Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/16/2004 R December 16, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 16, 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 of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd ( absent) Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Mark Strain Donna Reed Caron Robert Vigliotti Kenneth Abernathy ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Mike Bosi, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Robin Meyer, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Page 1 AGENDA REVISED COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 162004, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NOTE: The public should be advised that 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 - NOVEMBER 18,2004, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - NOVEMBER 30, 2004, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2004-AR-6300. Bethel Assembly of God, Inc. represented by Frank Veasley, of Frank L. Veasley, II & Associates requesting Conditional Use #1 of the RMF-6 district for a church gymnasium. The property, consisting of 4.79 acres, is located at 1225 W. Main Street, Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Florida. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) 1 B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6142, Naples Syndications, LLC, represented by Karen Bishop ofPMS Inc. of Naples, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "POO" Planned Unit Development known as Warm Springs POO by revising the PUD document and Master Plan by increasing the allowed dwelling units by 290 units to a maximum of 540 units, a density increase from 2.1 units per acre to 4.52 units per acre; to show a name change from Nicaea Academy PUD; and reflect the PUD ownership change. The property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 119± acres. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) C. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-3588, Frank Clesen & Sons, Inc., represented by William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (POO) to POO to amend the Clesen PUD, pursuant to the sunsetting provisions of the LDC, to update the PUD document in compliance with the current LDC POO requirements, for property located on the north side of Pine Ridge Road, approximately 1,000 feet east of the Whippoorwill Lane and Pine Ridge Road intersection, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. This property consists of 4.33± acres. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) CONTINUED TO JANUARY 20, 2005 9. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 12/16/04 eepe Agenda/RB/sp 2 ..'",'"µ.."'o_.."',....."'"·,",',,"'"-<.........o·',"~,",.·, December 16, 2004 VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with roll call. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney is absent. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Budd is absent. Mr. Strain is here. Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All members are present except for those noted. The addenda to the agenda. Gentlemen, do we have any suggested changes to the agenda? Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: No changes to the agenda. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll continue on. Commission absences. We have a meeting, I know, tomorrow morning at 9:00. Meeting with -- MR. SCHMITT: 9:00 is the workshop for the AUIR. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The books that we received last week, are those the books we'll be using tomorrow? Page 2 December 16,2004 MR. SCHMITT: There's been a revised book was sent out yesterday. (At which time, Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.) MR. SCHMITT: I'm not sure of the revisions, but I believe there were some corrections made that -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is it going to be delivered tomorrow -- today, rather? It didn't get to me yesterday. MR. SCHMITT: I will check. But I signed the executive summary yesterday afternoon. And we'll check to see if it gets distributed today . We'll send a note back. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are there any other meetings out of the ordinary that we need to make sure we're scheduled for? MR. SCHMITT: No, not that I know of. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have absences? January 6th VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you won't -- okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will not be here. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (N 0 response.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of the minutes. November 18th, 2004. Are there any comments, gentlemen, ma'am? Got to keep me -- we have one lady here, so -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll move approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion -- move to approve and a second. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 3 December 16, 2004 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody -- let the record show that Commissioner Midney has shown up. He had to struggle with all that traffic coming back from Immokalee. Maybe tomorrow we can hear that problem. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He came by horseback and it was cold. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recaps. BCC report. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, last Tuesday the board approved the Green Heron DRI extension. That was the one they extended to 2009. The variances for the Pine Ridge Center West and Pine Ridge Center PUDs were approved. They were on the summary agenda. And the rezone for the Buckley project was continued. I believe it was for -- to allow discussion of the interconnect. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Basically it was -- there was a vote and it was denied, and there was a vote to reconsider, and it will be reconsidered at the second meeting in January. Basically, the issue was primarily having to do with what was discussed during the compo plan amendment and the verbiage that was on the record, though it was not part of the PUD, in regards to low-income housing and the interconnect. So -- and we discussed the interconnect here, but it is now back in the applicant's hands to sort through a couple of issues, and it will come back at the second meeting in January to the Board of County Commissioners. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And with that, we'll go right into our public hearings. The first one being Petition CU-2004-AR-6300, the Bethel Assembly of God. For those wishing to speak in this matter, would you please rise and raise your right hand, be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) Page 4 December 16, 2004 VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Are there any disclosures on the part of planning commissioners? (N 0 response.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll proceed. If the applicant would like to start with their presentation? MR. VEASLEY: Good morning. My name is Frank Veasley. This is a proposed gymnasium for an existing development site in Immokalee, developed site in Immokalee. It's a church. There's -- we propose to put in an 8,700 square-foot gymnasium as an accessory use for the church facility. There is adequate parking. We will upgrade the landscaping to the current codes. We propose to put in a new sewer and water extension for the gymnasium, connecting to the existing services for the Immokalee Sewer and Water District. We will regrade our existing drainage retention area to accommodate the new impervious surfaces. There won't be any additional parking required, with the exception of converting some grass parking that will be at the front of the gymnasium to handicapped parking and paved. Pretty much that's the total explanation of the project. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions from the planning commissioners? (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'd like to hear from staff at this point. MR. MEYER: Commissioners, Robin Meyer from zoning and land development review. This project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the criteria in the code that it required to be reviewed. The applicant agrees with all the requirements of the county Page 5 "--~""-'-'----""""" December 16, 2004 departments. We received no objections from the public, neighborhood information meeting or by letter, phone, et cetera. Staff does recommend approval of this project, subject to one condition, which is a standard condition, that simply allows the director of zoning and land development review to make minor changes to site plans of projects like this. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from the commission? (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robin, this is probably going to be the easiest one that's ever before us. MR. MEYER: I think so. I hope so. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Too bad Mike's not going to have the same luck. MR. MEYER: At least he gets warned, eh. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-2004-6300 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- subject to staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sorry. Second. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made subject to staff recommendations, been seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) Page 6 December 16, 2004 VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Robin, that certainly was the quickest I -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Keep up the good work. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item on our agenda is PUDZA-2004-AR-6142, Naples Syndications, represented by Karen Bishop, PMS. It's the Warm Springs PUD. All those wishing to speak on this matter, please rise. (All speakers were duly sworn). VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any disclosures? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a conversation with Karen Bishop, who called me and wanted to introduce information to me about -- in general, about the proj ect. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Me, too. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul Midney as well. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Karen also called me and wanted to know if I had any questions. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I was called, asked the same question. Obviously, I had too many questions to discuss on the phone. I tried to e-mail her some of those, but they were too bulky to get all in one e-mail. So we'll bring them out today in today's Page 7 December 16,2004 meeting. Okay. Having that said, would the applicant like to start the presentation? MS. BISHOP: Good morning. My name is Karen Bishop. And I'd like to just start out by saying unfortunately my traffic guy isn't here yet, so hopefully, by the time I'm finished he'll be here. I'm not sure what happened. MR. BELLOWS: Just keep talking. MS. BISHOP: But that keeps me in trouble, okay. I'm not going to talk -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So is his miscalculations. MS. BISHOP: I'm here. This project is 119 acres. It is located east on 951, on the east side of 951, south of Crystal Lakes. This is a project that came before you before. And I don't believe Mark has seen it before, but the rest of you have seen this in 2003. You forwarded it on to the board with recommendation of approval. At that time, the application was for 580 units, and -- which was a change from the original application, which was a school with all -- about 600 students and some residential at the time. Last time this proj ect came in front of you, it was forwarded to the county commission, and during that process the density was changed from the 580 to 250; 125 now and 125 when 951 gets movIng. At that time there was discussions about the interconnect of Tree Farm Road, which was, I think, one of the reasons why the density became an issue for the commissioners, because there wasn't an interconnect on Tree Farm Road at that time. Since then we have been able to work, actually, since after the staff report went out, we were able to work with the neighbors to the south, and we in fact have now an agreement to where we are sharing the cost in building Tree Farm Road 2800 feet east, which is, I Page 8 ,-.---.'.-.'^ December 16, 2004 understand from transportation, is a part of their long term goals to create a grid system in that area to alleviate some of the traffic on 951 by utilizing, I think it's Vanderbilt to Massey, which will eventually connect to Immokalee Road. Which is kind of an interesting and cool thing that they're thinking ahead to try to alleviate some of this traffic. Our proposal is very similar to the original that came in, 540, not the 580 units. We will be providing 10 percent of our units set aside for the moderate income, affordable income, which is about $180,000. We will not be utilizing any credits for that, but we will bind ourselves to the criteria of those affordable homes long term, which is what Bob Murray had mentioned to me. I spoke to Cormac, and he sent me just the LDC references, and what I'm understanding, it's a 50-year -- IS-year agreement to keep these as affordable units. If you have any questions, unfortunately -- I do have my engineer here, but the traffic guy apparently still hasn't gotten here yet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Karen, on this diagram-- the master plan, I should say, I'm looking at Tree Farm Road, and there's mentioned somewhere of 1,000 feet something happens and 2800 feet. Where on here is the 2,800 and where is the 1,000? The 1,000 is going to be your access; is that right? MS. BISHOP: My original access -- or my first access for my first phase is the 1,000 feet. And then the road is going to be 28. And just short of that 2800 lineal foot -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You'll have another? MS. BISHOP: -- we'll have our main entrance. And at the time that that main entrance goes in and the time that we get to the end of our project, we will close the incoming access at the 1,000 foot mark, so that will be out only, because of that distance from the canal and that bridge. And since this will be eventually a collector road on the Collier County system, having people, you know, in and out that close Page 9 -~".,,--~-~,..-_._~... December 16, 2004 to that bridge doesn't really make any real good traffic sense. But early on for us, with our sales and with our first phase, you want to do that up front, plus don't want to mix your construction traffic, so we will go from west to east in construction, and that way the people that move in early on are not disturbed by the on -- you know, the future construction at that -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 2800 feet is roughly adj acent to Lake A; is that right? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. Roughly-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Or the two Lake B's. MS. BISHOP: Right, it -- see, I don't have the thing to point at here. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The easternmost lake. MS. BISHOP: But, yeah, it's pretty much kind of the -- around the center of that -- of that lake, the one that's farthest to the east. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the first entrance is supposed to be 1,000 feet, why does your plan say 640? MS. BISHOP: Well, it says a minimum of 660 feet -- VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's supposed to be 1,000. MS. BISHOP: -- but transportation has clearly said to me they want 1,000 foot is what they're going to agree to. So the minimum 660 is really going to be minimum 1,000. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So the plan needs to change. MS. BISHOP: I'll revise that. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from the commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Looking at the last PUD, there is a requirement that it -- and if you look at Page 10 of the last PUD at Page 10 _.~"--...._._--"......._~"-_._-. December 16, 2004 the bottom, item number three, all three stories, buildings shall be set back a minimum of75 feet from the southern and northern-- MS. BISHOP: Distance eyes -- I have to take those off to see. Which page? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're reading from their older PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm reading from the old PUD, there is a requirement on the Table 1, which is Page 10 of the old PUD. The three story buildings will be set back 75 feet. MS. BISHOP: Multi-family setback. Oh, there it is. Three stories minimum setback from the southern and northern boundary lines. Well, from the northern boundary line, it will actually be in some cases more than 75 feet, because in fact we have preserved, pretty much, along our northern, except for that one small piece up at the front. And then along my southern line, we will have landscape buffer of 20 feet, you will have a road, which will be at least 24 feet, so that's 45 feet. And then parking in front of that. So I would say 75-foot is about what it will end up being. We did not necessarily translate that into our current PUD, but based on just the schematics of what you have to do to make the project work, it will be about 75-foot for the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Can you bring that forward then? It doesn't sound like it will be a problem. MS. BISHOP: Put it in my PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Because the site could be laid out different than you describe, where the road could be going down the northern part of the housing and put the housing right up against the side. MS. BISHOP: I do see your point. I don't think that would be apropos to sales. But I do see your point on that. And at this point I don't see that 75- foot is an issue. I'll need to revise the document and Page 11 ..._.~~"- December 16, 2004 then just make sure that these buildings layout properly at that point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then you've dropped totally all the single-family and everything, correct, it's going to be -- MS. BISHOP: Yeah, single-family is not going to work here. For the amount of money -- the property actually has closed. Reverend MacIntyre, who I've actually known for like 20 years, him and his wife had this a long time. Unfortunately, they were in permitting hell, and then have gone through some other iterations with other developers. And the gentleman that has it under contract actually closed on this property last week. So it's now owned by Bob Singer -- Naples Syndication, which is -- I'm an agent for them. Bob Singer is their manager, that's who I work directly for. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions from staff at this point? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I have. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm still worried about the traffic conditions on the road. You're talking about the fact that -- your statement was that your building, it won't make much of a difference, but it's already at D, and you're talking about 540 units. How do you make that thing work when you say it's not going to cause us a problem? MS. BISHOP: Well, we're all -- at the time when this first came in a couple of years ago, 951 was two years away. 951 will start construction in 2005. It will be the end of 2005 before I'm ready to break ground. Weare willing to do 125 the first year and then 20 a month after that. By then the 951 will be built and constructed, which should then keep that traffic at a manageable level at that point. Because the problem is too that, you know, it's not like 540 units are automatically going to be on that road. It actually takes a while to Page 12 _._,..,,_.,,__.~.....,,~m__ December 16,2004 build them, and -- well, permitting, you know, is going to be at least six to nine months, and then the reality of how long it takes to build them, it probably takes six months to build these buildings, and then sales. So, you know, it will be at least, before the buildings are CO'd, my guess is spring of 2006. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't want to say and make somebody feel bad about this, but they're going to possibly start it then, and we don't know when it's going to finish. The issues here are a matter of you're going to start building, the road mayor may not be finished at the time you're talking about, or it may even not start when we're talking about, and yet you're saying that 540 units -- and again, we're in a situation where the traffic won't hold. Everything surrounding this area is D. There's no modification anywhere. MS. BISHOP: I know, I live a half mile from this project, and so I came down -- how I got here today was on 951 all the way down. So I am familiar with the issues of traffic. But I have confidence in the transportation department that this thing will start on time. And based on how I saw Immokalee Road go, they actually moved pretty quickly on getting Immokalee Road, which is -- also I live right off of that road, too, I'm confident it will be done in time. Weare willing to limit our building permits, as I said, phasing it, so that it's not a major impact on that road. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Adelstein, just for the record, and Don Scott can probably answer this question for staff, but certainly as you well know, the concurrency rules dictate that at local development order is the time when staff will evaluate whether or not an approval or local development order, so it's either plat plan or permit, will be issued in regards to the impact on traffic. And if the concurrency rules are in effect, regardless of the zoning, there will be no permitting activity taking place until it's sufficient. And we'll go through that in depth again tomorrow morning. Page 13 "--~"~-'-- December 16, 2004 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I know that. I'm glad to see it go into the record. That's what it was for. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have an extensive amount of questions on this. But before I start mine, I need to know who is responsible for writing the PUD language in the newest PUD? We received one yesterday, and we received one in our packet. Was that written by you, Karen, or was that written by county staff? Because my questions involve that document for a good part. MS. BISHOP: County staff and myself met and I agreed to the language that's in that document. My staff then took their doc. language and added it to the new PUD document. So I was a part of that. I've agreed to it, because it makes sense for the neighborhood and Tree Farm Road, you know -- I've tried to get this road done five years ago when they did this original zoning. It's been a very difficult task getting this Tree Farm Road done. And your transportation staff has done an excellent job of bringing the neighbors to the south and my client -- and we have now come up with an agreement that we all can live with, and we are making commitments to move forward. At the end of this month, my client, as a part of that agreement, my client will be making his first contribution to the monies to build Tree Farm Road. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of my comments will be on what transportation has recommended, because it's consistent with what the BCC had requested, so -- and what you previously had volunteered to do; not you, but your applicant. So we'll get into that as we get through the PUD document. Mike Bosi, I'm sure that you have a staff presentation. Maybe if you make your presentation, it will minimize some of my questions. If not, I'll just, after you get done, I will move forward then with my questions, if that's okay. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioner Strain. For the record, my Page 14 December 16,2004 name is Mike Bosi with zoning and land development review. I guess I will touch upon some of the additions to the PUD document at the latter part of my presentation. Just at the outset, in terms of the major issues staff had saw with this petition as we evaluated the merits of the proposal to amend the existing PUD to add the additional 290 units, the major impact, as Commissioner Strain has mentioned, is the transportation aspect of it. In terms of the consistency with the surrounding overall properties and the future movement of these overall properties and the overall environment based upon the designation of the future land use element in an activity center that sits to the north at Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard, 40 acres of this parcel is in a residential density band. And as we all know, with any activity center, that's the area of concentration for a county, or within our county, where the higher intensity land uses are to be focused, with the commercial, a blend of commercial and residential, and the higher intensity residential zonIng. With that portion, with 40 acres of this 190 -- or 119 acres being a portion of that residential density band, staff felt that the four and a half units per acre density requested by the project was not inconsistent, and actually was in fact consistent with the direction that the future land use element was calling for, for this general area. In terms of the compliance with the Growth Management Plan, as I just spoke, I believe this request to amend the PUD is in compliance with the Growth Management Plan. The PUD document does not call for any substantial deviations from the Land Development Code. So in that respect it's also in concert with what we're looking for in terms of our development. The main issues with this proposal is the -- is the transportation issues, as Commissioner Adelstein, and -- or I believe it was Commissioner Midney had pointed out. The aspect of adding more units to a road that's already Page 15 ",--,---."".,..,...-. December 16, 2004 constricted at the present time can be somewhat unsettling, but as Mr. Schmitt had pointed out, the transportation staff has given staff a number of assurances on how the concurrency management system handles these types of projects. Even though the capacity is not there now, they anticipate with the extension of Collier Boulevard the capacity to be there. At the time they would come in for their first site development plan for the first 120 units, or first 125 units, as Karen had suggested, if there was no capacity, there would be no CO issued for those buildings for occupancy on those units. Those will not be issued until transportation staff has the units to be able to provide to the SDP that's making the request. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, before you go too much further, isn't the capacity determined at the time of COA, which is prior to the building permit, so you're not going to be waiting for the COs to know there's capacity? You won't even get the right to apply for a building permit if there's not capacity. So I think that's the scenario you meant to say. MR. BOSI: That is it. And I think what I maybe have done is maybe ran a little bit beyond my area of expertise. And I do have Don Scott and Nick Casalanguida, our newest transportation -- he was the individual who worked extremely diligently with the Bristol Pines individuals as well as the Warm Springs folks in the last week, week and a half to try to really iron out an agreement upon the issue of Tree Farm Road. And I specifically asked Nick to attend the meeting, because we anticipated questions around the transportation language. And hopefully we can address all the issues. But in terms of the -- from the zoning standpoint, we found it consistent, we think it's in line with where the future land use element wants this project to go. The addition of 10 percent of affordable housing to a commodity that is extremely underfunded within this county is something that staff looks on as a benefit of the project. And Page 16 _._..---~,'~- December 16, 2004 they're not utilizing the resident -- or the density bonus from an affordable housing, they're providing the 10 percent affordable housing without an additional increase in their density. Their 4.5 units per acre is allowed by the residential density band that's associated with the activity center. So in that respect staff has found the request in compliance with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. And I will open the presentation up to questions, and as I said, Nick from transportation will help me out on this. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad to see Don sent this off to somebody else, so -- orientation by fire here today. But let me start then with some questions, and if they're not, Mike, something that you're familiar with, maybe the applicant can answer them, even if I ask you. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 2-1 of the PUD, there's some very explicit language under 2.2(A). And it's regarding permits from South Florida Water Management District and the ACOE. And it actually references permit numbers. Permit numbers tend to change frequently every time you modify or you do something. And this is basically saying they're going to govern and be consistent with those permits. I would want to make sure, number one, that we don't lock ourselves into a permit that is modified or updated and have to come back and change this PUD for any reason. And number two, where there's discrepancies between those permits and our code, I would assume the permits would dominate in areas that are requirements of federal or state law, but in regards interpretation, our code, but also the stricter of the grouping would apply. Is that something that can be fitted in here, or how does staff normally -- because hadn't seen this explicit language before Page 1 7 m·~_·-·"- ..,..._-".,.,--,-_'_'--~' December 16, 2004 referencing actual permit numbers. I'm a little concerned about that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's a Karen question. MR. SCHMITT: As you said, where county regulations are the stricter rule, they will apply. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what this says. But that's why I'm concerned, Joe. It says additionally, development of this PUD shall be governed by, and consistent with the existing Florida Water Management District. I want to make sure those don't dominate. And that if our code has a stricter provision, our code will prevail. And that was an addition that I wanted to see in here. MR. BOSI: And staff will -- at the commission's recommendations, staff will modify the 2~2(A) to general -- to add that specific language that the local ordinances will be the controlling ordinances above the referenced permits. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I would appreciate that. On page 3-3, the development standards table, your rear yard setback, it says the lake setback from control elevation is 20 feet. I guess this is more of a developer question, because this is going to have an impact on whether the property line goes to the maintenance easement or whether it goes to the control elevation of lake for the individual lots or the SDP that's sold in there. And the reason I'm asking is, if it's 20 feet, that's what your maintenance is. You can't go into that anyway, so your rear setback is right up against that easement. Is that what the intent is? MS. BISHOP: Yes, it is. These are condominiums, three stories, so you're only selling the units. The common ground will be common ground. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that going to be inclusive of the easement, or -- MS. BISHOP: Our setback will be right on the easement line. And that in fact belongs to common area, that will not be an ownership except for the whole. So that HOA will be the one Page 18 December 16, 2004 maintaining all of those things. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Brad already mentioned note three of your old PUD for the 75 feet, we're going to be adding that. And on preserve setback, your accessory structure and principal structure is 25 and 10. On your old PUD, the accessory structure was 25 feet, but if I'm not mistaken, the Land Development Code changed, now allows ten, so this is consistent with the LDC in that regard. MR. BOSI: Correct, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Table 1, general notes in the bottom of one, sidewalks shall generally be located between parking areas and buildings. What does the term "generally" mean? And is that going to mean it's consistent with the Land Development Code or are we looking for a deviation here that's not listed? MS. BISHOP: No, the intent is to be consistent. Getting deviations on sidewalks is virtually impossible in Collier County. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's strike that language, because if you don't need to say it because you're consistent with the code, there's no reason to say it then and cause confusion. MS. BISHOP: Well, what they were talking about is there are some places where sidewalks would go to recreational areas, and they go in between buildings. So that's what they were talking about. And there are some areas where sidewalks aren't necessarily on the other side of the roadway. So that's really what that is intended to be. But it is not intended -- we did not ask for any deviations, so we will still be bound by the LDC code. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we don't need that number one. Marj orie, did you have a comment? MS. STUDENT: Yes, I was going to make a point. There's other areas in the PUD where the language generally is used as a modifier, and it's my recommendation that that come out, because that Page 19 ------"^. December 16, 2004 can be construed as somewhat weakening. It's also found on Page 2.1, Paragraph 2.2(A), and then the second subparagraph underneath it. And I would recommend anywhere it's utilized in the PUD, it be removed. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Marjorie. That might be some of the other 25 tabs I have on this document, so it will eliminate those questions. Again, Mike, do we have any problem striking number one on that, in regards -- since the intent is to be consistent with Land Development Code, so there's no reason to have any of the language in there. MR. BOSI: No, Commissioner Strain, staff doesn't. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: On your -- Mike, when you sent your report over, you're talking about an upgrade on the bridge. And that would come into effect, by your standards, at the figure of 4,000 average daily trips or 400 peak hour trips. My points is this, when that time finally comes, what are you going to do, then work on the bridge and close up all the traffic, because it can't -- why can't we do it first? It's going to happen, it's going to be needed. And this way it will be done before it has to be done in the middle of a traffic problem. MS. BISHOP: Well, just to let you know that when they do improve bridges, they still provide access for cars in an alternate way. So it will not close up traffic, it will not disturb people already there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Of course it will. Because they're going to only be able to give you so much of it. It's already been a problem because it's already, now it's 400 or 4,000, whichever one comes first, and now you're going to try to do it with one lane instead of two lanes and keep this going until it gets done, I would recommend that the bridge be done at this time when at least it will not cause a traffic problem worse than it would the other way around. Page 20 December 16, 2004 MS. BISHOP: Well, one of the issues also is that there is already a proj ect under construction to the south and they are going to be utilizing this during this time. But even before I come on board, that is going to be under use. So it is going to at some point -- I mean, even today would disturb the traffic that's going on at Bristol Pines. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Even when you start, the traffic will still be less. It will still be easier to move the traffic with one lane at a time, because we won't need that -- or have that situation of 4,000 cars or 400 across this. And I recommend that it be done as soon as you take possession of this and get it started. MS. BISHOP: I'm going to let Nick talk to that. This has been a long, very long negotiation process with this roadway stuff, so I'm going to let him tell you what his thought process is for why we set it up the way we did. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Nick Casalanguida. I'm one of the project managers with transportation planning. Call me Nick. Mike butchered my name already a little bit. Commissioners, I think you have much more background on this road than I do, so -- I've been here about five months, and this is one of the projects they've asked me to kind of try and bring together. And to Karen's credit and to the developers to the south, through many phone calls and me being a particular pain to all of them, we've managed to get to this stage. As far as the bridge is concerned, we've discussed taking in the whole 2,800 feet of Tree Farm Road as part of a supplemental for the 951 project, and that's where we're kind of leaning with this, where we would take it off the developer's hand and they would actually pay us and we'll bring it in with the construction of 951. So as far as this language reads, that trigger will probably not be necessary. We'll be doing that in the next eight to nine months with 951. Page 21 December 16, 2004 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Then can we take it out? What I'm trying to do is make sure that there isn't a cork in the bottle when the time comes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, I believe we can. As far as -- as part of making that part of the 951 project, that trigger won't be necessary . COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Can we put that in the PUD? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't see that as a problem. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm making accurate notes, because if there's a motion that would stipulate -- looks like there's might be -- by the time we're done today there could be extensive ones. What section are you referring to change, exactly? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The remodeling of the bridge. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's under the transportation section of the PUD? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We haven't got there yet, but when we -- okay, that section, you want to change. Before I go on, is there any other questions from the commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, do you have a copy of the Exhibit B, the master plan, at a larger scale? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good question, because I notice you had asked that be included in our packet. And this one didn't have those. It was a little hard to read. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that we've mentioned before. We're down to begging for it now. MR. BOSI: I apologize, Commissioner Schiffer, I do not have a 24 by 36 version of the master plan with me. Page 22 December 16, 2004 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you realize we can't read this stuff when it's this small. At least I can't. Maybe the eye patch problem, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With a magnifying glass it's different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you do feel kind of silly with, you know, optical tools trying to review this. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the note there is in the future, Mike, please make sure we get, as a requirement, we get full sized plans. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does anybody have a copy? Did staff ever get a copy of the -- MR. BOSI: I have on file -- I do have a copy of the 24 by 36. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let me see if you can read it. What is the acreage of the residential Tract 1 ? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you what mine says: 11.3, 7.0, 2.2, 17.73. I'm sorry. 11.3 acres, 7.0, 2.2 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And 11.3 is the residential tract, Mark. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I'm reading from the top so that you could figure out what it says. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but -- in other words, I can see where it notes residential Tract 1, what is the acreage of that? In other words, what's the acreage of -- MS. BISHOP: 38.75 is the total of the estimated land use for the residential. And then 10 acres worth of lakes. So total of the whole area to develop on is 48.75 plus or minus. Little plus or minus. I can see close, I just can't see far away. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have one of those proj ectors at home, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, but, you know, it's kind of annoying where you're setting up, you know, camera obscura devices Page 23 December 16, 2004 to read your packet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who's responsibility is that, the planner or the applicant? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant needs to provide the plans to the planner and the planner needs to provide them to us. And I think that point's been made very clear. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can we put this whole thing off until we get another one? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just go -- well, that's a motion that can be made at the end, but we've got to go through the meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then, Mike, do me another favor. Can you blow up the general notes portion of it, too? Which are essentially disclaimers, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's too blurry for me to be accurate. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to go on with our questioning, if we can get resolved on this issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're going to approve this document, I mean, this exhibit is part of the thing. It would be nice to read it. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine's more readable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's okay. MR. SCHMITT: Ten percent of the units -- shall be affordable housing units. MR. BELLOWS: Minimally meeting -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can move on, Mark. We can read while you're moving. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, Mike, let me take you to Page 3-4, under -- and it would be Item 3.7, conservation area. The last sentence concerns me, it says transition grades from the boundary of conservation areas shall be as permitted by South Florida Page 24 December 16,2004 Water Management District. We have a specific provision on those transition areas in our code. It's Section 3.05.07. And I'm wondering, are you asking for a deviation here, do you know, or are you trying to go by the code? If you're going by the code, we need to strike that last sentence. MR. BOSI: The environmental staff had reviewed this language and they indicated to me that they were comfortable with that language. But as you mentioned, it could be -- it could be a deviation from the Land Development Code, and to protect the project from any unforeseen or unrequested deviations, I would have to agree with Commissioner Strain, that we probably should modify that. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. On 3.9 and 3.10, Mike, they're asking for standards -- they're talking about standards for lake excavation, in particular, blasting and for sidewalks. Both items are very thoroughly discussed in the LDC. Why are we restating them here, if this is to be consistent with the LDC and not a deviation? Because the LDC is much more definitive that these statements are, and I would want to make sure that these don't override the LDC. And, again, it's back to why do we need them if the intent is to be consistent with the Land Development Code? MR. BOSI: If the -- the intent that was expressed by the applicant to staff is to be consistent with the Land Development Code. The inclusion of these statements, I mean, would not be a necessity, because the Land Development Code would be the controlling document regarding this area. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mike, on 3.9, lake excavation, talks about 350 feet from off-site structures. There's also a provision in the code talking about distance from roads and right-of-ways and structures like that -- or elements like that. I don't see that language in here. I would just rather we -- if we have an LDC that works and Page 25 December 16,2004 everybody is living by it, let's just use that and not confuse the issue by adding language that might confuse it down the road for someone else who is reading this and trying to fall back on this document. So if there's no objections from staff, I'd just like to strike 3.9 and 3.0. MR. BOSI: Commissioner Strand, I do not have a problem striking it. Traditionally, in PUDs there is duplication of language. And I know the planning commission has -- wants us to get away from that, and I would not have an obj ection. Maybe, I guess, I could pose the question to the applicant, but staff will not have an objection if planning commission recommends that, that will be the recommendation that staff will bring forward to the Board of County Commissioners. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do you see any-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why don't we see if Karen has a reason for wanting it in there. It's her PUD. MS. BISHOP: I didn't put it in there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I'll withdraw the question then. MS. BISHOP: You know, the -- you know, this is-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's hard to tell when you get to this stage who's responsible. MS. BISHOP: I know. There's a lot of fingerprints on this document, and mine were in the last set of fingerprints on the document. And I don't believe it's our intent to vary from the LDC. I've got to tell you, though, you know, when I was in Pebblebrooke, it was a bear trying to get the lakes done there, as well as Laurel Lakes, because I live in that area, there, there was some blasting that went on, and so I'm certainly sympathetic to what goes on for blasting. And it's not my intent to annoy anyone that's already living there by blasting within 350 feet of their home. So I'm not intending to ask for a deviation. Page 26 December 16, 2004 VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's-- MR. SCHMITT: I think if -- in fact I would propose that we do strike it and the LDC become the governing document, primarily due to the fact that there are upcoming LDC amendments dealing with sidewalks and there will be dealing with excavation. So the LDC should be the prevailing document. The sidewalk issue is going to involve some deviation processes and whatever. Nick and my staff are working on that, and we'll be dealing with excavations and clearings as well. So it should be -- the LDC should be the prevailing document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, before you leave this topic, Mike, have you looked at the -- their master plan in regards to the LDC requirements for lakes? Will they be allowed to be built where they're shown? MR. BOSI: As part of the application process, they had actually even submitted a conceptual site plan associated with the -- with the project, and the lake excavations and the placement of the lakes were consistent with what the Land Development Code, as conveyed to me from our water treatment staff and our engineering services staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Page 4-1, Item 4.2(B)(2), the prior PUD language under that was the supplemental landscape plantings, screening and buffering after appropriate environmental review. Previously, the word appropriate was not in it, and it just said environmental approval. I'm not comfortable with the word review, because that does not signify any approval or anything. I would recommend that we have the -- that be environmental approval. MS. BISHOP: I think I can explain that. The district permit and the Corps permits have what is called a buffer between the residential and the environmental lands, the preserve lands. And in lieu of using a fence, we are using vegetation as that structural buffer. The Page 27 December 16,2004 environmental staff has already reviewed it and that -- we actually got an EIS waiver because our permits are consistent with the codes. And so what this is, is to be able to put those structural buffers in there, we will have the environmental department review the structural buffers in comparison with the permits, and so that's what this is. But they have actually already reviewed these. We already have preserve management plans, we already have wildlife habitat management plans, which have been reviewed by staff. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have they objected to any of those items? MS. BISHOP: No, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then they have approved them. So is any wrong -- thing wrong with using the word "environmental approval"? MS. BISHOP: No, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I was asking. MS. BISHOP: You're writing all that down? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm writing it all down. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're rewriting the PUD. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that we're in the issue of conservation buffers, on Page 5-2, 5.7(A)(3), you go into great detail defining a conservation buffer. I have read Section 3.05.07 in the LDC and it contradicts that section, or it isn't in line with that section. I believe there's no deviations requested, so why are we going into a conservation buffer description here that differs from the language in the LDC? MS. BISHOP: Oh, boy. I'm going to explain this, that the reason why this language is in there, because it's consistent with the permits. The environmental staff, in fact, looked at this and has blessed this language, and this is what is consistent with our South Florida Water Management permit and our Corps of Engineers permit at that point. The language, if it is different from the language that is in the Page 28 --"~'- December 16, 2004 LDC, then I guess we are looking for a deviation, because our permits are prevailing at this point, which is a part of this application, the South Florida Water Management and the Corps of Engineers. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know what permits you're talking about, but the Land Development Code is stricter than the permits, and the language I'm particularly interested in the Land Development Code is there shall be no site alterations within the first ten feet adjacent to any preserve. And it goes on from there, and this is allowing all site alterations right up to the edge of the preserve as part of this conservation buffer. That is a deviation from the Land Development Code. If you want that, then you needed to have this language in there requesting such a deviation, and I'm sure we would have had to have been notified of it instead of having it just as a paragraph in the PUD. So either it comes out or we have another issue with a deviation that isn't defined as such, let's put it that way. MS. BISHOP: Well, one of the problems is we're going to have to be consistent with our permits. And if the permits, which in fact do require this structural buffer and in fact require us to put a berm within that area -- so I am going to have to alter that land within that, but then as soon as that land alteration is completed, that becomes a part of the conservation buffer. But we will have to put a berm around the outside of that because it connects off-site to others. So I have to berm my edge, and then I have to put in that structural buffer. That is by my federal and state permits. So if -- that deviation apparently did not get caught by the staff nor myself, which I apologize. And so if that is the case of the difference, then we will need to adhere to our already existing permits, and that would in fact then be a deviation from what the code says. Now, we have a preserve here that is far exceeding the minimum requirements of the preserves and stuff that our LDC has, so maybe that would be the trade-off that, you know, in fact we have more than Page 29 -~'-'-> December 16,2004 half of our site going into preserve as opposed to just the minimum 25 percent. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ironically, on number four says conservation area, no buffer is required except as noted elsewhere in this document. And I think that's referring back to the paragraph right before it, item three, so I'm not sure why number four is there, when obviously a buffer is required because you're actually defining it. My concern is, if this needs to be a deviation and listed as such, how do we appropriately do that at this hearing today? MR. BOSI: Traditionally, deviations within a PUD document is called out within the development commitments in a special section related to deviations, and we would take the -- that portion of the landscape requirements and move that towards requested deviations and have that as the requested deviation related to that aspect of the buffer for the preserve areas. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depending on how this meeting gels out today, would you -- I'll make a note of it, but depending how we end up, that may be something that needs to be defined before it goes to the next level. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, what I would like to see when there's an instance where the petitioner failed to adequately delineate a deviation, and if it's discovered during a planning commission meeting or some point later than staff review's completed, I want it to go back to the very staff people responsible for that review and to make sure they're not having problems before it goes to the board. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, my next questions are something the new gentleman that we have hired would probably . . enJoy answenng. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Nick. Nick. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't say your last name either, Nick. Based on your haircut, are you ex-military? Page 30 December 16,2004 MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're probably the first hiree we haven't had from the military in a long time. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that's a shot directed someplace else in the room. MR. SCHMITT: And the impact on that on the county has been significant. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it has. I have to agree with you. On Page 5-4, Item (J) of your PUD, the one that Don's given you, hopefully that you wrote, it talks about required turn lane improvements. The use of existing county right-of-way or easement compensating right-of-way shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvements. N ow the turn lane improvements, you're meaning the decel and accellanes, anything like that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: According to their traffic study, those lanes are being installed by the county. So are they paying for them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, in the language that we are going to have going forward in the PUD document, we're actually coming up with, probably be at DCA that's going forward, that would be clearly called out that any turn lanes would be site-specific for this property . VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But does that mean they're going to pay for them or taxpayers are paying for them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're going to pay for them, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So (J) then, how do we -- you said a -- language going forward. This is not the language that is going to go forward? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, sir, it is. Eventually, in then Page 31 December 16,2004 next month or so, we'll be doing a developer contribution agreement that would be probably more specific to this road being constructed, being Tree Farm Road. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And you will have a chance to see that, I think, as well, too. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under (N) -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, they don't -- okay. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Under (N) you had impact fee credits would be granted for the upgrade of Tree Farm Road from a private driveway cross-section to a minor collector cross-section. First of all, prior to your involvement and prior to Ms. Bishop's involvement, the applicant had gone forward on November 18th, 2003 in front of the BCC with a gentleman by the name of Don Murray. And he stated that, "We're going to do the road improvements, full opening, access, everything to county standards, reserve the right-of-way that the county needs, and then later down the road, when they want to extend the road, take it over. We just want to be considered for our fair share of impact fees. Commissioner Coletta and the commission voted on a 5 to 0 in regards to this process. So I think it's wonderful you got Tree Line (sic) Road. It is one of the things I never would agree if you didn't have it, but I'll be darned if I'm going to pay for it, not now, not some time in the future, not with somebody else's tax money . You can have that" -- and then he talked about the applicant getting together with the adjoining property owners to pay for the road, but not through any impact fee credits. And on (N), you're suggesting that they get impact fee credits for the difference between a private driveway cross-section and a minor collector when they had already agreed that they were going to build the road to county standards. So I think we're giving away something we don't need to, and Page 32 December 16,2004 that the commission made it very clear they weren't going to be getting any impact fee credits regardless. Ms. Bishop looks like she wants to say -- MS. BISHOP: I think I can explain this. The difference is we can build a road to county standards that's not a collector road. And what the county is asking us to do is they're thinking ahead for the years when they need this to connect to their major system. What they're asking us to do is upgrade from the road that we would build without any impact fee credits to a collector section, urban collector section. So we're only getting the impact fee credits for building an extra -- for doing more than what we had to by county standards for the future needs of that roadway to connect to their grid system. So we are not getting impact fee credits for the original road we would have had to build, we're only getting it for the upgrade, because the county is going to need this in the future. So that's really all that we're getting impact fee credits for. So I -- and I did read those too, and knew that we were not eligible for impact fee credits to build our road to get to our proj ects. But the upgrade is all that they're offering us, because they don't want to come back later and have to upgrade the road when they need it for their grid system, their transportation system. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, does the public -- is a private driveway cross-section something the public can drive on? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, it is. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it a county standard? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They can build a private driveway cross-section to a county standard, they could. So she's correct in her assumption. The new cross-section, we are trying to plan ahead. It's going to have bike lanes, the six-foot sidewalks, turn lanes, and be able to eventually connect into what we're hoping for would be W oodcrest down the road to give us that loop road that we're looking for to tie Page 33 December 16,2004 into Immokalee. So we are trying to plan ahead with this. And rather than go ahead two years from now and rip up what we've done, we're trying to do it up front and now, and the negotiations for this have been long and extensive, and many arm-twisting sessions and phone calls to get to this point. COMMISSIONER CARON: So maybe this is an instance when it should be more specific in the document? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- I would have -- that's where I was heading with it. I'm not in favor of seeing impact fee credits for anything to do with Tree Farm Road. I think the commissioners made it very clear that they're to work that out with their neighbors to the north and to the south around there. If they can't do that, that's isn't the taxpayer's problem. As far as I'm concerned that road is not needed by the taxpayers, it's needed by the developments in the area. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would say that we will need that road in the future. That loop road connecting up to Immokalee through W oodcrest was something that, when it's done, will be a benefit to the county. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it on the five-year plan? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, it's not. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten-year plan? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't believe it's not, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- but I mean, does it cost anything to expend that kind of money by the taxpayers early? It would. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It saves money, I think, in the future, though, going forward. I think it was a target of opportunity, I'd like to call it that, where I was asked to try to try and bring the developer to the south, get rid of the bridge from Bristol Pines that they're proposing to build, and have them come in where we could have a full Page 34 .____.........-.~. "'. . ,"··,·~··u_,,·~.... .' 1'1 December 16,2004 median opening on 951. And then looking forward to be able to provide a loop road with right-of-way that's already out there and right-of-way that we'll hopefully be getting as new development comes in to be able to tie that in. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not going to belabor it any more, Nick. But thank you, I appreciate it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, just for understanding, what they're saying is that the impact fee is only for the upgrade portion of that roadway? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir. We're trying to get ahead of the curve, as you'd say. I'd rather get the road built correctly up front, as then, in my point of view, it only encourages any development coming farther down Tree Farm in the future to be brought to those standards as well, too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are there calculations that indicate the differential? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's what we're working on now. We have a meeting scheduled, I believe, for tomorrow to get together with a design engineer for 951 and the development to the south and Warm Springs to go over the calculations for that. And that will be ironed out over the next couple of days. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have just a handful of questions on the Metro traffic study. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick, I appreciate it. Welcome to the county. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you very much. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You should have been on the very first thing we heard today. Good morning. MR. PRICE: Morning. Rob Price from Metro Transportation Page 35 December 16, 2004 Group. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Bob, on Page 1, it looks like your traffic study was done based on the 951 going to six lanes, being six lanes. Your traffic study was done under the assumption the six lanes in place and how it would function at that time. Is that a correct assumption? MR. PRICE: Yes, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, you assume that the Warm Springs residential community would be completed in the year 2009, and maybe transportation, and I'm sorry to bother him again, could answer when 951 is actually going to be done. That means everything in place, full six lanes open. Because it was supposed to start a long time ago and it hasn't started yet. MR. SCOTT: It was supposed to start in January, I remember talking to his -- Don Scott, transportation planning. I remember talking to you guys probably last year saying it was going to start in January. It looks like summer of next year is when it's starting. It's a two-year project, so we're talking about summer of2007. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 100 percent done? MR. SCOTT: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By the way, I notice that in your report for tomorrow, you guys are talking about Vanderbilt Beach Road, and it was supposed to be started in 2004. I drive that every day. It just got started, so I guess you made that deadline. But it's interesting that your reports mean the end of the year, not the beginning of the year. So that's just something to keep in mind for this panel. On Page 10 of your report -- based on the intersection capacity analysis performed as a result of this report, all intersection approaches are shown to operate acceptably if the development traffic is added to the surrounding roadway network. LOS E is not an ideal level of service for the westbound approach Page 36 .~._---- December 16, 2004 to Collier Boulevard. And apparently that level of service will stay until you get a signalized condition under optimal operating conditions. Is that true? MR. PRICE: Optimal conditions at that intersection will be signalized. And at that time all movements will operate acceptably and they would be level of service B at that intersection. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's putting in the traffic light? MR. PRICE: I think we say in the TIS, the developers of the surrounding area would pay their pro-rata share for the traffic signal. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me ask Nick or Mr. Scott then, have you guys covered the traffic light issue adequately so that the county taxpayers aren't paying for the traffic light? MR. SCOTT: Yeah, they will be paying for the traffic light, and, of course, it won't be put up until it meets warrants. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the conclusion on your Metro study, the proposed Warm Springs residential community at the northeast corner of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Tree Farm Road within Collier County, Florida will not adversely impact the existing roadway network. You mean the future roadway network, because you're destroying the existing roadway network. MR. PRICE: I wouldn't say we're destroying it, but yeah, I guess we should probably change that to the future roadway network. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you live out that way? MR. PRICE: No, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I can tell you, I'm probably more of an authority on what you're destroying than you may be. And believe it or not, other than comments from the commissioners on how they reduce the density down to 250 units and the concerns they had, that's the last of my questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a quick question for Metro. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Page 37 December 16, 2004 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On your Figure 2, just out of curiosity, you show 70 percent of the cars going north, 50 percent go left on Immokalee, 10 percent -- what happens to the other 10 percent, do they have accidents or disappear? MR. PRICE: No. Actually, that's a distribution we've used for pretty much all these developments we've worked on the Collier Boulevard. And it's assumed as, like drop-off, the trips, like there's a Publix, there's a shopping center right there at the corner of 951 and Immokalee Road. So those -- a lot of those trips, approximately 10 percent, would utilize, you know, capture there and then come back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, I just have a question for the gentleman. Having to do with the trip generation equations, I notice that you use land use, multi-family detached housing. I thought these were going to be -- these were all attached? MR. PRICE: No, we used the multi-family condominium, attached condominium. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Mine says multi-family detached housing. MR. PRICE: That's a typo. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. All right. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the commissioners? Hearing none, Ray, are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Paul A. Benson. MR. BENSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Paul Benson and I'm with Calusa Pines, Indian Hill Partners. In regards to this project, our only concern is the mitigation for flooding in the area, especially with the Tree Farm Road. And our concern in particular is next to Calusa Pines, some of the property that we own, about 220 acres on the back side, which is on the northwest Page 38 December 16,2004 corner, upper northwest corner of this project, seems to be flooding to an extent. We can't pinpoint why we have excessive flooding. But our concern is when they do develop this proj ect that the roadway surface runoff is -- in which direction it's going, and it's being studied closely. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I recall, the roadway runoff, they've got to provide -- their on-site water management system has to be provided to accommodate that roadway runoff. So actually, I think it's going to go onto their property, from what I remember in the document. MS. BISHOP: Correct. MR. BENSON: Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. There was a meeting on this, I believe, and Mike, maybe you attended it, the public meeting? MR. BOSI: Commissioner Strain, are you referring to the neighborhood information meeting? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BOSI: Correct. That was held by Michael Fernandez, the first agent designated for the proj ect. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw some notes about that in your report. And I saw his name on there. That's what made me realize there's been another change of players. Anything at that meeting that you know of that was presented to the public differently than what's being presented here today? MR. BOSI: Number of units. At that meeting, they were going for the 598 units. Other than that, the design function of the master plan, that's actually where the conceptual site plan was developed. At that point in time, they were contemplating approaching the zoning and land development review and actually trying to submit a simultaneous site development plan for this to kind of trail along with the zoning actions so there wouldn't be a lag time. Page 39 ...~"",.,,"-;¡--"'^_.. December 16, 2004 But really, what was presented at the neighborhood information meeting was just a little bit more intensity, but the overall concept in the design function that was presented was identical to what's presented in the current PUD document. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have the neighbors or the people that attended that meeting from the public been kept abreast of the changes in the proj ect? MR. BOSI: Well, with the -- I mean, we haven't had another neighborhood information meeting, it's not required by the Land Development Code. But the notice that -- of the neighborhood or of the planning commission meeting contains the specifics of the number of units and the changes being requested. And even though it wasn't called out that there was a decrease from what was presented at the neighborhood information meeting, if they would compare the two documents, they would be able to discern that there was a 48-unit -- or a 58-unit difference in what was presented at that neighborhood information meeting. And at that information meeting, there was not -- wasn't one objection from the adjoining property owners, it was more just informational and questioning, and actually, the primary focus was they wanted to know how they could get in touch with the developer because they were interested in the affordable housing units that were going to be made available by this project. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mike. Well, just out of curiosity -- and maybe the applicant can answer this, have you had any correspondence with the people that showed up at that informational meeting? MS. BISHOP: The only one that I spoke to was his, his boss. I've spoken to him several time. I think his name was Gary Chinsoff (phonetic). Right. I've spoken to him several times, and specifically about the drainage issues, which him and I discussed. And I gave him some suggestions, since I think I -- I think he knows where that is. Page 40 December 16, 2004 But as far as any other -- other than our neighbors to the south, which we have had numerous conversations with, those are the only ones that we've discussed it with. The other ones were real estate people that were looking for units. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other public speakers? Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted do -- well, maybe I'll wait then after the public speakers are over then. I'm sorry. MR. BELLOWS: No other registered for this item. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I would ask a question of Ms. Bishop. Getting back to the affordable housing, the moderate affordable housing, now, I know you opened up your comments with regard to that. I would like you to expand that now for the record to show us how we can add to the inventory and maintain it for the 15 years. What documentation or what format is used and what -- how does it work. MS. BISHOP: According to the LDC, it's deed restrictions, and that's what we will intend to do with these units is deed restrict them, as per the LDC, which is 15 years that they have to remain. Cormac didn't provide me -- I know you had said to me that there's -- you explained to me how Habitat for Humanity did theirs, but Corbett (sic) didn't go into the details of that. But my client has agreed to restrict those for the 15 years, so that they stay in the inventory as per the code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MS. BISHOP: I have big ones, if someone wants to see the big ones? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Too late for me. I do have a question -- oh, did you have a question -- of Nick. Sorry, Nick, one thing just struck me. Page 41 .··._M_···· N_____"""""'"'' December 16,2004 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Indoctrination by fire, it's okay. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This private road that's being considered for Tree Line (sic) -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Tree Farm. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- versus the county cross-section. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many units can that roadway support? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, God -- VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At a level of service not-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: A minor collector, I'd probably deflect to Don on that one. But I think it's more than adequate, it wasn't close to capacity constrained at all. I think we're looking at having this thing tie into Immokalee Road, and I think as a minor collector, it could support all the development there. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I don't mean as a minor collector, I mean as a private driveway. How many units in Bristol Pines and in this project can this road support as a private driveway? MR. SCOTT: Are you talking about from a level of service standpoint or are you talking -- VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. The level of -- you guys are allowing them to go forward with a private drive. And then if it's a collector, or if you build the collector, they pay for the difference. Well, let's go back and see what they would have needed in regards to the -- and they already have an agreement with Bristol Pines, so if you take all the density in Bristol Pines and all the density at whatever this place is and you combine them together and put it on a private drive, not a collector, on a private drive, will that road fail? MR. SCOTT: No. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even as a private drive, it would function okay? MR. SCOTT: Yes. Page 42 December 16, 2004 VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they wouldn't need to make the upgrade to a collector? MR. SCOTT: No, no. I don't like to call it a private, I like to call the difference between a local collector. Now, maybe a local's a little better than private drive. But you have safety, you have pavement issues. You're talking about trying to carry more traffic in the future, not just the development traffic in the future. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you don't like to do things, don't write them that way, because that's your language: private driveway. MR. SCOTT: Okay, that's a fair shot. I've been telling him local to a collector, but he keeps putting private in. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will be my responsibility. I'll make that as a note, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I -- and Bob, did you have any comments? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, not at this point. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Okay. And there's no other public speakers, so close the public hearing. Is there a motion from the commission? (No response.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rush is knocking me over, fellows. If there's no motion, then I'll -- well, we've got to have a motion of some kind, so I'll make a motion regards to petition PUDZA-2004-AR-6142, I make a motion to recommend denial. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion? MS. STUDENT: Would you please -- using the criteria that are listed in the staff report for the approval of rezones and PUD rezones, would you please enunciate a reason or reasons for the development -- denial. Page 43 December 16, 2004 VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Land Development Code Development Code Section 4.07.02(B), Land Development Code Section 4.07.02(D). MS. STUDENT: Would you mind just briefly stating what the criteria is, just very briefly so -- VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd have to pull the code up and read it. It's quite a few pages, I mean, I've referenced it. MS. STUDENT: Well, I'm assuming-- VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the PUD-- MS. STUDENT: I don't have the code -- I'm assuming you're referencing the criteria -- VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most of it is involving compatibility and traffic concerns. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, just for explanation, what Joe was saying, they're not bringing these vehicles on line until the road can take them. So I don't see the traffic concern there. And the compatibility, it's a residential neighborhood. I mean, these are -- VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, if you want, I'll withdraw my motion and let you make one. But no one was making a motion, and this board needs to move forward with something. And if the general consensus is not to make a motion, then to me that's a denial. And I was making a recommendation of denial. If you want to make a recommendation of approval, I'll withdraw my motion until you get done with yours and we'll see where it goes. I have no problem with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I'll do that. I'll make a -- MS. STUDENT: Wasn't that seconded? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it was. MS. STUDENT: Does the second withdraw the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It has to be seconded before Page 44 December 16, 2004 we can talk about it. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you withdraw your second until we -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Of course. The only reason for a second is to make sure you can talk about it. A motion can't be talked about until the second is made. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the original motion was withdrawn by both parties, the first and the second. And now -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I'll make a motion -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me clear the air, Brad, with your permission. The reason nobody else stepped forward to make a motion was the fact that you've got notes about seventy things that you want to add to whoever's motion it is, so we're standing aside waiting for you to make the motion and read your shopping list there. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And -- okay. Well, I didn't realize that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We haven't gone shy all ofa sudden. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: As a matter of fact, that was the reason. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wasn't picking up on that. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll second Ken's explanation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'll add to that. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, Brad, you want for make the motion and I'll -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll tell you what, I'll make a motion, if you make the conditions. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll make the conditions, and we'll discuss it, because I have a concern beyond the conditions. Page 45 .-....................-..--..--....-.-.-..--.. December 16, 2004 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But let me -- I'll go ahead. I'll make a motion -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY : You can vote against it, if you want. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To forward petition PZA (sic) -2004-AR-6142, the Warm Springs PUD, for approval, with the only condition that I'll enter into, that the 75- foot setback for the southern property be added. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second it. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, discussion. Obviously there are a lot of stipulations. And I'll tell you where I'm coming from. We've sent this, or this panel sent this to the BCC for 580 units, and they took a close look at it and it wasn't only Tree Line ( sic) Road, because the density issue was in the transcript right from the get-go. Tree Line (sic) was part of it but not the only reason. It was all from at least three commissioners expressed a concern over density, and they cut it back to 250. I'm not sure it's this panel's -- or at least I don't feel it's my position as a member of this panel to try to second-guess the elected officials. While I think the idea of adding affordable housing is admirable, and I think we need it, and based on that, I would recommend a higher number than the 250. And since they're offering ten percent affordable housing, I would think 278 would do that. Ten percent off 278 is 250. So they get more density, they get the affordable housing, and they still get the 250 they started with. Now, based on that, that's where my thoughts are. But not everybody may agree with that, and if you don't, I'd at least like to offer stipulations to the motion that's made, should it pass. Page 46 -.---.'. ".-.---.....""---.-" December 16, 2004 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me add what's different between this application and the last application for density. These are all multi-family units. Before they had single-family, garden apartments and stuff, which really would have been a tough thing to build out. So I think that a way -- I mean, the way this thing is designed, the way it weaves through the preserves, that it would be a nice, multi-family lot where you could get a lot of units in it. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, Brad, if they were coming in in the year 2007 and this roadway was functioning at a level of service that's acceptable, I would consider more. But-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Joe is saying is they're not going to get units on the road until the road is acceptable. I mean, that's something that we did with the checkbook concurrency system. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what, that system isn't working. And we were okaying too many projects in the county before the roads are ready to accept them. And then we find out the roads get delayed, and by the time everything happens, and we're going on ten months instead of twelve, so in the end we're fighting ourselves. And I -- as far as I'm concerned-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then they're running their checkbook like I run mine. But the point is that we came up with this system, we have to trust that system. If there's a problem with the system, you know, who's keeping the checkbook, and start keeping an eye on him. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, that's why zoning is requested. We have the option of taking a look at it and making a determination based on reality. And that's all I'm doing, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think what we're doing is we're planning things for the -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'd like to just make one other comment. There's another alternative that you can look at if transportation is a concern and the capacity of the roadway, Page 47 ._.-.~_..- December 16, 2004 is phasing the project to be consistent with road improvements in the future. They would allow the petitioner to proceed with financing and design of the project, but you and the board would have a insurance that no units would come on line until certain road improvements were made. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Ray, am I naive to assume that the checkbook concurrency system is working? MR. BELLOWS: I haven't heard anything about it not working. I'm just saying, if you have a concern about checkbook concurrency, at the time of zoning you can make a recommendation to phase the project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But doesn't the recommendation go without saying that it's going to be phased by the checkbook? MR. BELLOWS: It should be, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You had your compromise number, you have yours, I have mine -- I kind of felt that to make this thing work out properly, I came to 480 units. I did it basically on the idea that we're dealing with four per acre, and we have been doing that in most areas. I understand this close to the area as you were discussing it, but I still felt that I like to deal with that area, and that I would be very satisfied if we did get it down to 480 units. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other-- Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have to agree with Commissioner Strain. I believe that there should have been no anticipation on the part of the petitioner to have more than the units that had already been approved when they bought the property. And the BCC has made its ruling on this piece of -- on this parcel, and I believe that we should -- with the exception, I think they would probably even grant you the affordable housing increase. But bring it Page 48 ",_"·,,._u~___,·_-'_· December 16, 2004 back down to the 250 in the end. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti, did you have a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to answer, Karen, why are we second-guessing them? The BCC will be able to do that again when they get it. I mean, why are we predicting how many units they want to have. I mean, I think we should look at what we feel comfortable -- we felt comfortable with a totally different kind of product that would have then made it difficult to get 590. And if they want to take it down, they'll take it down. MS. STUDENT: I just need to make a statement for the record. This is a new petition, it's not the old petition, and it's different, and it needs to be evaluated on its own terms and in light of the criteria, concurrency and otherwise that we have today. And it's a different animal. I just want to state that for the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One of the major differences is that the product that they're talking about is solely multi-family. The other one had a whole lot of stuff that was a different product. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows again. I just wanted to stress the point, there are changing conditions that have to be reflected. That's why the BCC will have another opportunity to look at it and rule based on the changing conditions from the last time they heard this. One was there was no checkbook concurrency in place in the level of detail they have now. So that played into the factor of them reducing the density. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a year ago they heard this, you know, November 18th, 2003. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, but the detail of the checkbook concurrency -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It was there then. It was there then. Page 49 December 16, 2004 MR. BELLOWS: To this detail? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, depends on how much detail you really think we have. Ifwe had enough detail, Wal-Mart wouldn't be costing me 20 more minutes a day to go past it. I know, that's back to detail again. MR. SCHMITT: But that was vested. I mean, I'm not defending VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Commissioner Vigliotti, then Commissioner Midney. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's okay. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Commissioner Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd also like to speak in favor of what you're mentioning, Mark. I think the density is too great of an increase. And I'd like to ask Brad, what difference does it make whether it's multi-family or whether it's the mixed product that it was before if we still have the same density? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, you're going to have the same number of cars in the parking lot. That's for sure. But it's just the product. I mean, this thing, when I asked her what -- or asked Mike what the actual net area of the thing, that they could fit beautiful multi-family, three story units, which is probably what they're going to have to do, and I think we need housing. I mean, you know, if it's single-family housing, what you're going to have is you're going to be spreading it, you're going to be cramming the multi-family. This is -- they have enough acreage to do a really nice project. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I agree with you, the multi-family would be more beneficial for inside the development itself, but I agree that the density is more than what this area can take, especially since we don't have good, viable mass transit and won't have it, you know, for the foreseeable future in that area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, mass transit needs dense Page 50 "'~-""""-"'~-""'" -~~_. December 16,2004 housing to work. So, you know, this would actually lend itself towards that. I mean, the density isn't that great. It's about, I would figure, roughly 12 units per acre in the multi-family thing. It's pretty easy to obtain. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm thinking the surrounding -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it has a lot of preserve -- it's 68 percent preserve. I mean, this is -- it's not up on the street. I mean, the portion of it goes up to the front street, so it's not something that we'll even see driving by. The traffic, Mark, has got to be taken care of by our traffic system. When you're upset with density, what you're really saying is you're upset with traffic, because, again, the physical product can be built without being annoying to anybody. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, all I know -- and I know Karen said she lives in that area, as I do -- I have to drive that piece of 951. And even when it's six-laned, I mean, right now going south out of Golden Gate Boulevard is almost as bad as going north. I'm not sure that six lanes is going to help if we keep piling density on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they have the data. I mean, what you're staying is you're not trusting our transportation system, what they're planning to do then. Because they're promising us that this product won't come on line or these cars won't come on line until they have a road that can accept them. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what the tolerance of our traffic system for traffic congestion is more than I want to personally put up with. The only way I think that you can affect that is to look at some controls that are arbitrary, and that's what I think the rezoning request is. It isn't something that's a given, it's a request. If it doesn't make sense, then that's where I'm -- to me it doesn't, so -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I find difficulty with the 540 Page 51 --~"'- December 16, 2004 also. I can't favor that one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'd like to call the question. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like to, before we do, in case there's a -- in case this motion passes, Ken, would you mind if I run through my list, just to get them on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, there were other stipulants (sic) you had, I thought. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's the only thing I'd like to do, will that -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You going to offer that as an amendment to the motion, then? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah, go ahead. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The following stipulations, should this motion pass, I would like to recommend to the motion maker. First of all, change the master plan from the -- distance from 951 for the first entry to read 1,000 feet. Add the note that there should be a 75-foot setback from the south property line. In section 2.2(A), add language that the LDC will be considered. Strike all words using -- I mean, all references using the word "generally. " Strike the table under Note 1. Identify the bridge issue that Commissioner Adelstein brought up. Strike the last sentence of Article 3.7. Strike articles 3.9 and 3.10. Under article 4.2(B)(2), change the word from review to approval. Under -- cull out the buffer deviation for the conservation buffer that we discussed. Page 52 "'___"~_"'_'O_"""'~ December 16, 2004 And that's the last one I have. So if the motion maker would accept those stipulations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Acceptable to me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, could you explain, you said call out the deviation. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there was a conservation buffer -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I know the deviation, but call out the deviation? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Land Development Code requires the deviation be stipulated with a reference to the section of the code that's being deviated. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But they hadn't requested any deviation, so you're really requiring -- VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They did. And they acknowledged that one might be there. And if there is -- all I basically said to staff was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got it now. I remember. Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It was cull out. C-U-L-L. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's where my problem was. Thank you. Bad ears. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are those stipulations-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fine with me, Mark. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they acceptable to the second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is Ken. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ken, I think you were the second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm willing to accept them, yes. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, with that, any further discussion? Page 53 December 16, 2004 Hearing none, let's call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by raising your hand. (Commissioners Murray, Abernathy and Schiffer raised their hands. ) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two ayes. Three ayes. All opposed? Same signal. (Commissioners Caron, Strain, Midney, Adelstein, and Vigliotti raised their hands.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five opposed. Motion fails, 5-2. Which means we're in the position to request a second or another motion. Is there another motion by any member of the panel? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Motion you made. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll make a motion that we -- I'll make a different motion, based on the input I've received from the panel. . I recommend approval ofPUDZA-2004-AR-6142, with the same stipulations that existed in the prior motion, but with the addition that the maximum density be 278 units, with a 10 percent requirement for the moderate affordable housing as suggested in the PUD. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Vigliotti. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Okay, now, is there any discussion on the second motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'd like to discuss the density again. Let's fast forward 10 years when the roads are able to handle this traffic. What good did it do us to limit the ability to build out this site. That's going to cause more sprawl, more build-out someplace else. I mean, if you're concerned about his -- you know, no one's ever Page 54 December 16, 2004 expressed concern about his build-out, based on the geometry of the site, it's solely traffic. So maybe if you want to limit him to 250 cars until the roadway improvement is totally done and then open up the rest of the site, that's fine. But the point is that by limiting his site for something that I don't think -- I think Joe is going to control or the staff is going to control. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, but the county now has taken a IS-year project, rolling it forward, spending money for that. Everything is well ahead of its time unnecessarily. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm not sure -- I mean, my point is that I think that you should look at the site itself, see if you can build that density and make a development that we want in Collier County. And Collier County needs housing, I mean, so this is why I think reducing the density may hurt us. Then control the traffic some other way. In other words, 10 years from now, this guy is going to have a piece of property that he underbuilt, when he could have built a nicer development with twice the units. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure the word nicer would apply to a heavier density. I mean, basically, to get that many units in, you're going to have to make smaller, tighter units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He's -- the density, I mean-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Strain, I call the question. This is a debate between the two of you. We've been over it. May I call the question, please? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he's right. I have no problem with that. All those in favor of this motion, please raise your hands. (Commissioners Strain, Caron, Midney, Adelstein, Abernathy, Vigliotti and Murray raised their hands.) COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm in favor of it but I didn't realize you were going to cut off. Consistent with the fact that I was in favor of the greater number of units, it follows that I'm in favor of Page 55 ._.._~..._.. ~"n_..~."","__·'·····' December 16, 2004 the lesser number. That's not my first choice. But the record reflects that I was in favor of the greater, so on that basis, I'm for this. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would all of you raise your hands one more time, I didn't get -- (Commissioners Caron, Murray, Adelstein, Abernathy, Vigliotti, Midney and Strain raised their hands.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those against. (Commissioner Schiffer raised his hand.) VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm against it in that this isn't the way to control your traffic, by your building. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the record will so note. Motion passes, recommendation of approval for 278 units. Thank you. Ray, I believe the next item on the agenda, which is PUDZ-2003-AR-3588 has been continued indefinitely, according to the note? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And I have a note from Mr. Byron Allen, he would like to speak to you about a concern he has. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: About what? VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Concerning this. I don't mind if he speaks on this. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Could we get a five minute break. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, this is concerning this particular issue that's been continued? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ALLEN: For the record, I'm Garrett Byron Allen, the. Page 56 December 16, 2004 adjacent PUD. I would like to be notified when PUDs come up, as the adjacent property owner. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows, zoning director, we do have a process of doing that, and I'll check in to see what happened. But you should have been. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there anything else, Ray, that you have? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a new business thing. MR. SCHMITT: I just want to follow-up on the AUIR books. They were hand-delivered yesterday by a courier. If you did not get it yesterday afternoon, it will be at your house today. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Please, because I did not get it. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Joe. Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray Bellows and I in a casual conversation, he mentioned that there's -- something, and I think it's a really good idea. I'm sorry, Ray, your good idea is haunting. Is that -- what he would like to do is develop a chassis of this is a standard PUD document; therefore, the developers are only giving us what is different from the standard document. That would save Mark the equivalent of playing Where's Waldo to find all the little changes that are -- that they hide in there. And I think it would bring out -- I mean, it's such a good idea, Ray, that I'm sorry to expose it. MR. BELLOWS: I suggested it to Mr. Schmitt earlier today, and we have a team that we put together, and we may hold a couple of workshops on it with the development community. But that is my idea, to eliminate the PUD document as we have it or the redundant stipulations or conditions that mimic the LDC. And as we heard today, there's some massaging that may occur in that language that may cause grief to the planning commission or board. Page 57 December 16, 2004 And if we eliminated the document and just had an ordinance that listed the number of units, the development standards, and any deviations from the code, that would be the only document that you would get and not a whole 40 page PUD that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also, Ray, I think if you took that into the traffic study, too. I mean, we're getting all different kinds -- every traffic study by every engineer is different. If there's a way that you could standardize a report so that -- and maybe it's, you know, based on what the checkbook balance is at that time or something. Just some way to standardize it so we're not constantly going through different people's way of saying the same thing. MR. BELLOWS: We do have a standard format for traffic impact statement, at least submittal requirements. And I think part of the submittal requirements, they are attached to every application that is filled out and returned, maybe even attached to your application today on this last petition. They have to respond to certain information. No, I don't see a problem, and I'll discuss it with Mr. Scott, is that they could adhere to a certain format within the TIS they submitted. But they have to provide the specific information. Now, you're saying it's in a different format from provider to provider. Maybe that can be worked on. Maybe Mr. Scott can-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or a summary sheet that's consistent so that we can -- okay, that's it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have one thing that I'd like to put on. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We get reports and different processes from staff regarding a new item that they're going to send us or a new writing of it. I would appreciate it personally if we could make that statement of they're going to send X number of pages. Running out in the middle of the -- with paper creates enough of a Page 58 <._- ._"..,--,.....-..,,".~., December 16, 2004 problem for me, and I'd appreciate it if we knew that this document was coming out and it's 31 pages, that's fine. At least I know I've got the paper and everything ready for it. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'd like to wish everybody a Merry Christmas or whatever other holiday your persuasion causes you to celebrate, so -- and a Happy New Year. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Merry Christmas. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that motion. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, just for the record, I know there were comments made regarding concurrency and concurrency issues. Tomorrow we're at the AUIR. I am concerned, frankly, about statements that were made on the record regarding the system failing, and then decisions made based on that. The system was set up, there was a lot of purpose and design into setting this system up, and certainly we were restricted in regards to vesting and other issues that existed prior to the implementation of the concurrency management system. And one of the reasons why I promoted a joint meeting of the planning commission and the board during the AUIR was to give both the local planning authority, yourself, and the Board of County Commissioners the opportunity to interchange and express their ideas in regards to concurrency, because it is the fundamental underpinnings of our entire zoning process. But I still think, and from what I heard today, there are certainly some misconceptions out there, and it's clear in our process at final plat or plan, and what we worked out with the industry in regards to how we would deal with concurrency and payment of impact fees. I don't want to debate it today, but I would encourage this panel at tomorrow's meeting to explore that in some depth if there's some Page 59 .,"_."..._...__.c.___<__' December 16, 2004 concerns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because we have to trust that system. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that we'd all like to. The problem I've seen is that things outside the control of the system are happening that the system didn't anticipate. That's where I believe the failure is. And in those things there's scheduling of when the roads actually were starting, scheduling of when these projects would be completed ahead of when those roads were starting, projects that were vested, like Wal-Mart, that have huge impacts on the intersection of 951 and Davis that are extremely negative. It's not because what we put in place is bad, it's simply we didn't anticipate some of these variables that have made it impossible to function as we thought it would. MR. SCHMITT: I would beg to differ. We did anticipate -- part of the AUIR process is to look at both the capacities, planning capacities and in the funding stream to pay for the additional capital improvements needed to support the growth. And it is somewhat reactive, but it has to be proactive as well, in regards to dealing with growth throughout the county. And I'm talking about all the aspects of the AUIR. And that's one of the reasons for tomorrow's workshop. There are -- I will say, there are some guidelines, there are certain things at tomorrow's workshop that only the board -- we will ask for board's final concurrence, and it is not within the authority of the planning commission. You are there certainly to interchange with the board, but at some portions we do ask the board for -- fundamentally for approval of the funding of the capital improvement elements in regards to the A VIR. So -- and that's an important piece of it in regards to how we manage capital improvements in regards to growth. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd just like to enter into this question. Now it's not necessarily clear to me anymore. For my Page 60 ---- December 16, 2004 tenure at least, I thought every PUD that we addressed had, where appropriate, phasing that was introduced. If the roads weren't ready, they would not able to bring on the vehicles. MR. SCHMITT: Not true. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not true? MR. SCHMITT: No, there's a number of DRI's or vested developments out there that under previous rules have full vesting -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I was talking about -- MR. SCHMITT: -- and can come in at any time and ask for a development order based on that vesting that was awarded at the time of zoning. So Mr. Strain is correct in regards to zoning is a piece of it. And it's somewhat a parallel path. Now, certainly in order to preclude a failure in the system, if you want to call it, in regards to transportation, let's say, or utilities, part of it is controlling when things are zoned. And that's certainly the prerogative of this board. I just don't want to make -- I want to make sure that you understand, it is, as Mr. Schiffer said, it is a two-pronged effort. It's both zoning and timing of zoning, but it's also if the zoning takes place, the building isn't necessarily assured until -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The road can take it. MR. SCHMITT: -- the transportation system is deemed sufficient to approve the local development order. And of course that is happening in these cases at final plat or plan. And one of the reasons why we ask for at final plat or plan the 50 percent payment of impact fees was because we discussed theoretically what we used to call a seven-year build-out we know is not happening. Some developments today are building out three years. And Norman's program is a seven-year program. Jim DeLony's program is seven years. And certainly that's why we get the impact fees, so we can fund these proj ects sooner to begin the process, Page 61 December 16, 2004 because the ultimate goal was to match rooftops with road capacity. At the time of CO the capacity would be there. That is the ultimate goal of concurrency in regards to transportation. Now, utilities are certainly -- the utilities have to be in place or we issue a dry permit. And basically -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, Joe, for me, at least, if we don't have it included in the PUDs in phasing, nevertheless, there are means by which you can control them coming on board with higher density than you would like to have at a given time; is that true? MR. SCHMITT: Certain developments. Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: Yeah, I think there may be a fundamental misunderstanding, shall we say. All of these things are established in the comprehensive plan and implemented in the land code. It's not that we make new ordinances for these things as we go along in the PUD process, because that's already been done. And again, in the comprehensive plan, as implemented in the Land Development Code. And there are certain hurdles that you have to jump to get a rezone that are expressed in the comprehensive plan. But what I want to say is that when the concurrency management system is applied at a later stage in development to development orders that don't come to the planning commission or the Board of County Commissioners, that's where the brakes, if there's any brakes to apply, or applied. And that's what was approved by this board. And it's not that each PUD is going to -- we're going to do a little __ you know, address everything that the compo plan and concurrency would address in that PUD. That PUD is subj ect to the concurrency management system. The PUD is merely a zoning district. It's different from a straight zoning district in that the developer comes here and makes some additional commitments and he asks for something different than you get in a straight district because it is a planned unit development. It's a little integrated thing in and of itself. And that's how you can have the Page 62 .-------_."--~'"_. December 16, 2004 golf courses in some and a big chunk of conservation area. And you don't see in a straight district. But it's not any different than a straight zoning district. And that's all it is, is a zoning district. And it has to go through a whole bunch of other hurdles before anything can come on line, and having the concurrency management system applied to it at a later development or stage is one of those hurdles. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll speak to my misunderstanding then, because it was said this morning by Karen Bishop, we'll do X number and then we'll bring on 20 a year, da, da, da, and I've heard it said repeatedly said by others, offering a phasing. And we've included those in our recommendations, so are they empty? MS. STUDENT: No, they are not empty. But I needed to elaborate on that. If the developer wants to offer that up, that's okay for them to offer up the phasing schedule. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we hold them to it. MS. STUDENT: Yes -- and they're asking -- because they're offering it up. But if somebody wanted to get technical and argue about it and say well, gee, you have a concurrency management system, so you have that, and then we have this other concurrency management system that's been grafted on top of that, and they didn't offer it up, that could be problematic. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Joe, true or false, the cars aren't going to hit the road until the road can take them. Is that true? On a new development. Obviously-- MR. SCHMITT: Let me turn to Don. I mean, the plan -- MR. SCOTT: Where you're getting to is -- and we discussed this a lot when Ford was the two, the three years, the one year, that was the big argument. And the way we count capacities is if it's let for construction within two years. So theoretically, you could have trips out there before the road is done. And that was the big argument Page 63 ------ ".._.-'~ December 16,2004 through the whole thing, but DCA basically said no, you know, their minimum is three years, usually. They went with two years but they weren't going to accept one year. Now, but-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let me rephrase it -- MR. SCOTT: -- but that's why -- that's why back in something like we're dealing with here, is where you would want the stipulation, if that's what you want to apply, and say until the road is opened, go ahead and do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I think. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, the problem with this project is -- and I have a consistency, if you look back, of being opposed to higher density in this section of951, it's because so much has been thrown there so fast over the last couple of years. If you look from Vanderbilt Beach Road north all the way up to that huge activity center that is going -- fastly going to develop with Heritage Bay, the density is huge along there. And all we're doing is adding a cumulative impact for that section of roadway that six lanes is not going to be able to handle. MR. SCOTT : Well, if you want to talk about the bigger picture of everything, the Estates, even at the lower density, is going to be a huge impact on the roadway system if we don't do some roadway improvements. And some of them, people probably don't want to hear about, too. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't know if you can improve any more than six lanes. Your policy is to go to six lanes. MR. SCOTT: That's true, and six lanes is the -- but then-- COMMISSIONER CARON: In other words, then, you have to control the density, because some roads won't be able to be improved. MR. SCOTT: Or you get into the issue of -- I mean, obviously we had a big issue with having an overpass built. Where can I get my next capacity? If I can't go beyond six lanes, then I need to have grade separations at certain locations. And that's another big step. Page 64 ~ _.__..~."...,~_. December 16, 2004 VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, that's where I was coming from today . We can keep adding impact to this section of road, but the cumulative impact is going to be greater on the traffic than what I believe even six lanes is going to handle. MR. SCHMITT: Unfortunately, in that area -- and you're correct, we identified that in the AUIR. And that was the bonus -- the density bonus that was awarded for, basically, residential near an activity center, and that's how they got a lot of that density in that area. Which we were directed, and we're coming back with IR-based amendments to eliminate some of those density bonuses, one of which was the density bonus associated with location to an activity center. MR. BELLOWS: Density band. MR. SCHMITT: The density band, yeah. So that's where a lot-- how that density got there, because of the rules that existed. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, knowing that's coming down the line, knowing those density bands and bonuses are going to be eliminated at the request of our elected officials, I don't know why we can't, because PUD zoning and densities are discretionary, why we can't use better judgment, based on the conditions in the LDC, to limit the density where we know we're going to have problems. Just like we did. It's going to be what's going to happen as soon as you make the changes anyway. MR. SCHMITT: Well, you're dealing -- you're right, you know, the density normally is four units an acre, some close relationship to that. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. SCHMITT: But as Brad so noted, it's the dichotomy of less dense, increases sprawl. But -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I think what we did today is a sprawl move, not a traffic solution. The traffic has got to be solved some other way. You can't beat the project up to solve your traffic. Page 65 December 16,2004 MR. SCOTT: You know, less density doesn't always solve traffic. And also, then, you get into the issue of expense of units, and being able to afford the housing MR. SCHMITT: And also expense of supporting infrastructure. MR. SCOTT: My biggest solution would be to make Immokalee a big attractor for work and split it in half. But everybody is coming into Naples. And unfortunately, when you talk about the 250th versus the 100th highest hour, one of the things is our peak hour factor-- that's essentially what it is, how much traffic travels in a peak hour -- is much higher than what it should be, if you look at, like, national or state standards. And it doesn't seem to get any better, everybody seems to go at the same time. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there something wrong with the mathematics of it? Why isn't it better? Why don't we conform to the national? MR. SCOTT: You know, can we -- there are certain things you can try to do. I mean, you can try to spread out the peak hour by having variable work hours and things like that. But we don't have -- we have some large employers, but we don't have very large employers that it's easier to apply that way. Some of it's got to do with everybody commuting at the same time and -- because of cost of units, and everything, and where they're traveling from. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think if the mathematical models are not sufficient, then we have to reduce density as we voted in this project today. MR. SCOTT: But then you're not really -- if you're saying -- one of my solutions might be more, increased transit. If you lower the density too much, I can't support it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the dynamics of the county is changing with the development we have going in the east, the cities __ you know, it's going to be different in the future. I mean, you know, that project we did today is going to be there forever. The future is Page 66 December 16,2004 going to -- maybe that project's not in a density traffic area in the future. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, Brad, that's true, what you said, and Smart Growth speaks to increasing density and fixing it in a location. But on the other side of that coin is that we can reach build-out sooner by limiting the total amount of density, given that there's only so much real estate to build on. And, you know, the build it and they will come or they will come regardless is that circular argument. And somewhere along the line somebody has to put the stake in it and say stop. And I'm not sure I know the right answer. Certainly, I'm sure I don't know the right answer. But I think the approach is to reduce to where we think it's feasible and let's see what the commission does. MR. SCOTT: Well, you know, a Catch-22 from my aspect, I'm looking at trying to build for whatever is out there. You say this is the population, try to do that. We can put a moratorium on for a year, maybe two years in certain locations, but the next thing is I have to come up with a solution. And I can't just say okay, you're not going to build out there. Like we'll discuss tomorrow, U.S. 41 out to the east. We have a PD&E -- or FDOT, we've forwarded -- we've advanced the money to FDOT, PD&E study. But that's five or six years away for an actual project for construction. And it's probably going to fail next year, maybe the year after. I can't hold a moratorium for six or seven years. And that's part of the Catch-22. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if you don't like the traffic, do what I did, spend a day driving around Miami -- I mean, you come back here singing the Hallelujah Chorus. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would have been delighted to see the additional affordable housing coming in there, but, you know, there is a max at some point. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we're basically Page 67 ,>._---~'--_.- ",....~-,,_...._--_..~.---_.,... December 16, 2004 finished here today. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I so move. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:20 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Vice Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 68 _.._---~".._<~._~