Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/18/2004 R November 18,2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 18, 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 in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Kay Deselem, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Mike Bosi, Zoning & Land Dev. Review CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd Kenneth Abernathy Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Mark Strain Robert Vigliotti Page 1 ...----.---- .--- AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2004, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZA TION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE 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 a member of the Collier County Planning Commission (Bob Murray) is also a member 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 - OCTOBER 21, 2004, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - OCTOBER 26,2004, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 A. Petition: V A-2004-AR-6140, Pine Ridge Investors of Naples, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a variance to reduce the 15-foot external PUD setback for the western PUD boundary of the Pine Ridge Center PUD; and the eastern PUD boundary of the Pine Ridge Center West PUD to permit a O-foot setback from the common PUD boundaries. Due to the now common ownership of both Planned Unit Developments, it is the intent of the property owner to develop a unified project. The variance is necessitated by the presence of a jurisdictional wetland area that was detected on the Pine Ridge Center West PUD, which was not represented on the approved conceptual PUD master plan. Coupled with local requirements for setbacks from wetland areas, and the 15-foot PUD boundary setback, the development envelope is altered to the point that it leaves an area of approximately 100 feet in width to construct the proposed office building use. The properties are located on Pine Ridge Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8. 73± acres (Pine Ridge Center PUD); and 8.87± acres (Pine Ridge Center West PUD). (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) (CONTINUED FROM 11/4/04) B. Petition: CU-2003-AR-4978, Julio Del Risco represented by Pamela Stewart, Esq., requesting Conditional Use 6 of the RMF-12 zoning district for a Group Care Facility. The property is located at 4470 Golden Gate Parkway, further described as Lot 16 and the west 1/2 of Lot 17, Golden Gate Unit 3, Block 81. The property is in Section 27, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of .34± acres. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) C. Petition: CU-2004-AR-6464, Pinnacle Towers, LLC, represented by Deborah L. Martohue, Esquire, of Hayes & Martohue, P.A., requesting Conditional Use 13 of the (A) Agricultural zoning district for a 518-foot replacement guyed tower and associated facilities, prior existing 524-foot guyed tower destroyed July 12, 2004. The property, consisting of 14.55 acres, is located at 305 Tower Road, northwest intersection of U.S. 41 and S.R. 951, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) D. Petition: V A-2004-AR-5878, Michael J. Needham and Wendy B. Needham, property owners, represented by Michael A. Durant of Conroy, Coleman and Hazzard, P.A., requesting a 7-foot variance in the PUD zoning district from the required IS-foot rear setback, to allow an eight-foot (8) setback, within which the petitioner wants to extend an existing screen enclosure. The property, consisting of 17,077 square feet, is located at 720 Bay Tree Court; further described as Site 7, Block A, Pelican Bay Unit One, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED FROM 11/4/04 E. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-5220, Land Development Group, LLC, represented by Ronald Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, LLP, requesting a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) zoning to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MUPUD) for a project to be known as the Buckley Mixed Use PUD to allow for mixed-use commercial and residential development. The PUD is proposed for a maximum of 251 residential dwelling units, a maximum of 74,230 square feet of retail commercial, and a maximum of 97,070 square feet of office commercial uses. The property is located at 7501 Airport-Pulling Road, in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive, north of the Collier County Regional Library, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of22.84± acres. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED FROM 11/4/04 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 11 /18/04-CCPC AgendaIRB/sp 2 November 18, 2004 VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you all will please take your seats, we're going to get the meeting underway. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll do roll call. Before we do, the chairman has notified us he's going to be 30 minutes or maybe an hour late, so we'll continue with the meeting and he'll just step in when he gets here. With that being said, the roll call. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney is absent. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Budd will be late. I'm here. Ms. Caron? MR. CARON: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, are there any addenda to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir. We have a change to Item 8(B). Petitioner has requested a continuance of that item indefinitely. They may -- looks like they'll have to have a companion variance to go with the conditional use. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is it B, Bravo? Page 2 November 18, 2004 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's been hanging around forever. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning commission absences. Our next meeting is December 2nd. The one after that, I believe, is the 16th. MR. BELLOWS: 16th. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 16th. Is there anybody that knows -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Don't we have a workshop between now and then? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, approval of the minutes, October 21st, 2004. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Cover page omits mention of my name. I was here. That was Jessie Hardy day. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you were. There were quotes from you in there. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Abernathy, I want to correct the record again. You said the workshop. We do have -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Have a joint something or other. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, we do. And let me look at the calendar, because you said the 16th of December, and I was -- there's a -- the joint workshop, Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission, and it's for the AUIR. And I'm looking at the date. MR. CARON: On the 17th, right? MR. SCHMITT: I'm looking at the date. It's the AUIR workshop on the 17th. That's annual update and inventory report workshop, joint -- Page 3 ---_.~ .~---'-'--"""'-"----._'"-- November 18,2004 VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that was transmitted to DCA that we went through a couple months ago that I had -- MR. SCHMITT: No, no, no. That was the EAR. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: We're acronym city here. This is the annual update and inventory report, a concurrency report in regards to the various aspects of concurrency, transportation, sewer, water, parks. Those are the various categories. And that meeting is on the 17th at 9:00, December 17th. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I guess it wasn't between now and then. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will we be getting a packet on that well enough in advance to be prepared for that workshop? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely, yes. We're scheduled to brief the county manager, and after he approves the presentation, we will be sending those out at least a week, if not more, in advance of that workshop. We're also going to address the issue in regards to the 10 versus 12-month that Mr. Midney brought up that you all asked to have presented as part of that meeting, the 10 versus 12-month criteria for transportation concurrency calculations. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anybody with an absence on that date? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We are going to have 16th and 17th? MR. SCHMITT: Pardon me, sir? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It would be the 16th and 17th. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The meeting is the 16th, as the regular planning commission meeting. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just realized on the 2nd, I won't Page 4 "-~"_"-"__'......,._.,.,_.~.._.._--,,--.,.. November 18,2004 be here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 2nd of December? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray will not be here on the 2nd. Okay. Well, let's go back to the minutes, then. There was a correction by Mr. Abernathy, to make sure his name is added to the front page. Is there any others, Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Nothing else. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (N 0 response.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved and seconded. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I will abstain, since I wasn't here. Ray, will there be any recaps? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I imagine there's a bunch after Tuesday. MR. BELLOWS: I have about five things to go over. I'd like to point out, the board approved the Hiwasse rezoning, Page 5 __~.~_>o_,~_,..,,__.._,"~..__ ...... .--- November 18,2004 that was subject to a compo plan amendment, to eliminate the access to Eatonwood Lane. That allowed their zoning to go through, and the board approved that 5-0. The board also approved the Orangetree and Orange Blossom Ranch amendment and rezone. The Orangetree PUD was approved 5-0. The Orange Blossom Ranch was approved 4-1. The concern was raised about affordable housing -- work force housing within the PUD. The board also approved the Office Depot conditional use 5-0. There was the NUA petition for Holiday Manor, that was approved 5-0. And I believe the LDC amendments were also approved? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. On November 10th, the board met for the second hearing of the LDC amendments, and modifications were made to the LDC amendments concerning architectural standards, and it included a provision for commercial deviation petitions, and also modifications to landscaping and the vegetation removal permit. The board did extend its gratitude to this body for its hard work in vetting those amendments and providing the product that was provided to the Board of County Commissioners. The meeting on the 10th was about 1 7 or 18 minutes, and that was it that evening. So they extended their gratitude to the planning commission for the work they did in this cycle's amendments. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. Thank you, Joe. Okay, chairman's report. Since he's not here, he won't have one. Just one thing I'd like to add back to the addenda agenda under new business. I would like to express a request for additional reading material to the staff, and I'll have a list of that that we -- I think this whole board ought to have. But I'll wait until that point to bring it up. The advertised public hearings, the first one is Petition V A-2004-AR-6140. For all those wishing to speak on this petition, would you please rise to be sworn in. Page 6 ~--",_..-...,_.,-".- .- November 18, 2004 (All speakers were duly sworn.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. Wayne Arnold, for the record, representing the variance petition that's before you today. With me is Matthew Craig from Architectural Network, who's the architect involved in the site plan and the actual building permit that's moving forward on the subject property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, just to interrupt. Mr. Chairman, I have a disclosure I'd like to make prior to the hearing, that I had a phone conversation with the architect, Matt Craig. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other disclosures? I may have had a discussion with Mr. Arnold, but I -- we discussed a couple of projects. I'm not sure this was one of them. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't remember specifically talking about this one. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't either. Okay. MR. ARNOLD: This variance application is for two projects that are located in your activity center up at Pine Ridge Road and I - 7 5. They're known as the Pine Ridge Center and Pine Ridge Center West PUDs. They're identical in almost every respect except that one is located east of the other. And in this particular case, they were adopted on the same day. They share almost identical PUD documents, with the exception of mirror image site plans. The PUD master plan, I have from the application -- Ray, if I can -- this represents one of the documents that's in both of the PUDs that shows the joint development of each of these PUDs. And in developing these jointly -- the property's now under the single ownership of Pine Ridge Investors, Inc., and the purpose for our petition is to allow Kraft Construction to build its new corporate offices on the southernmost portion of this site. And in doing so, it would require us to breach the common PUD boundary. Page 7 November 18, 2004 And again, as I said, they are identical. And you can see that they were intended to be developed jointly with a joint access road. There are provisions for joint water management, joint cross-access agreements, common buffering, native vegetation preservation, et cetera. We initially had spoken with staff about the opportunity to have an administrative waiver of the respective 15- foot PUD boundary setbacks between the two of these, because one, it was now under single ownership, both PUDs were identical, and we felt that it met the test of being a common zoning district as if it were just C-4 zoning. We went through several discussions. Ms. Student was involved. And I think at the end of the day we initiated discussions and thought we were moving forward administratively. And at some point, we ended up with variances being the most logical solution to the dilemma that we had. You know, I know that it's been asked, and we discussed it with staff, PUD amendment, why not do a PUD amendment as opposed to the variance. And I guess the easiest way to describe that is when we looked at our common development plans, we were intending -- I know this exhibit's in your packet, we submitted it with the variance __ but as we were going through the process of evaluating the site, two things came about: One, a wetland area that's shown on the westernmost parcel was identified as something that was new. It was not contemplated on the original PUD master plans. So we ended up with a fairly significant wetland area, which, you know, all else being equal, we would and probably could go through a process to modify and impact that wetland. It's our intent and Kraft's intent to get through this process as expeditiously as we could, because they have some time constraints to be in the new facility. And rather than go through a lengthy Army Corps of Engineering permitting process, we felt it was most prudent to try to respect that wetland, to work around it, bringing us farther to Page 8 .-.-----.-. November 18,2004 the need to go ahead and deal with this -- what is now an internal PUD setback. Architectural Network has worked on several site plans. We're in for one now. And what would happen is Phase I building program would respect the setback. Phase II, if the variance is successful, would then have a connection to both of those buildings to build across this common line. Again, all other provisions of the PUD seem to work adequately for the project. The joint access road will be constructed at one time by the developer. Turn lanes are in place. We will control all other aspects of the PUD development, including the cross-access easement locations. And I believe that everyone that's been involved in the process believes that this is worthy of the variance that we're seeking. I know that the staff report said that this variance should be applicable to the southernmost 584 feet, which works satisfactorily for us. That is the parcel that Kraft would be building their corporate headquarters on. The balance of the project has a joint access road that runs down the center line of the two PUDs, which negates the need for the setback variance for those parcels as well. I'd be happy to entertain questions. If you have any specific architectural questions, Matthew Craig is here to answer those. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioners have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robin, I guess you're -- MR. MEYER: For the record, Robin Meyer, principal planner, zoning and land development review. Staff, as you can tell from the report, really concurs with the Page 9 ----"--.,-. ._.~~,"---".,-~,,-,,-~... ------.-- November 18, 2004 presentation made by the applicant. The interior boundary appears to be reasonable request for the variances. I should point out that this will not affect any of the exterior buffers, so the impacts on surrounding uses will still be mitigated through the buffers required for the PUD for the two documents. And other than that, we concur. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would have a question. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just some housekeeping issue. On Page 9 of 11 of the recommendations, the staff has analyzed and suggest we go forward. However, there was a letter written to -- on January 5 to Mr. Wayne Arnold by Susan Murray, and in interpretation four she concludes by saying in that paragraph, therefore, it is my determination that a structure is prohibited from being constructed over the common PUD boundary, regardless of ownership. Has that been rescinded or changed? MR. MEYER: That was because -- the line of logic in that letter was because of the actual setbacks. There was no way she could approve that with the setbacks being in place. That's why the variance was necessary. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, perhaps I missed that as being a critical factor. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, that was the purpose of the variance. The request for interpretation was submitted by the petitioner to avoid having to go through the variance process -_ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So this led to that. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And basically, the interpretation was rendered by Ms. Murray, saying you could not violate the conditions of the two PUDs. That was to basically have a zero setback line, and Page 10 November 18, 2004 that's what resulted in initiating this variance. So the variance basically supersedes the -- now supersedes the official interpretation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I kind of concluded that, but I wanted to get it clear in my mind. I thank you very much. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and my question -- first question is kind of that same line. Would they be able then to unify these lots so that there would not be a property line there, and that's just to head off a building code problem? MR. MEYER: I really can't answer that. I know they can build across it, by interpretation -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, yes, they can. The zoning line will still remain, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But they can get a unity of title and -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The lot will disappear. Okay. The second thing, the original PUD has a turnaround, a cul-de-sac on it. How will the fire department be handling it as it's shown here? MR. MEYER: Well, it -- in SDP, it has to meet the radius required at the bare minimum. And I understand their plans show one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that will be covered further down the trail? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, that will be part of the SDP review process that will go through fire review. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions from the commissioners? (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any representatives of the public? Page 11 November 18, 2004 MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public meeting -- or public hearing. Is there a recommendation from the commission? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-6140 be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subj ect to staff recommendations and the limitation for that variance of -- from 534 feet off Pine Ridge. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would second that. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, second by Commissioner Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion passes unanimously. The next petition that was scheduled was the Golden Gate Group Care Facility. For those that may be in the audience that came in late, that's been continued indefinitely. It's not going to be heard today. Next item after that is Item C, Petition CU-2004-AR-6464. Would those persons wishing to speak on this petition, please rise to be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any disclosures from the commission? Page 12 "<..<~--.-_...~",.,,-~.. November 18, 2004 (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move right into the presentation by the applicant. MS. MARTOHUE: We didn't expect to be up so soon. Thanks. Just one second. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those things happen. MS. MARTOHUE: We're bringing the easel up, and while we're doing that, we're passing out booklets for you to follow along with the presentation. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mark, I have to state that I did have a conversation with the Coast Guard. MS. MARTOHUE: It's Deborah Martohue, with Hayes and Martohue, P A, 5959 Central Avenue, in Saint Petersburg, Florida. I'm here today on behalf of Pinnacle Towers, Global Signal, which is the applicant in Case No. CU-2004-AR-6464. I'm here with representatives of Pinnacle Tower and Global Signal. Bonnie Bowers is handing out the books, and Brett Buggeln. Lonnie Nichols is here with the U.S. Coast Guard, and Chief Rowe is here with the U.S Coast Guard, and he'll be explaining the Rescue 21 Program. He's going to set up as I'm beginning the presentation. We are requesting approval of a conditional use to permit a replacement tower 518 feet in height that will replace the 524- foot tower that was destroyed on July 12th, 2004, this year. As you will learn through this presentation, this facility has played a vital role in communications in Collier County, both locally, statewide and nationally for over three decades, and must be rebuilt in this location to ensure those communications systems are maintained, both for public users and private users. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. That's located at Tab A of your booklet. And we concur with staffs analysis and we accept their conditions, including the last two conditions, which were added in the last couple of days. Page 13 November 18, 2004 And they relate to the generator, back-up generator being provided on-site for Florida Gulf Coast University, which that back-up generator would be utilized in the event there is a power failure in the event of an emergency, for instance, a hurricane, as we've experienced in the state in the last few months. And that would kick in to allow the county's emergency management system to be broadcast over the Florida Gulf Coast University's National Public broadcasting service, which they are the designated state service for the emergency alert system. And we have agreed to that condition, and we're working through those issues. With that will come a site plan modification to accommodate the generators, and we're working with staff on that, and it will be an administrative issue. Again, the zoning on the property is agricultural. This currently permits a tower of up to 250 feet in height by right. We have the aerial here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, didn't you say there were two conditions added by staff in the last couple of days? MS. MAR TO HUE: Yes, I-- VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mentioned the generator. What was the second one? MS. MAR TO HUE: The second one relates to our ability to come back in and -- we're concurrently going through the site development process as well. And we will amend our site plan to accommodate the generator. Generators, because of the propane tanks, require certain distance from existing equipment. Those are somewhat fire marshal rules, as well as private user rules. You don't want those propane tanks right up on top on the equipment. So we have to adjust the compound to locate this back-up generator. And quite frankly, we submitted this site plan on or about right before Hurricane Charley . Well, life has changed since the four Page 14 November 18, 2004 hurricanes for a lot of communication providers, whether they be broadcast providers, wireless providers. And I represent other people in the wireless industry, and I can tell you, after four hurricanes, there is a lot of rethinking about permanent generators at some critical sites. So some of -- this site will probably be deemed a critical site for many of the existing tenants, which we're trying to relocate on the new tower. And we expect that there will be requests to add permanent generators at this site. So we're going to have to accommodate that. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. MAR TO HUE: Does this work? Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, while we have a pause here, let the record show that Commissioner Midney is now here. Thank you. MS. MAR TO HUE: This is -- just to give you an overview, and it's at Tab -- let's see, the aerial, if you want to look at it up close, the aerial's at Tab E of your booklet. And this will just give you an overview of the site. This is located at Tower Road. It's 14.55 acres, which is 45 percent larger than your minimum acreage size in the agricultural district, which is 10 acres for a facility of this type. You'll see that Eagle Creek is to the north and to the west. There's a lot of mixed use commercial along State Road 951. There's access off Tower Road. Currently the access exists off Tower Road right here, and it's a gravel path. It's secured. And the tower -- this is the old tower, and the old tower compound. But the existing tower will be relocated substantially in the same place, not on the identical footprint, because that's not possible. It will be just a little bit over. But the existing distance to -- or the distance from the nearest Eagle Creek residence to the north is 725 feet, and over to the northwest is 985 feet. You'll see just by their existing plan that they have quite a bit of golf course and existing natural vegetation to the north and northwest. Page 15 November 18, 2004 And to the southwest we have quite a nice stand of pine flat woods that, through the site development plan process, which we're going through as well, the -- a certain portion of it will be dedicated in the conservation easement for preserve, so that is intended to be maintained. We've got quite a bit of vegetation there. All this technology. The zoning to the north again is the Eagle Creek PUD. To the east it's agricultural. And that's the existing Comcast tower. We did seek to relocate some of our tenants on the Comcast tower immediately after the collapse, and they just simply did not have any structural capacity to accommodate any more users, so that was not an option for us. To the south is agricultural. It's vacant. To the west, as I showed you, is the golf course for Eagle Creek PUD. Back to this. The site plan is located at Tab -- I believe it's C. Yes, Tab C. You can flip through on all the site plans, but basically I showed you that the tower is substantially located in the same area. We're maintaining two parking spaces, as required by code. We have ingress, we have egress. It's secured. Your emergency services will have access to the site through keys, and there's just really simply not that many changes to the site. It pretty much mirrors what was there before. In fact, it's six feet shorter, so it won't be an intensification of use. It's a slight -- very slightly smaller use. On the site plan, you'll see a compound that shows all of the locations where the users, the tenants and our proposed future users will locate their equipment. And that's what's going to require, as I described, a slight modification to accommodate the generators that __ we were requested to supply one for Florida Gulf Coast University. And quite frankly, it raised, as I said, a valid point to consider for other users in light of what has transpired in the state since the time we originally submitted and today. So we're trying to plan for hopefully never a hurricane season as Page 16 -".-,---..,. November 18, 2004 we've seen this past year, but nevertheless, we need to plan for that. In accordance with your LDC and I think, you know, staffhas described the situation very well in their staff recommendation. This is a nonconfonning use. This nonconforming use is protected to the point that we need to come in here and request a conditional use approval, but no variances are required if this board recommends approval and the Board of County Commission approves the conditional use. The original tower, though, was built in 1971. It was 700 feet. That 700 feet existed for nearly three decades. That was not changed until 2002. It became a nonconforming tower simply when Collier County amended its Land Development Code, approximately in 1992, to change the separation distance requirements from residential. That was about 25 -- 20, 25 years after this tower was built. So in fact, it's the existence of Eagle Creek and the distance when it became developed close to the tower that rendered the tower nonconforming. The tower was there since 1971, and that amendment in the LDC rendered the tower nonconforming. But if you approve the conditional use, part of your code will then make this tower conforming in all aspects. You won't be dealing with the non-conformity anymore, and that's a good thing. Let's see. The tower, as I said, it's been in existence for about 33 years, and it's served a myriad of communication needs in -- to Collier County, its residents and visitors. Some of those needs include the NPR broadcasting for Florida Gulf Coast University. They do manage Station WGCU, 90.1 FM. This is the designated FM station by the state to be used by evacuation coordination and serve as the lead emergency alert system station. On the former tower they were at the 125 foot level and lower. Under this new tower, they will be at the 340 foot level, which will allow them to transmit their signal to a greater audience. And that was apparently what led to the discussions regarding the Page 1 7 '·~~~'__·"__"U.'._."..~._.._·. November 18, 2004 generator, that the Dean of the University a couple of days ago met with Dan Summers, your Director of Emergency Management, and they began discussing how they could coordinate, as many local governments are discussing in the debriefing process after the hurricanes, how can we do better in our EOC planning, how can we coordinate our efforts better. And apparently there is a partnership underway between your emergency management system and Florida Gulf Coast University to us their broadcasting services to implement your emergency alert system here in Collier County, and that's hence the need for the generator. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All this concern about generators. What is the survivability of towers of this sort in hurricanes? What sort of history do they have? MS. MAR TO HUE: Well, I'm glad you asked. I was going to talk about structural issues in the presentation. The triple silver lining to all of this is this -- the destruction of the old tower is, that old tower was 33 years old. This new tower is going to be built to current building code standards, which we all know post-Hurricane Andrew and post-2001 are significantly improved. It will be built to those standards, which will be 140 some-odd mile per hour winds, and then they have certain gusts. I can tell you in the past four hurricanes that there was minimal destruction of any towers in the State of Florida, even though some of the winds were hurricane Category 4, gusts of Category 5. In fact, we have documented not just this applicant, but as I said, I work with many wireless carriers throughout the state, and I was pleased that over the years, as I've represented them, we've always had structural engineers saying hey, this is the collapse zone, we can withstand "X" amount of miles-per-hour wind, and it came true. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I say, it's one thing what the engineers say, but what was the experience during these four Page 18 --....------------..- . · --" November 18,2004 hurricanes? None of them came down? MS. MAR TO HUE: The experience that I'm aware of is that not one monopole lattice or stealth tower came down. You had complete and total devastation in a tower standing. There were a couple of guyed towers that had problems, and they were all towers that were over 30 years old. None of them were new towers. So this is an opportunity for us to build a current tower that accommodates all of the prior tenants, plus accommodates future users, which will reduce the need for additional facilities in this area in the future. So I think it's very much a silver lining to an otherwise unfortunate accident. Again, so we talked about Florida Gulf Coast University and partnering with the county. I think that's going to be an essential service here for the county. We also have the Navy as a tenant. They provide -- I'm going to give you their -- the tactical range setup for offshore combat communications support. It's related to homeland and national security . We also have the U.S. Coast Guard, which Chief Rowe will explain to you. And they are also related to homeland security, as well as their Rescue 21 program, to provide communications to offshore boaters in the Collier County area, so -- and Bonita area. But I'm let chief Rowe explain that. We also have personal communication services. T -Mobile, N extel, Metro PCS, Cingular Wireless and Cingular Interactive. All of them were former tenants on the tower. We plan to relocate them. And we also have two-way radio providers. And I can tell you, again, after the hurricane experience, the two-way radio providers, like ham radio providers, are absolutely essential. And I wouldn't be shocked or surprised if there aren't more requests for two-way radio providers to be located on this site, because of your location here in south Collier County and the link over to Miami. Page 19 '......--.""". November 18,2004 It's really quite amazing the distance that two-way radios can project at a certain height. And it's my understanding that when these wireless providers were out there after the hurricanes, trying to repair their systems, because antennas got skewed, the two-way radios were just critical to communication, so I wouldn't be surprised about some more requests for that. All of the documentation on the tenants that were existing, their need today to continue their services on this site are located in Tab G. It's a lot of technical data in there. There's a lot of colored maps in there regarding what they don't have, if they don't have this tower versus what they could cover. And I'd be happy to go into any detail, if you have any detail. But I think of your interest, probably more would be at Chief Rowe's presentation. So at this time, I'm going to have Chief Rowe do his presentation, and then I'll finish up with some other issues involving the tower. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, just one comment. I know you gave us this nice, thick book. Giving it to us during the meeting virtually renders it useless in our regard to read it. If you ever do this again, it would be nice to give it to us ahead of time so we could actually have questions from the book. MS. MAR TO HUE: Just a point. All of the information that's in those books was provided as part of our application. Staff has reviewed all of that information and based their recommendation on it. I simply pass out the book in case someone wants to follow along, or go to a particular tab and ask a question. In fact, I was going to ask you at the end of the presentation, in an effort to save trees, if any of you want to keep the books, great, if you don't want to keep the books, we're happy to recycle them and provide them to the Board of County Commission. But for now, I'm going to give that -- so there's nothing new in that booklet, it's simply to follow along. Staff has reviewed all of that material. Page 20 November 18, 2004 VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One question that you -- one item you brought up I'd like to ask, and that is, you said the generator that's going to be installed is going to be on a propane tank? Just -- I mean, normally they're diesel. Are you selecting propane then? MS. MAR TO HUE: I'm not going to get -- there is the potential that propane tanks may need to be installed with the generator. Normally they do run on diesel and oil. The specifics -- we're -- this is very new to us in terms of the last 48 hours, and we're going to make -- Florida Gulf Coast University made their request yesterday in terms of their needs. That's being processed. Weare going to actually use that -- share that use of that generator to maintain the lights that are required by the FAA. In the event of power failure, we will have a back-up. So in terms of -- I'm giving you the worst case scenario, that propane tanks may need to be used. So we -- as we get the specifics in over the next few days, we will accommodate the site plan accordingly. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. MAR TO HUE: Thank you. This is Chief Rowe with the U.S. Coast Guard. Thanks. MR. SCHMITT: Chief, are you connected to the computer? CHIEF ROWE: Yes, I am. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to identify yourself for the court reporter, too, Chief. CHIEF ROWE: Good morning. My name is Chief Paul Rowe, I'm with the United States Coast Guard. I've been with the Coast Guard almost 17 years. I'm working on this Rescue 21 project for the Florida region. I'm basically the regional inspector for all the work that goes on for the Coast Guard, and direct liaison between the contractor that the contract was awarded, General Dynamics. For those of you not familiar with the Rescue 21 program, it's basically an upgrade to our 30-year-old Legacy VHF communications Page 21 "~- . -_.-..~.~-~._~ November 18,2004 system. It's a nationwide initiative by the Coast Guard. The contract was awarded in 2002 to General Dynamics to basically carry out all this work nationwide. I'm just going to skip a couple of these slides. Where the Rescue 21 program is now, is the system is fully installed in Eastern Shores, Virginia, and Atlantic City , New Jersey. And the system is partially installed in Mobile, St. Petersburg, Port Angeles and Seattle. For the St. Pete region, which basically entails Crawfordville all the way down to Everglades, six of the seven towers needed to provide the coverage for the Rescue 21 system have been secured. No other existing towers in this area will provide sufficient coverage needed to meet the stringent requirements of this new contract. Four of the seven towers are complete and ready for the Rescue 21 equipment for the St. Petersburg region. One of the three towers remaining is the Naples tower or the Naples area. And two of the towers, one of them being in Pine Island, and one of them being up in the Panhandle, have been delayed due to hurricanes, accessibility and weather. But they should finish up in December. The current system that we have now, during Hurricane Charley, we lost our Pine Island site. And with the collapse of the Naples tower, we had to relocate the existing equipment that was on that tower to a tower in Bonita Springs, which substantially diminished our radio coverage. This is the Pine Island site after Charley. Our antenna was at the very top. Basically lost everything. The coax cable and the equipment shelter beneath was destroyed. This is a very old tower. It's owned by AT&T. We do not know their intentions to rebuild it. It's a very short tower. I believe it was only 250 feet. With the present system that we have now, there's no disaster recovery provisions, which basically means when we lost this tower, Page 22 November 18, 2004 we lost coverage. Still to this day, we have not replaced coverage for this site. We anticipate four months of lost coverage. This was the coverage prior to the summer. This was our Pine Island site and the Naples site. This is our coverage now . You can see the big gap right around Marco Island. And these are the two side by side. We lost approximately 400 square miles of coverage; still have not been replaced. Just because the old system does not allow us to go in -- I'll get into how we do this with the new system, but the old system does not allow us to go in and just put up a tower somewhere, because it's so old. It's run by phone lines. The new system is a vast improvement. In the event of a catastrophic failure, coverage will be restored within -- restored to 75 percent within 24 hours, and to 100 percent of coverage within seven days. This is achieved by -- well, we have what are called PATs or portable antenna towers. And what it basically is, is an entire site on the back of a truck. (At which time, Chairman Budd enters boardroom.) CHIEF ROWE: With these portable antenna towers, although they're not, say, the 500 feet, I believe they're only 130 feet, they're portable and they can be put right on the coastline to provide the same coverage as you would be five to seven miles inland. Data is taken from these portable antenna towers and satellited back to Martinsburg, Virginia, where it's processed and put back onto the Coast Guard network. Then it can be piped back out to any station, any group, just as if you didn't lose a tower. You don't have that capability now because in order for that to happen, the region, the St. Petersburg region would have to be finished out by the contractor and then handed -- tested by the Coast Guard and then handed back over to the contractor for maintenance. So this portion can't happen until the St. Petersburg region, basically, or any region is finished and tested and certified. Page 23 November 18, 2004 With the new system, it's monitored 24/7 by a customer care center which monitors equipment failures, phone line failures, unauthorized access, fire, anything. As soon as that happens, Coast Guard is notified and a technician is sent out to investigate. We don't have that current capabilities with the system we have now. There's a lot of advantages to the system. I'm just hitting some of the key points here. The direction-finding capability of the new system is night and day compared to what we have now. The system that we have now does not give you a cross fix. This new system will give you a cross fix and give you a direct location of any RF transmission in the VHF range. Which basically means if someone calls up May Day, May Day, May Day, and that's all you hear, you have their position on a monitor, on a CRT monitor. We don't have that capability now. This system, like I said, was installed up in Eastern Shore and Atlantic City . We heard a vessel out approximately 40 miles and we actually got a pinpoint out at that point out 40 miles and were able to go out and give assistance, because this new equipment is so -- the sensitivity for the receive side of the VHF is so vastly improved from what we have now. This would be the coverage achieved with the rebuilding of the Naples site. This is the coverage previous and the coverage that will be achieved afterwards. There's not much of a difference, as you can tell. This is mainly because last year when we came to the board before, we were asking for 700 feet, and that was to ensure that we met the coverage with a little bit of extra guarantee. At the 500- foot level, which is where we would be on this tower, we'll be right at the edge of the coverage requirements. I believe that's it. Anybody have any questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: When do you think this tower -- if it's approved, when will you think this tower will be built and Page 24 "_._----~'" ~ -'- November 18, 2004 finished? MS. MARTOHUE: If you have any more technical questions for Chief Rowe, I'll talk about all the construction schedules that we have. Any specific technical questions for Chief Rowe? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any technical questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none at the moment, we'll move on to scheduling. MS. MAR TO HUE: Well, we are obviously under some time constraints, so we -- and staff has been wonderful in cooperating with us and letting us take advantage of every possible concurrent review. We have submitted our site development plan, obviously at our own risk, contingent upon receiving all the approvals from this body and the Board of County Commission. However, if all of that goes as planned, we expect site development plan approval relatively quickly after approval by the Board of County Commission. We've already -- we will then submit our building permit plans and hope to be constructed late spring. We have to send everything out to bid. We will be on an accelerated construction. Our worst case scenario would be to be up and running sometime in June. We really have a July deadline, because of Florida Gulf Coast University. In your booklets, you'll find, under the tab for Florida Gulf Coast, which I believe is G-l, they have statutory requirements to get back on air. They have two opportunities for 180-day extensions under their broadcast license. We've already exercised one. We anticipate that they will have to ask for the second one in January. And if they're not up on air by July, in that 365-day period, they will lose their license. So we are definitely under time constraints, and we have done everything, and staff has been very cooperative in expediting review of this application. So I hope that answers your question. I mean, the sooner we're up, the better for everybody. Page 25 "-.-- ...---- November 18, 2004 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? MS. MARTOHUE: I'm sorry, go ahead. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You were going to continue your presentation? MS. MARTOHUE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll wait till the end. MS. MARTOHUE: Okay. Maybe I'll answer everybody's questions. Again, we are going to and plan to accommodate every former tenant on this new replacement tower, if they so desire. We have made provisions for additional future users to minimize any future requests to your board or the Board of County Commission for additional towers. Under your code, we would be allowed to build up to 250 feet, by right, on agricultural and multiple towers. But if we were to do that, quite frankly, what we would lose is -- 58 percent of those that are located above the 250-foot level are government users. We would lose the U.S. Coast Guard, we would lose the Navy and its offshore combat communication support. We would lose Florida Gulf Coast University and the potential partnering with Collier County and their emergency management system, and we would lose the interest from Renda Broadcasting, another broadcasting service for this area that has expressed interest in coming on this tower. So there's only one of the eight antennas located below the 250-foot level are a government user. Seven of the 12 antennas above the 250- foot level are government users. So that shows you that this is absolutely vital to have the tower at the height that it's at for predominantly public use and public communications. I partially addressed some of the structural issues, based on Mr. Abernathy's questions. And the other -- the other issue with respect to the structural on this particular tower, one thing that the unfortunate Page 26 November 18,2004 accident did prove was that it did collapse in the manner that it was designed to collapse in. And that actually is a positive. We know that these towers, if they do collapse, do what they're supposed to do. And they didn't harm anybody, and they collapsed completely within the property boundaries, and there was no one injured. So that, you know, if there's a silver lining, that's it, and we're grateful, and that's how we design our towers. So that's a good thing. We talked a little bit about the separation requirements. And we met with the neighbors in October, and there were three people who attended that meeting. And of course their two issues related to the separation requirements, and their two concerns were safety and aesthetics. Interestingly enough, I would surmise at the time that the LDC was amended to provide for the separation requirements, safety and aesthetics were the issues that drove those amendments. Now we've talked about safety. Safety really isn't at play . We know that if the tower was -- collapses, which we hope will never happen again, but it would collapse within the property boundary. So the two and a halftime distance requirement is really not a safety issue. I think that's been resolved. Towers do not catapult across property lines. In fact, we saw again in the hurricanes that towers pretty much stood in the face of complete and total devastation, and I'm sure it didn't take a long drive for any of you to go and witness some of the devastation that occurred resulting these hurricanes. I know, I live in a community that was ground zero until the last 35,45 minutes of Hurricane Charley. I live on St. Pete Beach. So we were clearly the target. And our neighbors were -- your neighbors to the north, my neighbors to the south were the unfortunate victims. So I'm sure we've all seen it and was pleased to say that the towers survived and provided the vital communications during the hurricanes that everyone needed. With respect to the aesthetic issue, that's always an issue in tower Page 27 ---- November 18,2004 cases, and it's a subjective issue, as staff has noted in the recommendation. However, in this case we have a unique circumstance. This tower's been around for 33 years. The persons that are the neighbors to the north and northwest moved to this tower, moved to this tower when it was 700 feet in height. This is approximately a 25 percent reduction in height, 20, 25 percent reduction in height. So I think that disabuses the notion that perhaps aesthetics in this case would be detrimental to the neighbors to the north, because they in fact built their homes and bought their homes with this tower that was significantly higher at the time they purchased. So we would -- our position would be in this unique case, aesthetics really shouldn't be at play. With respect to environmental issues, we've -- working through staff with those, so far we have received an environmental permit waiver from South Florida Water Management District, because again, this new replacement will be substantially the same as the old tower and, therefore, we meet their de minimus requirements, and they're not anticipating that -- in fact, they've given us a waiver on environmental permits. Our Army Corps one is still pending. We will update staff as that progresses. And simply, it's my understanding in talking to Army Corps that the delay in getting their waiver has been because of the hurricanes. They are just buried in other issues. So we're working on that, but we don't anticipate any problems. We are consistent with your Growth Management Plan, as determined by your staff. Some of your requirements are providing ingress and egress. We've done that. There is no additional glare, odor or noise, and that's in your code. FAA lighting will be put on the tower in accordance with FAA requirements. The county has submitted a proposal to FAA that is Page 28 ._-'.._~".._- November 18, 2004 consistent with your code, but at this time inconsistent with the initial determination with FAA. We're asking them to rereview the county's request. Quite frankly, we'll put any lighting on that the county wants and the FAA approves, so it's just not an issue. We will comply on the lighting. And in sum, we believe that we've met all the criteria in the code. The staff is recommending approval. We believe in this case, this tower, the public health, safety and welfare, that the services that this tower provides far outweighs any detrimental impacts which we think are very minimal in this case. I'm here to answer any questions. If there are objectors in the audience, I'd like to reserve time for rebuttal. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, did that address your anticipated question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It actually did address one, which was the lighting. Is there a way to shield the lighting from the ground? If you don't know, we can move on. MS. MAR TO HUE: Well, what I'd like to do is get the final-- sometimes shielding is available, but we really have to do it in conformance with whatever the FAA plans are. And we're happy to request from them if shielding is an option. And we'll attempt to do that. But we -- you know, we're a bit limited. We did receive FAA determination that this is -- the height that we're requesting is not a hazard to aviation. And that letter came in in September. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is that you described you're going to accommodate the site -- or accommodate a generator. Does that move the tower itself at all or does it just work at the base? MS. MAR TO HUE: It's at the base. All it's doing is we're not moving any of where our locations of the equipment shelters are. What it may mean, and I don't have a final on this, is it may mean that Page 29 -.._~~-_¥.,...,- --- November 18, 2004 we may need to push out the security fencing around the compound just to accommodate the distance that the generators have to be located from the equipment shelters. It's not going to change anything that you're seeing, except the fence might get pushed out a little. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my last question, was the collapse natural or man-caused? MS. MAR TO HUE: Final determination has not been made in terms of the actual causation, but it was man. It was a welding accident by the contractor. It wasn't just from, you know, deterioration, it was a welding accident. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We've been handed a list of six conditions by the staff. You've seen those? MS. MAR TO HUE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're agreeable to them? MS. MARTOHUE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You all are providing the generator rather than FGCU; is that right? MS. MAR TO HUE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron? MR. CARON: Yeah, you mentioned that 58 percent of the users above 250 feet are government and/or safety related. Are those people guaranteed that position? MS. MAR TO HUE: Yes. MR. CARON: They are -- MS. MAR TO HUE: If they, if they -- MR. CARON: -- forever. So, for example, Nextel can't come in and just outbid the Coast Guard for position -- for higher position on the tower at a later date? MS. MAR TO HUE: Yeah, outbidding is -- no, that's not really an option. Now, if the U.S. Coast Guard at some time, you know, didn't Page 30 --~-- November 18, 2004 want to use -- don't want to be here, then we would make that space available to anyone who wanted the space and came in and leased with us, so it's not a bidding issue. We have designed this tower always, at least with the Coast Guard in mind and wanting to accommodate their services, as evidenced by the application last year that was turned down by the board. So it's not really a bidding issue. And recognize, too, that every tenant has a different height requirement based on their system. And you'll see that, like for instance, T -Mobile is at 175 feet. They don't maybe want the 250 or 300- foot level, because it would interfere with the other hand-off sites they already have in place. This is a really unique situation where you had an existing tower where they had other sites already integrated into the network and dealing with the transmissions from this site. So we don't want to overshoot those other sites. They want to get back to where they were to work within the network. They've got a hole right now, basically. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. While it's in the staff report, nevertheless, it's a question. Gene Schmidt, Executive Director, Collier County Airport Authority, expressed his concerns about the proposed proj ect. Perhaps you could -- are you familiar or aware of those concerns? MS. MARTOHUE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you tell me what they are, because I -- MS. MAR TO HUE: He had some general concerns regarding the height of the location, apparently within the flight pass between Naples Airport and Marco Island Airport. And he expressed those concerns last year regarding the addition of the second tower. But I'm not an expert in the area, and I'm going to defer to the Page 31 November 18,2004 FAA. And I believe staffs deferring to the FAA. They've analyzed that situation and they've made a determination that there's no hazard to air navigation. Now, I understand there was an accident a few years ago, and that causation was completely pilot error. And we can't plan for that. It wasn't -- we just simply can't plan for that. And the fact is, in the real world that there's more private plane users, and there's some people up there that shouldn't be piloting a plane anymore than driving a car. And, you know, we do the best we can. And I'm going to rely on the FAA on this one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So those were his concerns? MS. MAR TO HUE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ma'am, I asked you earlier if this packet contained any information that we -- different. We talked about that. I just compared it briefly to the packet we have. There is new information in here. MS. MAR TO HUE: What would that be? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You want to go over it page by page? I'd be glad to. It's about, oh, 150 pages, but if you want to take the time, I'll walk through it. MS. MAR TO HUE: No. I mean, if you have any questions that you think that staff hadn't reviewed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. I don't know if staff reviewed it or not. What I was trying to tell you is, we can't review something of this magnitude given to us today. Your response was that it's old information we've already been provided in our packet. I'm saying it is not. Some of it may be, but that's not all of it. MS. MARTOHUE: Okay. If I miscommunicated, what I meant Page 32 . ".~--,~~ "- November 18, 2004 to say was that this -- everything that is in this booklet has been provided to your staff through the application process, and they have reviewed it. In the future, I certainly will take note that perhaps some of the members here would like to see this booklet ahead of time. Again, I typically provide booklets, not to overwhelm anybody, but just to provide convenience to follow along. If I raise an issue, you can look at a map right up close rather than at an overhead. I certainly am going to take note of this and perhaps provide it to the Board of County Commission in advance, instead of just passing it out at the hearing. But it's nothing that the staff hasn't seen or in fact generated themselves through this process. Is that correct? Was there anything new in there? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I won't be able to base my decision today on anything in this packet that isn't in this -- in what we were provided. I just wanted for the record to let you know they're different. Second thing is, I received a letter from -- or an e-mail -- and I should have disclosed this, I forgot -- from a gentleman by the name of Keith Tompkins, who is apparently the property manager for the Eagle Creek Community Association. He raises two points in here that are concerning, and I want to ask you what your position is on these. The first one is more of a staff question. And I'll wait till Joe Schmitt's available to ask him about that. The second one is an issue concerning the buffering of the north area and the fence that's up there. They believe -- this Mr. Tompkins believes that there's going to be -- there's Brazilian pepper along there, and that it will be cleared, and that when it is cleared, the buffer that's there is going to be gone, as well as the fence that is there is going to be gone. Page 33 .--. --'-._._..,--~.- November 18, 2004 Are you in any position to replace that buffering or install buffering now or obligating to put a fence in at this point? What's your position on that? MS. MARTOHUE: Well, just a matter of clarification, Mr. Tompkins was at the neighborhood meeting and he did raise that issue, and we did discuss it with him. We don't anticipate -- we've subsequently reviewed the fencing out there. We don't think the fencing is going to come down and need to be replaced. There's nothing wrong with it. It's not in that bad of condition. There is some Brazilian pepper on both sides of the fence. They're required under their own plan -- their own exotic plant management plan to remove their Brazilian pepper, and I would assume if they're going to remove and leave some gaps, they need to replace with appropriate vegetation as well. If we remove exotic plants and it leaves a hole, we're happy to fill in with appropriate plants. But I think the obligation is on both property owners. They have a similar situation on their side and have obligations under their PUD plan. But I think Mike could probably speak to that more specifically. I can't -- I can't go on their property and take care of their issues. We certainly can take care of our issues. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Now, my question to staff then, and Joe, you're aware that there are older PUDs in the county that have exotic issues that occurred prior to the LDC being implemented as it is today -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- as this particular project is. Code enforcement has gone onto other older proj ects and insisted that the Brazilian pepper matters be taken care of immediately. On this one, they're telling us, and Mr. Tompkins has said that Eagle Creek is now in the midst of a 1 O-year plan to remove all Page 34 -'-' November 18,2004 exotics in the community and off the golf course. Why have they been given 10 years? Because this issue should have been resolved and fixed before we even got here today if they were treated like other communities in the county. Is there -- MR. SCHMITT: We have reached a -- I'll use the word compliance agreement or agreements with other communities as well to do that over a protracted period of time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the 10 years for them is acceptable? MR. SCHMITT: I'm not aware of what the agreement was in this. I don't know. But in other cases, we've done that, Naples Bath and Tennis and other areas are examples where we know and understand both the financial impact and of course the extent of the problem that needs -- as far as eradicating the exotics. And in code compli -- in code cases, there's been agreements reached to do that over a period of time. I did not know, nor do I know, maybe Marjorie knows from a legal standpoint. But I'm not aware of this being a code case or any issue in regards to Eagle Creek and a code case in removing exotics. MS. STUDENT: No, I'm not aware of a code case involving Eagle Creek either. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What this brings into the question is even if Mr. Tompkins' request for a buffer and fence were to be a-- even agreed to by the applicant, it would be kind of useless if they're not going to remove the pepper that's there for 10 years, because it's going to get 10 times worse in 10 years time, as fast as pepper grows. So based on that, I mean, his e-mail and his request don't seem to carry a lot of validity then at this point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there any other component to your presentation? Page 35 November 18,2004 MS. MARTOHUE: No. If there's someone who wants to speak in opposition, I'd like to have an opportunity to rebut, but -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure, we'll do that. MS. MARTOHUE: Okay. And just make a final-- is there anyone here? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bellows, do we have registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: I think our staff planner would like to make a presentation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh, I'm sorry, my mistake. I forgot the staff presentation. Sorry, Mr. Bosi. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You weren't here when we started, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah, I know. I apologize to everybody for being late. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, zoning and land development review. In light of the lengthy discussion that the applicant has exchanged with the commission members, I'll keep it relatively short, or extremely short. I've arrived at -- staff has arrived at the position of supporting the application. And the critical crux or the question of the problem or the situation that we faced was, was the negative impact of reconstructing this tower that has existed since 1971 upon the 471 units within -- residential units within Eagle Creek in the surrounding residential development, was that negative impact greater than the benefit that the tower and -- the tower would provide by the -- and the functionality the tower provides to the governmental and non-commercial FGCU users above the 25D-foot mark? In the context that one or a number of towers up to 250 feet can be developed administratively through this site by zoning as a permitted use. So basically there's a 268- foot increase in the visual intrusion that reconstruction of this tower would impose upon the area. I do not Page 36 ,.-..--.-.".........--.-. November 18, 2004 believe that that imposition is a greater negative than the benefits that are experienced through every individual citizen within this county. With that, we arrived at the recommendation. 1'd be more than happy to entertain any questions that the commission may have regarding the staffs position in the staff report. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mike, we had a similar petition, an application, what was it, a year ago? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: From this same site, yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Same site. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think the planning commission approved it unanimously, or recommended approval, and it went to the county commission and it failed there. What was the staffs position on that earlier petition; do you recall ? MR. BOSI: Absolutely. I was the individual planner who was assigned to that position. And staff was recommending approval throughout the process. What happened at the Board of County Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That was going to be my next question. MR. BOSI: The Board of County Commissioners, through the dialogue and through the public hearing process, were not able to conclusively establish that the second tower was essentially needed, and their context was that the -- the applicant hadn't established that the existing tower couldn't (sic) accommodate the request for the Coast Guard on the 700-foot tower. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The then existing tower is the one we're talking about replacing now, isn't it? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. Page 37 --~"_."".,-,,,- November 18, 2004 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it's a different ball game. MR. BOSI: Absolutely different ball game. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification, that -- the tower that collapsed existed already. That petition you saw a year ago was to put another tower -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Right, I got that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for Mr. Bosi? (No response. )There are none at this time. Now, are there any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. Caroline Kriz. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ma'am, would you spell your name, please, for the court reporter. MS. KRIZ: Yes. K-R-I-Z. Good morning, Mr. Chair and the commissioners. I am Carolyn Kriz, and I'm here for the homeowners at Eagle Creek. I'm not requesting that you disapprove this tower. Instead, if you decide to recommend approval, we would like several conditions added to your approval. I do, first of all, want to address, Mr. Strain, what you mentioned with Mr. Tompkins' e-mail. Yes, we do have a 1 O-year plan. It may take less than 10 years. The Brazilian pepper is primarily what they're working on within the acreage of Eagle Creek. They've been working on it for about five years. So it's midway within the removal. And it was a plan that was approved. And I believe even the state was involved in the approval of that plan. I'm not real sure on that, but I think so, because of the extensive amount of Brazilian pepper that we have in there. And on the photograph on -- what I'm talking about here is the north boundary and the west boundary. The east boundary is Comcast, the south boundary is Tower Road. It's about a 14-and-a-half-acre almost rectangular site. And the west boundary is Page 38 ~~ ~"_""__''^_''''M_'.''~'''_'--'''._ ,,: II November 18,2004 immediately adjacent to the Eagle Creek maintenance yard. So as far as aesthetics and view, we're not too concerned except for that upper northwest corner. But the north side is our concern. The Brazilian pepper that is in there is very extensive. As the applicant mentioned, it is on both sides of the fence. It is our determination that we -- and we do not ask that the applicant remove any pepper for us. That's part of our plan, we're doing it. We have to do it, we know we have to do it, and believe me, we are paying to do it. But to get our side out, it's growing in and among the fence. So it's my understanding that to get it out, we have to remove the fence. And that's why we are asking as a condition that this fence be replaced and minor or whatever vegetation is needed along that north side, to block the view of all those associated structures with the towers from the residents. So that's what conditions we'd like added to your approval. The second condition is that if this is approved by you all, that it be in coordination with the other work that we're doing there. We feel that, you know, we can save a lot of back and forth and -- if it's coordinated. And that if there is a fence, that it -- and vegetation, that our homeowner's board have a chance to look at it and say this is incompatibility with -- not incompatible, but it's compatible with the rest of the fencing that we're going to be putting along the adjacent area along Tower Road and Barefoot Williams Road. Because that's also where we're removing pepper. Probably within the next year, hopefully. Any questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? 1res, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ms. Kriz, if the applicant were to remove the fence and presumably then clear the pepper away from their location, wouldn't over a 10-year period, if they were to replace Page 39 November 18,2004 the fence within that 1 O-year period, wouldn't that tend to grow back into that area? MS. KRIZ: It depends on whether retreatment occurs. Knowing exotic -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So would that be part of your condition as well? MS. KRIZ: Well, most of the pepper is on our side. So the retreatment, Eagle Creek would have to do on that land on our side of the fence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You want them to remove the fence, they should replace the fence after they've removed their side of the pepper. And then you-- MS. KRIZ: Right -- well, whether they remove their side of the pepper is really up to them. I don't know the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to understand why the removal of the fence is as critical a factor. MS. KRIZ: Because the pepper is -- on our side is growing in and among the fence. And in order to get the pepper out, you have to take out -- it's an old fence, it's a very old fence. You have to remove the pepper to get the fence out -- or take out the fence to get the pepper out. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't think we ought to get into that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I can't understand why you couldn't remove your exotics with herbicides without taking out the fence. MS. KRIZ: I'm somewhat very knowledgeable of pepper removal from my past work experience. Pepper is oftentimes removed with a bulldozer. It's really one of the better -- because it only grows on disturbed lands. That's why you see it along the canal, because the rocks on the far edge of a canal. And that's why -- it grows on Page 40 November 18, 2004 disturbed lands. So you almost have to fix the underlying source of where the pepper is growing, like rocks, piles of rocks or things such as that. Did I answer your question? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I just expressed a doubt. I still don't know. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, the fence was originally installed by whom, do you know? Is it your fence or is it their fence? MS. KRIZ: I don't know, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The next question, I guess, is -- MS. KRIZ: Excuse me, I would suspect theirs. Because there would be no reason for us to put it up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My next question is really a result of your comments of staff. And Mike, maybe you could answer this, based on what the lady has said. The buffer, this is an ago district? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And it's up against the PUD? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What buffer requirement are they having requested along their property borders? Okay, well, let's put it this way: My reading of the code indicates that if it's a PUD, it goes to the -- it falls to the most common use within the PUD that is contiguous to that property, which would be -- is it multi-family, is that generally what Eagle Creek is? Or is it single- family? MS. KRIZ: It's both. MR. BOSI: The use contiguous to that property is golf course tract. MS. KRIZ: Excuse me for mentioning, there's also a three-acre piece of land on the west side of that fence that is not owned by Eagle Creek or the applicant. Page 41 November 18, 2004 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let me finish where I'm going with this. If it's a golf course adjacent to it and its ago that this is, then you'd have to have -- you'd be classified as a, I believe, B buffer, by the table we have. Are they putting in a B buffer? MR. BOSI: They would be required to at site development plan, which they have submitted. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that going to be subject to removal of the exotics by both parties prior to that buffer going in? Because if one party does it and the other didn't, those exotics would just overtake the buffer. MR. BOSI: No. By limitations of the powers of an SDP, we can't impose upon -- a requirement upon the adjoining property owner to remove their exotics. The applicant, Pinnacle and Global Signals, will be required to remove those exotics and install the Type B buffer. But if the exotics on Eagle Creek's side are not removed, you know what will happen to the condition of that area along the adjoining property line. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Which is why I'm bringing this up now, because what's going to happen is you're going to force Pinnacle to put the buffer in. If they don't remove their exotics for 10 years, those exotics will overgrow that buffer and there will no -- virtually no buffer, it will be choked to death. Is there some kind of solution to this that's going to be suggested, or are we going to request something that's impractical and is going to go forward and get destroyed and a waste of money? MR. BOSI: I would be extremely hesitant to -- I'm not sure, and I would have to defer to Ms. Student, but in terms of making conditions of approval for a subject site in imposing a third party, I think you start getting into some touchy areas, and I would have to defer to -- Page 42 November 18, 2004 MS. STUDENT: Well, there's issues with that, because the owner of the neighboring site, I mean, they're before us as having received notice as neighboring property owners, but they're not here to have adjustments made to that -- their site. And it can be problematic. I think the best that we can do is perhaps direct staff, the appropriate staff or whoever's been involved in exotic removal for Eagle Creek to work out something that's beyond this process to work together to make sure that the exotics are removed, that, you know, are boundary to that site -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bosi? MS. STUDENT: -- but it would be outside of this process. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Ms. Student. Ms. Martohue had suggested maybe a condition of approval that Pinnacle and Global Signals will coordinate with Eagle Creek and install the Type B buffer at the time that they have initiated their exotic removal program along that portion of an area. Therefore, we're not requiring them to do it at a specific time, but we are requiring the coordination between the applicant and Eagle Creek. And I know Eagle Creek wants to see the end result to this as well. So the motivation will probably be there. And I think that might be the solution -- MS. STUDENT: I think that would work. MR. BOSI: -- that could solve this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I would be -- I certainly would agree. It would be silly to require that go in until this issue is resolved. But if you modify the buffer requirements pursuant to the LDC, is that a request for a variance then? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think we could stipulate a conditional use to have a phasing of the buffer. I'd also like to point out, we do have maintenance requirements that Pinnacle would have to maintain. Even if the buffer was Page 43 November 18, 2004 installed, they'd be maintaining it before the infestation of pepper could destroy the buffer. So I don't think that would be a concern either way. I'd probably prefer the buffer to go in now and they would just be responsible for maintaining that buffer. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the canopy that would be coming off the buffer on the northern side owned by Eagle Creek, you're telling me that they would have to go in there and keep cutting that canopy back for 10 years until Eagle Creek decided to clean it up? I mean, the buffer would be useless as long as that Brazilian pepper is there, not just because it would be futurely destroyed by the Brazilian pepper, but also, you're not going to get any better blockage than a hedge of Brazilian pepper. Nothing can get through that. So what's the practical sense of demanding it now, having a bunch of stunted trees and added maintenance costs for an applicant that doesn't -- I mean it just seems counterproductive. So I like the idea of phasing in a buffer at the time the exotics are finally cleared out of there, as -- MS. KRIZ: That's what we're asking. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: --long as the applicant and the county attorney has no problem with that. MS. STUDENT: No, I have no problem with that. MS. KRIZ: We're not asking that it be done -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what they're going to do without any help from us, aren't they? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They can't do it. That's what Ray just said, they'd have to require the buffer to go in now. MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's no variance -- I mean, there's no administrative process to eliminate a buffer requirement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's all the questions I have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's it, Mr. Strain? Other questions? Page 44 November 18,2004 Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: I think we could look at the timing phasing of it and report that to the Board of County Commissioners. MS. KRIZ: Am I allowed to make another comment? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Brief. MS. KRIZ: Okay. That's what we were asking is a coordinated effort and replacement of the existing fence that's there now. And thanks for hearing me out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Bellows, any other registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other registered -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any summary comments by the petitioner? MS. MAR TO HUE: Yes, sir, thank you. With respect to the fencing, again, the condition of the fencing right now does not need removal. And I'm not going to proj ect out 10 years from now if -- you know, through the coordination effort, perhaps it would. But I would submit and appreciate everybody here understanding the practical implications of all this. We certainly want to coordinate. We don't want to waste money. And regardless of when they're removing their Brazilian peppers, we're required as a condition of CO to remove our Brazilian peppers, and we intend to do that. Of course, their situation makes our situation not great, and imposes maintenance on us. And I would submit and request that you do not place a condition of approval that we replace our fence. And I hear that you understand the problems there. In fact, I mean, that would be a penalty against my client for the fact that they're not maintaining their Brazilian pepper, which in fact is the one that's crawling through the fence and causing us problems. Page 45 November 18,2004 I do not agree that, you know, the fence needs to be removed and we need to bulldoze. It can be herbicide. And they need to be cognizant of the fact that, you know, they can't destroy our property because they have a problem that they need to take care of. And that is an 800- foot fence. It's a significant expense. And we would appreciate if you do not make that a condition of approval. But we will proceed forward with removing our exotics and maintaining and coordinate the plantings so it makes sense. And I thank you for understanding the practicalities of that. My last comment is just we're asking for approval. We appreciate your support. This is an essential and vital communications tower for commercial and nonprofit reasons, military and public reasons, broadcasting reasons. And I can't state or overstate the significance of this tower in terms of communications to your community . And I thank you for your time this morning and your patience. And we request your approval and support. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I'll make a motion. I would move that CU-2004-AR-6464 be forwarded to the Board of Collier County Commissioners with the conditions of approval as noted in Exhibit D, which is a paper that was handed us today which consists of six specific conditions. And I would be open to another amendment with regard to exotics, if one were offered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll second it and I'd offer an amendment. Item seven be phasing a landscape buffer installation with removal of exotics on the Eagle Creek property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would concur with that. Page 46 November 18, 2004 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Murray, second by Mr. Strain. Discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What's the amendment again? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The phasing of the landscape buffer installation with the removal of the exotics on the Eagle Creek property. When Eagle Creek removes its exotics, the applicant will then be required to install the landscape buffer that the code requires them to install. MR. BELLOWS: Does that include the fence and matching it with the Eagle Creek? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Fence isn't in the code, it says a B buffer, if I'm not mistaken. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Two -- you're seconding adoption of a motion you're making. I don't think we can do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, I seconded his, then I said I have -- and I can state the amendment. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're adding a point to it, nobody's seconding that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, I know, I'm stating it now-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I -- it was subject to an amendment, potential amendment. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain made a suggestion to modify it, Mr. Murray, the motion maker, accepted it. Motion and second are in agreement. Any further discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just a clarification. You're not requesting that they remove their fence as a condition? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not sure who owns the fence, but the code doesn't require the fence, so I'm -- that's an issue between the two parties. I don't know if we need to get into that. Page 47 November 18,2004 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And for the members, this is a conditional use. Fill out your forms. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Being none, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries 9-0. As Mr. Adelstein reminded you, please pass down to him your findings of fact. MS. MARTOHUE: Thank you very much. And if anybody doesn't want bedtime reading, I'm happy to take these back and recycle the trees. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. And we will take a 10-minute break. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifwe can gather our planning commissioners, we'll come back to order. Okay, we have a quorum with our planning commissioners. We'll move on to the next agenda item. That is petition V A-2004-AR-5878, a request for a rear yard setback. Pelican Bay Unit 1. This has been continued from November 4th. Page 48 November 18,2004 All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. DURANT: Good morning. My name is Mike Durant. I represent the Needhams, Mike and Wendy Needham. That's Mike Needham who's here today. We're here asking for a variance of a rear setback of their home at 720 Bay Tree Lane -- it's Bay Tree Court. You'll see it on the monitor. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There should be a hand -- there you go. MR. DURANT: Over here, we've brought in our first exhibit, 1981, when the house was originally constructed, the pool was built. And back then -- the pool has not changed since 1981. Back then, you'll see that it encroached within the setback at that point in time. The N eedhams purchased the home in 2002. And at that point in time, you can see that the only thing that had changed was that it had been screened in. And you'll see that it was screened all along this 10- foot utility easement area. What I've also brought is a 1995 -- I should back up a second. The Needhams are the third owners of the property. Stevensons built it in 1981. Ms. Griffin bought it in 1995. Prior to her purchasing it, there was an issue of whether there was an encroachment. And at that point in time, there was an amendment to the declaration of restrictions and covenants for Pelican Bay Woods that said for this specific site the setback would be eight feet. The N eedhams, being the third purchasers, bought it, again, in 2002. They underwent some additional renovations. They attempted to just square off what existed. Again, the pool was there from the beginning at some point between 1995 and when they purchased it. Actually, before -- yeah, 1995 when Ms. Griffin purchased it, a screen Page 49 November 18,2004 was erected. The screen was in its condition, as we understand it, when they purchased it. The only thing the N eedhams attempted to do was square it off and make it consistent with the back half of the property . That's simply where we are. We're trying to make the county setback consistent with the homeowners association setback. The developer of course was the one who set the original setback, the developer was the one who amended the setback requirements. We have -- we've of course gone through the process, and we have gotten a report from the committee, and the committee did not find that there was any objection to us having this variance, but they said that there was not a hardship. And we would argue, of course, that the hardship is the inconsistency of what we've got. We've got two separate setbacks on this one piece of property, one for the homeowners association and one for the county. We also have an existing structure that's been there for over 24 years, or 23 years, and all we're doing is trying to square off what was there. I know one of the concerns that had come up from letters that we had received was whether or not this was going to further encroach. It's not a further encroachment, it's simply squaring off, again, consistent with -- well within the eight-foot setback that the county -- I'm sorry, the homeowners association put into effect. What we had -- what we had prepared was a nine-foot setback. It would have been again consistent. We also have, as you'll see on the screen, you'll see that this is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood, too. I mean, we're not jutting out into the backyard, we're jutting out onto the golf course. And in fact, this golf hole is played from -- it's played from here down this way. And so it's not a safety concern, because the existing screen has been there since at least before 1995. We -- yes, go ahead. Page 50 -----,.........'.-.--- _.._~-- November 18,2004 MR. NEEDHAM: I'm Michael Needham, the homeowner involved. The -- you must wonder why we're here. We rehabbed our house after buying it. The contractor removed part of the pool screen. And essent -- and we were not permitted to put it back up where it was. And so we came to the county to seek a variance, either to square the property off and make it look better, or to be able to put back up what we had originally. To me it's a petition in equity. Now, there are really no records anywhere as to when this pool screen was up, although I've spoken to people who have worked on it, workmen, and they told me that there was a pool screen extant in 1989 when some work was done, and they put a new pool screen up in 1989. So that's -- as to the golf course concerns, this pool screen doesn't exceed any of the other property pool screens, they're all contiguous, and they all look the same. And no golf balls ever come anywhere near it. And I've lived there for a year and a half, and there's people -- I can see the golf course and nothing ever comes near it. And the pool itself, the way the cart path goes, is protected by a phalanx of trees, very thick trees, and so any balls that would come anywhere near the pool screen are usually blocked by the trees. I've never found a ball anywhere near this area. So as I said, this is a petition in equity to at least get back what we have before and give my wife back her garden, or to enable us to square off the line in that way and just make it look a little neater. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Are there any other speakers on behalf of your request? MR. DURANT: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? Page 51 November 18,2004 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The material we have indicates that the rationale for getting a variance was, quote, so they can extend the existing screen enclosure to cover a planter that was constructed within the setback area. I mean, how many rationales are there for what we're being asked here? MR. DURANT: Well, maybe I can help explain that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is the planter consistent with all of this? MR. DURANT: Yes. You'll see the planter is right here. The planter is here. This was initially constructed in the remodel to be screened in. When the contractor came to do the screening, the county told him he had to go back 15 feet. So as a result -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They screened it out. MR. DURANT: They screened it out, yes. And -- well, I've lost my photograph here. There it is. You can see that this is -- you know, it's a six-foot section that comes back right off the living room. I mean -- MR. CARON: This is what exists today? MR. DURANT: This is what exists today, yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. In here you have the amended declaration of restrictions, which allows an eight-foot setback for a screened patio. Is this the only site on that street that has that eight-foot requirement? Are the other sites at 15? MR. DURANT: It's the only site that we saw. Although, I would tell you that when you look at the overhead -- in our research, that was the only one that we saw that had been changed. When you look at the overhead photographs of the neighbors that are in the general area, it appears that they don't -- there's not a 15- foot setback requirement. But as to our site, there's only an eight-foot setback. Page 52 November 18, 2004 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is what is the pool set back at? Do you know the dimension that the pool itself is at? MR. DURANT: Where it is? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. None of the surveys show the pool. It does show the screening, but -- MR. DURANT: Yeah, I can tell you it's 18 inches off of that nine- foot section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the pool is within 15 feet also. MR. DURANT: Yes, sir. Which is, we're certain, the reason why the initial amendment was drafted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. The -- right now you say there is no screening on the thing? You're trying to replace it so it's -- there is no screen? MR. DURANT: There is a screen as it exists right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And was that screen permitted? MR. DURANT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's a Collier permit for that screen? MR. DURANT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In its location? MR. DURANT: In its location. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for the petitioner? Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It kind of centers around what you just said. Only because I'd like to get it clarified, there's a sentence in the staff report that says, however, it is important to note the petitioner should be required to get approval of after-the-fact permits for the entire screen enclosure, because it seems the screen enclosure may Page 53 November 18, 2004 have been erected without the benefit of any inspections by the county in response to permits. I know that they're suggesting that you get an after-the-fact permit, but that is under the presumption you didn't have one to begin with. And I'm not sure that's the case here, so why would you be required to go in and get another one? And unless you can be proven not to have gotten one to begin with, I'm not sure you need to be required to go get another one. MR. DURANT: Ms. Deselem and I have had several conversations. When I was responding to having the permit, we did have the permit for the area that is in that IS-foot setback area there. The part that preexisted, the part that runs all the way to the -- from where you see it cuts in and goes back towards the north, that was -- that was already -- that was already standing. That's the one Ms. Deselem researched, and we did as well, but we did not see that there was a permit in the records. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You just couldn't find one. MR. DURANT: That's right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The code has changed over the years, and there were cases in the past when certain things done under a certain value did not require a permit. Do you know if this was constructed during the period of that time? Probably don't know. MR. DURANT: I don't know the answer. We know that it was constructed before 1995, and after 1981. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are no more questions at this time. We'll have follow-up comments at the end. Our staff presentation, please? MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Page 54 November 18, 2004 Kay Deselem. I am a principal planner with the zoning section, and I am here to present the staff report. If I may, before I start, I have several letters that came in from neighboring property owners and from The Club at Pelican Bay, and if I may give those to you. These are letters that were submitted, based on either the sign, the newspaper ad or the letters. You do have the staff report and the supplemental staff reports that updated you. This particular petition was originally scheduled to be heard on the 19th of August, was continued to the 16th of September, again to November 4th and then to today's date. The staff report addresses the concerns raised by staff. And in hearing the petitioner's comment and what is permitted or at least where we were able to determine where permits were issued, if I may put something on the visualizer that you can see. The area highlighted in orange is the area that we're not certain whether permits were issued for that or not, because we have been unable to find them. It's noted on there as existing, but we don't know at what point in time that became existing. Because, like I said, we can't find permits. The part that was permitted, and I think what Mr. Durant was speaking of as the permitted portion, is that that's noted as pool enclosure addition in yellow. In response to another question that came out about whether or not the existing pool is within the setbacks that are allowed, this is the original permit from '80 area, and I apologize for the actual ability to read it, it's somewhat illegible. However, you can notice that it shows the area noted in orange as a 10- foot wide utility easement. It has an arrow that shows down to a line that's also shown in orange. And then there's some portion of a comment that talks about a pool setback. And there's a line that's referenced. And that appears to be at least half Page 55 ..N.." .~"_......""....." November 18, 2004 again as big as the existing 10- foot utility easement. So it appears as though the pool was constructed outside that 15- foot setback. It does not encroach into the required 15- foot setback for the pool. However, noting that, in the PUD document the setback is for a screen enclosure, it doesn't reference the pool, it references specifically a screen enclosure that has to be set back 15 feet. It doesn't say anything about a pool. So I wanted to clarify those issues that came up earlier. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can I interrupt you right there? What is the pool setback for the county? What would it be? MS. DESELEM: My understanding, if it doesn't exceed three feet in height, it doesn't have a setback, because it's not vertical. Going back to the staff report, like I said, you do have the original staff report dated August 19th. We went into the requested action. We told about the geographic location, we explained the purpose and description of the site as we understood it, and we go into the history of the fact that we were unable to find some of the permits. I can't state that they weren't received or that they were even required. I can just state that we couldn't find any. And that was some of the continuance, the petitioner's agent was attempting to also find permits or to find people that historically knew whether permits had been issued. And my understanding is, he was unable to determine that as well. The surrounding land use is noted on Page 2 of the staff report. This particular request is not really affected by the Growth Management Plan because it deals with the overall issues of the use, not the variance. And then on Page 3 of the staff report, you have the analysis. And staff did go over the findings of fact that are required in support of a variance petition. And in essence -- I mean, you can look at each and every one of Page 56 November 18,2004 them, but in essence, there is no land-related hardship. This particular person would still have reasonable use of the land, regardless of whether this variance is approved or not. There may be ameliorating factors, because it is on the rear of the golf course and it doesn't appear to affect any other homeowners. However, based on the fact that there are no land-related hardships and the petitioner would still have a reasonable use of the land, staff is recommending denial of this particular variance. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions on our staff report? Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Kay, are we citing all the other homeowners along that strip that apparently by the aerials seem to be violating the similar setback? MS. DESELEM: I'm not aware of any citations that have been issued. I'm not aware that code's been notified. I personally have not notified code. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So just this one homeowner at this point has been singled out. MS. DESELEM: This one homeowner sought a petition. I don't know that he's necessarily being singled out, he sought a petition seeking a variance. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: He wasn't allowed to construct, so -- others apparently have. MS. DESELEM: I don't know the situation on their variances or their codes or permits. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're familiar with PUDs. When a PUD applicant comes in and asks for a setback along a golf course within the PUD by the same developer, they can ask for whatever setback they want. Many times they come before this board and ask for zero setbacks on property lines common to a golf course or a preserve area or whatever. Is that something that you're familiar with? Have you seen that Page 57 -"-_.~'.__. November 18, 2004 happen before? MS. DESELEM: Historically speaking, the developer that designs the PUD comes in seeking whatever setbacks they desire. This is what was sought. And I might add that the lot lines along here, the rear lot lines for those different lots do meander somewhat, so it's kind of hard just looking at an aerial and doing a line of sight look, it's hard to tell whether or not they are compliant with rear setbacks. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick question. Is this on a gated community, this part of a gated? MS. DESELEM: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else on the staff presentation? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifwe can move on to our advertised public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: First speaker is Jay Levitt and Ross Obley, followed by -- Ross Obley. MR.OBLEY: My name is Ross Obley. I'm president of the Westinghouse Subsidiaries that developed Pelican Bay, Pelican Landing and Gateway Communities. Pelican Bay is now celebrating its 25th anniversary. Great community, many awards. Pelican Bay Woods, where this lot requesting the change is located, had the lots designed by WilsonMiller, Tom Peak, by name. The detailed lot designs were reviewed by an all-star group from the Urban Land Institute. They were also reviewed by Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and by Collier County. Alllot designs included setback criteria, it included consideration of marketability, appearance, community consistency, appropriateness with neighbors and safety. Page 58 November 18,2004 A golfball is a lethal projectile. This lot is very visible from the golf course, and our thousand members. Any change such as proposed would denigrate Pelican Bay, Pelican Bay Woods and the Golf Club at Pelican Bay. Please reject this change application. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, Mr. Obley, Mr. Strain has a question for you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Obley, are you a member of the Foundation of Pelican Bay? MR.OBLEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You know the Foundation has recommended approval and has no opposition to this variance? MR.OBLEY: I am not sure that -- I did not know that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, there's a letter in our file that was given to us by staff dated June 30th, 2004, signed by Mireya Agnoli, director, covenant enforcement. Having stated the above, the variance petition has been reviewed. The Foundation has no opposition to granting of this variance based on the following. And they outline some issues that were -- MR.OBLEY: My impression is that she did not know that the golf course, the immediate neighbor, objected when she wrote that letter. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, another question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just another question. When the declaration of restrictions were amended to allow eight feet, does that mean anything? MR.OBLEY: I just found that out in looking. I mean, what we want is we don't want any more intrusion visually towards the golf course. And what was done in the past, we don't have full knowledge of, or at least I don't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Obley. Page 59 .-_.~-_.,--'-~'- November 18,2004 Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Jay Levitt, followed by -- MR. LEVITT: Yes. My name is Jay Levitt. I'm the greens chairman for the Club at Pelican Bay. We are objecting to this variance because it does bring a portion of the property closer to the golf course. It opens up, from our point of view, pandora's box, and by issuing a variance it gives other people the idea, well, if it was done here, why shouldn't it be done somewhere else. The problem is, all of the variances that were originally set up were set up to safeguard the homeowner, keep it somewhat consistent so they all have a similar type view of the golf course and not to encroach on the golf course. And we feel that by changing this, we are putting all of those factors at risk. Thank you very much. And for that reason, we hope you'll rej ect this. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Mr. Strain has a question for you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sir, are you a member of the Foundation? MR. LEVITT: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You live in Pelican Bay? MR. LEVITT: I belong to the Foundation, yes. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you are a member of the Foundation? MR. LEVITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: No other questions? Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: George Werner. MR. WERNER: Good morning. My name is George Werner, W - E- R - N - E- R. I've lived in Pelican Bay for 18 years, and I'm a Page 60 November 18, 2004 member of the golf club, and all residents of Pelican Bay belong to the Foundation. I came here to oppose the variance, because I thought it would set a precedence for the other lot owners on that street, the 11 or 12 that are adjacent to him on that street. But truthfully, if it's not intruding any further on the golf course, even though my two friends here probably won't talk to me anymore, I don't see any reason to object to it, I'll be honest with you. But thank you for listening to me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Any summary comments by the petitioner? MR. DURANT: No, sir, I couldn't sum it up any better. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a recommendation to forward for approval V A-2004-AR-5878, subject to the stipulations that the setback will be eight feet. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just going to say, I'm going to support the thing, because once they changed the protective covenants to allow eight feet, I mean, that's the neighborhood saying they allow eight feet. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other comments? (N 0 response.) Page 61 ._--~.,.~ November 18,2004 CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll call the question. All those in question, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries 9-0. It's unanimous. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, that was approval of the variance, not approval of staffs recommendation? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's correct, approval of the variance request at eight foot. MR. SCHMITT: Just to make sure the public and the record so note it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we'll move on to our next agenda item, that is Petition PUDZ-2004-AR-5220. This is the project known as the Buckley Mixed Use PUD. This has been continued from November 4th. While we're shifting around in the room, on the part of planning commissioners, are there any disclosures on this item? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray, start with you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had occasion to be at a smart growth meeting with where a presentation was made. I believe the architect who showed plans, questions were asked and answered by the group. Page 62 ^-~_..~... November 18, 2004 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, any? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I read an e-mail by Sidney Showaltor, Forest Wainscott, II, and the petition from Emerald Lakes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney? None. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: None. I had a conversation with Mr. Showaltor. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I had a conversation and a fax from Mr. Showaltor. I had a conversation and a couple of e-mails with Mr. Nino. I had a couple of conversations with Mr. Y ovanovich. I think that's all. If I remember any more, I'll bring them up as I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN BUDD: None. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a brief discussion with Mr. Y ovanovich this morning. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Ms. Caron? MR. CARON: Same, I had a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. With that, all those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand and raise your right hand. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. I represent the property owner in this matter, and am responsible for bringing forward the PUD on behalf of the purchaser. With me today is Joe D'Jamoos and Andy D'Jamoos and Brad Gurino (phonetic) from JED. They are the contract purchasers on the Page 63 ~_._._~.,_..,.,-,.,." November 18,2004 property and will be the ultimate developer of the project. The planner on the project, Ron Nino, who's handing out some modifications to the master plan that I'll be going over with you this morning. Bob Mitchell is the landscape architect on this project and Reed Jarvi is the transportation engineer on this proj ect. They are all with Vanasse and Daylor. I will take you briefly through the history of this project, and also through the site plan, and if you have any specific questions that I can't address, one of the gentleman I've mentioned will be happy to answer any of your questions. This project started out with a compo plan amendment that obviously went through the transmittal hearing process and the adoption hearing process. And the adoption hearing occurred in May, 2002. At the adoption hearing, some of the residents from Emerald Lakes attended and voiced concerns about the parameters of the comprehensive plan amendment that was being approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The board ultimately adopted the Buckley compo plan amendment, and the residents of Emerald Lakes challenged that amendment. We went through an administrative hearing. We prevailed in the administrative hearing and then an appeal was filed, based on our prevailing at the administrative hearing. The original proposed developer of the proj ect was more of a multi -- an apartment-type developer . Wanted more intense residential and less retail and office. That developer fell out of the picture after the legal challenges were filed. And lED entered into the picture. And we had an opportunity to sit down with the residents of Emerald Lakes who had filed a challenge to discuss the project, to talk about what their concerns were and how can we address their concerns. I think it's fair to say that the reason they spoke against the compo Page 64 November 18,2004 plan amendment was the uncertainty of what project may result from the comprehensive plan parameters. We did have an opportunity to sit down with them, meet with them, address all their concerns and reach a settlement agreement as to the development parameters that we would ask for in the PUD process. And that's what's before you today. Their concerns were a couple, and I'm going to walk over to the plaster plan. Their concerns mainly were they wanted to know what was the quality of development that was going to occur on the project, what was the residential intensity, what was the retail intensity and what was kind of the office intensity. We came to them at the -- actually at the mediation. MR. SCHMITT: Staffs here to help you, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let the record reflect that Mr. Schmitt said that. We came to them with this site plan, which was pretty detailed. And we felt we needed to be detailed with them so they would understand what we would be asking for in the PUD document. A bubble plan really wouldn't work in this particular case, because this is the first truly mixed-use residential and retail and office project to come into the county. This is the -- I don't know another one. You know, you have Bayfront in the city, but that's a much taller project than we're asking for. But that's the only concept that we had to compare it to. So we met with them and we explained to them what we wanted to do. And for those of you who don't know, lED is the developer of the Galleria. So they have an example of the type of architecture and the quality of tenants that we want to put into this proj ect. So they had at least the comfort of knowing it was somebody who's been in Collier County, has developed in Collier County, and somebody they can measure the quality of what they're going to get. So we went to them with this site plan and explained to them Page 65 November 18,2004 what had happened. One, we had reduced the intensity of residential. The original developer wanted to do 13 units per acre, we had asked for a maximum of 11 units per acre. The original was going to do less office and retail. We wanted to emphasize the office and retail and reduce the residential. We also had made provisions to have an increased setback from the western boundary -- from our western boundary and the eastern boundary of Emerald Lakes. This setback is a minimum of 100 feet. The previous plan that they had seen could have been as close as 20 feet. We knew they had a concern with that. So we moved the buildings further away from their property line and discussed with them a landscape buffer that would supplement the already existing landscape buffer that's there. And I don't know if any of you have gone through that project, but there's a very substantial Areca palm buffer already in existence. Our landscape plan will supplement that, and I'll go through that with you all, and if you need to get more detail from a landscape architect, we can do that. So we talked about increasing the setback from their property line. We showed them -- and I'll show you the architectural elevations about what we intended, and how we intended to create a Main Street. These are the buildings that will be the mixed-use buildings, that will be residential mixed with office and/or retail. The ends of each of the F buildings and the A buildings are residential buildings. So we explained to them how we wanted the Main Street to work. And I believe, obviously, since we resolved this at mediation, they were impressed with what we were proposing. What we have done since then, and in response to some comments we've heard and some of the concerns of staff, we went back and said, well, how can we increase some of the green space in the project, because it does look a little pavement-oriented. And we said what can we do to add some more green space at this time, Page 66 November 18,2004 keeping in mind, although this is very detailed, we're going to still have to go through a site development plan process, and there will be further refinement to this plan. And we believe that that refinement will actually reduce either residential density, or office and retail. We'll figure that out depending on what the marketing conditions are. But we fully expect that we'll probably lose some additional parking spaces when we get down to the full design, which will naturally result in a reduction in intensity of the project, because if you can't park it, you can't have it. So what we did is we tried to emphasize more near the residential ends of the project, some more green space. So we eliminated parking spaces that were here previously, and some parking spaces near the end to try to square off, if you will, the green space and create more of a park-like atmosphere down here. This park would be more focused on the lake that we would envision would be an amenity, and there's a walkway -- a walk path across the lake. So we would focus that more as an area of -- more of a serene, relaxed area for people to relax and not have to get into the middle of, you know, the downtown street, if you will. And then down at the northern end, there previously was a turnaround. We've eliminated that turnaround and have made that all green to make that another park area, and that's about another half acre or so of park area. Currently we planned on putting a fountain there, you know, for -- we'll have benches around there for people to relax and sit. So we -- with that, we've lost -- I would guess we've probably lost around 30 parking spaces. So we already know that those 30 parking spaces is going to translate into some reduction in either the residential units or office and retail. We would like the market to direct that, but we already know, with eliminating those parking spaces, we've already lost units or retail. Just so you know, even though the PUD would allow a maximum Page 67 November 18, 2004 of 251 dwelling units, this conceptual plan, which is 11 units per acre, this conceptual plan itself only has 204 residential units. So if we were to do this, we're only going to use nine of the 11 units that would be allowed under the PUD, 11 units per acre under the PUD. So we already know we're not going to max out what our PUD allow. And we -- again, I said we expect further reductions in those numbers, depending on what the market conditions yield for us. We -- as part of our settlement agreement, we were required 30 days prior to going to the Board of County Commissioners to submit our proposed landscape plan to the residents of Emerald Lakes, and we have done that. This is just the landscape plan for the buffer immediately adjacent to Emerald Lakes. And you'll see that we're talking about planting live oaks, southern magnolias. I don't know what East Palatka holly is, but we're talking about that. And in the range of, you know, at planting, 10 feet to 14 feet. And it will be staggered, so it's going to be supplemental to their existing Areca palms, and through time will grow, and if anything ever happened to that a Areca palm, our buffer would take over for the Areca palms. We have shown them kind of a line of sight analysis of what the existing Areca palms do as far as hiding our buildings, and as what our project's plantings will do to hide the buildings. I think it's important to point out that the residents that border our project on the west, they're oriented with -- their front doors face our project, not their house. Their house is oriented towards a lake behind their house, so there's actually -- there are Areca palms on this side, then they have their right-of-way, their street, and then you have their fronts yards, then you get to their house, and their houses all face to the back. So we don't believe we're intruding at all in their living space when they're enjoying their home. If they're in their front yard, they're going to see their Areca palms. But this is the elevations we were showing them. Under the Page 68 November 18,2004 compo plan amendment and our PUD, all four sides of our buildings are required to be finished and architecturally alike. So this is how the buildings, we envisioned the building will look. The ground floor in this instance would be the retail, and then the next two floors would probably be residential. So that's the type of architecture we envision for our project. And I do have -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Richard, this diagram you have here, is that what's going to be built, then? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So you represent the owner and the buyer? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- well, I represent the owner, but the buyer is committed to this, correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. They will stipulate today that they're committed to this design? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, Mr. D'Jamoos will stipulate to this type of design. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Joe, did I get -- is that the residential. MR. D'JAMOOS: This is the residential. MR. YOV ANOVICH: All right. This is the actual -- this is the type of architecture for the residential on each ends of the street, the A's and the F's. This is the architecture, which is very similar, for the Main Street buildings. And we're committed to those for the entire project. And this is what we showed the residents of Emerald Lakes. So you can see we had a very detailed presentation when we met with them during the mediation. And we fully expect to be held, or Mr. D'Jamoos fully expects to be held accountable to what he represented. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that the street side architecture or the back side architecture. Page 69 November 18,2004 MR. D'JAMOOS: Street side. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. D'Jamoos said that is street side. But keeping in mind that all four sides have to be uniform. You know, we're not allowed to have a back door, if you will. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there balconies on the street side. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me answer that question. On the side near Emerald Lakes -- we recently had another meeting. We asked for the continuance because there was some concerns from residents on their eastern portion of Emerald Lakes, they had some -- they apparently had not seen the details of our proposal. We met with them about a week or so ago, and one of the concerns that was raised by the people who live here, they didn't want any balconies for the residential uses on that sides, and we have committed to no balconies for the residential -- or for all the buildings on our western boundary, okay, so there will be nobody looking over into their yards. So we had committed to that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rich, while you're at a stopping point, as I recall, when the city was doing part of the 4110, they talked about some mixed use on the numbered streets, numbered avenues. And they were talking about having residential on the first floor and offices above, which sounded kind of cockamamie to me. But yours is all whatever you're going to have, whether it's retail or office, the residential will be above it; is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Mr. Abernathy, the A ones, the A buildings and the F buildings, these are all residential buildings. So they three floors would be -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All together, yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But on the buildings where we're talking about a mixture, we don't have any residential on the first floor, I do not believe. No, we don't. We may put some parking there and then have residential, second and third floor, but we don't have Page 70 November 18, 2004 any residential on the first floor. We don't anticipate that this is going to be a family-oriented project. We expect that this is going to be for young professionals who will either have their medical office there or their attorney's office there or their CPA's office there. Or for a more active retiree. We would envision that this is going to have a little bit more active lifestyle associated with it. We don't really think that this is a family-oriented project. That's why we candidly don't plan a lot of amenities for kids. We just don't think that it's going to be attractive to them or something that they're interested in. This is, again, as I said, I think the first shot at someone trying to do a mixed-use kind of an older -- old neighborhood design that you would find in cities. It will allow people to live where their work, eat where they live, and hopefully be a good example for what comes in the future, if anybody else tries to do this type of development. Weare in agreement with the revisions requested by your staff. And I think they forwarded to you a revised PUD that evidences that. I did notice one mathematical error on Page 17 of the November 17 version of the PUD. It's in Paragraph 5, and it addresses the residential -- it says a residential component equal to at least 25 percent of the allowable maximum density shall be constructed before completion of an aggregate total of 40,000 square feet. The example, the i.e. in the parenthetical, it used a number of 343 units. We only have 251 units as a maximum. So you need to change that to 251 units times 25 percent, which would equal 63 dwelling units. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What are you allowed, though? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're allowed 251 under the PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, according to the GMP, what are you allowed? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the GMP doesn't allow me anything, it allows me to come in and ask. The maximum I could ask Page 71 November 18,2004 for is 343. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Maybe that's where that calculation came from. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think so. I think Kay and I sat down and talked about that, and I think she's in agreement that the we need to use the 251 dwelling units versus the 343 dwelling units. With that, I think I've addressed the proj ect in great enough detail. I know you have a very detailed staff report and all the information you need. If you need me to address anything else, I'll be happy to answer any questions or bring the team up to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a couple of questions. What is the actual height of these buildings going to be? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The actual height, we're not allowed to exceed 45 feet, Mr. Adelstein. We have not actually designed the buildings yet, so I -- the maximum height is 45 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In here in one area, it says three floors, or 35 feet, in the first section here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can you -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But you're saying it's 45 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. It's no more -- we cannot have more than three stories, and it cannot exceed 45 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And those 45 feet includes the roof? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is the -- I wish we hadn't gone to this actual height versus zoning height. It is zoning height is 45 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the actual height? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I haven't designed the building yet, so I don't know. But again, I'm limited to measuring 45 feet from zoning height. Unless you have, Joe, do you know? Page 72 -.,,--.""" November 18,2004 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are your line of sight charts associated with -- based on that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Based on a 45 feet of zoning height. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: My second question was are you going to have underground parking? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will have some below par -- let me rephrase this. We cannot exceed three stories or 45 feet. We will have some under-building parking. I don't know -- do you plan on digging any basements for your -- if we were to do that, Mr. Adelstein, it's not going to change the building height nor the number of stories. We'd have to count that basement parking as one of our three. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what I wanted to know. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr.-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that was one of the staff comments that we have agreed to. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, the plan's a nice plan, but the setbacks that you're requesting in the PUD don't match the site plan necessarily. Is there a reason for that? For example -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're actually exceeding them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're exceeding them in what you're showing us today. But the PUD is going to have a different setback in it. For example, Airport Road -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: By Airport Road says 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes this plan definitely shows something probably 80 to 100 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So could we lock ourselves better under this plan by changing that? Because somebody could theoretically throw this plan totally out and design a brand new system 20 feet to the road. Page 73 November 18,2004 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me -- if you can -- let me have them think about that for a minute, if that's okay, as to what the exact number they might be willing to agree to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because this plan, as pretty as it is, isn't locked in. He could sell that tomorrow to some other developer who would go only by the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which would be 100 feet on the west side and 20 feet on the east. I understand that. So let's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is that on these things, there's like a dotted line that's called building envelope. What does that really mean? And I guess the question I'm getting to, are these one big building or are these broken up? The facade I know is broken up. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not allowed to have a footprint greater than 15,000 feet square. But we can have breezeways that will actually connect the buildings to give them a covered pedestrian area. So the footprints are 15,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And there will be a separation between buildings of 20 feet, according to your -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. For reference, I'm looking at the strikethrough underlined version. I'd like to call your attention to Page 14 under 3.3. The question is kiosks. I'm just wondering, are these portable kiosks -- you may not have to reference that document to answer me -- are these portable kiosks or are they intended to be permanent? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're intended to be permanent kiosks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's one question that resolves. Now, Page 15 again in that one -- I just want to call Page 74 November 18, 2004 attention to where it references -- it states in No.9, the bandshell stage shall not be used for public events because parking spaces have not been included to accommodate that use. However, on Page 26 of that same document, it then appears to be a contradiction by the statement -- where did I mark it? Let's see, recreational and! or leisure space improvements shall be constructed in the common spaces, which would be used for proj ect residents and the general public visiting the various business activities on the property who are otherwise attending a special event. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And what had happened, Mr. Murray, and I met with Kay to talk about that, we intended that these common areas would serve more than the residents, and we could have special events to allow -- and let the public know we're having special events to try to attract them to the retail shops. The clean version that has been sent out to you has addressed that to allow us to go through a temporary use permit process for special events. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess that all ties back to the question of parking, because that was one of the issues that we related. The impression, the first impression that is, I mean, I realize that the residents there will be young professionals and the like, likely, okay. But you do want to invite people onto the property and make it pedestrian friendly and make it a little village, so to speak. And even with this, the parking is adequate from what -- I'm asking that as a question, the parking is adequate in anticipation of special events? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We anticipate with special events, we'll be able to handle the parking, and we'll have to pay particular attention to that, if we have to do valet parking or things like that during special events. It doesn't make any sense for us to invite people to our project and then have it be a nightmare for them to actually enjoy it. So we're Page 75 November 18,2004 going to have to address the parking issue on a special event basis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And then I would like to poke (sic) one question to give the folks an opportunity to think about it. One of the concerns for smart growth is interconnectivity. And I've noted now that you have pedestrian interconnectivity, presumably, if I read correctly, right over to the library, if that's true? Although I thought vehicular was prohibited, pedestrian is. And it looks like a very fine approach to this. Now, I know the people on the west may not be open to this at this time, but I would ask for consideration that at either end of the rectangle, or near the end of the rectangle, an allocation of space be made for the potential for interconnectivity, pedestrian interconnectivity with Emerald Lakes, so that they could avail themselves of the resi -- I'm sorry, the commercial activities that would go on there. I think that's good planning for the future. I would hope that they would take that into consideration. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Murray, I'm not disagreeing with what you've said. I do know that that is a very touchy subject for the residents of Emerald Lakes. I don't want to commit to that interconnectivity. If we can put something in the -- maybe the text of the PUD, and I'll rely on Kay, that would allow for that if the residents of Emerald Lakes request it. That would be fine with us. Obviously, we would love for them to walk to our restaurants and shops, but I -- they -- it's a problem for them for it to be a requirement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not requiring it of Emerald Lakes, I'm merely suggesting the possibility that an allocation of space, a triangle, if you will, be made. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm pretty sure that if that ever happened, we could probably work something out to provide for interconnectivity . Page 76 "... ....,-,..", November 18,2004 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would hope so. It would make a good move. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy, did you have anything? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. I found out that I missed an e-mail, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh. Okay. Any other questions for the petitioner at this time? Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Mr. Adelstein, deferring to you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How many actual parking spaces are you expected to have? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, right now -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You had 1027, I think, less the ones you took off for the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, it said 1021. I don't think this has been a -- has been changed, so I think we're about 991. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And how many actual units -- dwelling units are you expecting to have? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, right now we have 204 dwelling units and 100 -- let me go back over here, if I can, because I have the exact numbers on my pad. We have 74,230 square feet of retail and 97,070 square feet of office. Those numbers, I haven't -- those numbers are going to come down because we just lost 30 parking spaces. So I don't know where we're going to do that, but those numbers are going to come down. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Richard, I like your statement those numbers are going to come down, because then you shouldn't have an objection to capping the project's uses to the 204 it's at now. Page 77 T ._-~..".~-, November 18,2004 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Capping it? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually, Mr. Strain, the reason I don't want to cap it is because we'd like to have the flexibility, if the market says we need to do a little less office and a little less retail and more residential, we would do more residential. Now, that would require us, based on a parking analysis, to reduce our office and retail. So capping it at 204 is something that's -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'm glad you said that, because at 204 with the current commercial maxed, you have an FAR of .48. If you were to have 251 residential and kept the commercial maxed, you would have an FAR of .551. But what you're basically saying is that even if you come down in commercial, you're going to go up in residential. And I don't see how you would exceed an FAR of.5 on this project under either scenario, based on your statements that you would have to reduce it as constricted by the parking. And based on that, I would wonder if you have any objection to capping your development square footage at .5 FAR. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we put that in the other category that we need to think about, while we listen to the public? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. Seriously, but I don't know how, based on -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear what you're saying -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- your statements, that's going to affect you. In the end it just makes a little provision at the flexibility up to 251, all that's still there, but we're not going to get more than less. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm -- just if you can give me a few minutes to think about that while the public is speaking, we'd appreciate that. Page 78 November 18,2004 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know you're not familiar with TIS issues, so I'll spare you. There is -- under your uses permitted, you have recreation facilities, swimming pools, bocci, shuffleboard, lawn bowling courts limited to the use of residents and their guests. Are you planning to put any of those in? MR. YOV ANOVICH: At this point, no, but obviously we would like the flexibility, if that's something that the residential -- residents would like, to have the flexibility to do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think it ought to stay there. I was just curious how much you were putting in at this time. You're going to SDP this project? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's a reference in your PUD, it's on the staff strikethrough version, Page 22. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Can you tell me the section, because I didn't -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Section 4.5A. The construction standards manual straight right-of-way width, with the exception of a signature entryway with throat distance as required by Collier County rights-of-way for platted streets can be 40 feet in width. You're not going to have a platted street, though, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, but -- and Reed, you might need to answer this. We're still required to meet that standard, correct? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not sure we have a standard for a 40- foot street. MR. YO V ANOVICH: I'm going to let Mr. Jarvi answer that question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. YO V ANOVICH: I'm still waiting for my results on my P.E. exam. MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi, professional engineering with Vanasse Page 79 .--- -.,--..---, November 18, 2004 Daylor. I think if we would do the SDP as anticipated with this plan, or similar to that plan, we would have what would normally be called a street, but really would be in effect a driveway, or officially would be a driveway connection, and we wouldn't have right-of-ways as stated in the code. We would have a pavement width and then sidewalks and landscaped areas, and utility easements for the various utilities in the front. So we probably wouldn't have streets as such, with the exception of the entryway. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's why I'm wondering if this paragraph in the version of the PUD affects you negatively in the matter you wouldn't be allowed to put in your entryway. Because it says rights-of-way for platted streets. And that's basically the standard, but it's 40-feet width you're asking for which isn't what I understand to be a standard street in Collier County. I think the smallest we have is 50 or 60. So how does that work? MR. JARVI: We would -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe plat the street, I believe we're asking from a deviation from the 60 to the 40. Ifwe do a site plan, I don't think this would apply. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, fine. Then if staff agrees with that when they get up here, that would be fine. I didn't read it as a deviation, I read it as a statement. If it's a deviation, that's fine. 4.4 right above it. There's a comment in the paragraph, I think it's a needless comment I want to verify. There is no time frame for initiating project improvements, except that development of a portion of the approved project is expected to begin within one year of the rezoning approval. What does that -- I mean, that virtually says nothing, so, I mean, after Kay comes up, maybe we can strike that, as long as you have no Page 80 November 18,2004 objection to it. Because you're basically subject to the sunsetting provisions and that's what prevails, so why have all this extraneous language in there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're okay. That's it for now, I'll probably have just some more before this is all over. I do have some TIS issue, and maybe Reed can come back and address it, since he's already been up. Reed, this reads -- part of the staff report reads that the adopted level of service standard with the proposed improvements are not going to be operating below the LOS, therefore, the project will not have an adverse impact on any roadway. But yet your TIS indicated it will have a substantial impact on, I think, three roadways. And you recommended some intersection improvements in your TIS. I didn't find those verbatim in the PUD, and I kind of wanted to know what happened there. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. Reed Jarvi, again for the record. The TIS is -- if you look at it, is for the entire 251 units, the -- I don't remember the exact 140 some-odd thousand retail. So that was the PUD total. When we get to the SDP stage for what we're actually doing for this, we will be doing a TIS again, which will address whatever site improvements are needed, if any. Also, when we did the TIS approximately a year ago, we looked at the roadway system a little different than we look at it now. Now we have the concurrency system in place, we have the monitoring stations in place, and we do the reserve capacity, as you all know from recent hearings. So we look at it a little different than we do even a year ago. And for this proj ect, at the time we did it, Livingston Road wasn't in place, wasn't operating functionally. N ow it is, up to Vanderbilt Beach Road. It soon will be operating all the way to Immokalee Page 81 November 18,2004 Road, which is taking substantial traffic off of Airport Road, transferring it to Livingston Road. So actually, Airport Road comps are going down. So some of the statements that we did on the traffic impact statement have actually changed since then and have actually changed as part of the staff reVIew. So we haven't got impacts -- or the impacts are less than they were at the TIS stage. However, whether we do the SDP TIS, if there are impacts, as we noted in the TIS in this case, if they are similar, then we'll have to address them, whether it's a second southbound left turn lane for U-turns, or if at the time there is some discussion still about a signal at this location at the main entrance, which would prevent having a second southbound left turn lane, you know. We will be dealing with those issues at the SDP level. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Reed, I'm not -- certainly not a traffic expert, although I'm trying to understand these TISs better. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When I went on the internet to try to track how you came up with your second generation trip calculations, the sources I found didn't match yours. I'm not saying yours are wrong, but at some point in the future, would you e-mail me the charts that you use for your trip generation, so I can understand what you're using clearer. MR. JARVI: What I can do is, we put them into spreadsheets, and I can do that for you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Would you mind doing that at some point. MR. JARVI: It's pretty simple. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's not going to help for today, but -- thank you. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. They're rather complex formulas, but Page 82 ~__. . ~~_"",,,,__~.....,,_>,_,_,.. .. m November 18, 2004 they're simple formulas. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It will give me something to read, won't it. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner? Yes, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm trying to figure out exactly what we're saving in trips by the mixed-use. And then another term I'm not familiar with, What is a bypass capture, what does that mean? MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. What we do -- mixed-use -- what ITE, Institute of Transportation Engineers has some data, and it's relatively recent, last five years or so, that have actually quantified the internal capture, which is what you get when you have mixed-uses. You have a residential use, and a office use and a retail-type use, and the idea is that people living there would use some of their shopping trips to shop at the area, go to restaurants, et cetera, office, and then also employment. And then between the uses, there's -- between different uses there is a capture. And that's defined on the ITE. It's based on empirical data. It's not, you know, firm, but it's best we have at this point in time. So we take that as an internal capture. Roughly, I will tell you that there are roughly 20 percent of the trips generated by a household are work trips. Roughly 20 percent of the trips are shopping trips. So we can go through the charts and get a proj ected internal capture between the mixed uses. And I'd say -- you know, I'm not going to tell you that all the shopping trips are going to be satisfied here or all the employment trips are, but we've done some calculations that would guesstimate what those would be in this mixed-use development. So -- and that's -- so it's roughly 20 percent is what we used. Page 83 November 18,2004 Now, bypass capture is done when you have retail uses. The easiest example I have is the McDonald's. If McDonald's goes in, there are certain people that leave their house to go to McDonald's. But a lot of people, and probably most people, are driving down the roads, go boy, it's lunch time, let me go to McDonald's. You are already on the road and you just go off to the McDonald's, and then you come right back on the road and go wherever you're doing. That's where we do bypass capture. Bypass capture is retail only. It's for different uses. A McDonald's has probably like a 60 or 70 percent bypass capture. A Home Depot has like 16 percent bypass capture. Most of the Home Depot trips are planned trips. And, you know, myself, I rarely -- I might link a bunch of trips together, but I rarely make a trip just going down the road and decide to go to Home Depot. But -- so it just depends on the type of uses. And -- but they're for retail, and bypass, basically is you're on the road already and you just decide to, you know, a moment's notice to go to this other use. Does that answer it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It answers it. But the question is why is it a negative number then? MR. JARVI: It comes off the trip generation. What we do is look at the trip generation, the impact of the development on the adjacent system. That trip was already on the system. So the impact of the development is less than with that type of use. Now-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. That I don't understand, but we don't need to do that here. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I have one -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: As we're analyzing your request on the Page 84 ...-."- November 18,2004 FAR, we want to make sure we're calculating it the same way. Are you including the under-building parking in the calculation of FAR or are you not including? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Not including. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're not including it? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I've taken all the -- or the 204 residential units times an average square footage of 15,000, which in a conversation with you, I believe that was the average, and the 171,300, adding those together and coming up with the FAR of that number. It comes up to .481 I believe. In fact, I can give you the actual numbers. It's 477,300 over 994,910, that's .48 FAR. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What is it? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Slow down. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Our number is .518. Is the actual number, .518. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So your average on the residential then is higher than what you -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It must be a little bit bigger than I -- than I told you. But we're okay with doing that. I mean, we're not looking to increase the intensity over which -- if your goal is to make sure that our intensity is the same as what we're showing you, we're okay with that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Which means if you increase FAR based on residential, you'd have to subsequently decrease commercial for the; same ratio, otherwise your FAR is going to go -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Yes, I'm with you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else in your presentation, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. Something that's unanswered, Rich, what about the 20 feet off Airport. Here's the Page 85 ...-.... . _...~_.- November 18,2004 concern I have, is I don't want this project to be sold and we have 45 buildings 20 feet off of -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And our concern is -- I don't know how to say it. Staff might prefer that we bring the residences closer to the street -- not the residences, but the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To Airport? MR. YOV ANOVICH: To have -- and there are some. If you go up by the Galleria, you will see some of the buildings are -- the parking -- the building is closer to the street, it's very attractive, and the parking is not facing the street. So it may actually look more attractive to bring some of the parking away from Airport Road and bring the buildings a little bit closer. We're just looking for that flexibility, we're not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Brad, if we approve this site plan today, I'd be curious as to how they could get much closer than the site plan shows without triggering a rereview of the PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's -- if the PUD is design certain, I would have no problem with it. But the problem I'm -- you know, this could be sold, totally new people in the room and they're putting 45-foot high buildings 20 feet off of Airport Road. And you wouldn't want a residence 20 feet from Airport Road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think what you're suggesting is if we're limited to an insubstantial review, that we have to come back to the planning commission to change it, I think we can live with that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, no -- I'm agreeing about with you, Brad, so I'm trying to figure out a solution. But Ray, if they change substantially from this plan, and setbacks is one of the substantial triggers, wouldn't they have to then come back in and be through public process? MR. BELLOWS: I think if the PUD has a less restrictive setback than shown on the master plan and we're taking that master plan and Page 86 November 18, 2004 saying that we will require an insubstantial change in the master plan approval by the planning commission, I think that will be adequate to address your concerns and leave the petitioner flexibility to -- MR. YO V ANOVICH: That's fine. MR. BELLOWS: -- have some confidence that they can modify the plans without going through a full blown review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, there are no setbacks shown on the plan, the master plan. I mean, you could figure that a parking thing is so many feet, but there is no dimensional data on that. The other thing is -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, there -- it's available to a certain degree, but we can also add a dimension to it before we get to the board. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Do we have that -- a resolution to that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: You're in agreement, Mr. Yovanovich? Okay. Another item? Mr. Schiffer, anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the petitioner? Anyone else from your team? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll hear from the staff, please. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. Again, for the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner with the zoning section. And I again have a few letters for you. Some of them I believe you already have. But there's as couple others, and I just want to make sure that you do in fact have all of them. Hopefully everyone has received the updated e-mail from yesterday, letting you know that we have resolved all the issues. I do have hard copies of that PUD document, the clean version, if you wish to have one. Weare at the point now where staff and the applicant actually Page 87 November 18, 2004 have no outstanding issues. The only thing, we have some things going on today that we need to clarify in the PUD document to make sure everybody's on the right page and to make sure that it's included. I heard two commitments this morning while the applicant was making their presentation, one that they would essentially comply with the artistic renderings that were provided. And I don't know exactly how one can ensure that compliance when we do a plan, but we should probably have that language added into the PUD document. I would recommend that perhaps it might be something that could be added to Section 3.4I, as No. 11. And then I also heard a commitment about balconies or the lack thereof on a certain portion of the site. And I don't believe that's reflected anywhere in the PUD document. And I think it needs to be clearly stated within the PUD document that they did commit to that. And that perhaps could be worded as Item 12 within that same section. I believe what I heard was that they were not going to have any balconies on buildings facing west. And I would ask that we would perhaps fine tune that per the site plan to designate those buildings, C-l through C-5 and E-l through E-7, or some such fashion that we can actually measure and know that they're complying with it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Kay, they were shuffling papers back and forth, and so was 1. The one you stated just before this, could you repeat that? MS. DESELEM: The artistic rendering, they had stated on the record that their development would be essentially in compliance with the artistic renderings that were provided today. Like I said, I'm not exactly certain how one determines compliance with an artistic rendering, because it's just that, it's a rendering. But staff would make every -- you know, do the best they can to make sure that it's in compliance with that. More importantly, they have to meet, as Mr. Y ovanovich stated, architectural requirements on all four sides of the building as well. Page 88 --~.' -""'-'-'--'-'~' November 18,2004 And that is within the PUD document. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: With the exception of the balconies, which obviously -- MS. DESELEM: Right, that had not an addressed. I don't have any other issues. You have the staff report, you have the revised PUD document. And I'd be happy to address any questions you have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for staff? Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The question I brought up about dropping that first paragraph in 4.4, do you have any problem with that? MS. DESELEM: No, sir, I do not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there a difference in interpretation from staffs viewpoint between three stories and 45 feet versus three stories or 45 feet. MS. DESELEM: I hadn't really thought about it, I guess. Perhaps it would be good to stipulate either/or, whichever is greater, whichever is lesser, or one way that you can determine compliance. I've seen it written both ways, three stories or 45 feet, whichever is lesser or greater. But that way it would be clear what it is and it's measurable. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That was my concern, I'm not sure how the GMP -- in fact, I'm trying to find the language, I've got the page here somewhere. The GMP refers to it. But I was wanting to be consistent with whatever they had in there as far as height goes or-- three stories, I believe. It's just -- I'll figure it out before now and the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one more. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The objection, basically, what you Page 89 November 18, 2004 handed us was a request by some citizens that they do not feel this was an acceptable use of that property. And most of them live in a place called Citrus Lake, which I, immediately, because of the settlement agreement that was discussed, wondered how they could have done that. I'm assuming they were the ones behind this proj ect, but they're not. Mill Pond Circle is behind the project. In fact Citrus Lake is not even on the aerial that I can see that's in front of us. Where is citrus lake? MS. DESELEM: It is Lakeside of Naples. It is across -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On the opposite side of Airport Road? MS. DESELEM: It's on the other side, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What's Airport Road, 300 feet wide? MS. DESELEM: If you look on the staff report on Page 2, where it talks about the eastern surrounding land use, it's called Lakeside of Naples at Citrus Gardens, zoned PUD as Citrus Gardens, but more commonly referred to as Lakeside of Naples. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And there is a canal and Airport Road between them and this proj ect, if I'm not mistaken. MS. DESELEM: I believe you are correct, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you have any objections from the people in Emerald Lakes in written form? MS. DESELEM: I believe there are letters contained in that, that are from some residents. I believe Sid Showaltor, and I'm not certain of the other one. And I believe there are speakers here from Emerald Lakes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Getting this kind of late, it's kind of hard to -- MS. DESELEM: I think the two, the one from Sid Showaltor and the other one were provided to you earlier, but I'm not certain, and I wanted to make sure everybody had everything, so I just made Page 90 November 18,2004 copies of them all. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand there was a settlement, though, and I thought the settlement took care of all these problems with Emerald Lakes. I know Mr. Showaltor had some concerns, but there was a subsequent meeting to today's meeting with him. I was just wondering how many of these have occurred -- are truly valid today versus a settlement agreement that apparently has been worked out but we haven't seen a copy of. MS. DESELEM: I would defer that to counsel. Marjorie Student can address the settlement agreement issues. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll wait to see who speaks. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, on Page 10 of the strikethrough, and presumably on Page 10 -- yes, of the clean copy, just a question having to do with the community development district. Was that boilerplate or is that something that has already been poked as a question, the CDD is going to be requested? MS. DESELEM: Okay, I see where you are. If I may have a moment just to look through it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Certainly. That's, 2.8, association -- MS. DESELEM: Yes, I see it. Yeah, my understanding is, as I'm hearing on the side is that just gives them the flexibility, if they so desire to do so. But I have not heard of anything, nor is it normally necessarily discussed at the zoning stage. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wondered, yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sorry, Kay, I've got to ask you a couple more things. The GMP says all four sides of each building Page 91 ""- November 18, 2004 must be utilized in a common architectural theme. Now, I know we don't like to get into detail in the GMP. Since we got into that kind of statement, does the omission of the balconies on the Emerald Lakes side of this project violate the intent of the GMP? MS. DESELEM: I'll have to -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's quiet in here. MS. DESELEM: I hadn't really thought about it because it just came up today. I wasn't aware there was an issue with the balconies. And I'll have to admit that I truly don't know. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I just want to be sure that someone doesn't come back later and challenge it on a GMP status, and we try to avoid specificity in the GMP specifically for this reason. And the other thing that comes to concern in that same GMP document is, no building shall exceed three stories in height, but no allowance for under-building parking. Yet we've changed the PUD saying three stories and/or 45 feet. How does the 45 feet meet the intent of the GMP if we add it and they say that -- what if they can put four stories in 45 feet? Yeah, I don't care who answers it, I just want to make sure we're consistent, that's all. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. No, and that was -- Mr. Strain, if we need to clarify the language, we cannot have a building taller than 45 feet, and within that 45 feet, we cannot have more than three stories. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Now, where did you get the 45 feet from? I mean, I'm glad it's 45 feet as long as it doesn't exceed three stories. That's where I'm trying to get to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, that's exactly right. And if we had one level of parking in that, we could have two stories of residential or office, okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the cap on 45 feet is intended Page 92 November 18, 2004 to further limit the three stories. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Now, four sides of the building-- at some point someone needs to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would hope -- it was never the intent to say that if we decided to have a building, that -- three sides with balconies, one side without a balcony, that that somehow was in violation of the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I would hope not, either, but I don't want that to come back and haunt us. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree with you, and I think that that could still be similar in architecture without balconies. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I certainly agree with that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for staff? There are none at this time. Are there -- MS. DESELEM: Excuse me, thank you. We're conferring on the issue as whether the balconies would constitute some -- MR. SCHMITT: We were just wondering if we're going to get into the discussion -- we've been there before -- on common architectural theme. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, I know. I was thinking maybe you might want to resolve it before it gets to the BCC, that's all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But from an architect's opinion, I mean, I don't think balconies make or break a theme. MR. SCHMITT: Nor do I, from an engineer's perspective. But you're an architect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I certainly don't think whether you have a balcony on the side is a common theme. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Kay, anything else in your report? MS. DESELEM: No. The only thing I -- I will investigate that, like I said, at this point, I am not certain, and we will find out before Page 93 November 18,2004 we go to the board. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ray, we have some advertised speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Sidney Showaltor, followed by Claire Goff. MR. SHOW AL TOR: I'm going to go through a slide presentation, that's just a picture of each one so -- as we follow through -- you don't need to look at it, really, now. My name is Sidney Showaltor, and I live at 7399 Mill Pond circle. That's on the east side of Emerald Lakes, and I look directly into this property here. The reason I'm here today is because we're concerned about the height of the properties there. They've reached settlement with the homeowners association and the master association. We've comprise 25 people that live along that street who are directly affected. And you put the votes together, there's no way we could get them to accept what we were looking for. So that's basically why we have come along here. As far as your question about the road to go through Emerald Lakes, we have speed bumps there now and we've even talked about putting up gates there, because we have problems with the traffic and we don't want anymore -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, sir, my interest was in pedestrian access. MR. SHOWALTOR: Okay. Well-- yeah, okay. I'd like to just go through this presentation to tell you a little bit about the history and tell you where the people on this side of the street stand. I have a letter here which we sent to Fred Reischl, and you should have a copy that has the signatures of all these people. And then I did fax you a memo on a line of sight, which is what we're really concerned about. It sounds like maybe it's not going to be higher than 45 feet. But I would like to show you here about the rest of the surrounding area and see what you think here. Okay. Emerald Lakes began development in the late 1980's. I Page 94 --"- November 18,2004 don't know whether it was '88 or '89 or thereabouts. Okay, developed at the properties at that time was the Village of Monterey of the left, which is a single-family area. Buckley property, which had the nursery. And the animal control district, which is down where the library is now. All the rest of that property was vacant land. Okay, properties developed since then, Marker Lakes, which is a single- family, one-story residential community on the north side. There's a commercial development there which has one story on the back side facing us and a couple of stories on Vanderbilt Drive. Harbor Chase, which used to be called Brighton Gardens, is like three stories on the front and it's got one story on the back and a library, which is 19 feet on the back side. Thanks to our previous commissioners and developers, our properties have been properly buffered and the line of site has not been blocked by tall buildings. Weare concerned about the line of sight of the Buckley property, and offer Harbor Chase and library properties as guidelines for establishing a site for our homes towards the Buckley property development. This Harbor Court here, and as you can see, it sits back 60 feet from the property line, on the back side there. This is the dimensions of it. It's 10 feet at the back there and 70 feet on towards the middle there. So it's -- you know, it's set a standard all the way around of one story on the back side. The library here sits 200 feet from the nearest property, or nearest home there. And the height of that library there is 19 feet. So you've got not a real high line of sight. And that goes all the way around the property. Matter of fact, the new development which is going to be to the south of us is all going to be single-family homes also. So what we're basically looking for is some kind of reasonable line of sight which matches up what everybody else has around the property. Have you got any questions for me, or -- Page 95 November 18,2004 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm still looking at your stuff. The only -- your line of sight drawings, I just checked them. They don't seem to scale. MR. SHOW AL TOR: No, they're not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. SHOW AL TOR: This one here I don't think is to scale either. And that's -- this is what's concerned me. They show these trees here, but -- it shows -- if you stand at our front door or our front windows and look out at that, that's not the line of sight what you have. And that's one of the reasons that concerned me, because we really don't want to look at tall buildings, you know. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand what you're trying to say. What was the purpose of this diagram if it wasn't to scale? It doesn't really tell us much. MR. SHOW ALTOR: Okay. We would basically like to have a line of sight from the front of our house out to the Buckley property that matches up with everything else that goes all the way around the community. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if you were to do those proj ects to scale from your home, or from whatever home is nearest to each one of them to their height, do you know if the line of sight wouldn't be there. MR. SHOW ALTOR: No, it wouldn't. Here, I can tell you why, listen to this for logic. Okay. The library is 19 feet tall on the back side that faces our property. It's 200 feet from there to the house that looks at that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's only because the house is on a corner yet closer to your property line, but the library is closer to its property line by a long shot that this property is -- MR. SHOW AL TOR: That's true. You know, I'm talking about the line of sight, so, you know, it happened to be there. You go back to -- here, let's see. Okay, here's Harbor Court, which is right north of Page 96 November 18, 2004 the Buckley property, that's the height of the property. It is an L-shaped building. And along Airport Road, it's three stories. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The building that is at 17 feet, is that consistent with the length of that building or does it get higher as it goes -- MR. SHOW AL TOR: Yeah, see there, you can see the building there. You go -- see the one that shows 60 feet? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. SHOW AL TOR: That's the closest part, and then it goes up another 60 feet and makes a right angle there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What I'm trying -- well, you don't have anything that is to scale showing us how your line of site is affected. I'm trying to figure out the real impact, and without a scale drawing, it's hard to do that. MR. SHOW AL TOR: I had one, but then and I found that one of the figures was wrong, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Mark, if you took his library, that's 20 feet, essentially 200 feet, it's a 10 percent slope is what he has at the library. MR. SHOW ALTOR: Okay. That's probably very unusual there. You know, that's-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't have any other questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for the speaker? There are none at this time. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Claire Goff, followed by Gerald Light. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ma'am, you're there. Identify yourself and you're free to speak. MS. GOFF: My name is Claire Goff, I'm president of the residents association at Emerald Lakes, as well as the homeowners association a Emerald Lakes. Over the past two years since this Buckley PUD was first Page 97 _"'~-""-'--"""_"<' '.~- November 18,2004 proposed, I think Mr. Y ovanovich went through very quickly in the beginning, Emerald Lakes had -- in the beginning we opposed this development. Our opposition was based primarily on a density problem. The original PUD as it came before you was going to allow a maximum of 15 units per acre. And there was the crux of what we started with back in 2002. Since that time, I have been through with Mr. Y ovanovich and the rest of our board of directors the rather lengthy lawsuits and dealings with the county, the state, as well as local courts. A year ago we sat down with Mr. Yovanovich and with the developers who are currently interested in this proj ect and we hammered out what I felt at the time and I still feel today was a very equitable agreement for everyone. One of the main concerns, as I said, was density, and at that time the density over the two years had gotten down to 13, and now it was down to 11. And while nobody is 100 percent happy with those kinds of reductions, that was an effort on the developer's part in our mind. Also, at the time, the buffered zone, the 100- feet setback was considered by our association to be very adequate. I think Mr. Y ovanovich failed to mention, there's also in our agreement an eight-foot berm wall that will run along the western border of our western border of Buckley's property, the eastern side of our property. There is currently our Areca palm hedge there, and -- which is, I'm going to say, probably about 25 feet at all. And there is an old fence that's the old property line. In any case, that part is going to be replaced by this eight-foot concrete and earthen berm wall affair, which was part of our agreement. The long and the short of this is that I took this agreement to the homeowners association first in November of 2003. And we had a unanimous agreement on the part of the board of directors of that body. Page 98 November 18,2004 Mr. Showaltor's objections to the height were discussed at that time, and it was the feeling of the board that these concerns, while you know, you never get everybody to be happy, and while he had a reason for a concern, that, to be perfectly honest with you, I live on the other side of the lake, and I don't know if any of you are familiar with Emerald Lakes, but I believe I'm going to see these buildings and Mr. Showaltor is not. But that's just how I see the line of sight going much up that way. In any case, we felt the height was not an issue. And one of the reasons we felt the height was not an issue is because we had been involved in a dispute with the previous developer back in 2001, and I had received a notice at that time from a Ms. Thomas Cook, who was with the planning board -- or the planning department, who informed us that the whole area around there, including the Emerald Lakes development itself, Fountain Park, and all of the other developments in that area, would be held to a 50-foot maximum height standard. So when this agreement came forward and 45 feet was what was in the agreement, we felt that that ended that issue. And actually, we never made it part or parcel of our lawsuits for that very reason. In any case, I am here to say that I have gone back again to the homeowners and back again to the residents within the past month and told them once again that -- what the issues are. We presented our drawings, which are similar to what you see here, and they once again told me that they are still supporting the Buckley mixed-use development as you see it. And I'm here today to give you that support. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Before you leave, Mr. Adelstein has a question. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you aware actually that the height of that building, when they're finished with it, will be something like 55 to 60 feet. MS. GOFF: No, my understanding is that the height of the Page 99 November 18,2004 building will be 45 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, that's not true, that's -- now we have the roof going on and it's going to go up another ten to 15 feet, so it's actually going to be something like 55 to 60 feet. MS. GOFF: No, sir, I was not aware of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, what is it, the zoned height is at the midpoint. If you look at that illustration, it would be to the midpoint of those roofs. So -- right. So I think that if -- in a typical development, he could put 16 feet on the first floor, 12 and 12, that would be the ridge at about 40, so it could be five feet above that, so it'll be anywhere -- the peak, like 50 to 55, I guess, is what Mr. Adelstein is saying. But remember, this is a peak being sloped back. MS. GOFF: I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think you're 100 percent right, you will see the thing certainly much more than someone closer. MS. GOFF: Yeah, I think I -- we are going to see it. We now see things that, you know, are out there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And before you leave, another question, ma'am, by Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm almost reluctant to ask. With regard to the matter of interconnectivity which will in the long term because a matter of concern for many, and thinking processes may change over the years, is there an adamancy against interconnectivity at this point? MS. GOFF: The problem with interconnectivity is -- I very much wanted to put a walkway in for our residents to be able to go to the library. I thought that would be a nice little thing, we just -- we have an area along there where we could just put a gate in. And the issues at the time among the homeowners for starters was, one, people will drive up to that area and park, and there is no place for them to park. Our streets are kind of narrow, they're private Page 100 _."--".._----,..,,".~"'-~. ... November 18,2004 streets, and there is no parking allowed on the streets. So then they would end up parking on this grass area, and sprinklers would get broken and those kinds of things would occur. So -- and the other issue that was brought up at the time was one of security, that evidently if we make any other access, even though we're not a gated community, if we allow for another access into our area, that creates a security risk increase, which is something that the litigators in this world get to deal with. I don't know anything about. But they were the two reasons that were brought up at that time. So right now I think that's not a likely scenario, but as you say, things could change, and I think -- I agree with what I heard today here, that looking at that plan, as you look at this plan and you look at Emerald Lakes and how we are situated, there are definitely areas where if that ever became something that somebody wanted to do, it would be feasible to do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Gerald Light. MR. LIGHT: Morning. My name is Gerald Light, and I am a resident of Lakeside of Naples, the one that you inquired about earlier. We're a 100-acre development, 396 homes. And we are very concerned with the traffic that's going to be generated out there. We have approximately 800 parking spaces in our development. And I notice from the rendition that Buckley Park is going to have 1,000. Our in and out count, we believe to be about 600 cars a day coming out of this entrance right here. We can go right, we can come in from the south right, but our big bottleneck is in the turnaround right in the center of these roads. There's three lanes going north, three lanes coming south, plus the turnaround right in the front of our intersection. That is our most dangerous intersection. And we think Page 101 November 18,2004 that this is going to accentuate the traffic at that central location. As I say, we have 600 cars coming and going, and I'm sure the Buckley Place would like to see twice that number coming and going, and therefore, we would request that the commission deny the out right privileges at the north exit. So what will happen there is that the people will come out of that exit, cross over to the turn around, those who want to go north, and we're going to have a back-up there in the turnaround, we believe, and if it really gets bad, we could have a back-up in the east south lane before the turn. We also think that when the tenants and the customers at Buckley Park finally realize the options to exit this property, those who want to go north are going to drift towards the north exit, and that's going to accentuate the problem. Now, we wish Buckley Place well. They've been great neighbors. And if the commission grants this petition, we hope the commission will also grant our request to deny this right out on the north exit. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other registered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Strain, you have a question of the staff? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As a result of this gentleman's questions or points that he raised, I'd like to ask Don Scott -- I know he's been sitting there all morning. He doesn't have a purpose for being here, so we'll give him a purpose. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Would it shorten the discussion if we agreed to just have a right in -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What, for denial? MR. YO V ANOVICH: No. For right in. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: See, that would be unusual for you, Richard. Wow. Page 102 November 18,2004 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Really been a bad day. MR. SCHMITT: Richard always likes when we make it up on the fly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, that alignment of the Buckley PUD to the Lakeside across the street, the entranceways, are those in alignment; do you know? MR. SCOTT: Yes, I believe they are. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you requiring a light -- you may have already addressed this, I don't recall, because I've read so much on this proj ect -- are you a requiring a light at that intersection? MR. SCOTT: No, it's not within our spacing criteria, so we don't want to allow a light at that location. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could you allow a light at that location? MR. SCOTT: Possibly, and that's why Reed keeps those avenues open by the way he makes those comments. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if they're already having this much trouble, and I can experience the problems on Airport Road, especially coming out of -- what is that, not J and C, the other one Tradewinds, you can't go north, so you have to go down and make a U-turn and go -- which is not any safer. But this is -- you have longer spacing here than you do in that instance. Why wouldn't this applicant be allowed to install a traffic light, and that would be to the benefit of both parties, Lakeside and Emerald Lakes? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh -- I said something right. MR. SCOTT: You know, we try to look at the spacing of all the signals. Obviously there are ones closer than a half mile. A half mile is what we're trying to keep for signal spacing out there. Weare looking at some other properties towards the north for interconnection over to Livingston, and would want to look at some additional issues with that. Page 103 November 18,2004 That's the reason why they were raising -- they weren't trying to take themselves out to whether a signal goes in there in the future, and I think they would probably gladfully pay for that, if it ends up being there, but we're trying not to have that -- a signal at that location. We're trying to not put signals at every occasion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I understand that, but at some point public safety might override the need for what you're trying to do with spacing. And in this case, with as many cars and as many U-turns on that road -- and it is a six-lane road, it's pretty problematic right now. If you put a signal in, you could possibly do what you did with the one at Guy Carlton's office right up the road here. You come out on that entrance right across from the airport, and if you sit there making a left turn, Airport Road's got the priority, you sit there for five minutes while that thing makes a left. Well, that's not too bad for the traffic on Airport Road if it's timed like that, and -- you know, what would it take for your office to consider something like that here? MR. SCOTT: Well, it's not just my office. It's essentially traffic operations also, if you're talking about transportation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Transportation as a whole. Maybe a flyover, would that incite -- liven it up for you guys? MR. SCOTT: Well, you know, obviously from the concurrency aspect, every time you add a signal, then you have the effect on the level of service and on the roadway itself. So we balance all those Issues. Now, if things meet traffic warrants, are they allowed at certain points that are less than spacing? Yes, they are. I would need to look at some of the things further. This was raised previously. We did have some conversations about having just a right on the northern access. That's something we can address as part of the site development plan. Page 104 --- , ...------.- November 18,2004 MR. CARON: I think they've already agreed to that. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, they've agreed to it too. We could do it here too. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You offered. Okay, well, Don, I -- somehow I want to pursue this in the stipulations, but I thank you for your information. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? Any follow-up or, excuse me, summary comments by the petitioner. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Other than, you know, I appreciate what Ms. Goff said. And yes, in the landscape buffer there is an eight-foot wall, so that should make sure they don't see any headlights or anything like that. I do agree with her on the line of sight. I mean, the closer you are to us, with that dense buffer, the less you're going to see. And as far as the comments from the gentleman from Lakeside in limiting our northern entrance to a right in only, we're in agreement with that, so that should eliminate people trying to get to that -- to use it as a U-turn to go north. Other than that, we believe we are consistent with the comprehensive plan, have met all the criteria to be rezoned. As we're requesting, we've agreed to staff's changes, and we request that the planning commission forward this to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Y ovanovich, one other item. I poked it out there about interconnectivity and a reservation or whatever appropriate term. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. I assume some of these points will be added to a motion. For instance, the comments regarding -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to be clear, though, that you represent that that's perfectly acceptable. Page 105 November 18, 2004 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll be happy to put some language in there that would provide for some future pedestrian interconnectivity if the residents of Emerald Lakes request. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be contingency I would guess. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that it, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I've got a lengthy motion that I can make. I make a recommendation of approval for PUDZ-2004-AR-5220, subject to the following stipulations: First one is that the PUD document being used is the staffs version as provided today. Second one is that they'll be dropping the first paragraph of Section 4.4. Third one is that the site plan as presented today with the landscaping buffer will be used, and that the site plan as provided today, the coloration, is the site plan that will be amended -- will be part of the PUD. Right, that one. Well, can't say that one in a motion. Insubstantial changes to any of the master plan such as setbacks, as we talked about or anything else, will be coming -- will have to come back to the planning commission for review and approval. There will be no balconies along the frontage of Emerald Lakes, on the buildings that front the Emerald Lakes proj ect. The artistic rendering that was presented, the project will be consistent with that rendering as presented today and as determined by staff. They will provide a future pedestrian interconnect to Emerald Lakes as an alternate. Page 106 ._,..~ .... .. .~ --,~-""-'-~'""'- November 18,2004 Their FAR will be capped at .518. We'd strongly suggest that a light be installed at the intersection of Lakeside. And that will be explored further by the transportation department. And then number nine, limit the north entry to a right turn only. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Right in. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right in, that's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Strain, second by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm still a little concerned about the height issue, since we don't have an actual height here. And I believe that that really was not addressed with the homeowners association very well. They thought that the actual height, not the zoned height, was going to be 45 feet. And I'd like to hold the petitioner to 45 feet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, my concern with that, Donna, would be if you told them to 45 feet and they still want to do three stories, the sight that the people will see from Emerald Lakes will be far worse, because they'll just see just a flat tarred roof. They're not going to see any architectural embellishment. That plan won't work, and we'd be back eliminative that plan as an architectural conceptual plan for the project. MR. CARON: That's always everybody's answer, is they'll flatten the roofs, and that just doesn't happen, Mark, and you know it. Ask Brad, our architect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It actually does happen. Because they're going to build certain strata that they need for their thing, and what's left over is your roof. So -- I mean, I'm not a -- I support what Mark was saying that -- I mean, first of all, a builder really doesn't build any extra levels. I Page 107 November 18, 2004 mean, for value engineering we're cutting blocks, courses out. So he's only going to build what he needs and the rest of it is going to be his roof. I mean, how high would the roof be? If you built an A-frame building, you could have a 90-foot-high roof, I guess. But the point is that he's going to -- It's not economical for him to really go crazy on the roof and build it that high. The concern I had -- are you through, Donna, I'm sorry -- MR. CARON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- was that the attachment to this rendering, that's kind of like a double-edged sword. I mean, you know, I wouldn't want to -- that get in the way of somebody doing something better than that rendering, so I'm not sure what that rendering gives me. Looks like a quick artistic, you know, shot at it. So I'm not a big fan of including the rendering in the motion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, first of all, Brad, could you suggest something that would let that be a minimum standard the staff will review by, because I certainly wouldn't want to see someone come in and doing what they could do, and that is cheapen the project up, not to go any higher with embellishments, putting flat roofs on, even though they could, and we would end up with a flat roof manufacturing look to this whole preparation. And there are some projects, like the north end of Goodlette Road and Pine Ridge, if you go past those condominiums, they're all flat roofs with a fake mansard, and those are styles that have been out 20, 30 years ago. So I would like some degree of protection for the style. Do you have any suggestions that we could -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't know that, that's difficult. I mean, we don't have architectural -- well, they would fall under the architectural standards. So why don't we just leave it there? I mean, this is a mixed-use, it's not purely residential. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This is above the standards. I Page 108 November 18,2004 mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think so, because the standards break it up and stuff. I mean, the benefits you get from that is you're getting, you could guarantee a slope roof. Does that allow cupolas higher than the peak of the roof; is that what you're saying when you say that's acceptable? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think the village look that's in that rendering is something that is sought-after, rather than one solid wall front. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think he'll do that. Based on the experience with the Galleria, that's going to happen. But if you look at that rendering, that rendering is saying that you could build a tower higher than the actual height of the roof. So that's the 55 feet. So what you're almost allowing someone to do is build 60,70 feet high with that. In other words, it's a quick sketch. It wasn't -- the thought wasn't to be as legal a document as we're making it, I think. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I heard you say the Galleria, and that's fine, if that's what may happen there. But we have no idea, no guarantee that could happen. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This development could be sold. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It could be sold, but it does fall, the mixed-use concept of this falls into the architectural standards. What if the development is sold and some -- well, I don't want to go there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Strain, a recommendation for change by Mr. Schiffer. I think that Mr. Strain was asking for specific language. I hear what you don't like about what we're doing. Do you have a suggestion to modify the motion to something you do like? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask staff. Does that Page 109 November 18, 2004 mean that they can build cupolas 60, 70 feet in the air? Because that definitely shoes a cupola, in perspective, which means it's further ahead, so it's a very tall thing. Is that allowing them to do that? Because we're almost requiring them to build that. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, they're still subject to the architectural requirements of the LDC, and the LDC makes some exceptions for building height for embellishments and things. So it's possible the cupolas could go taller. We could add a condition to the PUD document that says those embellishments not exceeds 50 feet or 60 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But does that mean they have to build tall towers? MR. BELLOWS: If you attach that sketch to the PUD document, it's generally a conceptual plan that they would have to provide some kind of tower treatment and arch windows, to be similar. They can change the coloring or the massing or the scale, given the current SDP process -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, yeah, my point is -- MR. SCHMITT: What comes out of this unique is because of the language that was defined in the growth management plan in regards to this amendment, that's kind of brought us into this specificity in regards of this project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, do the staff want that sketch? MS. DESELEM: If I may. For the record, Kay Deselem. I agree with you, it's very difficult. It's so subjective when you have an artist rendering, as to where or when or if something is consistent. Is it, you know, comparatively, is it fully consistent? It's so subjective, it's very difficult. My suggestion, if you have things that you object to, for example, you mentioned flat roofs. If you object to something, prohibit what it is you obj ect to, because that way staff can ensure that Page 110 November 18, 2004 that isn't there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I think Brad's suggestion at the -- then is just to drop it and let it fall back on architectural standards that are in existence. I don't believe flat roofs can be applied if that -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, Mr. Strain is modifying his motion. Mr. Adelstein, are you in agreement as the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I want to make another statement in this same motion. Then why can't we say something along the line that the roof -- the actual total height to be no more than 55 feet. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think that another way you said it, I believe it was 55. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It can go no higher than 55 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that would work for you guys, because if you could get a 16-foot first floor, 12, 12, which is even maybe more than you need, you're sitting at 40, that gives you 10-foot of peak. It may lessen the slope. Lessening the slope makes it not as pretty for the woman across the lake. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So you're saying, then, our highest element cannot exceed 55 feet? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we still would have zoned height feet of 45 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But the highest element cannot exceed 55 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in our present -- our present code language is that the actual code height cannot exceed 55 feet. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, that goes back to you, Mr. Strain as Page 111 ~-,""~ November 18,2004 the motion maker. Are you comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 55 feet is to be limited to the actual height? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And Mr. Adelstein is the second -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: He's in agreement with that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any discussion -- MR. SCHMITT: As defined from the peak of the roof to the-- first finished -- actually to the grade or ground floor. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's whatever you -- the LDC defines actual height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Last year we added this definition. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Motion and second has been modified. Discussion on the new motion and second? There is none. We will call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries 9-0. Page 112 November 18,2004 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any old business? There is none. Any new business? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, before you got here, I requested just a brief request of the county staff. I want to compliment you on the UDC. It's working out great. It's very detailed. One of the nice things about that detail is it references a lot of other documents that are very detailed. And so when I'm reading a paragraph, it tells me the standards that you are referring to -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me a second. Folks -- for the folks, your petition is finished, please take your discussion out in the hall because we need to finish our business. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't have those other documents, and there are at least four of them I found so far, one of which we were told we would receive in digital format. I don't care if they're all in digital format. The Code of Laws. There's been a lot of removal from the LDC. It's now in the Code of Laws. We don't have the Code of Laws, and those would be helpful to have. Number two is the Dover-Kohl Community Character Plan. Number three is the construction standards manual, that's referenced numerous times in regards to Don Scott's department. MR. BELLOWS: What was that last one? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Dover-Kohl. MR. BELLOWS: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, the construction standards manual. MR. BELLOWS: Is that an engineering -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, it's the transportation-- MR. SCHMITT: The Dover-Kohl study, I do not have any more copies. It is available on the web. It's electronically available, access Page 113 November 18, 2004 through the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I tried to download it, and it, even on DSL, it couldn't get done in a time that I sat there, which was quite a lengthy period of time, so -- okay. If you don't have any more copIes. MR. SCHMITT: I don't have any more copies of it, I mean, it's COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, maybe this -- can you break it up on the web, maybe in the chapters, so it is easily acceptable? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, we'll look at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just look at doing maybe that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then the last one, Ray, is the streetscape master plan. I found that reference, and I don't know what that is, yet the criteria says they will abide by it. We don't know -- we're approving things -- I know staff's reviewed it, but I certainly would like to see it too, so if there's any way of getting those, I would be very appreciative. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. There is no public comment. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to make one comment. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to make this comment to Joe. My packet didn't got come out with a complete packet. I found out on Friday, and I called the office and talked to a lady by the name of Lee, who said yes, she would get that to me at least by Monday, and I talked to her, I think, about 3:30. At 4:30 it was delivered to my home, and I can't thank her enough. I did call her and tell her that. But I wanted you to know how much she went out of her way to make sure that that packet was complete and that I got the work done on time. MR. BELLOWS: I appreciate the comment. I've been very pleased with Lee's work. Page 114 November 18, 2004 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it was great. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So Lindy, when you speak, people jump. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Usually out of my way, yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I was feeling real good because Kay Deselem got me some additional information for my packet that was here when I got here this morning, but now I'm disappointed you didn't run it over in two hours, and I feel kind of left out. MS. DESELEM: I didn't know that was a new standard. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Until that, I was very happy. There being no further business, we're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:05 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 115