: Commissioner Strain, I'll add to that, that by
the time I got the document to review for transmittal, I had some
concerns about the wording of it, and I think I even said we'll transmit
it like it is and we'll do wordsmithing between transmittal and
adoption. And that's part of what David was doing.
MR. STRAIN: But--
MS. STUDENT: And it came to me very late, so -- as a
transmittal, so --
MR. STRAIN: In looking at these, you know, briefly going over
them, I agree with you, they are mostly clarifications. I pointed out
one issue. I don't know if there are any others, but it doesn't look like
there are.
I have no problem, I think it's a good thing to clarify it. I just
wish that the committee had the opportunity, had gotten the final
language so that everybody understood it.
MR. HEATH: If I could, Mr. Chairman. That's one of the
things that -- it's part of the nature of this process, is a lot of times
we're looking at this stuff after a committee has sunsetted. And I
know that there were several instances in going through this where
David or I said, boy, we'd like -- it would really be nice to know what
the committee intended on this particular issue, or it would really be
nice to be able to run this language past the committee but we don't
have that opportunity. So then we have to make a judgment call as to
what we think is going to work and what isn't.
MR. SCHIFFER: Phone call.
MR. STRAIN: You've got E-mail addresses for all ten members
and you used them regularly while the committee was in session. A
courtesy would have been --
THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
MR. STRAIN: A courtesy would have been to E-mail those
committee members. It's a done deal. It's over with. I'm ready to
make a motion.
Page 133
October 7, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Does that complete your staff
presentation, Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: We have three public speakers registered.
MR. ABERNATHY: I have a question. What effect, if any,
does all of this have on that fellow from Dade County who wanted to
put a group home on Golden Gate Boulevard in Golden Gate City?
Attorney Stewart was representing him, and he withdrew because all
of this was pending. Are they free to go ahead or are they dead in the
water?
MR. WEEKS: That was on -- yes, on Golden Gate Parkway
within the city. That petition -- I don't know what the status of the
conditional use petition is. I can tell you that it is consistent with the
existing Golden Gate master plan, and as staff has recommended
today, it would still be consistent.
MR. ABERNATHY: Right on the parkway?
MR. WEEKS: Right on the parkway, because the language of
the specific subdistrict before you today, that's the downtown center
commercial subdistrict. One of the allowable uses in this proposed
language would be residential uses and conditional uses of the
existing residential zoning district. Well, on the parkway, all of this
area in that subdistrict is residentially zoned, so therefore, that
conditional use would still be allowed there.
The unknown, of course, is whether or not the BCC will make
any changes that would no longer make it consistent. And then it's a
timing matter if the conditional use gets before the board for action
prior to the effective date of this whole issue.
Mr. Chairman, we have three speakers. The first is Chuck
Mohlke.
MR. MOHLKE: Good afternoon. If it pleases this honorable
commission, I would like you to indulge me for a moment as I visit
with you a little bit about Goal 4. If you would turn to Page 18.
We're talking about Goal 4 on Page 18.
Page 134
,-_._-_..'~,._-'-
October 7, 2004
This, I presume, is designed to provide to future committees
organized either on an ad hoc basis by citizens or empowered in some
manner by the Board of County Commissioners or this commission to
guide future development activities in Golden Gate City.
And I would suggest that the commission may, either in this
instance or future instances, want to begin a process of distinguishing
to a little bit greater degree than you currently do, in my view,
between land uses and the consequences of proposed new land uses in
terms of plan amendments or land development code amendments and
more future-oriented guidance that you are trying to provide here
under Goal 4.
Now, I'll try not to complicate this explanation, but if you wish
to fault me for getting into too much detail, please do.
Historically, when you are talking about certain kinds of
redevelopment issues, which is what Goal 4 is all about in my view,
you tend to lapse into the use of terms of art which are not helpful in
guiding future committees, either this commission, the board or future
commissions, that may not have a sufficient public record or
declarations of intent in order to guide people's actions.
Think of the use of the word affordable housing, a term of art
that is mentioned consistently through the Florida statutes and rule
making. It's unhelpful, in my view, to mention it in the fashion that
you have here for two reasons.
One is, the exceptional character of the demography of Collier
County and its economic circumstances make the classic reference of
affordable housing as having a threshold at or below 80 percent of
median household income. Eighty percent of median household
income for Collier County, because you can't apply it in a subdistrict
or a census designated place, it doesn't work. Read the rule. It doesn't
work, okay. So that application in this particular instance is not
applicable.
Let me give you a couple of examples, particularly on the issue
Page 135
October 7, 2004
of home ownership.
If you were to look at the 2000 census in terms of Golden Gate
City as a census designated place treated for the purposes of reporting
census demography in exactly the same fashion the county is and the
three cities in Collier County, you would find such interesting things
as there is an equal number of renter-occupied and owner-occupied
units in Golden Gate City.
Now you have only my word for it. I've got some
documentation here that I would be happy to share with the staff. But
if you go back historically in Golden Gate City, that is a sharp reversal
of past trends in which residential units, owner-occupied, in that four
square mile area approached 80 percent.
Now you've had a 30 percent decline in terms of share of
owner-occupied units. And they compete with rental units in
interesting ways.
Unless you thought it worthy of consideration to say "below
market rate housing", which would apply to a far greater degree than
this generally accepted phrase "affordable housing", you would find
some interesting things.
You'd find that renters have a median rent of $743 a month in
April -- or rather for the year 1999, incorporated in the April 2000
census. And average monthly mortgage payments are $909 a month.
Well, if you've got half, half of your residential units rental, and you
want to promote home ownership, you have to begin to account for
these economic circumstances and demographic distinctions.
If you don't, some poor soul who is going to be on Golden Gate
area master plan restudy number three or four is going to look at this
guidance with -- and staff will forgive me for putting it this way, a
late arriver in the staff complex who is given the assignment of
making this work, who was probably in high school at the time you
approved this, will be beginning the process of trying to understand
what intent was, and intent is not clear.
Page 136
October 7,2004
Those four statements are instructive of a general framework
that you ought to operate in. But a simple little statement, "affordable
housing based on home ownership", is not helpful.
And you are so used to dealing -- forgive me for the frank
statements here, but I don't know how else to do this. You are so used
to dealing with land use issues and with the language of zoning, either
in respect to the land development code or specific petitions before
you, that the general context sometimes gets lost when you start
considering things like this.
This is nice vanilla language. Anybody can agree to this. But
it's -- since -- it's a declaration of planning that you want somebody in
the future to undertake. None of you will be serving on this board by
the time this happens. The institutional memory of this meeting and
other things will be lost.
And the unbelievable level of detail necessary -- unbelievable
level of detail -- that is in all other aspects of the Golden Gate master
plan is missing here.
Let me also bring up two other matters just for your
consideration. The 2000 census reveals something I find fascinating
about the four square mile area you're talking about here. It has only
50 fewer people living in it in four square miles than in the 15.5
square miles in the City of Naples. Only 50 fewer people, in terms of
full time, domiciled residents. Fifty fewer.
And they are composed of white only residents, 49.6 percent;
Latino or Hispanic persons, 37.1 percent; Black or African American
residents, 10.1 percent.
If you were to look at the same information 20 years earlier for
the 1980 census, you would find it to be almost exclusively a white
community. And that white community had a median age of a hair
over 40 years. The median age at the 2000 census is 29.9 years,
which means, when you do the arithmetic, that close to 42 percent of
the population of Golden Gate City is under 18 years of age. And that
Page 137
October 7,2004
that under 18 population is enough to populate, just in four square
miles, it's enough to populate a high school, a middle school and three
elementary schools, if you count the pre- K student body or the pre- K
population.
Somehow I think in planning expressions, because this really
isn't a planning document, it's an expression of intent, that there ought
to be somewhere in here a handy reference that, either in the form of
an appendix or in some manner, including such things as the census
documentation for Golden Gate City, four pages of very instructive,
highly revealing information that was brought forward, thanks to
Chairman Strain, repeatedly for consideration and comment when the
Golden Gate area master plan restudy committee met.
I would hope that in the future, as you address these issues,
particularly in the rural county or in some of the areas crying out for
redevelopment in East Naples or in Golden Gate City or other parts of
the mature urban area of Collier County, that you take it upon
yourselves to look at this kind of information as you evaluate and
outline a future planning objectives which you have, I think quite
correctly, included in here.
Now, this last comment is not intended to be facetious but it's
going to sound that way.
If you were to read the last few words of Policy 4.1, you would
perhaps imagine how someone with the talents of a David Letterman
or a Jay Leno or someone else could use the phrase" shall not neglect
Golden Gate City as a whole".
Now, if you drop the W, somebody someday somewhere
somehow is going to use this pejoratively. And often when you have
language in here, you always want to imagine -- because I'm a--
frankly, I'm a politician in many respects, and I look at documents like
this in terms of what would I do with this or what is somebody else
going to do with this.
And occasionally in a policy expression like this, the intention is
Page 138
October 7, 2004
completely understandable and is well expressed from the standpoint
of a planner. But I'm looking at a community group one day who will
look this up five, seven, nine years from now and imagine how they
can implement this. Which brings me to my final point.
I confess I don't know what an implementation schedule is. I do
know what a program of work is or a work program. But if you were
to read the initial statement in 4.1.1, "By 2006 Collier County shall
develop an implementation schedule for creation of a community
planning program for Golden Gate City. The implementation
schedule shall take into consideration", and then the bullet points
underneath.
I hope that someone does not in the future interpret that as, well,
we got a bunch of dates here on a calendar, and we're going to gather
some folks together and they are going to look at this and they are
going to begin the process of reevaluating the fine work product that
you're looking at today and that you've looked at repeatedly over time.
Now, these are -- these comments are perhaps harsh and maybe
a little more than -- a little aggressive, but I've served one way or the
other on three long-term committees, one that met for three and a half
years as a citizen's committee to evaluate fire consolidation. I served
for 61 meetings on the rural fringe committee. And as a vendor of
staff service, I attended not all but most of the meetings of the Golden
Gate area master plan restudy committee.
And I have a habit of looking at what the original charge was
and then looking at the work product at the end and looking at the
agony that the committee went through to understand the charge and
to implement it properly.
So that's the spirit of my remarks. I thank you for the
opportunity to make them. They are intended for your consideration
only. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for Mr. Mohlke?
MR. STRAIN: Could you please start that fire consolidation
Page 139
October 7, 2004
committee up again.
MR. MOHLKE: With the permission of Mr. Mast and Chief
Peterson, I would be happy to.
MR. STRAIN: I notice they are sitting too.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker.
MR. WEEKS: Peter -- I think the last name is Flood.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's gone.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you. The final speaker is Larry Brooks.
MR. BROOKS: Larry Brooks. Wayne Arnold was supposed to
make this presentation but he had to leave on another commitment.
The restudy group did a -- when they were doing the restudy
they made some changes that were meant for the east side of 951. We
own the property on the west side of951 on Pine Ridge Road. And if
I would have had to do it over again -- it's hard being an out-of-county
property owner, and if I would have lived here, I would have probably
got with the restudy committee and tried to break our property out
from what a neighborhood center is, as ours is a neighborhood center
within its own. The other neighborhood centers are littler than what
ours is.
And there was a -- when we were trying to catch some of the
things that were for the east side only and not meant for our property,
and when we went about -- bear with me -- going through the process,
we had some wording in there that we caught after the fact, where we
have a buffer, Tract 107 east; 180 feet of Tract 107 is meant for buffer
water management and open space only. But with the new wording
that went into effect on the buffers and water management which is
on, I guess, Page 22 of Exhibit A, C PSP-2003-10, Golden Gate
master plan -- I guess that's the wording changes you all have for
today -- it talks about the 75-foot buffer where you can use it for
water management now.
And also with the wording of conditional use, where probably
abutting a neighborhood center can be considered for conditional use,
Page 140
October 7, 2004
that we missed it and we probably should have brought that up at the
time, that that wording may -- should be pulled out or whatever, taken
into consideration to be pulled out, and then all of the wording is
already in here on buffers and water management.
And also on Page 23, Wayne Arnold was saying on B, where it
was talking about the proj ect requires permitting of the South Florida
Water Management District, that you needed a letter or whatever.
And I think he did some wording changes at the planning commission
meeting on that one, where he was saying that the letter wasn't needed
anymore. He wanted me to present that to you also.
MR. STRAIN: I think that you've got a different set of pages
than we have.
MS. CARON: He's got the ordinance. Page 22 and 23 of the
ordinance.
MR. STRAIN: Okay. I do recall at our transmittal hearing there
was an E-mail sent to you by some members of the restudy committee
that some of the provisions that were supposed to be for the east side
were not supposed to be taken also as applicable to the west side of
951. Do you recall that?
MR. HEATH: Yes, I do.
MR. STRAIN: Is that addressing this gentleman's concerns?
MR. HEATH: It would address part of his concerns. And part
of his concerns has to do with that Item B, and that would not have
addressed that.
MR. STRAIN: What item is that, South Florida?
MR. HEATH: Yes, the South Florida letter.
MR. STRAIN: I'm not sure that is a big -- South Florida may
not have jurisdiction so there's no reason for them to give you letters
if it's not part of their jurisdiction.
MR. BROOKS: Wayne was saying something about when he
did the wording change, I think up in A or whatever, that somehow
that was supposed to have been eliminated or whatever. I would have
Page 141
October 7, 2004
to go back through.
MR. STRAIN: I just don't--
MR. HEATH: I remember the discussion.
MR. STRAIN : Well, maybe a solution would be for you two
gentlemen to get together after this meeting, and if there is a
correction needed for what he's saying that's based on the restudy
committee's findings, maybe you guys could take a look at that before
it goes to the BCC.
Wayne would know how to talk with these guys about that kind
of stuff.
MR. BROOKS: And then on the buffering, just do the same
thing with them on that wording on that?
MR. STRAIN: As long as it's something that the committee
clearly hadn't intended for the west side of 951 --
MR. BROOKS: What it was, was we had a 2.42 acre piece that
was for buffer, water management and open space that we've got from
Tract 111 to Tract 114. So we own from Pine Ridge Road to 11, and
then we had a piece that kicked out on the back side, which is 180 by
660, I guess, or -- they took off the road so it's a little less than that --
and that was meant for water management, buffer space and open
space.
But with the wording of the conditional use, if the property
adjoining that becomes conditional, then the buffer kind of goes away.
But with that wording there then that would stay as buffer, water
management and open space. So it's kind of a conflicting wording in
the ordinance.
MR. STRAIN: It's hard to visualize, at least for me, in our
discussion. If something could be looked at through staff and then
forwarded to the committee as a final for the committee, what they
thought about it, I would certainly be open to that.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think this is something--
I'm going to guess, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think that this is
Page 142
October 7, 2004
something the committee considered. I think the focus of the restudy
committee's discussion around the neighborhood centers was on east
of 951.
MR. STRAIN: Right. That's correct.
MR. WEEKS: And this property is on the west side of951.
MR. STRAIN: And we have E-mails from the committee
members after the fact when this first came up six months ago that
those were to be east of951, that's why -- I think it's the same issue.
MR. HEATH: Also, if I recall properly, they were approved
prior to, certainly prior to this, you know, you folks seeing this
language.
So, you know, whatever they have, they have, and this language
would not take it away from them.
MR. WEEKS: I hope I can clarify. The language that's before
you today -- well, the existing Golden Gate master plan has a
requirement, I'll say -- try to be clear -- for properties east of 951, you
have a neighborhood center, you have a 75-foot buffer requirement
from the neighborhood center development to the adj acent property
outside the neighborhood center if it's developed just with a single
family residence.
The proposed change before you maintains the 75-foot
requirement; however, 25 feet of it may be used for -- or is it 50 feet --
a portion of that can be used for water management purposes as well.
You get a dual use but you still have a significant buffer.
The private amendment that Mr. Brooks put through the county
and had approved several years ago has its own specific buffer
requirement. It's one half of a tract, which would be 165 feet.
MR. BROOKS: But -- well, it was a full tract. It was the whole
180 feet --
MR. WEEKS: The east half --
MR. BROOKS: -- east of -- well, it's like three pieces, the 107 is
like three pieces. So our piece is 180 by 660.
Page 143
October 7, 2004
MR. WEEKS: The language says the east half of Tract 107.
MR. BROOKS: Which is 180 by 660 --
MR. WEEKS: So 180 feet is only to be used for buffer, water
management and open space.
I think Mr. Brooks' point is, all the other properties, they have a
75-foot buffer. His property is a 180-foot buffer, it's actually more
than half of a tract. You're saying the language says one half of a
tract. Well, it's 65 feet. A few feet difference.
The point is his requirement is significantly greater than the
other neighborhood center would have.
I believe what he's asking for is, treat me the same. If I have a
residential use next to me, make me provide that 75-foot buffer. And
similarly, if it's conditional use or some other non-residential use, treat
me the same as these other neighborhood centers, don't make me put
in this buffer at all.
MR. STRAIN: Did your --did yours come about from--
MR. WEEKS : Yes, it is privately indicated.
MR. STRAIN: How do you change the separate indication?
MR. HEATH: It was a separate amendment in a different year.
MR. STRAIN: Right. How do you go back and change that
amendment?
MR. HEATH: So it's already in language -- we're directed by
you folks and we'd recommend --
MR. STRAIN: The reason I'm having a little trouble with it is I
see my responsibilities as chairman of that past organization to
forward what that committee wanted implemented. I can't tell by the
discussion I'm hearing now where we're at with that.
So I can't, as a member of the restudy committee, say Mr.
Brooks is right or you are right. I just need to get a visual -- I'm not
grasping the situation.
MR. HEATH: You didn't, as the restudy committee you did not
consider his properties because it was going through a plan
Page 144
October 7, 2004
amendment that was actually nearing completion while you folks were
In --
MR. STRAIN: Okay. So that takes it out of the realm of the
restudy committee. Now it's just a practical application for the CCPC.
And in his review and application for this public hearing, was
this an issue that he had to address through a public meeting process
or anything like that?
MR. HEATH: I couldn't answer that because I wasn't involved.
MR. WEEKS: Project question. Subject to condition of
approval, does his property consist of -- how many acres total, Mr.
Brooks?
MR. BROOKS: 21.28 acres.
MR. STRAIN: You were zoned to commercial--
MR. WEEKS: The neighborhood center, through his
amendment, was being expanded, and part of that process of
approving that expansion was this buffer requirement.
MR. STRAIN: Did he have to advertise for public hearings to
get that approval?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
MR. STRAIN: And in that approval process, the public
meetings that ensued, the public would have heard the buffer that he's
proposing now in regards to being able to put his commercial in the
location he wants to.
MR. WEEKS: That is correct.
MR. STRAIN: Okay. Now, the same thing probably needs to
happen to change that. I think the public that was informed then, that
they had a potential commercial come alongside, and here is what the
commercial is going to do to appease your concerns, can't be
circumvented by coming to this meeting and saying, we're going to
change it.
I can't remember what happened then, but I think out of fairness
you need to have the same process in order to be sure that the public is
Page 145
October 7, 2004
properly protected.
Is that unreasonable or is that --
MR. SCHIFFER: I agree.
MR. MIDNEY: I agree.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I do too.
MR. STRAIN: You tell me -- I'm listening, I would like to
know what you think, David. You've been in this a long time.
MR. WEEKS: Well, it's true -- it's the nature of those
amendments where we're making significant changes to an element
where the public sometimes shows up -- and frankly, I think that what
Mr. Brooks is doing, and I don't mean to disregard him, he's
piggybacking on the process.
You've already opened the door to review this element. And he's
coming in and saying, while you're at it can you do something for me
as well.
And I think -- and Margie, unless you see some legal deficiency
in our public notice process --
MS. STUDENT: I didn't.
MR. WEEKS: -- on this petition, it's a policy matter. Whether
you think it's appropriate, Mr. Strain, I hear your comments and, yeah,
some of those neighbors around here might have wished they would
have known that this was going to be brought up today. I just simply
don't know.
MR. STRAIN: As much as I would like to see you get help with
this process, Mr. Brooks, I don't know if it would be fair for the same
people that you notified about the changes you were going to make
from estates to commercial at the time you did them, what you
provided them were there for your buffers, their boundaries. If they
were here today and could comment and didn't have a concern, then I
may not have one --
MR. WEEKS: I think it's purely a policy matter both of this
body and the BCC whether or not to entertain this.
Page 146
October 7, 2004
MR. BROOKS: Then the other question would be, if the piece
abutting it did become conditional, then does that still stay -- the
wording stay the same?
MR. STRAIN: There is an awful lot of theory. I just don't know
how to answer your question. I think that would be more of a staff
issue. But if you've made a commitment to do certain things on the
PUD -- is it a PUD or just a rezone?
MR. WEEKS: Neither, it's just a compo plan amendment.
MR. STRAIN: If you've made a commitment to even changing
that, whatever you have gotten in the first place, you should use again.
I'm just trying to suggest.
MR. WEEKS: Again, it's a policy matter. In the past where
people have piggybacked on this hearing process, sometimes the
board has agreed. Rural fringe amendments are a good example,
where some people showed up, and, while you're at it, carve out a
niche for me, and sometimes the board did.
MR. HEATH: On the same passage that Mr. Brooks was
discussing, there is another staff recommended change that we forgot
to bring to your attention.
This is something that we only realized after the fact. It says,
"Projects directly abutting residential" --
MR. WEEKS: What page?
MR. HEATH: Page 22 of the ordinance, the bottom of the page.
MR. WEEKS: Last bullet.
MR. HEATH: The sentence starts, "Projects directly abutting
residential property shall provide at a minimum a 75 - foot wide
buffer." As we thought about that staff point of view, realized that --
MR. WEEKS: Want me to take it?
MR. HEATH: I'm waiting.
MR. WEEKS: Oh.
MR. HEATH: Page 22 of the staff report.
MR. STRAIN: Okay.
Page 147
October 7, 2004
MR. HEATH: No, it's actually the ordinance.
MR. STRAIN: Got it.
MR. HEATH: Okay. We realized that from a zoning standpoint
there is a difference between residential zoning and estates zoning,
and that all of the zoning in Golden Gate Estates is estates zoning. So
we need to make a qualification there that by residential --
residentially -- residential property we mean estates-zoned property
that does not have an approved conditional use on it.
Just as a clarification. So that's what we need.
MR. STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HEATH: Because, if someone, you know, theoretically,
someone could come back and say, well, hey, the property next to me
isn't zoned residential, it's zoned estates.
MR. STRAIN: That's a good clarification.
MR. WEEKS: We have no further speakers.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: No further speakers. No further
presentations. Any questions of staff on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion?
MR. STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a
recommendation on public petition CPSP-2003-1 0, with a
recommendation of approval to the BCC of the staffs version, under
the presumption that the changes that are in the staffs version are only
for clarification and not substantive issues.
MR. MIDNEY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Strain, second by Mr.
Midney. Further discussion?
There is none. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
Page 148
October 7, 2004
MR. STRAIN: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Motion carries.
CPSP-2003-11.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, would you entertain a five-minute
break?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Actually, what I would like to do, if we
can go for 15 more minutes, because I have to leave at quarter 'til.
Then you can take a break and you won't have to deal with me
anymore.
These next few look pretty brief. We have an especially
abbreviated presentation on Number 11.
Any questions? Any speakers?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: It was unanimous from the planning
commission. It was unanimous at the Board of County
Commissioners.
If there are no issues, then do we have a motion on that one?
MR. STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion,
recommend for approval CPSP-2003-11, CPSP-2003-12,
CPSP-2003-13, CPSP-2003-14, and CPSP-2003-15.
MR. MIDNEY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Now, I want to make clear that I
asked for any comment, public speakers or issues. I want to make
sure everybody understood it was on all of those CPSPs as listed by
Mr. Strain.
So if there are any, speak now so I don't inadvertently trod over
Page 149
October 7, 2004
somebody's right to be approved. Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, for the record we have no
registered speakers on any of those.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. That's the clarification we're
looking for.
There being any discussion on the planning commission? None?
All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. STRAIN: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
I believe we have no further business.
MR. STRAIN: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So moved.
Page 150
October 7, 2004
******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:31 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service,
Inc., by Elizabeth M. Brooks, Registered Professional Reporter.
Page 151
,,-·,··..,_·_'..~,w._··_·..··_
._------,~~
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
<~OÚNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
-
AST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME
. /\..))1 v\- !LI(
iAILlN~ ~DDRE~,~ _ J ^
oJ l, . I '; }7 1'\1J;:
:ITY
" \ , .-\,
,\..-f ) AY-'J
)ATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
(C .' '{- C,Ct
COUNTY
( '" II Ie r
NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE
C"'" 11\, f (ö \."'~ ¡) Ic,-- \\ih...,L,' (0.; ,.;::)-,_
THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSI N, AUTHORITY OR C MITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
Q CITY COUNTY Q OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
.. I . i
(.) i ,~. ( Co.'" L
MY POSITION IS:
APPOINTIVE
'J
í
,J uJ
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
contlict 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
In 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 special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited f¡om kno.....¡ngly 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'
:0 the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 o[
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:
¡ugh 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 recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the miI:1utes. (Continued on other side)
-,-~r.o.n.. no 01:\1 1Jna
"".._~<",,',,-"_._.
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 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, )Ì\ I>' k.' ,[
(~\I'::' t-" 10
, hereby disclose that on
lú
.~
. i
LU
-u\ () l-I .
,,,r.;:/__
(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
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
r (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
, by
, which
'1 '--' ,?) -'. " \, 'J
\'. ~ ~
~ , .
(, '--'.> \ '" ,'j
I/O ui '-\~ ~;, c. -I: (\, ,0.
\., ~J ¡'\\~)
, \
\ L' ,., \....'-:f:- 1\') \>\ '"\ \
J 'j
-¥ I· \Á Jî \ G"-f"'; -;-
-\6
OL)C~~) ,\,,)~
¡
n' ,- ( µ \ . '\
\~~" \..\J....C\
I'
'I
-fI C·, ') -7 '",A
¡ , (. CO
(7
L. "
n
L.-----
1~C.Q'\.1C) ,~
)
J-t; ~ 1,,-
r ì
'J
\0
Date Filed
/', , 0'4
l / ,
i' f
.~ ! CtL/l>
·1 I,
/ ~)~l~
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 PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - REV. 1/98
.f
- PAGE 2