CCPC Minutes 01/06/2005 R
January 6, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, January 6, 2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd
Kenneth Abernathy
Lindy Adelstein
Donna Reed Caron
Paul Midney
Robert Murray (Absent)
Robert Vigliotti
Mark Strain
Brad Shiffer
ALSO PRESENT:
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Don Scott, Transportation Planning
Kay Deselem, Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Mike Bosi, Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 06, 2005, IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: ~IVIDUAL 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 - DECEMBER 2,2004, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - DECEMBER 14,2004, REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: V A-2003-AR-4327, Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus, (regarding the Tabernacle of Bethlehem
Church), represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, are requesting the following variances in
the VR zoning district for a Conditional Use (per LDC Section 4.02.02.E.): 1) from the minimum one-acre
lot area; to allow an existing structure on an 0.69 acre tract to be converted to a church use; 2) to reduce the
front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 20 feet; 3) to reduce the required 33 parking spaces to 19
spaces (per LDC Section 4.04.04.G.Table 17); and; 4) to reduce the landscape buffer on the north and south
property lines from the required IS-foot type "B," to allow a 10-foot wide type "B" buffer (per LDC Section
4.06.02 Table 24). The subject property is located at 305 3rd Street South, in Section 4, Township 47
South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Florida. (COMPANION ITEM TO CU-2003-AR-4326) (Coordinator:
Kay Deselem)
1
B. Petition: CU-2003-AR-4326. Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP, of Vanasse
Daylor, requesting Conditional Use approval in the Village Residential (VR) zoning district for a church or
house of worship for the Tabernacle of Bethlehem Church pursuant to LDC Sections 2.04.03, Table 2 and
10.08.00. Property is a 0.69-acre tract located at 305 3rd Street South, in Section 4, Township 47 South,
Range 29 East, Immokalee, Florida. (COMPANION ITEM TO VA-2003-AR-4327) (Coordinator: Kay
Deselem)
C. Petition: POOZ-2004-AR-5987. Baldridge Real Estate, Inc., represented by Tim Hancock of Talon
Management and R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress, requesting a rezone from the RMF-12 zoning
district to the PUD zoning district to be known as Zone PUD Planned Unit Development which will
include a maximum of 6,840 square feet of commercial use. The property is located on the northeast corner
of Golden Gate Parkway and 52nd Terrace S.W., in Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of .83± acres. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi)
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING CYCLE 2004 GMP AMENDMENTS
> CP-2004-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element to modify the Urban
Residential Fringe Subdistrict to allow the Affordable Housing Density Bonus on 195 of the 235 acres in the
San Marino PUD, located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, 1.25 miles south of Davis Blvd., in Section
11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. [Coordinator: Jean Jourdan]
> CP-2004-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element to change 80 acres from the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Neutral Lands to the RFMUD Sending Lands and to change 140
aces from the RFMUD Neutral Lands to the RFMUD Receiving Lands for property located one mile south of
Immokalee Road and 2-3/4 miles east of Collier Boulevard, in Sections 31 and 32, Township 48 South,
Range 27 East. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca]
> CP-2004-3, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to
create a new "Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict" to allow for C-l through C-3
commercial uses, plus indoor self-storage, on two parcels, one located at the North East comer of Vanderbilt
Beach Road and Livingston Road (9.18 acres), and one parcel farther east on the north side of Vanderbilt
Beach Road (8 acres, zoned Vanderbilt Trust PUD) in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East.
[Coordinator: John David Moss]
> CP-2004-4, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element to amend the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District Sending Lands to add three Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) bonus provisions,
each for 1 TDR credit for the following:
I) listed species habitat management plan and maintenance; 2) fee simple conveyance
to conservation entity or program; 3) early entry into the TDR program. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca]
> CP-2004-5, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to
create a new "Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict" to allow mixed
residential and commercial development similar to the Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict, for
22.8 acres located at the South East corner of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road, in Section 8,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East. [Coordinator: Glenn Heath]
> CPSP-2004-7, Petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map
and Map Series. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element Text and Future Land Use Map and Map Series,
Capital Improvement Element. and the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub-Elements of the Public
Facilities Element. [Coordinator: David Weeks]
1. Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub-Elements:
a. Delete the figure depicting the Mirasol POO service area, and all references to it in the appropriate
policies.
2. Capital Improvement Element:
a. Correct and modify applicable policy references to figures depicting the water and sewer service
areas.
3. Golden Gate Area Master Plan:
a. Modify the applicable maps depicting the Santa Barbara Commercial
and Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial
2
Subdistricts;
b. Make minor corrections and "clean-up" changes to the Golden Gate
Parkway Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict;
c. Lessen the wetland preserve area in the Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use
Subdistrict by +0.09 acres; and
d. Add the legal description for all properties within the Randall
Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict.
4. Future Land Use Element:
a. Modify Policies 1.lB. and 1.5 to add omitted references;
b. Change a map reference in the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict; and,
c. In the Conservation Designation, clarify the allowable density for private in-holdings in the Big
Cypress National Preserve.
5. Future Land Use Map (FLUM):
a. Change the designation from Urban Residential to Conservation for a 99.3-acre County-owned
mitigation site located on the west side of Collier Boulevard and adjacent to the north of Naples
Lakes Country Club PUD;
b. Change the designation from Urban Industrial to Conservation for a 77.3-acre Conservation Collier
site located east of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad Right-of-way and adjacent to the north of the
future Livingston Road East-West;
c. Change the designation from Industrial to Urban for the Immokalee Airport area;
d.Add the name of the South Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay
and add the name and graphic depiction to the Clam Bay NRP A;
e. Correct the location of Wiggins Pass Road and the US-411CR-887 (old US-41) intersection;
f. Change the reference note pertaining to addition of certain features in the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay; and,
g. In the map legend, spell out the NRP A abbreviation.
6. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Series:
a. On the Activity Center Index Map, correct the configuration of various activity centers;
b. Delete Activity Center #19 Map;
c. On the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map, add the expansion area
and distinguish between the original and expanded areas;
d. Create a new map to depict the existing Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict; and,
e. Establish two new maps, depicting two County-owned sites, to correlate with the change to the
countywide FLUM to designate these sites as Conservation. [Coordinator: David Weeks]
E. CPSS-2004-1. Petition requesting a Small Scale Amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future
Land Use Map, Map 4 - Urban Mixed Use Activity Center Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Parkway,
Map 8 - Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict, and the Countywide Future Land
Use Map Series (Activity Center Map #15), to expand the Activity Center by adding a .83-acre parcel
located at the northeast corner of Golden Gate Parkway and 52nd Terrace S.W., in Section 28, Township 49
South, Range 26 East (Golden Gate Unit Six, Block 201, Lots I and 2). [Coordinator: Kris VanLengen]
9. NEW BUSINESS
10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
12. ADJOURN
01/06/05 CCPC Agenda/RB/sp/mk
3
-,.",.,_.._-~-"-,--_.,......,,-_._--,-,,..
,.,'__."___."._~.,,-_^____'__._.,..''''.u..~_·
January 6, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll call this meeting of the Collier
County Planning Commission to order.
Please rise with me as we say the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll have our roll call. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Present.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm here but I don't have a
mike.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. There we are. Now he's here and
heard.
Mr. Strain?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Budd is here.
Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Murray is absent.
Any addenda to the agenda?
I see that we have a couple continuations, Items A and B that is
Petition V A-2003-AR-4327, and Petition CU-2003-AR-4326, which
are related, are being continued to February 3rd due to sign posting
errors, and also I think we should consider moving Item 8E, as in
Edward, up before Item 8D, as in dog, as -- as the small scale
amendment to the Golden Gate area master plan should precede one of
our growth management plan amendments in order to make it
effective and relevant.
Page 2
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The other way around.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: The other way around? Before C, excuse
me. Put it in the wrong slot. Before C. Item 8E before C.
Any other --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Second?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any discussion?
There being none, all those in favor of modifying the agenda,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
Motion by Mr.Abernathy, second by Mr. Adelstein.
Okay. Any planning commission absences to be noted in our
future?
There are none.
Approval of minutes. The December 2nd , 2004 regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Approved.
Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein.
Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Vigliotti.
Discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
Page 3
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have no chairman's report. As noted,
Items A and B are continued. We will go to 8E. That is CPSS-2004-1,
a small scale amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future
Land Use Map.
MR. V ANLENGEN: Good morning, commissioners. Kris
VanLengen, Comprehensive Planning Department.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Duke, excuse me.
If I can just clarify with the County Attorney. We do not need to
make disclosures or swearing in on this --
MS. STUDENT: This is --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- legislative matter.
MS. STUDENT: -- legislative matter.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Thank you.
Yes, sir.
MR. V ANLENGEN: Kris VanLengen in Comprehensive
Planning.
I just want to make a preliminary comment regarding small scale
because this is the type of conflict amendment we don't see very often.
The process is somewhat different than the usual cycle amendments in
that there's only one round of hearings. You'll be hearing this once.
BCC will hear it once after which point in time the -- the amendment,
if enacted, would -- the ordinance, if enacted, would be effective
immediately thereafter within a couple of days.
In other words, there is no DCA approval so to speak. Also,
because there is one set of hearings, the process is amenable to a
companion rezone, which I think you've already noted will be
immediately following or -- or presented concurrently.
Page 4
January 6, 2004
And Mr. Hancock will make that presentation on behalf of the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Excuse me.
Yes, ma'am.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to make the point that since the small scale
amendment is one that we are adopting, or recommending adoption of,
because of requirements of our special EC, we will need a majority for
__ for voting purposes, not just a majority of those that are here today
and voting, but a majority of the full membership of the planning
commission. So, that would be five. We need five votes to carry that.
And I just wanted to put that on the record. And I believe we usually
wait 30 days after approval because someone could come in and
challenge this small scale amendment during that time period for it to
become effective.
So, I just wanted to put that --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: -- on the record as well.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'd also just like to clarify for the record in
order to make things more expeditious, we'll not only be hearing the
petition for the small scale amendment that I mentioned, but it would
probably be appropriate to hear simultaneously but take separate
action with the small scale amendment action going first.
We should also hear the petition -- the PUDZ.
Would that -- would that be appropriate with disclosures on that
item?
MS. STUDENT: I think it would be. The reason is Mr. White
cited them, but I think that would be appropriate as long as you swear
the folks in that are going to offer testimony on the rezone and do the
ex parte disclosure.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Let's do it that way, that we'll have
swearing in and disclosures on the PUDZ-2004-AR-5987.
Page 5
January 6, 2004
All those wishing to present testimony, please stand and raise
your right hand, repeat after me. Do you solemnly swear and affirm
that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you?
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And a positive affirmation was
appropriate. You're not supposed to repeat after me, so very good for
doing what you're supposed to, not what I said.
Any disclosures on the part of the planning commissioners?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. I had e-mails from K. D.
Tuff on this issue.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: No other disclosures?
So, with that, we'll hear from Mr. Hancock.
MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of
the Planning Commission.
My name is Tim Hancock, representative for Baldridge Real
Estate, the applicant in both CCP -- I'm sorry -- CPSS-2004-1, the
small scale map amendment, as well as Petition
PUDZ-2003-AR-5987, request for rezone from the current RMF-12
zoning district to the zoned PUD.
As stated by Mr. Budd, what I will do, if it please the
commission, is basically present these two items concurrently. I think
they are inexorably linked; however, I will do my best to at least
separate the small scale map amendment issues at the forefront of my
presentation following up with the zoning.
We started this proj ect with a very specific goal in mind, which is
advantages of planner because you can deal with the minutia at the
front end as opposed to having concerns from residents and affected
property owners as to what mayor may not happen.
Very specifically, this project is intended to be an auto zone retail
auto parts facility with no repair. That was the purpose for putting the
land under contract and the purpose for both the small scale map
Page 6
January 6, 2004
amendment as well as the rezone. To that end, we looked at the
property, and to give you a general orientation, the property is
bounded on the south by Golden Gate Parkway, further to the south is
a Hess Service Station.
On the east side of the property is currently C-4 zoning. Bank of
America sits immediately adjacent to the parcels and behind that is
Parkway Plaza, basically, the prime shopping center in Golden Gate.
Behind the subj ect property is vacant RMR -12 zoned property
owned by the St. Elizabeth Seton Church. Parish housing is the next
lot over and, again, vacant parcels all under the ownership of St.
Elizabeth Seton.
As you can see also over here is the larger campus for the St.
Elizabeth Seton School. The sanctuary sits here with parking along
Golden Gate Parkway abutting the west side of the property line.
The subject property consists of two parcels. The front parcel
lies within the Golden Gate Commercial Office Parkway District and
the rear parcel does not. It is zoned urban residential. Adjacent to the
rear parcel also is developed RMF -12 zoned property.
Again, looking at the zoning, you can see we have across or,
again, the subject property is right here. C-4, this is the shopping
center, RMF-12 to the rear. School again is over here and orienting
you, Golden Gate Parkway is down here.
Across from the project, we have commercial zoning built and
developed and RMF -12 on this side, which is also part of the Parkway
Commercial District and may at some point be converted to
commercial in the future.
The current future land use map designates a .43 acre parcel on
the corner of 52nd Terrace Southwest and Golden Gate Parkway as
part of the office and fill district. Behind that -- I'm sorry. The
Parkway district. Behind that is again urban residential .4 acres. So,
the total of two is .83 acres.
The Golden Gate Parkway -- I'm sorry -- Golden Gate
Page 7
January 6, 2004
Professional Office Commercial District -- we'll just call it the district
to save time -- was created to avoid the individual development and
parcelization of the strip, if you will, along Golden Gate Parkway.
To that end, it requires a minimum aggregation of two acres of
property in order to rezone from an RMF -12 zoning, which is the
current zoning for this property, to any commercial use. This site
obviously falls well short even when combined with the parcel to the
rear that is not in the district to meet that two-acre minimum.
As a result, this is a -- truly a square peg in a round hole. There
is no way for this property to meet the minimum criteria established in
order to rezone for commercial use within the Parkway district. Now,
the petitioner did look at, and we did look at the opportunity of
coming in and requesting a rezone with multiple deviations. The
concern we had with that was that if we came in with a straight zoning
category and were requesting deviations to go to, for example, a C-4
zoning on the rear parcel because of a transitional nature and a C-1 on
the front, which technically is possible, it would have allowed a full
array of C-4 on the back if we were granted and then parking within
the C-1. It just seemed like kind of getting to California by going
through Canada. It just didn't make a lot of sense.
What did make a lot of sense to me was to basically redraw the
border of the activity center to include these two parcels, basically
extending the activity center over to 52nd Terrace Southwest. By
doing so, it gave us the opportunity to request PUD zoning. The
benefits that come with the PUD zoning, not just to the petitioner but
to the community, are that we can be very specific and detailed in the
types of uses, the design of those uses and the application of those
uses on this parcel.
As someone who's worked with the Golden Gate community
over the past 14 or 15 years, that kind of detail is usually required in
order to really sit before them and have a meaningful discussion about
any type of zoning action in their community. That's the path we
Page 8
January 6, 2004
chose to take. So, on the front end looking at the -- the -- the small
scale map amendment, basically this parcel doesn't fit the Golden Gate
Parkway District.
Something is going to need to be done with this parcel whether
through a list of extensive deviations or a map amendment in order for
it to develop commercially in way, shape or form. The alternative of
developing it under RMF -12 is both undesirable and not economically
feasible. I don't think we want to see multifamily, small -- or a small
multifamily building sitting right on Golden Gate Parkway. I know
the Civic Association doesn't.
So, that's how we got to the issue of developing a small scale
map amendment and then by tying it very closely with the PUD
rezone, we hope to and believe we have accomplished the protections
that the community is looking for to make sure they know exactly
what they're getting with this petition.
To that end, we've been able through crafting the PUD document
to -- to limit the uses on this property very specifically to, number one,
a retail auto parts facility with no repair. That was very important to
the Golden Gate Civic Association because just down the street I think
there's a tire store and sometimes there's storage issues and they have
to monitor kind of what's being out there. And, so, with having no
repair on site, that was important to them. It also was a part of our
original plan, so fortunately we didn't have to change anything to meet
those concerns.
The thing we can do is to customize both the setbacks and the
landscaping to make the building marry up with the adjacent Bank of
America building so it creates a more consistent frontage along
Golden Gate Parkway. One thing you may notice on the aerial is
there's been an existing alley that cuts across the rear parcel and
actually has parking on it utilized by Bank of America. Through all
our title work in purchasing the property, we're unable to find any
easements, any actions, anything that really contributed to the
Page 9
January 6, 2004
development use of the property for commercial uses, but it's there. It
exists today. And that connection reaches an alley on this side of the
property that creates a circulation pattern so that folks over here can
use it to get to Bank of America and by going through Bank of
America to the center without going out on Golden Gate Parkway.
Again, as a part of our rezone plan, we have kept that in action.
And, again, we were open to closing it or -- or keeping it, but it was
the desire of the Golden Gate Civic Association to leave it in place, at
least at the meeting I had with them, and we have done that through
this plan. In addition to the one use of -- of an auto parts retail facility,
the other uses in the PUD are strictly C-1 uses.
So, again, what we've done is limited, even though this map
amendment could allow for a full range of commercial uses to be
requested by virtue of the zoning, we've limited that and discussed
those limitations with the community.
We did have our neighborhood information meeting, sent out the
notices and we had one attendee. It was Miss Cheryl Newman with
the Golden Gate Civic Association. Miss Newman came. We made a
very intimate presentation, having only one person there. She didn't
have any concerns, but I offered to go ahead and present to the Golden
Gate Civic Association at their next board meeting, which I did. And
that meeting was very productive and very positive for us. We were
able to go over the site plan with them and discuss any concerns they
had, one being traffic circulation.
And what came out of that meeting also was that they had
concerns about lighting. They're working very closely with the
Sheriffs Office to try ABB introduce what they call CPTEDP, Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design Principles as much as
possible. And the one issue that came out of that was they wanted to
make sure that where possible we would marry the CPTED principles
with our development and key to that was lighting.
I had met with Corporal Leman Hogan afterwards, about two
Page 10
January 6, 2004
weeks after. He brought up the lighting standards, that while they're
not part of our ordinance, they are recommended by the Sheriffs
Office. We have taken those standards and basically adopted by line
item in the PUD that where possible those lighting standards will be
met in the development of this project. And primarily what they're
looking to do is make sure. We already meet many of the CPTED
principles because we have basically four-sided access. There are no
dead sides to this building. You can get all the way around it. The
Sheriffs Office was pleased with that. And what we're going to do is
basically make sure that in the rear of the property that we have
directional lighting back there that doesn't spill over to the RMF -12
but actually lights up the back portion of the building and also put the
lighting on the front outer corners on Golden Gate Parkway.
So, again, 360 degrees around that's going to be well lit. There
will be less opportunity for loitering or any activities or things being,
you know, stored or whatnot. They are not visible on the site. So,
with the application of those lighting principles, I felt like we had a
very productive meeting with the civic association and left with --
upon good terms there and we feel that the PUD is responsive to their
needs and their concerns in the community to the degree they have
been expressed.
Beyond that, what I'd like to mention is that we obviously
support and appreciate staffs findings as well as their
recommendations on both the small scale map amendment application
and the rezone.
At this point, we'll be pleased to address any questions the
commission may have.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
All right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have quite a few.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll wait until you finish
because you can --
Page 11
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wait until I finish. Okay.
I guess we'll start with the change to the GMP.
My first question is -- I know you've -- you've touched on it.
The office professional area of Golden Gate was set up to not only
avoid a lot of unsightly strip zoning but in conjunction with that was
out of our protectoral criteria specific to those parcels by taking
yourself out of that and putting yourself in an activity center, you're
not going to be obligated then to the same criteria.
I don't know how many deviations you anticipated asking for, but
it would seem to me that if you were to go into the office professional
category which auto parts stores are already one item that qualifies in
that category, you could have gone in and asked for the deviations and
come back with a less intensive proposal today as far as changing the
GMP it would only be changing the overlay area.
Can you -- what deviations bothered you that you couldn't
modify that area in regards -- I know the acreage is an issue, but you
could ask for a deviation there and logically it would apply.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Strain, I -- I don't quite follow you when
you say auto parts stores are permitted in the Golden Gate Parkway
district. I -- that was not my interpretation.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I may be wrong.
Under the GMP copy I have, Golden Gate Parkway Professional
Office Commercial subdistrict for projects wholly contained within
the original professional office district with a minimum depth of 150
feet as measured from the property line adjacent and parallel with
Golden Gate Parkway. The following small scale retail uses are
permitted: One, apparel and accessory stores; two, auto and home
supply stores, parentheses, auto accessory dealers, retail, automobile
parts dealers, retail and speed shops, retail only.
Am I -- am I reading the wrong section? Maybe somewhere --
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. The -- the point that you stated was
wholly contained.
Page 12
January 6, 2004
The part of this project that lies within the office parkway district
is .43 acres. That's the one parcel adjacent to the Parkway. In .43
acres, if you look at the setbacks that are required, which is 40 feet
along Golden Gate Parkway and along 52nd because it's a corner lot,
it is impossible to contain a building more than about 2,000 square
foot and the associated parking on .43 acres because of the setback
requirements. And that 2,000 or even 3,000 square foot building for a
retail auto parts facility just doesn't work. So, to wholly contain the
project within .43 acres was an impossibility. So, that's the first
deviation.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that's what I was asking. I
wasn't -- I'm suggesting why didn't you look at going for the
deviations instead of the route you're going today? And you were
going to -- and what I was trying to get out of you is how many
deviations do you need?
MR. HANCOCK: Okay. First, there are no number of
deviations that would permit the project to be wholly contained on .43
acres. Don't exist. So, that required us to combine it with the parcel
behind, which both parcels have been under the joint ownership of
Bank of America since the eighties.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right.
MR. HANCOCK: For what reason? Other than maybe they
purchased it for additional parking, we don't know. My client has
since purchased the property. They are the owners of -- of the parcels.
So, we couldn't wholly contain it with the district, so we're going to
have to combine the two parcels in some fashion in order to have
sufficient size and the parking.
The second issue is even if we were to try and contain the
building itself on the front parcel and parking in the rear, for example,
to get the size more than about 2,000 or 2500 square feet, we'd have to
get a deviation on the setback requirements, both front and on the side,
which again a corner lot, they're the same, 40 feet along the Parkway,
Page 13
January 6, 2004
40 feet on the side.
So, that takes us to our second and potentially third deviation.
We then have to put the parking in the rear. Parking on RMF -12
zoned property is serve a commercial use. Now, we would have to go
in and zone the rear parcel to a commercial use under the transitional
zoning because it is -- would then be bordered on two sides by
commercial.
So, let's say we could get all-- line up those deviations on the
front piece and allocate the building wholly on the front piece. We
then also would have to rezone the rear piece to a transitional
commercial district because it then would be ordered on two sides by
commercial to say, for example, a C-1 zoning district to place parking
on it.
And that's why I used the -- the statement that it's kind of like
going to California through Canada. You -- you start lining all these
things up and it just seemed a lot simpler to proceed with a small scale
map amendment provided that the zoning that goes along with it that
is tied to it presents something that is of an acceptable nature and
intensity.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What public notifications did you
provide to meet the -- the requirements of the small scale amendment?
MR. HANCOCK: There were -- on the small scale amendment,
I don't believe that there were public notice requirements we had to
make other than advertising. However, because the items are
companion, we had the newspaper advertisement, the 500- foot
notification, plus the notification to the civic association all tied into
the project together.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You had asked for deviations, you
would have had to publicly notify pursuant to land development code
the neighborhood regarding each one of those deviations.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, sir. But we had to do that
anyway by nature of the rezone.
Page 14
,-.........~,,',,""'--_........,-~-,--
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you just told me for the small
scale portion you didn't have to publicly notice.
MR. HANCOCK: Because the two are married --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you just did it in the rezone
but in that rezone it wasn't highlighted what deviations you were
asking for in regards to the differences from the office professional.
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, it wasn't.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The first thing. The second
thing is your traffic impacts on the road.
Tire stores create a -- create a different impact and the noise that
you're going to create by changing tires and working on -- tire stores
working on front ends, they do balancing and all that, that's not a good
thing for the neighborhood.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Strain, apparently I -- I didn't make
myself clear.
There's no repair at this facility, so there's no changing tires,
there's no repair work done. You literally walk in, buy your product,
walk out, put it in your car and leave.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: So--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Tim, I -- I thought that until I read
your PUD information.
Have you got your PUD package in front of you? Could you
turn to the Exhibit K and go to about the fifth page in. Let me know
what land use you're putting this under for your calculations for traffic
impact.
MR. HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Mr. Strain. You're referring to the
traffic impact analysis that was a part of the trip generation report
prepared by Blair Foley?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I am.
In my book it's titled -- has a Page Number 1487 on it and I'm
sure he pulled that out of some other book when he attached it but it's
Page 15
+"""_"""~'k__'"'''''''"''''''"_~''"'''''''''_'''
January 6, 2004
about the fourth or fifth page back.
MR. HANCOCK: When preparing a trip analysis, the engineer
uses the most similar or more intensive use.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Would you put that on the screen
so that everybody knows what we're talking about? And I understand
now what you're saying in regards to the more intensive use.
Why would you think that a tire store which has customers who
have to come in and wait for their car to get repaired and they would
be -- they're usually scheduled -- I don't know if you can see the -- the
top of that. You might want to move it down. The rate that you use is
the rate for a tire store and, again, it's still not showing. Slide the page
down a bit and then you'll see where my question about the tire store
came from.
The tire store is a very specialty operation. It does not function
like a retail store. If you look at a retail store, you're at least 50 percent
or more greater than the rate trips that you use for a tire store, which
would skew your traffic impact statement substantially. And that's
why I was wondering why you use the tire store when you just said
we're not doing tire store -- tire work.
So, first of all, you've got a flaw in your presentation today in
regards to the category you used for tire store. I'm not sure how
dramatically that would affect your TIS.
While we're talking about traffic and Don Scott's here who did
the AUIR for the BCC last month, according to the traffic analysis or
the traffic statement by staff, it shows the Golden Gate Parkway from
Santa Barbara to Collier Boulevard as operating in an acceptable level
of service and it's projected to operate at a level of service E within
three years.
But the AUIR says it's deficient effective 2005 and it's also
constrained. So, they're not going to be able to repair that deficiency.
So, now, we're talking about increasing impacts on a road system to
some unknown event because we don't have an accurate TIS, with an
Page 16
January 6, 2004
inaccurate statement, I believe, by the transportation department,
which I'm hoping Don's going to explain how he has two different
conclusions in two different documents within the last 30 days. And
then we'll go from there.
I've got other questions, too, but I'd like to get an answer or a
response to the traffic part of it first.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, I cannot explain because I did not
prepare the traffic analysis why a tire store was used. Is it your
contention, Mr. Strain, that an average rate of 25 trips per thousand
square feet for a tire store is lower than a retail use?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, it's not my contention. It's
the IT -- it's the --
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll read it to you.
MR. HANCOCK: The point being that if you --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I may correct your last
statement. Retail uses, and if you would at an auto supply store, a
specialty retail center is 37.97. A shopping center is 82. Now, I don't
know where you're going to fall because I don't have anything that
shows an auto supply store but you're not a tire store. And the retail
store references that are in this -- I guess they come from ITE or
somebody like that. Trip generation range for various land uses, the
summary that I have doesn't break them all down. It just gives me the
conCIse ones.
Now, unless you got data that shows me an auto supply store is
less than a tire store, I don't believe it's going to be the same.
MR. HANCOCK: I don't know if it's going to be the same or not
because ITE doesn't break it down that way. And when you look at
retail facility such as shopping center, when you get a mass of stores
as opposed to a single, stand-alone store, it's going to run the number
up.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's why they have special
Page 1 7
January 6, 2004
retail, too, separate it out.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And they drop it. They drop it
dramatically from 82 for a shopping center down to 37.97 for
specialty realty -- special retail, so --
MR. HANCOCK: I mean, when you look at --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, Tim, I'm not -- I don't know
where you fall, but the fact is you don't know where you fall and that's
what my problem is here today.
MR. HANCOCK: Nor does ITE, unfortunately.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you've already said it isn't a
tire store, so --
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, it's not. So, I think we can safely say
somewhere between 25 -- it's not a tire store. That was the closest use
we could find in the ITE even though we're not changing tires.
It's somewhere between 25 and 37 per thousand square feet.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I would -- I would -- I would agree
with that.
MR. HANCOCK: So, we're dealing with a spread of 12 trips per
thousand square feet, the building being approximately 6,000 square
feet. So, there's 72 trip ends that is the spread between what is
contained in our traffic analysis and what I would consider to be a
more intensive use when you have an aggregation of retail versus one
stand-alone use.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you're also dealing with a
system that is already acknowledged to be failed by the AUIR and that
is constrained and it can't be improved. So, now, your impacts even
though they may not reach the threshold of three percent, we're on a
system that's already potentially failed by the statements made last
month in the AUIR that I received.
So, Tim, I have a problem with it for that reason. These facilities
generate intense amounts of traffic. If you go on 951, the Advanced
Page 18
January 6, 2004
Discount Auto Parts Store, which is there, got so bad, they were
parking cars across their front lawns and running over their hedges.
And somebody, I think it was the government, made them take the lot
next door and turn it into a parking lot so they wouldn't have that
problem.
These are heavy uses. And I'm not sure that putting it on Golden
Gate Parkway that's constrained and already acknowledged to be
difficult in its level of service operation is the right thing to do.
And that's where I'm coming from on that, so --
MR. HANCOCK: But that -- that's your question at that point,
Mr. Strain. If we were instead of auto parts to put a medical office
there, would you have the exact same concerns?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I wouldn't have a concern sitting
here today if everybody played by the rules that we've put in place for
the past number of years and we -- we beat to death. There's rules
along Golden Gate Parkway for the work that needs to be done.
Sometimes those rules don't work then you can ask for deviations.
But to come in and wholeheartedly change the zoning especially
for an intensive use like this and it's a C-4 use, I don't -- I just don't
feel that is the most appropriate thing to do in this location, Tim.
MR. HANCOCK: And I guess, Mr. Strain, I would agree with
you on a larger scale, but the truth is this .43 acre parcel never should
have been placed in the parkway district. It cannot by virtue of its
existence meet the criteria established for that district.
It cannot be aggregated. It cannot be added to reach a minimum
size that it can be rezoned without requesting deviations. And while
the deviations were put in there as an opportunity for you to -- if you
don't meet all of the criteria, I think this was an incorrect assessment
when it was done initially. It is immediately adjacent to C-4. It is
bordered on two sides by public streets, a third side by an alley with
an alley connecting it. It is truly different and unique from the balance
of properties that are within this district.
Page 19
January 6, 2004
If not for those characteristics, I would agree with you. But
when you put those characteristics in play for this parcel and look at
what it ultimately could be developed as in its stand-alone condition,
what we are proposing and the feedback I received from the Golden
Gate Civic Association at their meeting, which Miss Tuff was present,
was not an objection to the use.
Their concern was that there would be repair. When there was
no repair, we turned and focused to the architectural elevations that we
brought and have committed to as a part of our zoning.
So, while we by no means diminish your concerns, Mr. Strain,
we feel like we have tried to meet all of the criteria that the
community has brought to us and that we have discussed with them.
What I can't overcome, sir, is that whether it be this development or a
subsequent development of office or medical office, there is going to
be an increase in traffic that is going to impact Golden Gate Parkway.
Would a 3,000 square foot medical office building produce the
same number of trips or more? I don't have an exact answer for you.
I can get it but I believe the answer would be yes. When you look at
retail versus medical office, yet medical office is -- is clearly a
permitted use in this district. And if we were to try and place a
medical office building on this property which we have no interest in
doing, believe me, there is -- there is vacant office space on the
parkway right now.
There are buildings that have been permitted that are not being
built because the market isn't there yet and we recognize that. So, I'm
not threatening medical office by any means. We have no intention of
doing it. We can't do this proj ect, the property goes on the market,
because this is what it was purchased for.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Tom -- I mean, Tim, you said the
bank's owned this since what, 1980 or something like that?
MR. HANCOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, then they've owned it since
Page 20
January 6, 2004
the overlay has been put in place.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They owned it when they received
notifications that this property was going to have an overlay on the
front of it and the back of it was going to be left like it is. They never
objected to it. They never came into the meetings, or at least I don't
know if they have because it didn't change. The issue stayed the
same.
If they had an objection to the possibility of either selling this and
using it in the future and how this would apply, why wouldn't they
have done it when the rules allowed them and afforded them the
ability to do it instead of coming in now wanting changes on an area
that is already overimpacted by intensity that we -- we don't need to be
breaking the rules to make any more of it for.
So, I don't buy the philosophy that it's an inappropriate use for
this property or inappropriate overlay on this property because if it
was, the landowner should have said something in 19 -- whatever year
we put the thing into effect.
MR. HANCOCK: I don't think the national corporation really
cared too much about what was going on, but I can't speak for them,
nor can you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, then they may not care if
they sell it or not.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, it's sold. My client owns it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I hope you did due diligence.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, part of our due diligence was meeting
with the community, Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you just acknowledged the
only -- you didn't have to do any meetings, any public notices in
regards to this GMP rezone. I mean, I'm sure you told people about the
PUD -- PUD and they may have been in --
MR. HANCOCK: Sir, at that meeting, which you were not there,
Page 21
January 6, 2004
we discussed the growth management plan amendment and the
rezone. It was not a, you know, pretend like we already can do this,
let me show you what we're going to do in the zoning.
We were fully open at that meeting with the growth management
plan amendment, the purposes for it and the subsequent rezone or the
companIon rezone.
Again, meeting with the civic association, which was not
required by the code, which was not even asked of me, I offered to do
it, recognizing that that association is very involved in the land use
decisions in Golden Gate and that their information would be
important to us, I went and met with their board. And I didn't just
discuss the rezone, Mr. Strain. I discussed the growth management
plan amendment, the reasons for it, the exact same reasons I just
discussed with you. And for their board to meet with me and to not
register objections or concerns other than aesthetics and lighting, I felt
was important. That, sir, was a part of our due diligence.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just so you know, Cheryl Newman
was not in favor of your project, so that's all the questions I have.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have two questions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Tim, you had said that your
client owns the property?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: In the documents we have
here, it shows the owner as Bank of America and a contract for
purchase from your client.
MR. HANCOCK: The contract for purchase has a closing date
on it which has passed and the property was closed on.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Since we received these?
MR. HANCOCK: I honestly don't know.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. But it shows here
Page 22
January 6, 2004
owner is Bank of America. Also, Bank of America is using it for
overflow parking now. Will that continue after this?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, but the parking is also not required as
a part of their operation.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. I'm just worried about
where to put all these cars.
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. There's typically one or two cars on
the property. And that's why I said we did the background to find out.
We couldn't even find an SDP that approved the parking being on the
property. So, I'm not sure how it got there to be honest with you.
Because the Bank of America is within the Parkway Plaza Shopping
Center, there's -- you know, their aggregate parking more than meets
the demand for Bank of America, so this is not required as a part of
their operation. Its removal, if you will, from their ability to use it will
not affect their operation in any way.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is it appropriate to discuss
PUD issues now or --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The architectural
standards that this building would be built under are the ones that are
in effect today?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Without the exception -- today
we have the ability, Joe, of using the old standards up till February. Is
that right? In other words, in there, I remember when that --
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- came through, there was a
Page 23
January 6, 2004
clause so --
MR. HANCOCK: The architects for Autozone have received the
current copy and have been required by my client to meet the current
code off the old code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you won't opt to take the
exception to use the old code until February then --
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so you would be -- fresh
code. Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The setback issue, you have a
19 foot four-inch setback off of 52nd Terrace. I mean the concern I
have is that seems like a pretty narrow setback, what is essentially a
residential street.
MR. HANCOCK: It is, and in recognition of that within the
PUD, we increased the buffering requirement between the building
and 52nd Terrace Southwest to require three tiers of landscaping;
ground level, mid level and trees. We've doubled the number of
canopy trees that have to be required between the building and the
street and the focus there is to -- as you turn onto 52nd Terrace
Southwest is not to over -- you know, the first couple of years after
planning, not to see the side of the building there, but to see three
levels of landscaping that will obscure the building from the street.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How tall will the building be?
It might be marked on that drawing on your -- and does that drawing
become an exhibit then or is that a --
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. As a matter of fact that drawing has
been included in our PUD from day one. So, it's the -- again, because
there are a couple of things on this that do not meet codes from
articulation requirements, it's shown as this is the style of architecture,
but we will meet the current code. Eighteen feet ten inches is the
height of the level portion of the parapet.
Page 24
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: And the peak appears to be -- the peak is at 25
feet. With the planting of the trees at 12 to 14 feet at time of planting
now, the site angle should be fairly significant by doubling the tree
zone.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions?
Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What are the intended hours of
operation; how many days a week and what are the intended hours?
MR. HANCOCK: I did discuss it again at the request of the
Civic Association with Autozone. They do operate seven days a week.
I believe it's 8:00 a.m. in the morning until 9:00 p.m. at night except
for Sundays, which they open at, I believe, 10:00 a.m. to either 6:00 or
8:00 p.m. on Sundays. I'm sorry I don't have those numbers with me.
Those are generally the typical hours of operation.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions?
Okay. If we could hear from the staff, please.
MR. V ANLENGEN: Kris VanLengen, Comprehensive
Planning.
With respect to the small scale comprehensive plan amendment,
we found that there were no real compatibility issues. The -- the point
raised concerning the parkway district, we felt, at least to some extent,
that because that district encourages a common theme throughout this
relatively isolated parcel, it's certainly not ideal in that district and,
therefore, compatibility, I think, probably would not be an issue in our
mind.
The -- the petition satisfies the statutory criteria for small scale
plan changes. I mean, in particular the -- the size and lack of techs
Page 25
January 6, 2004
change, and the public facilities impacts are negligible or neutral. So,
with that in mind, staff recommends approval of the petition.
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Planning Manager,
Comprehensive Planning Department.
Quickly, I want to mention in response to Mr. Strain's
questioning, the provision in the Golden Gate Parkway Professional
Office Commercial District that allows retail uses is only applicable to
properties of 150 feet of depth or greater that exist in the original
subdistrict along the parkway. Now, I just confirmed with -- with the
petitioner that that front lot, that is the lot that's within that, currently
in that overlay subdistrict, and it fronts on Golden Gate Parkway is
less than 150 feet. What that means is it will only be eligible for office
commercial development, not retail.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Unless they got a deviation to
include the back lot.
MR. WEEKS: No, sir, because that's actually a requirement
which you -- you cannot deviate from. You must -- it's not a zoning
requirement that you can deviate from. That -- what that means is for
them to go forward with the retail use they're proposing, they must
amend the comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They could amend it though by
amending the professional office district or amend it like they're
proposing which is included in the activity center.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. One carries --
MR. WEEKS: Different avenues, but one way or another they
would have to amend the comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And one carries different elements
of conditions than the other.
MR. WEEKS: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other staff report? Mr. Bosi?
Page 26
January 6, 2004
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman Budd. I'm Mike Bosi, Zoning
Land Development Review.
I just want to say one aspect with the extension of the activity
center to cover these two parcels, Bate provision 4.07.02.A.1 of the
Land Development Code therefore would waive the -- the minimum
size requirement of a PUD; therefore, the .83 acre PUD that's before
you would be in compliance with the -- with the land development
code.
And I would also like to say that to date I haven't received any --
any written or -- or verbal indications from any of their community
members of opposition to the project. When I looked at it -- when I
looked at it in terms of compatibility because it's going to be limited to
retail sales only and the other uses that would be allowed during the
eventual redevelopment of this parcel which will happen over time is
going to be limited to the -- the C-l commercial -- commercial office
general subdistrict. I felt that that limitation provided somewhat of an
assurance that the -- the project now and in the future will be
compatible with the -- the intent of the growth management plan and
the intent of the community for what they want to see within the area.
I guess I -- I open up to any questions that you may have.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: With regard to Mark's point about
this being -- Golden Gate highway being Level E in 2005 in a
constrained roadway, what right does the developer have in terms of
adding new things on to that road?
MR. BOSI: In that respect I'm probably going to have to turn to
-- to Don Scott on that direct indication issue.
MR. SCOTT: Good morning. I didn't actually swear in because
I didn't think I was going to talk about this one.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony -- testimony you are
Page 27
~,_.......,-~"._-_." -,
January 6, 2004
about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole
truth so help you?
MR. SCOTT: I do.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation and Planning.
That's an estimate based on what I see as the growth out there in
the last few years. I just looked at it and it was 85 peak hour peak
direction trips. Golden Gate Parkway is considered constrained for
several reasons. The community desired to have the landscaping the
way it is and not revise that. We could go out there and six lane but it's
-- it's -- you know, it's the desire of the community not to go to six
lanes on that facility.
Based on that, one of the things that was added as part of the
concurrency system previously was this is part of the transportation
concurrency management area where you look at the corridors parallel
to it north and south, east and west. There could be relievers to this
facility. And that's why Green is being developed as part of -- as a
four-lane facility to try to take some of the traffic that comes from the
estates. It uses Golden Gate Parkway to get into this area.
Alternatives: Also Davis would be widened in the future and the
section of Radio out towards Davis also as alternatives.
So, for the purposes of this -- beyond the fact of how many trips
are left on that segment, as long as those paralleled facilities are -- are
all right, 85 percent of them or above capacity, then they would still
be able to go. Now, if it falls below that, then they wouldn't be able to
go at the -- at the time of their site plan.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But this is located on Golden
Gate. So, if that road is constrained, what does it matter the
collateral?
MR. SCOTT: Well, that's the -- the reason why is to say, okay,
we could widen this to six lanes, but that is not the community desire
for that, so what can we do to help that roadway?
Page 28
January 6, 2004
We can look at parallel facilities. Obviously, what we can look
to do is some traffic operations improvements. There's an awful lot of
signals out there. There's actually an improvement at this intersection
that's going on right now with some turn lanes. But, yeah, ultimately,
it's saying, okay, if you're not going to widen that roadway, then look
at the parallel roadways. That's why it's -- that's why it was part of the
transportation currency management area.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Will it ever be taken off ofE and
improve?
MR. SCOTT: I would guess at some point if it got -- well, let's
just fast-forward 20 years. If it -- if it got to that it was backed up all
the time and it then was enough of an outcry to widen it, that could
change.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, you are in agreement then
that the AUIR say this is going to be deficiency in year 2005 which is
the year we're in?
MR. SCOTT: Yes. I -- I wrote that and put that in there, yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I had to call in today because the
12 miles it takes for me to drive from my house to here was almost an
hour. And I went down I-75 and ran into a jam at the typical one at
I - 7 5 and Davis. And I had to go down the Parkway and ran into a
typical jam there and just sat. So, it definitely is constrained.
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for Mike.
Mike, assuming they abandon the PUD, where would that leave us
with the growth management plan? I mean, what would we have at
that point?
MR. BOSI: In terms of abandoning the PUD, meaning that if we
walked away today?
Page 29
-~--""-"--^'
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. In other words, we're
doing two -- reviewing two things. But let's say they decide not to
build the auto parts store.
MR. BOSI: Oh, if they decided not to build the auto parts store if
this PUD was -- was approved, is that the scenario you're asking me
about?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. Let -- yeah. I
mean, what I don't want to do is -- are we restricting the use of this to
onl y auto parts?
MR. BOSI: No, no. Auto parts is the only use within a C-4
category that would be allowed by the PUD. The PUD calls for the --
the traditional uses within a C-l zoning category. And the reason why
the petitioner did this and the reason why staff wanted to see that is
because it's more in line with the commercial -- the commercial office
designation that the future land use map has for the front portions of
the properties on Golden Gate Parkway.
So, if -- when the auto parts store, if it does or when it does go
away, the uses that would be entitled -- that would be entitled or the
range of uses that would be entitled to any developer would be those --
those contained within the C-l zoning designation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, when Golden Gate Parkway
is connected to 1-75, the parkway is going to be a nice avenue to -- for
a lot of people to get to I -75 quickly. And I -- I know Don Scott just
spoke about parallel roads. I'm not sure a lot of parallel roads are
going to help alleviate an access to 1-75 like the parkway is going to
be in the future. As the future unfolds and we see how all this plays
out, is there any reason the applicant couldn't come back and ask for
this when we were more stabilized two, three, four years from now
when the road improvements were done, when the parallel roads were
in place and we knew what we were dealing with?
MR. BOSI: I would say there would be nothing that would
Page 30
-, -'-''''-'._,---,~..-'
January 6, 2004
prevent them from -- from doing that at that time, but in the same
context, I would say there -- there -- it's at this time now and they're
asking for it.
And I guess the evaluation would be if the planning commission
feels that constraints placed upon Golden Gate Parkway are -- are such
to the extent that no new development should be added to that -- to
that segment, because to me -- there would be somewhat of an
underlying theme or message that's sent that if a 6,000 square foot
retail use could not be developed at this area because of traffic
concerns, well, then they should be put on notice that anything that's
going to generate any level of -- of traffic along Golden Gate Parkway
is -- at this time because of the road constraints might not be --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Mike, the way I'm looking at
it is the parkway has a certain set of criteria right now that the
community has accepted in that our land uses that are already either
there or contemplated based on the overlays and the zoning. And that's
fine. We've got to live with what we've got on the books. That's fair.
There's no reason we have to modify that at this time. If the -- if the
modification comes forward, which only encourages quicker and
sooner development, there's no reason to do that right now.
But as the future unfolds, this may be a great spot for something
else -- something like this if it's done right, but not with -- with the
problems that we have there today.
And, so, that's the difference. I mean, in one case you're not
asking for anything and you have every right to go forward. The
second case, if you're asking for something, then there should be some
judgment put into the fact that this is a bad area to begin with.
MR. BOSI: And, Commissioner Strain, I -- I recognize the point
and I agree with you. What I would say is we have -- this petition and
the small scale amendment and the PUD rezone was distributed to all
individual staffs. And based upon -- based upon the regulations that
were -- that they were obligated to evaluate upon, they found that a
Page 31
January 6, 2004
favorable -- a favorable recommendation could be made.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt,
Administrator Community Development and Environmental Services.
I -- I just would just like to add caution to the planning commission
that again we're dealing with issues that are dealt with by staff at the
site development plan approval process in regards to concurrency.
Certainly this -- this panel can take that into consideration in regards
to -- to recommending approval but just as Mr. Bosi pointed out, the
staff reviewed both the small scale petition and the PUD amendment
based on the current plan development code criteria. That criteria
deemed that -- that the staffs recommend -- and resulted in the staffs
recommendation.
Certainly you're going beyond that in regards to imposing what
you're think -- I quote your standards in regards to the -- the
transportation currency but the rules are the rules. It's a two-year
window in regards to concurrency, that the concurrency will be
determined at site development plan application process or the issuing
of the local development order.
But in that regard, understand staffs position in this and where
staff is reviewing it, it appears that you're going beyond that in regards
to the criteria you're imposing, but I just want to set that straight for
the record because we will be dealing with the results that if there's a
-- a disagreement in regards to the transportation assessment, again I
have to turn to Mr. Scott and in regards to -- to defining are there in
fact disagreements, but -- but we did the analysis. And the analysis
produced the results as -- as demonstrated in the staff report.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And, Joe, we have a concurrency
issue like this quite often. The fact that someone's here asking for a
modification that has impacts, are you telling us that if staff says they
agree the impacts are insignificant or non -- or -- or meet the criteria,
we don't have any leeway in -- in --
Page 32
January 6, 2004
MR. SCHMITT: You certainly do.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then what is it you're trying to
say?
MR. SCHMITT: I'm trying to say that from a staff report
perspective, we've reviewed the petitions based on the current rules in
both the land development code and the growth management plan.
And -- and from that perspective we are -- we -- we made the
recommendation that staff has just proposed. You're -- if you're
imposing certain criteria beyond that based on your personal
experience or your assessment that --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. No.
MR. SCHMITT: -- that -- that is -- is beyond what staff
evaluated, I'm just cautioning the panel in regards to where you're
gOIng.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Joe, that's not where -- I'm not
speaking for the panel. I'm speaking for myself. That's not where I'm
going. They're coming in and wanting to change the zoning on a piece
of property.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In order to change that zoning -- I
mean, to do that they're going to increase or change the densities on
that piece as well as change what was intended for the piece in front of
it. In my thinking, that's going to have impacts greater than what was
anticipated originally for that area. Now--
MR. SCHMITT: But I --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And we also know that their TIS is
not accurate. So, I'm under -- trying to understand where you're trying
to tell us we can't go because I don't want to go somewhere we can't,
but I thought that this meeting today was here to discuss the merits of
each individual item brought forward, and if there's problems with it
that we see, then we have a right to bring those up and discuss them.
If you're telling me we don't, I want to hear it loud and clear.
Page 33
~_.~"'__"'_"_""_'_,.'-"'-'..._.
-,._._-""-~..-..,,
~-"'-
January 6, 2004
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I just want to make a little point of clarification. There's two
types of traffic analysis done by staff. One is at the time of zoning.
And that is the consistency finding with the transportation element of
the comprehensive plan. We also have a more detailed traffic review
at the time of site development plan tied into concurrency and that's I
think the point we were trying to make, that we're only looking at the
zoning issues at this point not the site plan issues where concurrency
would be also brought into play.
Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the transportation element are pretty
specific and this proj ect is consistent with that, so staff is constrained
from recommending denial on something that's consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
You may, as Joe mentioned, bring up other issues and concerns,
but we're still looking at the zoning stage, not the land development
stage or the site development final developmental order stage where
the concurrency issues --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But at this point, Ray, you can--
you can't here -- sit here right now and say the PUD that's being
applied for is consistent with the growth management plan.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. That's why the --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: -- small scale comp plan amendment precedes
the --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- PUD amendment.
MR. BELLOWS: It will be once that -- if that is approved.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, it -- thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, also, too, in the testimony
it was -- appears that he has applied for the site development plan.
He's discussing, you know, remediation to the design, which is part of
that process. So, what is concurrency giving us on this project? In
Page 34
January 6, 2004
other words, we're trusting the traffic concurrency system. We never
really hear the outcome. Since this one is in for application already,
he's doing everything at once, probably the building permit, too. What
is the outcome of his concurrency for traffic?
MR. BELLOWS: The site development plan cannot be approved
until all the zoning is in place. The -- the petitioner mayor may not
have submitted a site plan. In some cases, petitioners do submit them
in anticipation of approval given time constraints and financial
constraints to get certain things. Most times they don't because things
changed during the zoning process and that's very expensive to change
site plans.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it appears he has so how are
we doing --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, I'm not sure how far along they are in
that process. They may have just coordinated with staff to help them
along.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- but here's my point. Is
Mark saying that the road -- according to our information, he wouldn't
be able to come out on -- with a new development anyway. So,
therefore, they must have reviewed concurrency already, so how are
we doing on this proj ect?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, what I was saying is this
deficient? I don't know if transportation is going to let them come out
on that road or not. I didn't even ask that question yet. I just said
according to transportation's data they gave us last month, the road is
supposed to be deficient in 2005. It's constrained, which means they
can't improve the road itself, and so that -- I guess let transportation
take it from there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- and my point is we have
this checkbook system, it would be nice for us to know, you know,
how those check -- you know, we never get to look at the balance or
anything.
Page 35
January 6, 2004
MR. SCOTT: If this came in today and it was in our office --
sorry -- Don Scott, transportation and planning. If this came in today
and the condition is the way they are right now, it would be approved
for transportation concurrency. Because not only are we talking 85
trips or whatever it -- I mean, heck, you might have added three this
morning or whatever, but 82 trips left in there. They don't have 82
peak hour peak direction trips. That's like a Super Wal-Mart. And
then the second part of that is based on the transportation -- the
transportation concurrency management area, I'm looking at the
average of those parallel roadways and it meets that today.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, Don, a road with a failed level
of service can have more --
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- added to it.
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Explain that reasoning with the--
MR. SCOTT: If it's within that--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- concurrency.
MR. SCOTT: If it's within a transportation concurrency
management area where you're looking at the parallel roadways.
You're not looking at the one segment. You're looking at the area as it
operates, the alternatives, and that's within a TCMA. And it was
mainly because of this segment in there, when he said, hey, we don't
want to widen to six lanes, what are you going to do within the whole
area to improve traffic in that area?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But if people were using the
alternative routes, the road would not have been failed.
MR. SCOTT: And we've got to develop some of them. Some of
them haven't been developed yet. For -- for instance, Green Boulevard
is two lanes and part of that needs to be widened to four lanes.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you said --
Page 36
January 6, 2004
MR. SCOTT: Davis Boulevard has --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sorry.
MR. SCOTT: -- hasn't been widened yet. This is -- the part of
the concurrency system is looking at, okay, not what the problems
were exactly at that moment. He said, where are we going to have
problems in the future? That's where the transportation concurrency
management area cameout of.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would you just --
MR. SCOTT: But we said, all right, if we don't widen this, we
know there's going to be a problem in the future. What other things
can we do in that area?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When are you going to
widen Green and whatever?
MR. SCOTT: That's programmed in this work program. I think
it's 2008 for construction.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 2008?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. And Davis is 2010.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, this is all very
comforting to people sitting in line in traffic.
MR. SCOTT: I -- I live at the other end of Golden Gate City. I
drive it all the time. I -- I -- I realize the other side of that. I sit in that
traffic.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Green Boulevard dead ends
at a canal or something, doesn't it?
MR. SCOTT: Well, that's part of the study we just started, is to
do an overpass of I - 7 5 and connect it up to Livingston.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, brother.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, let me try to get this straight
then. If you've got a failed level of service in a constrained road, it's in
a TCMA, which you've acknowledged this has failed or is to be failed
this year, you can have -- still have all the impacts on that within the
amount of capacity left even though none should be left because it's
Page 37
January 6, 2004
failed --
MR. SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- but apparently there's some left
even though it is failed. And then when people come before this
board, if you guys acknowledge that there's capacity left because of
this global look at this one piece, we don't have latitude to -- to say
this isn't the right thing to do in this area based on traffic? Is that what
is coming out of this?
MR. SCOTT: Let's turn it back the other way.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: Me, my latitude. I still look at it as is the whole
area operating 85 percent of those lane miles? Are they operating
above or below level of service standard? If they're operating above
level of service standard, then they can still go forward.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I notice the County
Attorney's been real silent on this. They're letting Ray kind of take the
hits on it or bat. I'm just curious from the County Attorney's Office on
issues like this what latitude are boards like ours and the BCC allowed
to have when someone's coming in and requesting a deviation or a
difference from what concurrent zoning applications are for a piece of
property .
MR. WHITE: Commissioner Strain, I advise you that the
latitude that you have is that which exists in the law, and I think that
the staff has properly informed you that you have the ability to
consider those facts in your deliberations today.
They may, in fact, to some extent affect your decision or
recommendation today; however, the staff is also correct in informing
you that the regulations and rules that presently exist contemplate
these types of approvals, and that their recommendations to you are
accordingly lawful, so --
MR. BELLOWS: In addition, we have rezoned findings and
criteria that the planning commission is subject to review and make
Page 38
January 6, 2004
their findings on. And if you go beyond those findings, I think maybe,
Pat, can you expand upon that?
MR. WHITE: Well, if you make your -- if what you're saying,
Ray, is that if the CCPC makes a recommendation on criteria other
than those that they're required to make their findings on, is that
appropriate or not? And -- and I guess that depends on what those
findings may be so long as they can reach the decision they're going to
make based on the criteria they are required to consider. Any other
additional findings that are appropriate within the scope of their
authority to make to the board are likewise appropriate.
MR. SCHMITT: I -- I think what basically if you go -- and I'll --
I'll narrow it specifically in Exhibit B at the PUD find -- rezoning.
Rezone findings PUD petition. This is the Exhibit 7 where the
analysis by the transportation division has determined that the closed
PUD will not increase traffic congestion from that which is currently
approved, and it goes on in that paragraph. If this panel disagrees with
that, I think if in fact you both, as you certainly have the prerogative to
do so in denying both the -- the -- well, the PUD rezoning specifically,
you basically then put on the record that you disagree with the staff
analysis.
I -- I guess that's what I'm trying to -- I'm trying to set the
parameters here because we -- we evaluate based on the defined
criteria that we have. And if your -- you have to basically find that you
don't -- you disagree with the staffs analysis on some of these that
could -- to base your opinion. You have the right to do so, I think, and
that's where I'm trying to narrow the focus down and say -- so that--
that, in fact, the petitioner and staff understands what this board has
done in regards to the findings so that -- that I have to turn to the
County Attorney that we don't put ourselves in a legal position of
being challenged.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Joe, under the item that you just
cited, it says, analysis by the transportation services division has
Page 39
...---,.-.-
January 6, 2004
determined that the proposed PUD will not increase traffic congestion,
that which is currently approved. You're going to have a traffic impact
on the road. Their TIS acknowledges that.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Isn't that increasing traffic
congestion?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's based on what it's currently zoned
and what currently could be built there, so they have to take that in
consideration.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. Even--
MR. SCHMITT: Though there's a vacant lot there now, there is
still existing zoning and there certainly can --
MR. SCOTT: I mean, one of the determinations in the
concurrency system was, okay, if you went out to the future and
modeled what's out there, which is, you know, development on this
parcel and other parcels around the county, and say, where are we
going to have problems if we don't widen some things like Golden
Gate Parkway, and that's where TCMA came up. So, it is taken into
account from that aspect and that's what the reference is based on.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do we know if the RMF-12 that
this is zoned for would have a greater traffic impact than that which is
here in front of us today? Is a retail auto parts store more intensive
than an RMF -12 on a .20 acre or whatever size lot this is?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On a vacant lot.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, but the vacant lot if
developed is how we have to look at it.
MR. SCOTT: The RMF-12 is about 20 percent more than what
this would be.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How many units would that be on
a -- on this small lot? I mean, you know, you can't put 12 units on
there. It's a point raised, a small lot.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, but--
Page 40
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Two to three -- two to three units?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It depends on how the site is
designed. There were a lot of criteria that kept coming up.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 35 feet height or whatever it is.
Say you put three or four units on there, that three or four units would
generate more traffic than an auto zone part --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Tim, why don't you sit
down and let the staff speak for itself?
MR. SCOTT: I think we were assuming around ten units from
that aspect.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You would think those would
generate more traffic than an auto parts store?
MR. SCOTT: Well, you know, there's a -- there's a -- there's two
sides to that, too. You build a commercial establishment. That's an
attractor. You build residential, that's a -- that produces trips because
you're going somewhere like you're going to work, you're going to --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Once. You're gone for eight hours
and you come back, or 12.
MR. SCOTT: Well--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You go to an auto parts store for
two minutes and somebody else comes in behind you.
MR. SCOTT: But a household though is not just one trip. It's
seven trips per day. It's not just you. It's the mailman going to your
house. It's all the other things that go with it, the services that go with
it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's why it's better to have
basically retail-commercial everywhere and take out all the
residential.
MR. SCOTT: Well, not -- no. You've got to have a balance.
That's -- that's the one aspect of this. And that's why the estates is such
a big producer because it doesn't have as much of the attractors for it.
And that's why this is all the big attraction right here, everybody
Page 41
January 6,2004
coming here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Let's recapture where we are in
this process. We heard from the petitioner, followed up with
presentations by the staff. Weare mired down in staff questions.
When we can conclude those, we'll see if there's any registered public
speakers, then summary comments by the petitioner. Are there any
other questions of the staff at this point?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have one and it's to Joe
and Ray, but let them -- they're in conference.
Anyway, Joe --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Schiffer has a question for you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Ray, both could answer
this thing is that, you know, and we come to this point a lot is that
studying this thing in terms of planning, the traffic, I'm assuming, is
going to be covered by the checkbook system we came up with, which
you really just started to use. In other words, the battleground for the
roads being congested and all that is really how we monitor the
checkbook, which I'm assuming if we approve a site like this that that
will be checked later. Is that a naive position or --
MR. SCHMITT: Again, I turned to Ray because Ray -- Ray
explained it's at two points, one at the rezoning and one at the local
development one. Go ahead, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. The -- the purpose of zoning is
to look at the land use relationships. That includes consistency with
the comprehensive plan. And the comprehensive plan has a traffic
element and the county for years and years has adopted the policy 5.1
and 5.2 as our standard for granting rezones.
And this project is consistent with those policies. It's not
lowering the level of service below what it already is. It may add
additional trips to a constrained roadway but it's not a significant
impact. That is defined by the comprehensive plan.
So, staff is constrained, but over the years as -- when the county
Page 42
"_.,...,_....._,--~--_. ...-.
January 6, 2004
failed to make some road improvements, you know, four or five years
ago, we got roads that fell under some congestion. We implemented
this checkbook concurrency that was to be done at the time of site
development plan review, that way that takes into account projects
that have already been zoned that we can look at and determine if they
meet all the traffic impact criteria. You know, if the roadway is
constrained and it didn't meet the check concurrency, was no capacity
left, we would not issue the site development plan approval.
MR. SCHMITT: I could take that one step further because I'm
going to talk about a proj ect you're going to see in the future at the
next planning commission meeting where staff -- and I won't give the
area or the name, but staff clearly identified in the rezoning that
doesn't meet the criteria and is recommending disapproval. And -- and
that's going to be a point in contention.
Now, so -- so, it's based on the staff analysis. Transportation
does its analysis. This panel certainly has the liberty, and I want to
stress again to Commissioner Strain, has the liberty to disregard staffs
assessment.
All I'm asking is that if your -- in your findings you quantify that
so that that is a matter of record because -- I guess I just want to make
sure that the point of danger is by personal experience or your
assessed opinion that -- that's somewhat in the danger point. I have to
turn to the County Attorney in that regard. What you'd have to do is
focus it on a specific point and say, okay, based on -- on this analysis.
And you disagrees with staff analysis, fine. And then you render your
opinion and -- and we move on.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's what I'm saying is,
for example, we looked at a piece of land and -- and we thought that
the use of the land could have a density, let's say a high density. I'm
under the assumption that the control of whether he can build that
density is going to be at the -- at the site development plan process
when you review it with a checkbook concurrency.
Page 43
,--",.,--
January 6, 2004
MR. SCHMITT: That's right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, in other words, theoretically
we can give it more density than obviously could ever be built in
present day. But over time as roads shift, traffic shifts, roads are
improved, that he may in fact be able to do that if he could meet the
concurrency requirements of the checkbook.
Is that a naive statement?
MR. BELLOWS: That's the intent of the purpose.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, that's the intent of the
purpose.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the front line on traffic
is the checkbook. It's not the approval of density on property.
Is that true or false or --
MR. SCHMITT: Well, the density is based on consistency with
the comp plan. So, you're -- you're --
MR. BELLOWS: And consistency with the surrounding land --
MR. SCHMITT: Compatibility with surrounding lands.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we could approve density
greater than the road could take and it would be absorbed as the road
could take it.
MR. BELLOWS: We have a traffic impact statement that takes
into account existing development plus future development that's
zoned but not built. That is then placed on a -- the existing road
network and the committed road improvements.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. BELLOWS: Now they're found consistent with the
resulting level of service and -- and -- and trips, then we're -- we're
going to recommend approval. There was also criteria in there that
says what is a significant impact? And this proj ect has been found
consistent with that. It's not a significant impact in regards to that
definition.
Page 44
January 6,2004
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I would like to ask the
County Attorney, is there a way that we could condition our approval
if it were to be forthcoming on this petition, or whatever it would be
by that point, this project coming back for our review of the site
development plan?
MR. WHITE: I'm unaware of anything that authorizes that type
of a condition. It would effectively be a modification of the county's
procedures.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does anything prohibit it?
MR. WHITE: I can't point you to anything in the regulations that
specifically would prohibit it but -- because it is not contemplated
within your authority.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it just seems to me
from a philosophical point of view that we lose control of this system,
we're being asked sort of -- I remember my Sunday school days, trust
and believe, all things are possible. We're asked to approve this
because, oh, it will all be okay at SDP time. How many SDPs are ever
turned down? Doggone few that I have ever heard of.
MR. WHITE: I think the point, Commissioner, is that if the
Board of County Commissioners wanted to have a process that
operated in that fashion, those would be the rules that we would
operate under. And although there may not be anything I can
specifically point this body to that prohibits from imposing that type
of a condition, it arguably would create a procedural variance from
our existing rules. And as I probably explained to this board a time or
two, a procedural variance is not something that is possible.
So, effectively although there is nothing that prohibits it because
there's nothing that authorizes it either, it seems to me that it would be
stepping out on a -- on a branch that the law wouldn't support.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, let me just for the record --
Page 45
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What if we just suggested
that that would be an appropriate avenue?
MR. WHITE: I believe that if you want to make a separate
recommendation as to changing the procedures, that the county
operates to create development approvals, that that is something that's
within your scope of authority to do to the board of county
commissioners, and a corresponding exchanged either through the
land development code or other regulations could then be considered.
That would be the established process so that folks who are making
petition to the county for approvals would know what the rules are at
the time they applied, rather than having the rules modified in the
midst of the process.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'm not modifying it
and I'm telling the petitioner right now that my ability to vote
favorably for this project differs based on whether I can have a look
at the SDP or not, so --
MR. WHITE: I think--
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well--
MR. WHITE: -- your concern is--
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- I'm not proposing that
every project SDP come back to us, but in cases where we're being
told that everything is going to be okay in a couple of years, then that's
the last we ever hear of it.
MR. WHITE: Well, I understand your concern and I believe it is
one that if it is, quote, systemic, then it ought be treated by systemic
changes to the rules. We -- we have the rules and we adopt them and
we approve them and we operate under them with the understanding
and expectation that they will be followed by all. And I am not aware
that this project will be able to obtain any further development
approvals, assuming it obtains any today, at a subsequent point in time
unless it complied with those rules as they then existed.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay.
Page 46
_""~M"~_"._~'_'"
January 6, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Miss Student, did you have any other
comment? I didn't know if you did.
MS. STUDENT: Not -- not in light ofMr. Abernathy's
qualification that he wasn't looking for the planning commission to
look at offsite plans. I was going to make --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: -- a comment if that were the case.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, no. I'm not proposing
that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. We're still trying to conclude
with questions of staff. Are there any more questions? We'll move on.
Are there any registered public speakers on this item?
MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have any summary comments by
the petitioner?
MR. HANCOCK: With respect to your time schedule today as
briefly as I can, there are two issues that I'd like to address. And, Mr.
Abernathy, my apology for raising your ire with speaking with staff. I
was trying to confirm a point, which I'll now attempt to convey to you.
When the staff calculates the TCMA for any segment in Collier
County, they look at the land that is there, what it is zoned and what it
potentially may be zoned. In the case of this particular project, the
front half is looked at as a commercial parcel. So, when they factor the
TCMA, the assumption included that the parcels within the office
parkway district would be developed commercially. The piece behind
it would be developed RMF-12.
That is the background traffic that is assumed in development of
the TCMA. So, the TCMA doesn't say it's vacant, there's a zero count
on it now, and any zoning or any additional approvals on it add to that.
The TCMA factored in commercial on the front, RMF -12 on the back.
So, that's the background.
The question in how this proj ect does or does not impact the
Page 47
January 6, 2004
system is a comparison between what is being proposed and what was
assumed as the background for those two pieces. That comparison for
staffs part on this project produced a negligible result, a wash, if you
will, that the background that was -- that's already assumed by the
TCMA to be in place, which resulted in the constrained facility is
minimally different if different at all from what's being proposed.
The second item is when we start looking at transportation
numbers and trip generation. And -- and, Mr. Strain, your frustration is
understood because no one can envision how residential could be
more intensive than retail. However, the numbers are -- are what they
are. Either we use all of them or we throw all of them out. And the
realty is that a multifamily unit produces seven point some odd trips
per day, out and back. Commercial has a generator itself. And we
discussed, Mr. Strain, the total daily difference on this one is a range
of, you know, from background to this, zero to 72. The peak hour of
that is three or four at the most.
So, the comparison that if this were developed RMF -12 under its
current zoning, that it would be comparatively intensive from a traffic
standpoint to commercial assumes the understanding that there are
people that are on their way from A to B and stop to get things. And
believe it or not, auto parts work that way in a lot of cases. Windshield
wipers, car fresheners, a lot of those items are things people pick up
similar to a convenience store application.
So, when you look at a stand-alone retail component like this, it's
not a generator. And the people leave their house all over the county
to come here like they would a W aI-Mart or a shopping mall or a
movie theatre. It is in fact a convenience retail facility and, therefore,
that number is smaller than it would be if it were a generator. And,
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
With that, we'll close the public hearing.
We're going to be looking for two separate motions. The first
Page 48
January 6,2004
should be addressing CPSS-2004-1, that being the small scale
amendment to the Golden Gate area master plan future land use map
in the form of a recommendation to forward to the Board of County
Commissioners either recommending approval or denial. Do we have
a motion?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I so move --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- for approval. For approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion for approval by Mr. Adelstein.
Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer has a second. Discussion on
the motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will not support the motion based
on the fact that I do not agree that the traffic congestion issue is -- is
not going to be improved. I think that this is going to have more
traffic congestion. And I don't believe that the intent of the
professional office overlay is being met obviously because they're
trying to move out of that overlay into another district and I think that
overlay was put in place by the people of the area for a reason. So,
those are my main objections.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other comments on the motion?
Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that the auto zone would
be har -- harmonize with the neighborhood, if the traffic capacity were
adequate, but I'm going to vote against the motion because I disagree
with the staff analysis that this will not increase this traffic
substantially on a failed roadway segment.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Miss Student.
MR. WHITE: I'm assuming that --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Or, excuse me. Mr. White.
MR. WHITE: The purposes of your discussion now are specific
Page 49
January 6, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, please. I appreciate that clarification
though. The discussion should be specific to the small scale
amendment --
MS. STUDENT: Small scale amendment --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- to the master plan. We're not on -- we
will be taking action on the PUDZ rezone in a moment.
MS. STUDENT: Small scale amendment is legislative and, you
know, there needs to be internal consistency with the comp plan and I
think consistency with 9-J-5 in the statute and the statute authorizes
small scale amendments. It is legislative in nature, so it's fine to state a
reason for -- for the motion or against, that's fine, but you're not
required to make the same kind of findings for the legislative action
that you will for the subsequent rezoning action because that is
quasijudicial.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein, you had a comment?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: This is -- yes, I do. This is
not with this particular case. This is an issue that has come up so that
if there is a situation that could be needed, it can be acted upon now.
We're not dealing with a case we're talking about. We're talking about
the concept. And I see no reason why we should look at the two of
them together.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Miss Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: My only comment is that we have
a Golden Gate master plan. People worked long and hard to set up
that plan. Now, I'm not sure that I see the need for a change at this
point.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I -- this is actually just to
Mark. Mark, when I'm looking at it for the comprehensive plan, I'm
seeing -- really what they're trying to do is take these two lots and
make them C-l. Is that something that you think would be out of the
Page 50
January 6, 2004
overlay or -- that was essentially what they have now is almost
comparable zoning on the front lot; right?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's not out of the -- I mean, the
back lot is out of the overlay, that's --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, since what we're doing is
we're adding it to -- to C-l use --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Auto part stores based on the
depth, which they would have if they had that second lot, I believe --
maybe someone could correct me if I'm wrong -- would then qualify
for that depth, so from that perspective, I think they meet the overlay.
But by coming out of the overlay completely, I don't know if the other
benefits of the architectural criteria and the buffering are being lost.
And that's what my concern --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- and here's the problem
I'm having. And I really don't like the situation where we have a
double -- a double application. I definitely think we should do comp
plans and then down the road you do the other. So, what we're doing
right now is purely -- I'm just looking at it from -- remember the -- the
exhibit he had where he changed it to red. That's the level I think the
comp plan has had and -- and I'm really -- don't see why -- how that
would affect the overlay just changing that back lot to add it to what
the front lot can do now.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm not -- you know, I'm not
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, the next --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- going to debate with you--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, at the next--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- my friend.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- breath after we vote on this,
we can discuss setbacks --
Page 51
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and other issues.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other discussion on the motion that is
on the floor?
There being none, we'll call the question.
All those in favor of the motion to forward with a
recommendation of approval, please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Could you raise your hands, please, so I
can see what we've got?
We've got one, two, three, four, five in favor.
All those opposed, say aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Five three. The motion carries on the
small scale amendment.
Moving on now to the PUDZ-2004-AR-5987, also looking for a
motion to --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- to forward.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-5987 be
forwarded to the board of county commissioners with a
recommendation of denial.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second on that motion?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Adelstein, a
Page 52
January 6, 2004
second by Mr. Vigliotti.
Discussion on the motion to deny?
MR. WHITE: Commissioners, I believe it would be very helpful
for the Board of County Commissioners to have specific indications of
the rationale for your recommendation of denial.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein, as the motion maker, could
you add some clarification as to your reasoning?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Road adequacy.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any discussion on the motion,
further clarification on the -- the thoughts on this.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I didn't hear what he said.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: He said road adequacy.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I would say, and I
think it's the same thing stated differently, that Number 17 on rezone
findings talks about the impact on the development on ability of
adequate public facilities and services consistent with the level of
services adopted in the growth management plan and the responsive
staff in the rezoning of this property will eventually result in a creation
of a commercial development. The site development plan and/or plat
will be reviewed for compliance with the level of service required for
public facilities. I don't have confidence in that process, so I'm voting
against.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I mean I'm voting for the
motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
Any further discussion?
There being none, we'll call the question.
All those in favor of the motion to deny, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
Page 53
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those in opposition say aye.
Aye.
Okay. Motion carries to deny eight to one. Excuse me. Seven to
one. My math was bad.
With that, we'll take a ten-minute break.
(A recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifwe could start gathering ourselves
together and resume the Planning Commission meeting, please. Okay.
We've got our Planning Commissioners back so we will call this
meeting back to order and start out with the Comprehensive Planning
Cycle 2004 Amendments.
Sir.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, David Weeks
again for the record, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning
Department.
I just want to make a few brief overview comments about the
petitions that are to follow. Certainly, we're aware that the protocol is
that the petitioners will go first for the private sector petitions, but
again I want to make some -- some general comments.
First, as has already been noted in the previous amendment, all of
these comprehensive plan amendments are legislative. They're not
quasijudicial so you are not required to have a swearing in of the
participants, nor are you required to offer ex parte communications.
These are planned amendments, not rezonings, as you more typically
deal with. Some of these are site specific and they would be
implemented through a subsequent rezoning action, but nonetheless
these are planned amendments only.
Page 54
--
January 6, 2004
And these -- this is the transmittal hearing. This is the first of
two -- two hearings before this body. Both the Planning Commission
and the Board will hear these and decide whether or not to transmit
these to various state agencies for their review. And then, if they are
transmitted, then you will see them a second time at the adoption
hearing which you would be making your final recommendation to
adopt or not to adopt. But today you're making the -- the
recommendation. You could think of it as a preliminary approval or
denial. Final denial or preliminary approval if you should recommend
to transmit these amendments.
Procedurally, again, we're aware that the petitioners will go first
for those private sector amendments. Staff will follow up with the
brief review of our analysis, our findings and conclusions, including
public facility impacts as well as our recommendation itself and we
will advise you of any public comment that we receive,
correspondence, phone calls, et cetera.
And, finally, as always, we would appreciate the collection of
your binders at the conclusion of this hearing to use subsequently for
the Board hearing and also to send to those state agencies.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you could help me with some further
explanation because it appears in 2005 it's going to be the flavor of the
day to do site development planning at the Planning Commission
level. Could you provide some clarification where the boundaries are
because I think we're going to have extensive conversation of what we
are considering and what we are not considering and what are the
boundaries? Could you provide some general overview to help focus
us this morning?
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
First of all, these amendments are the regular or full or large scale
amendments. They're not small scale.
The difference is -- as an aside from the fact that you get two
Page 55
._.__."_"_..,._.,~..._.___"O__·,.~···,,,
January 6, 2004
views of it, the -- we -- we -- procedurally staff does not allow a
rezoning petition to be brought to you as a companion item with the
planned amendment, not a transmittal. It must wait until after the
adoption has occurred. So, you will not see them simultaneously.
That's a staff level procedure. And the reason for that is because
there's a -- such a lengthy time period between adoption if that occurs
to a planned amendment and its effective date because it has to be sent
to the state agency, Department of Community Affairs, for their
compliance determination with state statutes. That's a 45-day review.
A certain number of days for us to get it up to them and then even
after they make their final discussion, there's a 21-day challenge
period.
So, roughly speaking, from the date that the board approves a
plan amendment, it's about 80 days before it becomes effective,
assuming all goes well, that is a compliance finding and no challenge
filed. That's the reason that staff has said, no, it's not appropriate to
have the rezone considered at the same time. None of these here are
small scale amendments so they're in that same vein, that you will not
have a companion rezone before you.
The purpose of the plan amendment is to establish the
parameters. The growth management plan is required to establish the
-- the land uses allowed, the intensities and the densities allowed. It
does not have to get into the level of detail, as some amendments do,
and historically we have done in this county, to get into the -- the level
of detail of specific access locations or prohibitions on heights of -- of
buildings and setback requirements. Again, in some cases we have and
there's no prohibition on that but it is not necessary. It is not a
requirement. Again, the primary parameter is the intensity of the land
uses, what types of uses are allowed, perhaps a square footage cap
because that's part of the intensity and then also, if it's residential, the
number of units per acre.
I hope that's helpful.
Page 56
.- I"~ I
January 6, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: You've mentioned that this is the first
hearing. What is our calendar; first hearing, second hearing, Board of
County Commissioners, and then transmittal?
MR. WEEKS: The County Commissioners will hold their
transmittal hearing on January the 25th. Probably around June. I
would say probably June that you would be holding your adoption
hearings on these and then the Board to follow a few weeks later.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Very good.
Any other questions?
Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Margie.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh, I'm sorry.
Miss Student?
MS. STUDENT: And unlike the previous amendment, the small
scale, which is where you were recommending adoption, as Mr.
Weeks stated, this is transmittal and you just have the majority --
either the majority of those that are here rather than a majority of the
entire membership of the board. That's a difference that exists in
special ec. So, I wanted to put that on the record that there is a
difference because this is transmittal.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And the typical motion will be a
recommendation to forward with approval or denial to the Board of
County Commissioners?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, that's -- that's correct.
And also for purposes -- you have several individual petitions
here and the way we've done this in the past for purposes of voting
when we've had differences to many elements is I think on the
individual petitions we've actually taken a vote. When we've just had
staff ones that involve different elements, there's been a straw vote at
the end of each element with the motion to approve at the end. So,
either way the chair wants to handle it, I think it might be more
convenient, however, to take a vote at the end of each one of these
Page 57
January 6, 2004
since most of them are the individual petitions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll proceed in that manner.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, you have a question.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: David, what kind of advertising
was done for these Growth Management Plan Amendments?
MR. WEEKS: The -- the actual advertisement is a full-page
legal ad in the Naples Daily News.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Was there any notification of
surrounding property owners that -- within a radius kind of like we
have in the LDC, which is an issue that this panel has asked to have
implemented? I guess it never went anywhere but -- so, there's
nothing like that that you know of?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. The only -- the statutory requirement is a
quarter page legal ad based upon previous recommendations to this
commission that changed about a year or two ago to a full-page ad
with a map specifically identifying the loca -- well, generally
identifying the location of each of the petitions with an arrow pointing
to the site and a petition number and that corresponds with the text of
that petition number that gives a very brief -- similar to the title in
your -- your staff report, a title explanation of what the petition is
about.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, unless the public was able to
decipher that one-page ad and catch it when it ran, they're not going to
be aware of what's being said here today.
MR. WEEKS: That's probably a fair statement.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, this -- this
Board did recommend a change in the Land Development Code to
conduct a neighborhood information meeting type of activity or a
meeting associated with comp plan amendments. As is done now with
any rezoning, the Board did direct staff to amend -- make that
Page 58
January 6, 2004
amendment and that will be part of the amendment packet for the
spring cycle this year.
So, it is not in -- it is not in place and is -- is yet to be developed
because, as you well know, we do this on two cycles per year and the
Spring Cycle Amendments are just being put together now, which
you'll -- won't be coming due for final approval until sometime in
June. I have a date but you don't need that now. But -- but -- so that I
just want to make, for the record, for the Board to understand that your
-- your petition was heard by the Board of County Commissioners and
the changes will be forthcoming but do not impact this -- this
amendment cycle.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And just to clarify the calendar although
you're expecting that advertising to be procedurally changed in June,
that will not occur in time for the second hearing on these items, so
they will not have onsite advertising.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. We -- these were under the
current procedures that exist, as Mr. Weeks said. Basically, it's an
advertisement in the Naples Daily News that publicly proclaims the
intended change to the -- the Future Land Use Element or the Future
Land Use Map or the Growth Management Plan. But beyond that,
there's no other notification process.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anything that would prevent a
petitioner in a spirit of good will and public interest of providing site
advertising so that at some future hearing that potential philosophical
objection could be addressed even though there is absolutely, clearly,
no regulatory requirement?
MR. SCHMITT: I -- I see none, and if that's something this
panel wishes to suggest to an applicant prior to the adoption hearing, I
-- I guess they could -- there's nothing that would mandate it but it's
certainly a suggestion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Purely at their discretion.
MR. SCHMITT: I don't know if you want to comment on that.
Page 59
-_._~---
January 6, 2004
MR. WEEKS: The only -- specific comment I was going to
make was the next available cycle, unless it gets closed, which we --
staff probably will -- will ask for so that we don't have concurrent
private sector amendments while we're going through the massive
EAR amendment process. The next cycle would be in 2006 so the
LDC Amendment would be in place by that time regarding the
neighborhood information meeting. Even if the 2005 cycle is open, the
submittal date is in April, we don't -- we don't have the hearings
typically until the fall or as late as now or -- or even later, so there --
there would again be time for those amendments to be in effect to
require the -- the meetings to occur.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: But for our cycle that we're in with the --
a determination hearing in June at the petitioner's option, they -- they
could consider onsite advertising before our adoption hearing?
MR. WEEKS: Yes. It would have to be a -- a choice--
CHAIRMAN BUDD: A personal choice.
MR. WEEKS: -- to do so as opposed to a regulatory
requirement.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Absolutely.
Mr. Strain, you had additional questions?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is this considered one transmittal
package?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, it is.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know that there's a Growth
Management Initiative being proposed by DCA? And one of the
complaints that DCA is trying to fix, and I'll read two sentences.
Present law limits local governments, two adoptions per year but
does not specify a limitation on proposed amendments. Some local
governments transmit multiple proposals, then adopt all in one
package thus frustrating public participation by confusing citizens to
try to follow the process.
Are we doing that?
Page 60
~>~",~,,,,"_.._<..,...,..<_..~.
January 6, 2004
MR. WEEKS: I don't think so. I -- I think what they may be
referring to is having transmittals on different dates. For example, a
transmittal hearing today and then have another one a month from
now, and yet when it comes time for adoption, adopt them all together.
Weare today and have historically done these all in one package, so
it's one set of hearings, not spread out amongst various dates.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other preliminary procedural
questions?
We'll start with our first Growth Management Plan item, which is
CP-2004, a petition to modify the urban residential fringe subdistrict
to allow affordable housing density bonus on the east side of Collier
Boulevard, south of Davis Boulevard.
Mr. Y ovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Good morning. For the record,
Rich Y ovanovich, representing the petitioner.
The petitioner today is the San Marino Joint Venture, and that is
a joint venture between Waterways Joint Venture, which is a private
sector developer that you've seen proj ects for before, and Habitat for
Humanity for Collier County.
With me today are Richard Davenport, who's with Waterways,
Sam D'Urso, who's with Habitat for Humanity, Dwight Nadeau with
RW A, who is the planner on the project, and Reed Jarvi with Vanasse
and Daylor, who is the transportation consultant.
This is a -- I would say the -- probably the first joint venture
between Habitat and a -- and a public developer to where they're
coming together under a joint venture. They've acquired the land.
They want to go forward and build a proj ect that will have market rate
housing in it as well as Habitat for Humanity housing in it. The
property is located -- it is located on the east side of Collier
Boulevard, about a mile and a half south of the Davis
Boulevard-Collier Boulevard intersection, and about a mile and a half
Page 61
January 6, 2004
north of the Rattlesnake Hammock-Collier Boulevard intersections.
In green, that's the 196 acres that's before you today. The portion
in orange is the property, approximately 40 acres, that has already
been developed within the existing San Marino PUD. And as your
staff report points out, there's an existing PUD on the project that
would -- that allow 352 residential units and a golf course. The request
today is to include this 196 acres in the comprehensive plan provision
that would allow this property to come in and ask for a rezone to go --
to go above the one-and-a-half-unit per acre base density if affordable
housing is included.
By way of history, about a year or so ago, a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment was brought to the Board that would have allowed any
property within the urban residential fringe to request affordable
housing density bonus. The Board of County Commissioners preferred
to look at it on a property-by-property basis, so they adopted text that
would allow for an up to six-unit-per-acre density bonus for at that
point -- at that time a 55-acre parcel. We're asking to add to that
55-acre parcel our 196 acres.
We have provided an analysis as if we are asking for the full
six-unit-per-acre density bonus. That's what we have to do because
that's what the text theoretically would allow us to come in and ask for
is the full six-unit-per-acre density bonus. I want to point out a couple
of things about the existing text and then I want to give you some of
the specifics of what's going to happen when we come through later.
The existing text has some more stringent requirements for the
urban residential fringe than exists in the current LDC if you were
outside the urban fringe and you used the standard affordable housing
density bonus matrix. It's more restrictive on our piece of property
than it would be if you were in a -- the regular urban area in two
respects.
One, if you were to use the regular matrix and provide 30 percent
affordable -- very low affordable housing and it was for sale, you can
Page 62
,.""---,-_.,~~-,,
._~,_..--.."~,.,-_..,..~.,._..-
January 6, 2004
get a density bonus of up to seven units per acre. We're capped at six
units per acre. We can't ask for more than six units per acre. If we
were regular urban area, we could ask for seven units per acre. So, the
comp plan language already is more restrictive than you would find in
the general urban area.
Second, it requires that 30 percent of the units, the bonus units,
have to be affordable. Under the matrix -- and I'll give you an example
because -- for what we're coming through. Under the matrix, that
percentage could be much lower and I think it will help by giving you
an example of what we're -- if this Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
approved what we're going to be coming through with in the future
with a -- with a rezone. And your staff record alluded to the fact that
we have environmental issues, so we're never going to achieve the
maximum of six units per acre. If this is approved, we'll be coming
through with a project that would ask for four density bonus units. So,
on the 196 units -- 196 acres, we'll be asking for 785 units. That's a
density of four units per acre.
Of those 785 units, 236 of them will be affordable serving the
very low category, which is the -- which is, I believe, 50 percent or
less of the median income. So, that's the -- the lowest of the affordable
categories. We'll be serving that category. 549 of those units will be
market rate.
If we were in the rural area and we were applying the matrix, we
would only be required to provide ten percent of the 785 units to get a
four-unit-per-acre density bonus. But since we're in this -- we're in this
Comprehensive Plan designation, we're still required to provide 30
percent. So, it's a more restrictive and -- and I would say more
favorable to providing affordable housing than the existing restrictions
and regulations that apply in the urban residential fringe district.
I'll just quickly, since I brought up the topic of what we're going
to come forward with, that -- again, that's a four-unit-per-acre request
on the 196 acres. The overall proj ect density, if you wanted to include
Page 63
January 6, 2004
the San Marino portion of the project that's already been developed,
which we're not asking to have eligible for density bonus, the project
density would be 4.8 units per acre. Under the urban residential fringe
density bonus language that already exists, we could theoretically ask
for seven-and-a-halfunits on the entire 235. We're not doing that.
We're asking for a density bonus of four units on the 196 acres that's
not developed, but the overall project density, just so people would
understand, would be 4.8 units per acre, less than the maximum
threshold of what could be asked for.
I think there's no question that Collier County is -- is lacking in
providing affordable housing for the very low income categories,
especially owner occupied affordable housing. The comp plan
provision that we're asking to be subjected to requires that we provide
30 percent of the bonus unit as affordable. It requires that they be
owner occupied and we're going to be providing to -- providing those
units to the very low income category.
Your staff has recommended approval of this project. Your staff
has analyzed all of the major infrastructure issues; roads, water and
sewer, and has found that we are in compliance and do not
significantly impact the major infrastructure. They have recommended
that you all forward this to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval. Weare requesting that you follow your
staffs recommendation.
I'm going to ask Mr. D'Urso to -- or Dr. D'Urso to speak for a
minute, and then after he's done, we'll be available to answer any
questions you may have regarding our proposal.
DR. DURSO: Good morning. For the record, I'm Dr. Sam
Durso.
It's my honor to serve as president of Habitat for Humanity of
Collier County. For the past 12 years, my wife and I have served as
full-time volunteers as advocates for affordable housing and building
of affordable housing in Collier County.
Page 64
...__._>.~,..'"""'''"
January 6, 2004
Habitat for Humanity has now built over 700 homes in Collier
County. 600 of those have been built in the last 12 years under my
direction. Weare the main provider of owner occupied affordable
housing in this county. This past year alone we built 115 homes in
Collier County for the working poor. This makes us the number one
Habitat affiliate in the world. We should be proud of that. The
number two Habitat affiliate only built 88 homes, so we're 27 homes
higher than the second largest producer in the country.
The need for affordable housing in this county gets worse and
worse. As much as we've done, there's still a tremendous need for
affordable housing in this county. The Naples Daily News today has
an interesting article on growth management. You all should read it,
but at the end of the article it says that Collier County has already
missed the boat on affordable housing. And in Lee County they're
saying -- everybody in Lee County that needs affordable housing is
going to be going to Charlotte County. For years we've been saying
everybody in Collier County is going to Lee County. But read that
article. It's very, very interesting.
We've accomplished a great deal. We need to continue --
continue the battle. The increasing cost of land makes the situation
much worse. The county has spent a great deal of time and money
recently improving the roads, but certainly not enough time in our
opinion on affordable housing. The lack of affordable housing greatly
exacerbates the road situation. Most of the people working in the
service industry in this county cannot afford to live here. They must
drive many, many miles to get to work. This aggravates the road
situation and this is not taken into consideration when we do traffic
counts on specific projects.
But what I'm trying to tell you is that our proj ect is going to
improve the road situation by getting people living in affordable
houses much, much closer to the jobs. Recently the Board of County
Commissioners adopted a policy of a not -- not allowing any density
Page 65
January 6, 2004
bonus for affordable housing in the coastal zones, south of 41 and
west of Airport Road. This obviously puts greater pressure in the
other areas of the county.
In the TDR program, which you folks talk about, there is no
adequate density bonus for affordable housing and there won't be one
considered for -- for a number of years. So, we can't build out there
either. So, it leaves very few areas in the county where affordable
housing can be built. We do build some quite a bit in Immokalee but
we need to continue building some homes closer to the urban area.
The San Marino PUD is one of those areas. This development
could set a precedent for affordable housing. The for-profit
developers here have to be commended. They're the first ones that
have come forth willing to partner with Habitat. There is a risk for
them doing that. They're going to build market rate homes right next
to Habitat homes. It may be harder for those to sell. So, I -- I
commend them for their -- for their willingness to do this.
Weare a 30 percent partner of this venture. We put up 30
percent of the money for this venture. Obviously before we did that,
we talked to the staff and we talked to at least four of the County
Commissioners because we're -- Habitat already has invested over two
and a half million dollars in this project. But we think the need for
affordable housing in this area is great and we're willing to take the
risk. This is actually a good example of inclusionary zoning which
we've talked about and nobody's been willing to do it, but this is
inclusionary zoning. Most who come here before you are asking you
for approvals that will help them financially. I am here not asking for
anything for myself. I am here asking for help for the working poor of
this county. I've committed the last 12 years helping those folks. I
hope to continue doing it for the rest of my life. I hope to be here
many, many times before you asking for zoning approvals.
With your continued help in approving our subdivisions, we can
make substandard housing socially, morally and politically
Page 66
'^' -. .,.,-,. .-- ·_~·._~<_'_","e_·· '-""~"~---'-"",-,_""""",,._. '1'" ...... _~.."'" ....,
January 6, 2004
unacceptable. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments from the petitioner
presentation?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I think the staff report was very
thorough. If you have any specific questions of the consultants, we're
here to answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions of the petitioner?
Miss Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Rich, tell me again where the 55
acres IS.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's -- well, the entire --
COMMISSIONER CARON: They're behind --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- project --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- six.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the -- no, no. There's the -- the
whole San Marino PUD, which is out there today, is 235 --
COMMISSIONER CARON: 235. 40 of --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: 40 of those acres is the orange.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is in orange, right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And 196 acres is --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- is what is in front of you today.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Well, what's the--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know how to --
MR. SCHMITT: Dyslexic and disoriented.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No. What you had up there was
fine. Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This will show you that the apartments
are underneath.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Oh, so that's the 40, so the
little -- just to the north, is that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The north and the east.
Page 67
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER CARON: The 55?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's no -- I don't know what 55 you're
talking about.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, in -- in our packets, it says
property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, six-tenths of a
mile from Rattlesnake Hammock, da da da, and then it describes it
forever and it says, containing 55 --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a -- that's a -- that's -- I'm sorry.
That's the confusing part. When I told you a year or so ago, they came
through with a general Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the
entire urban residential fringe area, they settled on the 55 acres. You
-- you want to know where that 50 --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not my property. That's a different
piece of property . We're asking to be -- the second piece of property
under that section that will be eligible for the density bonus text above
the -- the legal description.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But they will fall under this if we
approve this.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They've already -- they're already done.
They've already been approved.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Now they're going through the rezoning
portion. We're asking to be eligible under the comp plan to get to the
rezoning portion.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I have a comment to
make and a question, too, the first being this.
Is it -- am I right to say that this affordable housing situation, 85
percent of them are already in East Naples or the fact it's a little higher
Page 68
January 6, 2004
than 85 percent?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, a lot of it Dr. Durso will answer
now.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay.
DR. DURSO: Okay. First of all, we have to define what is East
Naples, okay. This property is not in East Naples.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It is not?
DR. DURSO: Not -- not -- well, what -- what do you -- I don't
know what you -- what is your boundary of East Naples?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well--
DR. DURSO: This property is.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 951 is certainly in East
Naples.
DR. DURSO: Okay. This property is Jim Coletta's district, in
County Commissioner Coletta's district.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay.
DR. DURSO: Okay. But Habitat for Humanity has built -- has
700 homes so far. We've built 350 in Immokalee and 350 in what you
would call East Naples. Okay. We have 190 in Naples Manor and we
have 110.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're taking this on a
personal basis. I'm not --
DR. DURSO: No, no. I know that. I -- I don't know --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm talking about all of the
affordable housing. Unfortunately, there is a ditto.
DR. DURSO: Yeah. I'm only talking about habitats.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that. That's what
I'm -- that's not my discussion because you and I have had this
discussion before.
DR. DURSO: Right.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But I'm saying over all, there
are 85 percent of affordable housing is -- in fact we took a count on
Page 69
January 6, 2004
that in East Naples.
DR. DURSO: I haven't seen that statistic before. I don't -- I'm
not sure I believe it. I mean, I can show that applicants for Habitat
homes and we get 1300 applicants a year --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right.
DR. DURSO: -- the ones that get the homes in the Naples area
all come from Naples. So, in other words, they're already in East
Naples. And what I'm telling you is we're taking them from lousy
housing and putting them into good housing in East Naples, but they
all come from East Naples. That's what -- they're already there.
Okay. That's where they come from.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But, again, that was not -- I'm
not arguing about that. I am stating that as a fact that the amount of
affordable housing in all of Naples is in East Naples, 85 percent of it.
DR. DURSO: I -- I --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And we got -- I mean, I didn't
bring them but, I mean, that's the --
DR. DURSO: I'm not sure -- I'm not doubting you. I'd like to
see that because I think there's more in Immokalee than there is -- I
think it's about an equal amount in Immokalee as well so -- I -- I only
know of -- I can only think of other -- a few other projects in Naples __
in East Naples. I -- I'm not sure. Let me talk to you later about that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we've had that debate before and I
think people who live in Golden Gate and Immokalee and certainly
we've done some projects recently for -- farther north on 951.
I don't know -- I don't think that that's a -- and I wish Cormac
were here. He could better answer that question but I -- I think there's
-- it's been spread out pretty well, getting spread out more.
MR. SCHMITT: And just for the record, certainly with the
rezonings that are on the books right now for the -- what I will call
upscale developments along the East Trail, it certainly is going to
skew that -- any type. In regards to skew it, the figures for low -- low
Page 70
January 6, 2004
income housing in East Naples, meaning that there's a lot of high
income -- or high upscale-type of developments that are going to be
coming in along the East Trail.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What I was trying to say is
that we did want to see it spread a lot, a lot over the county, rather
than where it has been -- it's being spread now.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner for
their team?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, I've got quite extensive
questions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm waiting for everybody else to
finish.
Richard, you're looking at a total including what's on this PUD of
1138 units based on what you now say you would want as density in
lieu of what the GMP Amendment is asking for. It's almost 1200 units
across the street nearly from Wal-Mart. That's pretty intense for 951.
The matrix, you made a point of saying that if it was applied in the
urban area, the matrix would give you a lot more density. That's fine,
but what if the matrix was applied in the area you're in? How much
more density would it give you?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you have to keep in mind that the
-- first of all, without this comp plan amendment, affordable housing
is not allowed in the urban residential fringe.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. But you're using the matrix
which --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you were to use the matrix which --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- and then there is an issue--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- let's talk about it --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let's use it. Let's use it.
We're providing very low owner occupied units. We're going to have
Page 71
January 6,2004
three or more bedrooms. That would -- that's generally put this up
here. There's a -- there you go. It's a two-step process. The first
matrix says I score a five based upon that, so I go down to the next
number that says five and I go across and it says when you get to 30
percent of those homes being eligible for meeting that category, I
would get a density bonus of seven units per acre.
The reality is, on what I just asked, I'm asking for four when we
come through. I would only under matrix have to provide ten percent
affordable housing under the matrix. But because I'm in the urban
residential fringe, I have to provide 30 percent. So, that's a 20 percent
increase by being in the urban residential fringe.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, you're going to be using the
very low --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Are these going to be
integrated with the -- with that -- with the rest of the project or are
they going to be isolated?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- I don't know how you define the term
isolated. There's going to be --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's going to be a common entrance.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. There's going to be a common
entrance and then you're going to have the Waterways proj ect, which
is going to be a town-home project. You've seen their projects before.
Town-home project, and then you're going to veer off and you're
going to have the Habitat community that's going to be two-unit
buildings.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, two-unit buildings.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Two -- they're going to be -- well, I mean
-- I don't want to use the word "duplex" because that has a
connotation, but that's essential what they are and they're going to be
Page 72
January 6, 2004
owner occupied, each -- there's going to be an owner in the park
occupying one unit and an owner occupying the second unit.
So the--
,
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, are they multi family or are
they single family?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's always an interesting
question when you go through the platting and site planning process,
but the bottom line is they're going to own -- they're going to own the
dirt and they're going to own their unit.
MR. SCHMITT: Multi family, very simple. How's that? I'll
answer it for him.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well--
MR. SCHMITT: It's the same product -- it's a similar product.
It's a -- it's a duplex that's been approved with garage --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm -- I'm familiar with that kind
of product.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we referred to it as basically it's
singlefamily owner occupied.
MR. SCHMITT: Single family owner occupied --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Attached. Single family owner occupied
attached.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: In order to qualify --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: A mouthful, huh?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Affordable housing density bonus
basically is what you're asking for, which --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I thought that product had to be
integrated with the other products so there would be no differentiation
between the two. I mean, you're putting this in a separate enclave on
its own. Isn't that what you're doing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, it's going to be a separate enclave.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And Cormac is not here, is
Page 73
"-............--_.,..--~.........."..-..,...._,
January 6,2004
he? He's the expert on this.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Strain, I'd recommend, if -- if you would,
having talked to Mr. DUrso about this, I know his preference in
regards to Habitat and how they manage their property may alleviate
some of your concerns in regards to how this planned development
would be completed.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I -- my only thought was that I -- I
remember in the affordable housing density program that the units
were to be integrated with the other units in the project, so somebody
looking at it couldn't tell one from the other.
In fact, on Bristol Pines, which was another project of Richard's,
they specifically addressed that and agreed to do it and I just was
wondering if that is what's going to be done here.
MR. SCHMITT: That is in fact correct. By the land
development code in regards to the -- if you were going to get an
affordable housing density bonus agreement, that it in fact should be
indistinguishable from -- the affordable top product should be
indistinguishable from the -- the market product.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are they asking for an approval
housing density bonus here?
MR. SCHMITT: This is -- yes, in this case it would be and --
and -- but, yes, it also would be a separate area in regards to the
Habitat location.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
DR. DURSO: Let me answer why we -- the units will be
indistinguishable. I mean, they -- our units will look as nice as their
units, if you want to use those words. The reason we want them
separate is because we may not have some of the amenities that they
have and our homeowners cannot afford to pay the higher -- higher --
higher, you know, association fees. So, our association fees will be
lower by us having our separate -- a separate enclave.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I wasn't worried about if they're
Page 74
-, .~~'~~,_..-~.~^.
January 6, 2004
going to be nice or not. I'm assuming that they will be.
DR. DURSO: All right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But the appearance will be two --
the two-unit buildings will be the affordable housing units and the
four-unit buildings will be the --
DR. D'URSO: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- Waterways units.
DR. DURSO: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: And in fact when this comes back in the PUD,
they would have to identify that as a deviation from the current
affordable housing density bonus standard.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
The TIS that you provided had multifamily. Now, I know you're
not doing multifamily or you are but it's not going to be called
multifamily, it's going to be called single family. I'm not sure how that
falls under the trip generation rate, but they also -- the TIS seemed to
conclude that the impacts would be insignificant or -- or not have a
major impact on the road system. And it's-- goes back to the road
Issue.
The intersection of Davis and 951 and the area around 1-75 is not
a good area to be driving through at any time. The fact is it's a
deficient area. It will -- it's deficient now and it will be deficient for --
until somewhere. I don't know when it's going to be corrected. You're
going to be putting a lot of people into that intersection and I at some
point will ask Don Scott what he plans to do to make that intersection
acceptable because I know, Richard, that you won't have that answer.
You're going to have a significant impact on Collier Boulevard
northbound of five percent and on Davis Boulevard westbound at 4.3
percent.
Now, that's based on using the multifamily trip generation rate
which we know single family is higher. Based on those rates and the
significant impact, I can tell you on a deficient area like the area north
Page 75
January 6, 2004
of Davis Boulevard on 951, they're already failed and I'm just
wondering how you're thinking that's going to be capable of handling
this.
And, Reed, I'm sorry. You were sitting right there. You can do
just as well as Don -- well, nobody can do as well as Don Scott but --
MR. JARVI: For the record, Reed Jarvi. I'm a civil engineer, a
professional engineer, with the firm of Vanasse Daylor.
In this particular case, I did not prepare the traffic impact
statement. I have read it and -- and -- and I will address some of your
comments on it.
First off, you talked about being multifamily and the trip --
excuse me -- the TIS versus we're talking now a single family attached
versus a townhouse-type development. Without knowing the exact
numbers but realize these are ranges of -- of approximately, a single
family home generates roughly ten trips an hour -- excuse me -- ten
trips a day or -- or one trip an hour, if we want to look at it that way.
A multifamily is roughly in the high sixes, seven trips a day. And
when we get to the affordable housing, it -- it goes down direct --
directly from that.
I think when the -- this proj ect first came on to be as generic as
possible from a comp plan standpoint, the metro used the multifamily,
which is a -- would be a blended rate. What we'll do in the zoning end
of it, we will actually divide out the housing -- excuse me -- the -- the
low income housing proportion and the variant low income housing
proportion, if I remember right, goes to about 2.7 trips a day down
from ten.
So, it's a significant difference. So, when you blend them with
the low income housing and the multifamily housing of the
townhouses that are provide -- or are anticipated for Waterways, it
will actually be below the multifamily rate when we do the blending --
when we do a delineation of what it is. So, I think the trip generation
will actually be less than what's shown now, and then if -- if we go
Page 76
~._.~._........-.-' ."...m~_
January 6, 2004
from the six units to the four units as has been talked about, it would
even be less again, so for that purpose -
The project has looked at -- or let me just go to the AUIR, which
was recently approved in December by both this body and the County
Commissioners.
Collier Boulevard, CR-951, Davis to Rattlesnake Hammock,
which is where this project will directly access is, right now it says it's
a Level Service C with the four-lane conditions scheduled or
anticipated to be Level Service B when it becomes six laning in a
couple of years. North of Davis Boulevard, it is currently scheduled--
excuse me -- calculated to be an E with an existing deficiency. D is the
standard as you probably well know. And there is a program well off
to -- to improve that. I mean it's years off.
We do not, if I remember right, have a significant impact to
Davis Boulevard north -- or excuse me -- Collier Boulevard North.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You -- you don't think that people
would be using I-75 that live in this project?
MR. JARVI: I didn't -- I didn't say that. I said a significant. By
a definition of the comp plan, a significant impact would be three
percent or five percent --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Three percent or greater?
MR. JARVI: -- depending on which link it is. I'm saying it
wasn't a significant impact.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If I remember the TIS, I think it
said 25 percent is what you expect to go north of Davis. I'll double
check it as we go through our questions. I would just be surprised if
that's all the people that went north of Davis.
MR. JARVI: North of Davis, it did say 25 percent.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. JARVI: That's correct.
And then Davis -- if I can find the right -- Davis -- excuse me --
Davis Boulevard right now is anticipated to be at a Level Service D
Page 77
-----...-
~,...<O-.....--..-"'~._,_. ..
January 6, 2004
presently with trips remaining. It's not deficient at this present time.
And that would be from the recent interim improvements that the
county did a year or so ago.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, the schedule would be
deficient in 2009.
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The -- that's -- I have some other
traffic questions that I'll -- I need to ask of Don when we get to him so
MR. JARVI: Sure.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- thank you.
Richard, one of the things that puzzled me in the references to the
matrix --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- you have said, and I want to
make sure you understand -- or, no -- I understand I should say -- you
understand everything -- I understand what you're saying. The
affordable housing units going in there, you're saying, are going to be
for the very low income.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. I--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Because this -- the staff
report said they're going to be for low or moderate income, which does
generate a different density, but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're absolutely correct. It does.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So, the staff report, I guess
they didn't realize that you guys were going to do a very low income
there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. They did not realize it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Your water management
permit is not for this project. Are you aware of that? It's for a golf
course.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
Page 78
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's one attached, pretty
detailed. I don't know if -- the imperious area is going to change
greatly in the water management report. I'm not sure if you guys have
gotten through that yet or going into it at this point.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't even know if we have started it
yet, but we -- we know we have to deal with the Water Management
District.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My last question, I guess, is Don
Scott. I'd like to know more about the Davis Boulevard -- north of
Collier and Davis Boulevard west of Collier.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if I may, just kind of traffic related,
and Dr. Durso whispered this into my ear. We -- we believe that the
people who are going to be served by -- by the affordable housing are
going to work at the new hospital, they're going to work at, you know,
the W al- Mart in that area, so they're going to be south of -- south of
the Davis Boulevard intersection. That doesn't mean that, you know,
the market rate won't be going up on Davis, but just that's going to be
some of the housing for employers in that area, too.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You know, with all those
employers that are going to be coming on line as the hospital gets
built, what is your anticipated build-out date of this project?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, I mean, knock on wood
and I get through the process, as we would hope, '08.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All right. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner?
If we can hear the staff report, please? Whoever, and then we will get
Don Scott. We'll have the introductory comments and then we'll zero
in with Mark and Mr. Scott.
MS. JOURDAN: Good morning. For the record, Jean Jourdan,
Comprehensive Planning.
As a result of this amendment, there -- and that was based on the
six dwelling units per acre. There were no significant impacts to
Page 79
"" ._-'~-------~.'._>.-
-".,..........,,'""". ~ r- -........."".-...
January 6, 2004
public facilities as defined in the CIE. Staff received no
correspondence. The only objection that I'm aware of is a registered
speaker today.
Also, the school board will be performing an impact analysis and
will report at the adoption hearing any adjustments that may be
deemed -- that may be needed to accommodate this proj ect. Staff
recommends to board the Petition CP-2004-l to the BCC with the
recommendation of approval to transmit to the Department of
Community Affairs.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
Questions of staff?
Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask one. In the growth
management plan, we're supposed to provide 500 new affordable
housing units a year. How many did we provide last year? It wasn't
in the annual report.
MS. JOURDAN: No. I don't have that answer. I would have to
get that answer for you from the housing department.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you know how many we
provided from the year before that?
MS. JOURDAN: No, I sure don't.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain and Mr. Scott.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's about that deficient --
deficiency you currently have from -- on Collier Boulevard north to
Davis. The year that this traffic impact was based on was the year
2008, and I'd like to know what improvements do you think are going
to be in place by 2008 that are going to help that deficiency?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation and Planning.
The widening of Collier Boulevard between Dave -- actually, I
mean, south of -- possibly south of 41 up to through the interchange at
Page 80
--~'-"'-
,._.,.~...,....._-".__.-
January 6, 2004
I-75 for a six lane, four to six lanes, is programmed for 2006.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The start.
MR. SCOTT: The start in 2006, be done by 2008.
Also, Santa Barbara Extension south of Davis, between Davis and
Rattlesnake, which probably doesn't affect as much the traffic from
this development, but also affects the traffic coming from Lely that
uses 951 because, you know, the connection roadway between--
down at Lely will also be built at the same time or be done by the time
we have Santa Barbara open is 2007 for construction to start there and
done in 2009.
And then in addition, Davis itself, the widening, that was our
number one priority for federal and state funds, has now been
programmed in 2009-2010, done in the 2012 time frame. Now,
beyond that, there's a major intersection design that starts next year for
Davis and 951 that's looking at changing the ramps where they might
possibly come down, back, try to split out to Davis and the 951 traffic.
That's designed for -- it's not programmed beyond design, but design
is next year. I've had some conversations with FDOT about they're
actually looking at a simpler improvement that might be able to be
implemented faster, so I don't know exactly what will be entailed but
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But to summarize, the deficient
segment that you have currently will be corrected in 2008?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff?
Are there any advertised public speakers?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
The first speaker is Amy Taylor followed by Maureen Bonness.
Not this one? You're good? Maureen Bonness, followed by Joe
Bonness.
MS. BONNESS: My name is Maureen Bonness. I am the
Page 81
January 6, 2004
manager of the Willow Run Preserve. Willow Run is the quarry that
is immediately east and south of San Marino, and the area that all of
the eastern border there of the green part of San Marino borders along
our preserve.
It's a 200-acre preserve that has a conservation easement on
gratuity. In your report, the staff report, this side is vacant. And it's
actually a preserve.
And I would like to caution the developers at San Marino that our
preserve does have a prescribed burn plan so that whoever lives there
will have smoke probably in their yards maybe once a year or so. I
object to -- not to having affordable housing next to me. I object to
the number of units that this project is asking for.
All of the areas around it have 1.5 units per acre or less, and that
includes San Marino. San Marino, that orange part there was -- that is
the total density of that whole parcel, the orange and the green
combined at 1.5 units. So, they built out at 1.5 units and now they're
coming back to ask for more. So, I'm objecting to it under the
appropriateness of change clause.
Okay. The adjacent properties all have 1.5 units and that
includes all Forest Glen across the street, also San Marino, and that's
probably what will happen with Willow Run. At this density right now
with just those apartments there, I have problems with trespassing in
my preserve, and so I'm envisioning, you know, another thousand
units and however many kids that includes and how many people want
to go fishing in the lake, et cetera. So, I have problems now and I
envision there will be more problems with trespassing on the preserve.
I understand the reason for encouraging affordable housing and I
have no problems with that. I have been a volunteer for Habitat for
Humanity. That's fine with me. What I don't like is the numbers. I
know that Policy 5.1 states that affordable housing will be distributed
equitively (sic) throughout the County and to have a thousand of those
units in one spot, I think, is too many. I didn't realize that affordable
Page 82
January 6, 2004
housing also allows for the market value mixed in with it so --
environmentally I believe it is inappropriate to have that many units
on that parcel. All of the parcel is forested lands and much of it is
wetland.
When they got their permits for the golf course, they had to go
through a formal consultation, formal Section 7 consultation for its
endangerment of both panthers and wood storks and they will have to
go through that process again. From my experience, having walked on
that property and know what it looks like and knowing a bit about
environmental permitting and some of the policies that are existing, I
would estimate that about one-quarter of that parcel is buildable
because of the requirements for mitigation and retaining vegetation, et
cetera.
So, that gives you a quarter of 235 acres. It's about 60 acres or
so. Since 20 are already utilized, that gives them about 40 acres or so
that they can deal with. Six units per acre on those 40 acres to me
sounds great. Go ahead and give them 240 units of affordable housing
at six units per acre on the developable part. But the concept of taking
six units per acre times 196 acres now to get that thousand -- over a
thousand and now you're going to concentrate that onto their available
perhaps 40 acres of developable -- or building land? Now, you're
looking at numbers that are over 20 units per acre, and to me that is
going to be -- have an effect on the environment. Even if they only --
if they have 50 acres and they're only asking for 775 units, that's still
15 units per acre.
The other issue I'd like to bring up is the TDR program. I object
to San Marino's avoidance of the TDR program. I would like to see
the TDR program work. I would like to see some of the units from
areas east of me be used for developing that part of San Marino.
And, so, I'd like to see that TDR program work, but under this
situation, it's not going to. And there are special units that are
designated -- there's quite a few TDR units that can be used in the
Page 83
January 6, 2004
urban fringe area that are designated just for that purpose. And I
believe the speaker after me is going to talk to that -- talk about that.
So, in summary, I object to the proposed amendment as it is. I
recommend perhaps 300 units of affordable -- fine with me. Make
them all very low income, affordable units. Make them Habitat for
Humanity, six units per acre. And any density above that, I would
recommend be required to utilize the TDR program.
Thank you.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Were you aware that the current
PUD held a -- that property for a public golf course? That's what it
was culled out.
MS. BONNESS: Right. And that's what I was expecting to be
built there. And I've seen their permit and I watched that process and I
know the consultants that worked on that process.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. BONNESS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
MR. BONNESS: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Joe
Bonness. I'm -- I represent the Willow Run Quarry, which is the
neighbor to the south and to the east of this project.
I am, you know, upset with what I see here. The San Marino
PUD originally took all the units that were available and has taken and
clustered them up in the San Marino apartments area up in the front.
The petitioner now is asking to be able to take an area that has had the
units taken off of it and go for major increases in -- in density. It's
talking about the marketplace units that he's planning on doing. He is
looking for a better than a four-fold increase in what would have been
the marketplace density that could be placed on there from the TDR
program.
This area is in the urban fringe and I have property that's out in
the rural fringe. It's in what we would call the one mile zone.
Page 84
January 6, 2004
According to the last LDC amendments and under, oh, let's see, that
Section 2.6.39.4B, the transfer of -- to the urban residential fringe,
TDR credits may be transferred for the -- to the RFMU sending lands
-- may be transferred from the M -- RFMU sending lands located
within one mile of the urban boundary into lands designated urban
residential fringe at a rate of one dwelling unit per acre. And this can
go into the urban fringe that would be allowed to be able to increase
their density from 1.5 to 2.5. That gives us sending values in that
one-mile fringe along the urban development line, a one unit per acre.
The area in which we're allowed to transfer our units to is only into the
urban fringe. The urban fringe is approximately eight square miles.
The one mile zone that we're talking about is six square miles.
So, it's basically a one-to-one transfer. Only the problem is that in the
urban fringe, you already have major developments that have taken up
the land mass. You have Winding Cypress, which is three square
miles, you have Forest Glen, which is another square mile, you have
the products that are going on in the Activities Center Number 7,
which is about a half of a square mile, so we end up down to having
only about four square miles left in which to transfer six square miles
of density.
They're -- right now that makes for a surplus of close to 1500
units of -- of transferable development rights that can't be transferred
to any place. We have been giving these transferable development
rights out in this area as a means to be able to replace our value that
we have lost through the rural fringe amendment. Only the problem
is, is that now we do not have any place to transfer them to. You have
given us the ability to be able to transfer them but there's no location
to transfer them to and it is disappearing fast. By allowing this -- this
item to go ahead without using transferable development rights, you
are even lessening our area in which we can be able to send our
transferable development rights. Basically, you're telling developers
that in the urban fringe we do not have to even use transferable
Page 85
,- f
January 6, 2004
development rights and that receiving area for the -- for the sending
area and it is basically going to scuttle the transferable development
rights.
It doesn't work at all with the comp plan. For what I can see this
plan -- this project, the 195 acres, should be able to use the
transferable development rights program, add in 195 acres as it is in
the comp plan at this point. They can also apply for a 50 percent
affordable housing bonus on that. That brings them up only to about
two hundred and -- or just under 300 units that they can put on there,
50 percent of affordable housing, and they would fall within -- in
what's happening and they would be able to use the transferable
development rights.
For them to be able to come in and put this in and put a four-fold
increase in their marketplace -- market price housing, then add in
affordable housing on top of it, that is a tremendous burden on the
neighborhood. It's also an extreme detractor from the -- the people in
the rural fringe, one mile zone there, and it is going to -- basically
going to scuttle the transferable -- transfer to the TDR program that is
available at this point.
I thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All right, sir. One question. You
obviously own some sending land--
MR. BONNESS: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- and can generate TDRs and
you're a willing seller --
MR. BONNESS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- from what I heard you say. Are
you telling me though that your sending lands are restricted only to
transfer to these properties?
MR. BONNESS: Yes. Under -- there is a -- a bonus that you get
for being in that one mile zone along the urban fringe that allows you
up to -- to transfer up to one unit per acre.
Page 86
-_.~~~---¥-_~----
.~_._,.._-~--""~,;",,,----.~,._->
January 6, 2004
Only the language says that it has to go into the urban fringe area.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BONNESS: If it has not been used as of -- to date, and I
don't think very many people are aware of it, but that was given to the
-- to that area as -- because it is closer in and is a higher valuable
properties than a lot of their urban fringe -- or rural fringe was at the
time. But at this point we're restricted in that we can only send those
TDRs into the urban fringe area.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
Any other speakers?
MR. SCHMITT: There are no other public speakers.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Richard, I've got one question.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I need to answer that last point because
he's -- he's incorrect. I think it's very important that he understands
that his TDRs can be transferred into any receiving area including the
urban fringe area, but he's not limited to only transferring his TDRs
toward the urban residential fringe area.
qI think that needs to be clarified because that's -- you know, I think
there's probably ten people in the room that will quickly jump up here
and confirm what I'm saying. And I didn't mean to interrupt you, Mr.
Strain, but while we were on that thought process I wanted to go
ahead and address that point first. And I have a few others, but I'll --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's go ahead with questions and we'll
have summary comments.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mine was just -- I want to know
who -- if you notified any of the properties in the area other than the
advertisement that was in the paper.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, but we -- we have no objection to a
voluntary -- going through the same type of zoning notification before
adoption.
And I -- I don't want to get into a lot of points brought up by the
Page 87
January 6, 2004
neighbor because those are kind of zoning level questions. I think the
analysis, their math, was a little off as far as what will ultimately come
forward on the zoning.
That's the danger you run into with comp plan amendments is
everybody assumes the worst-case scenario. We did an analysis on a
worst-case scenario. You will not see the worst-case scenario when
we come through with the zoning. I wish we could bring them
concurrent. I would be fine with bringing them concurrent and
waiting the 80 days for the comp plan amendment to be effective. I
wish we could bring them concurrent so people would have a better
idea of -- of ultimately where we're trying to go with the comp plan
amendment. But those are not the rules of the game. We're not asking
to quadruple our market rate numbers. If we were trying to quadruple
our market rate numbers, that will be probably 1400 units of market
rate. And we're talking a total of 785 new units of which 549 would be
market rate and 236 would be affordable.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So, that's more than double
though.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It does -- yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The whole area was only slated for
352 units. That's what was approved.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well--
COMMISSIONER CARON: And you've already built 350 --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No -- no question about that, but that's no
different -- if this were --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Then you -- now you have more
than doubled --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, but if it were -- if this were vacant
land -- let's forget that the units are even there. If this were vacant
land -- hang on -- I would be eligible to come in and ask on the full
235 acres for -- to be eligible for this density bonus.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
Page 88
January 6, 2004
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Okay? I'd come in and if -- and the
maximum number would be seven and a half. The one and a half
you're entitled to as a matter of right and the six. So, if you did seven
and a half times 235 acres, the number would be a lot larger than what
we're asking for. If you were to spread the bonus that we're asking for
over the full 235 acres, which I haven't done, because I thought that
that would be taking advantage of a fact that I shouldn't be taking
advantage of, my requested density is not even four units per acre of
density bonus. It's less because I'd have an additional 40 acres to count
towards my bonus. I -- I -- when I gave you my numbers, I was
giving it to you on a -- on a worst-case scenario of asking for -- on
just the land I'm trying to improve.
We're nowhere near the number of units we can ask for under the
-- I can't read that. Is that written on -- We could ask for 1762 total
units if this were vacant land, so we're not -- we're at 4.8. That's why I
threw the number in there. We're at 4.8 density including the 350
that's there. We're nowhere near the seven and a half units per acre
that -- that we could be asking for.
And that -- the board has said they want us to look on a
case-by-case basis. They didn't want the entire urban fringe,
residential fringe, to be eligible for up -- for affordable housing. They
wanted to look at it on a case-by-case basis to make sure that that
whole stretch did not become affordable housing. Now, there's
already a tremendous amount of development already out there that I
highly doubt will come in and ask to rip up existing golf courses and
the like to build housing. Could it happen? Sure. I don't think it will
happen.
But under our scenario, I think we are providing a tremendous
public service by partnering with Habitat for Humanity to provide for
this level of housing. And with -- as far as the prescribed burn issue,
we can let our residents know about that. I mean, we're happy to do
that. We're not looking to create any problems for our neighbors.
Page 89
" .......~""'~.~....,......--..-
January 6, 2004
Our -- our preserve area is going to actually match up with their
preserve area when we get into that level of detail and you'll see that at
the -- at the zoning stage.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for the petitioner?
Summary comments.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was it. That was kind of --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Durso.
DR. DURSO: I'd like to just make a last couple of comments.
You know, the issue of where affordable housing is in the county,
obviously I spend most of my time looking for land, trying to develop
land for affordable housing in the county, and we'll take land any
place we can get it, okay . We have bought a great deal of land over
the last five years, fortunately, and about half of it is in Immokalee
and half -- and the rest of it you -- you people know of -- of all of it.
It's in this area here, you know, somewhere around this area here. But
we can't find land any place else. We have one parcel of land off of
Immokalee Road that -- that we will build affordable housing.
You -- you certainly can't expect us to find land in Pelican Bay or
in downtown Naples. I mean, you know, we would like to spread
affordable housing all over the county. If -- if you can tell me how else
to do it besides what we're doing, please let me know. I mean, we're
doing the best we can at that and I think we do a good job at it. Okay.
I think this is just a great project and, you know, we -- we -- we would
really appreciate your approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
DR. DURSO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Have any summary staff comments?
MS. JOURDAN: Jean Jourdan for the record, Comprehensive
Planning Department.
I -- I just wanted to clarify on the language, low and moderate
income, and also where it says medium income as calculated annually
Page 90
--""'~~-~~---'-......--_....-.,-,
January 6, 2004
by the Department of Housing.
What that is, what this amendment is doing is actually adding
their legal description to this language that's already in place. Now,
they mentioned that they were going to provide low income, and if
you want to make sure that that is -- is adhered to, what you'll need to
do is either change the language now and limit it to that for their
specific parcel or you can do it at rezone. I just wanted to make sure
that was on the record.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I think they said they would
do very low.
MS. JOURDAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Very low is used in the LDC--
MS. JOURDAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- as a specific type, so --
MS. JOURDAN: But as the language reads right now it does not
adhere them to very low.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know, but what I'm trying to get
at, very low is a defined term in the LDC or it is a term that's used in
the LDC, so if they're volunteering to go very low, then that's what I'm
suggesting, if anything. That's what they should adhere to.
MS. JOURDAN: Correct. So, do you want staff to implement
that into the language now or are you going to address that at the
rezoning stage?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think when we get to a motion
stage today we might address it.
MS. JOURDAN: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Ifno further presentation, there's
no further questions, we'll close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion?
This would be a motion recommending either approval or denial
to the Board of County Commissioners in their transmittal to the
DCA.
Page 91
'···-·'·--···'_~""_b.,,~__"..__.
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Moved or denied? Which way?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make the motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Very good. I have a motion for
approval by Mr. Schiffer.
A second, please.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Vigliotti.
Discussion.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just -- I think the intensity to be
approved as it is presented today is extremely too high. I don't believe
that the deficiencies in the road system are at -- are -- are capable of
handling this. I don't agree with staffs opinion on that. And I just
can't go along with this quantity of units in that location under the
OPPA (sic) that was put on -- forth today. 1178 units on top of353
puts it up to 1528, I think.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a question if I can get
it.
Here was this property, land, all the whole land there and it went
into that PUD and offered -- got 352 units on all that land. Then they
built them. Well, didn't they use up the total use they had for that
land? How are they coming in now with land that's already been used
to accommodate 352 and now add new -- new areas to it?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein, is that addressed -- that
question addressed to the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, I'll make it to the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Y ovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Adelstein, you're absolutely correct,
but there's an affordable housing density bonus provision that exists
now in the urban fringe area that didn't exist then. I could take you to
Page 92
. -~'~_.~,~----_.
.. ~..._.~.~"'-~.._._~.-.
January 6, 2004
the history of that project if you want to know.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that part of it --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- but what is --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're asking -- we're asking simply
that we also be allowed to be able to be subjected to or subject to that
density bonus provision. We acknowledge that we've already used the
one and a half base units we're going to have today. We're saying to
come forward with a -- to get the bonus units as if the project weren't
there. You know, we're not trying to double count the one and a half
that's already there. We're already -- we've already used those up.
We're asking for a bonus of -- well, under the -- to be eligible, asking
for a bonus of six, I'm telling you the number is going to be four.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Again, as I said, it wasn't
available then. A lot of things we want today are here but a lot of
things we want today aren't here. You've already come to a situation
where you used all the land you had to do what you had to do. There
was no affordable housing, so you couldn't get involved with that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So, you've used it up. Now
you're saying, well, okay, even though I've used up all that land, I now
can come with affordable housing and I found that to be a contract
problem that is far more substantial in the fact that you have used what
you had. You had what you had at the time. You can't come into a
new area.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, the rules change. I
mean, when the rules change, you make other -- other properties
eligible for affordable housing, why -- why would you say, well, just
because this property only came through with a PUD a few years ago,
we've decided we're not going to apply the new rule.
I mean, we're just saying, hey, this is -- this is a worthwhile
project, apply your provision that is new to the code that didn't exist at
Page 93
-'-"""--~'----"-
January 6, 2004
the time to this piece of property. Yes, we're asking for additional
units.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand you are and I
understand the situation, but it seems to me that once you've used it up
and it wasn't available before, now that you've done it, you've used
your option. You don't get a second shot.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But, Rich, aren't you swapping a
golf course for affordable housing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, you know,
we closed the public hearing.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: It's a good point. We really just need to
discuss the motion. That's an excellent point, Mr. Abernathy.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We need a little
self-discipline.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further discussion on the motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me address it to Lindy.
Lindy, what they've done is they've opened up the land that the golf
course would have and the replacement is affordable housing, kind of
a nice thing.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion to approve.
Any further discussion?
We'll call the question. All those in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
Page 94
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Do you need a -- individuals?
Those in favor.
(Commissioners in favor raised their hands.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And those opposed?
(Commissioners opposed raised their hands.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Five three. Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, let me understand this. The
motion to approve 1178 additional units on 951 in this location has
just passed.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that there's a trade off, the
need for affordable housing makes it palatable.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, a problem I think
we're having is we've got to figure out where the front line on the
traffic is. I mean, I'm really trusting that concurrency system that
these -- this product won't come up line unless the road can take it.
What you're doing is you're saying though you just don't give people
the approval and that's how you control the traffic.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just wanted to be sure that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, I wish we could --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- everybody understood what they
were voting on.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. Before we move on to the next
agenda item, I would just like to request for members of the public as
well as staff and the Planning Commissioners to try and let the
dialogue flow with a stop to the end of the question before a
commencement to the answer in favor to our court reporters who are
trying to keep accurate records with simultaneous conversations.
And on your part, court reporters, wave your arms or throw a
laptop and we'll try to slow everybody down when the time is
necessary .
Page 95
"..,_....<'.,"-_.,-~"
~_.__._,"---""_.-,_.,...,,,.,.
January 6, 2004
So, with that, we'll move on to our next agenda item, that is
CP-2004-2.
Is the petitioner here?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, one thing just on
the last topic.
And, Joe, before you go, this is for you. Could you add to the
AUIR report the affordable housing? There is a requirement in our
Growth Management Plan to have 500 units. It would be nice to keep
score.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I understood your request. It is
not part of the AUIR. It's not a measure -- it's a measure in the comp
plan, but it's a target only and -- and -- but you certainly can provide
that information, but it's not an AUI -- AUIR criteria __
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: -- as a Category A or Category B.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
THE COURT REPORTER: Can I have two minutes to change
paper?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure. We'll take a two-minute break for
the court reporter.
(A recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. We'll call this meeting back to
order and with the time being 11 :29, I just wanted to confirm our
lunch hour arrangements, and that is we hope to finish this next
agenda item in a reasonable time, but in the possibility that it tends to
run long and we get tied up, whether we're done or not, wherever we
are, we're going to stop at 12:30.
So, take whatever time you need, Mr. Anderson, and hopefully it
will be smooth but we appear to be in a particularly cranky mood in
2005, so however it plays out, 12:30 we're stopping for lunch.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, certainly I don't want you to have me
Page 96
-"'''-~"".......",..~,-,.-.,_.._....,".,..
January 6, 2004
for lunch.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning
Commission.
My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law
firm and I'm pleased to represent today the Resource for Conservation
Properties, which is one of the Bonita Bay Group companies.
Also with me today to speak to you and answer your questions
are land planner, Robert Mulhere of RW A, Inc., and Mitch Hutchcraft
of the Bonita Bay Group.
This application is to change the future land use map designation
of two rural fringe parcels that are presently designated neutral.
It is proposed that the 153-acre parcel which presently abuts lands
that are designated receiving be classified -- reclassified from neutral
to receiving and the second half of the proposal involves changing
the designation of an approximately 79-acre parcel from neutral to
sending.
The county's leading environmental organizations support this
amendment.
I very much disagree with staffs position that they must put on
blinders and disregard the interests that Conservation Collier program
has in this 79-acre parcel and the fact that the county views these
properties as a great opportunity to provide a direct road link between
Immokalee Road and the future Vanderbilt Beach Road extension.
This is a comprehensive plan amendment, which is a legislative
matter, as opposed to a rezone, which is a quasijudicial matter.
What that means in laymen's terms is that on a quasijudicial
matter, you are supposed to put on blinders and look solely to the
criteria set forth in the land development code.
A legislative matter, on the other hand, does not require the use
of narrow blinders and this commission may consider and base its
decision on other public policy considerations such as benefits to
Conservation Collier and to the county's transportation network.
Page 97
-~""'_'""'----~.".,.-----,..,-.+~
January 6, 2004
In that regard, both the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee and the board of county commissioners have
ranked the 79-acre parcel as a priority one property for acquisition by
the Conservation Collier program.
There are only five other properties in the county that are so
ranked. The Conservation Collier staff report said that the property
had exceptional aesthetic characteristics, that the 79 acres contributes
to aquifer recharge, that the species richness score is above average
and that the property provides a relatively high degree of ecological
quality and little restoration would be required to improve that
ecological quality.
Obviously if the 79-acre parcel is changed from neutral, which
permits development at one unit per five acres descending, which
permits development only one unit at 40 acres, the market value of the
property is reduced.
Now, if the property owner objected to that redesignation, that
would be an entirely different matter.
However, in this instance, the property owner has requested that
redesignation.
Bonita Bay's plans are to incorporate the 153 acres that are
proposed to become receiving lands to become part of a rural village
that they would develop on the south side of Immokalee Road.
Without the redesignation of the 153 acres from neutral to
receiving, a rural village would not be possible on this property
because it would not meet the 300-acre minimum size requirement.
Related to this petition and the TDR amendments that you will hear
this afternoon, I am pleased to share with you that the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida does not oppose this amendment or any of the
proposed TDR bonus amendments.
This is as a result of discussions between the Bonita Bay Group
and the Conservancy and the following commitment of the Bonita Bay
Group.
Page 98
~""'~~'~-,-,----~~.."
January 6, 2004
If all of the TDR bonuses and this map amendment are approved
for transmittal by the board of county commissioners, the Bonita Bay
Group will file an application for a rezone of the property to a rural
village PUD, and this would be filed before the final adoption hearing,
which is apparently scheduled for some time in June.
And with that, I'll ask Mr. Hutchcraft to come up and -- and
speak to you about wild life corridors and then Mr. Mulhere will have
some planning considerations to direct your attention to.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bruce, one clarification.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I received, as I think all of us did,
e-mail from -- or it was either in our packet or e-mail from the
Conservancy saying where their concerns were with the TDR process
and all this.
And they were against early entry bonus and they had a lot of
other concerns.
You're telling me that whole letter is gone now and that they're
buying into the whole packet of just for one rural village on Bonita
Bay's property?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's undersize.
MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It doesn't meet the size criteria but
you're going to -- you're going to do it but --
MR. ANDERSON: It -- it doesn't today, but if this amendment is
passed, then it would.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So, the entire rural fringe
has been signed off except for just this one little piece of Bonita Bay
property.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think they feel that it is important
that a rural village be done and, frankly, I can't think of a finer group
than the Bonita Bay Group to set the standard by developing the first
Page 99
-.....-.,,-.,
- --.-,--.-, _.....,..,.__.~.,----,-_....._--
January 6, 2004
rural village.
They'll set a -- a high model for the others to follow.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Thank you. For the record my name is
Mitch Hutchcraft and I'm vice-president with the Bonita Bay Group.
And I just wanted to take a couple minutes and give you a little bit of
overview about why we're here and why we're doing this amendment.
This property has been under our control for a little over four
years now and -- and from that time when we bought this property out
of bankruptcy, the first thing that we did was we went to the
environmental community, to the permitting agencies to sit down and
establish a dialogue on how can we do projects and move forward in
a way that's environmentally sensitive and achieves the objectives of
the environment groups, permitting agencies, the county and us as a
developer because we obviously have an interest in -- in seeing a
project be successful.
This is one of those unique instances where I think this
amendment actually achieves that.
In working on it, we have listened to the county and the county
has a desire for the 80 acres. They've made that clear. The board of
county commissioners ranked it number two in their
recommendations.
The county's also made it clear that they think there's a -- a
necessary connection between the future of Vanderbilt and Immokalee
Road.
This amendment would accommodate that right-of-way and that
future connection.
We believe that the environmental protections that are desired
through the rural fringe mixed use district are actually implemented by
this modification.
Beyond that, we also think that the result of this amendment will
provide you with the same, if not more, preservation and do it in a
manner that is more contiguous and a better quality of preservation.
Page 100
_·___M~..~_"..,,,o>
January 6, 2004
Those are the things that we worked very hard on and we're very
proud that we're doing.
In reviewing the staff report, the staff identified essentially three
things that they had a concern with. It wasn't compatibility because
they did feel that this proposed amendment would be compatible.
It wasn't water and sewer. They felt like there was adequate
capacity to provide service to this area and it wasn't roads because
they felt like this would actually implement improvements to the road
network.
Their concerns were with the alignment of a north-south road.
The descending area didn't really connect to anything and, therefore,
they felt that they had a concern that it was isolated.
And the third one was that there was a potential opportunity for a
reduction in the amount of preservation if you applied the minimums.
When I saw those comments, I felt like I obviously hadn't done a
good job in communicating with staff a lot of the work that had been
done in advance.
And, so, I'm happy to take the blame for that but I do want to
give you the opportunity to understand that background and -- and
how I think that those are -- are fully and adequately addressed.
As Mr. Anderson pointed out, we've been doing a lot of this work
because we think that a rural village is something that was established
by the county through the rural fringe mixed use district, something
that was desired, and it's a key component to having a successful
program and a successful location for the transfer of TDRs that we've
heard a lot of talk about today.
In order to do that, we have recommended these modifications
and have worked with the county on the amendments that you're going
to hear about in a little bit.
So, rest assured that you will see this project again come back to
you in the form of a rural village PUD request should this amendment
and the other amendment be adopted as proposed.
Page 101
January 6, 2004
The first point that I'd like to talk to you about is the road
alignment -- is the road alignment.
This shows a conceptual rural village. I don't want you to get the
feeling that this is the site plan because it's not.
What we did is we took the recommendations that had been
proposed by the county and by the stake holders group and applied it
to this property to see how it would work and we think that it works
quite successfully.
But one of the concerns was the -- the road alignment. And staff
made a comment that, gosh, this road on our eastern boundary, you
know, kind of bisects it from the publicly owned land.
The reason that road alignment is there is we had a meeting with
staff probably in March of this year and we had to curve a linear
separated road that kind of came through the property because at the
time we thought we'll just keep it under our own ownership and that
would be a great entrance into the community.
And staff suggested, hey, there's going to be a high school and a
future elementary school, why don't we move that over so it provides
access to the school?
We said, sure, we can do that. So, that's why it's shown there.
We don't have a strong preference as to the alignment of this road
and, in fact, we are prepared to commit that we will continue to work
with the county and with DOT between now and adoption to identify
an appropriate alignment for this road.
Whether that is on the east -- the western boundary or the eastern
boundary or -- and I can't take credit for the -- the recommendation,
but I think it's a pretty ingenious one is maybe there's an alternative
alignment that could come through and then connect back down to the
bridge that would connect all of this area to the south.
Maybe there's an opportunity to flip the park in the school site so
you have a park contiguous with our 80 acres and the road coming up
and through that provides access to the school.
Page 102
~., . "-~-'^'-""'-""""--'-"-'-"-'"--'-""'-
January 6, 2004
What happens by approving this amendment is you preserve the
opportunities to do those. Without those, you're much more restricted
as to what opportunities you have to do in the future.
So, the road alignment is an issue that we're not holding fast on
and we're committing to work with DOT and with the county between
now and the adoption to come up with an appropriate location for that
road.
The second one is the concern that the 80 acres didn't connect to
another sending area or area of natural resource.
And I've got a -- although I don't know that I can figure out your
-- your telustrator there but I have an exhibit that shows what a
significant amount of work has actually been done to get us to this
point.
And that's rotated. If you'll turn it.
MR. MULHERE: Landscape document.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Yeah. Great.
To show how this piece actually does tie in, and it's a result of a
significant amount of work that's been done, as you can see on this
property, this is the Immokalee Road south property, this piece right
here is the 80 acres.
What you see, as you move north is Immokalee Road, the Bonita
Bay East Course and Twin Eagles, both of which are under our
ownership, a property up on Bonita Beach Road, which is our
ownership, and plans to make a connection, both a wildlife
connection and a hydrological connection primarily on the northern
edge that goes from the south end of our road at the future extension
of Vanderbilt all the way through this property, up and along between
our two projects, Bonita Bay East Course and Twin Eagles up
through some conservation land and then tie into our proj ect that goes
up and connects to the crew preservation area.
What you see there is a six-mile wildlife corridor that connects
the conservation, the Corkscrew preserve over here, and the crew
Page 103
-""--,--.,.--.,---...--
January 6, 2004
regional ecosystem to the north.
Thousands and thousands of acres of -- of environmental
preservation. That's tied into the preserve areas on the Bonita Bay
East Course, which are significant, and the preserve areas within the
Twin Eagle.
They also tie into preserve areas in open space within our own
project to the 80 acres. And that 80 acres would be the southern
terminus of an approximately six-mile wildlife corridor.
Because I also want you to have an understanding that this -- I'll
turn this off now.
This isn't just a -- the work of us and -- and me telling you that
we're going to do it, but in fact it's a -- a collaborative of effort
between private entities and public entities and environmental
advocates.
I've got a copy of the environmental resource permit for the Twin
Eagles Phase 2 project which has recently been modified.
And I can give you the -- the permit number. It's 11-01567-P-02.
And what I'd like to do is just to read you a brief section of that
permit to give you an understanding of how much work has really
being going through making this connection because it's an important
connection.
Page 3 of 18 of that permit, it says, the wildlife crossing has been
designed in accordance with recommendations from the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
has been accepted as designed in the project plans.
The flow way and wildlife corridor is of a larger regionally
significant plant to provide a contiguous habitat and hydrologic link
from Bonita Beach Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
We believe that's significant and, again, that reflects the
significant amount of cooperation.
Page 7 of 18 says, this flow way and wildlife corridor will
reestablish the historical flow ways and reconnect fragmented habitat.
Page 104
~"_."._,,,~~.._"<.."_",N_._
January 6, 2004
On Page 9 of 18, it says, finally, the establishment of a wildlife
corridor running along the entire west side of the Twin Eagle site will
facilitate movement of wildlife from north to areas south of the project
site via wildlife crossing under Immokalee Road.
Page 11 of 18, the Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier
County Audubon Society have participated in the agreement between
both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Fish and Wildlife
Commission on the proposed wildlife crossing.
This wasn't just adopted without the county's participation either.
The county has participated in it in the form of a wildlife
underpass under Immokalee Road.
We have worked in close cooperation with -- with DOT and their
staff in the improvements that are currently under construction for
Immokalee Road.
If you drive out there right now, you will notice that there is a
wildlife underpass constructed by the flow way that is permitted now
through Twin Eagles and the Bonita East Course to the north that
would connect to this proj ect to the south and ultimately end in this 80
acres.
That wildlife corridor also has a ditch block in it because you
know that there's a canal on the north side of the road.
That ditch block provides a -- a ground connection for wildlife so
that they don't have to go through the canal to get under the underpass.
So, indeed, this is a piece that is connected. It's connected
through a six-mile wildlife corridor. It ties in our onsite preserves as
well as significant off-site preserves.
And we think that that's a significant point in evaluating this
amendment.
The final concern was the reduction in the amount of preserve.
And I think that based on the staffs application of the minimum
percent -- or preservation requirements, there's a potential reduction of
indigenous preserve of 2.95 acres, something like that.
Page 105
January 6, 2004
As you saw on the -- the draft plan that we have done or a rural
village, one of the requirements for a rural village is a green belt.
And I can assure you that when you apply a green belt to this
project, not only do we meet the original preservation requirements
but we dramatically exceed it.
And what I'm happy to do is to commit that we will absolutely
meet the preservation standards that are currently in place even after
this amendment is approved. And I can do that because I'm confident
that we're actually going to exceed it.
So, in response to staffs findings, I -- I agree with them that this
proposed amendment and the development that it would allow is
compatible with the adjacent uses.
I agree that it would be in the appropriate location insomuch as
the road capacity is there to handle it. It would help implement the
regional road network, water and sewers appropriate to handle it.
There's a school site being planned right adjacent to the property.
There's a public park that's being planned.
Putting density in the right place is smart growth. So, I agree with
staff on that.
We commit to work on the alignment of the road. We commit to
further defining and providing the information to staff illustrating the
hard work that's gone into this wildlife corridor and how this is a
significant component to it.
We have committed that we will maintain the same minimum
standard of preservation. And we have, as Mr. Anderson indicated,
committed to moving forward with the submittal of a rural village
application should this amendment and the bonus amendment get
adopted as proposed.
So, with that, if you have any questions for me as a representative
of the developer, I'm happy to answer them.
If you have technical questions, I'd prefer that those technical
questions be answered by our consultant.
Page 106
- ~ ... .-.._'"...~..._.__...>'.....""
January 6, 2004
Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It seems to me more like a
wildlife cul-de-sac than a wildlife corridor because you're ending up
against estates on the south. How is it not?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Well, I don't think that the -- that the
wildlife really recognize property boundaries.
And if you'll take a look at -- if you take a look at the -- and I'll
answer. I'm not a wildlife expert. There are other people that are
probably more qualified. But from my perspective, I'll answer it.
If you take a look at the development patterns around it, wildlife
can cross the canal and there's a significant amount of open space.
Wildlife are already using this area to the south.
I think the staff report already indicates that this area is used by
wildlife. It also ties into habitat areas that are adjacent on the golf
course. It also ties into the future park and school site.
So, I see it as a dispersal area and it is the last piece that is under
conservation easement, which I see as a good thing, but it is not the
end of the line and there's not a wall around that.
It's a dispersal point for wildlife to continue as they're already
using it but this is a safer connection for them to move northward.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I've got some.
You have a settlement agreement apparently with some
environmental groups for the Twin Eagles project.
Is that something that the public can have access to?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: That settlement agreement was
established and is part of court records as we brought the Twin Eagles
out of -- project out of bankruptcy.
Obviously there was a lot of acrimony and distrust with that
project when it was going through the process.
And one of the things that we committed to do is to work very
closely with the environmental groups.
Page 107
--~,-""",,",,,,,~.,..-.---,-,-,~,,. ^'
January 6, 2004
I -- I did go through the -- our archives and found an article that
kind of documented that agreement. And what it identifies is that we
committed to work with them on putting wildlife protections in our
projection that we committed to help establish this wildlife corridor.
And those are things that we continue to work closely with them.
As to whether it's a public document or not, it's -- it's a private
document. We worked very hard to establish a trusting relationship
with Florida Wildlife Federation and we continue to -- to work to -- to
satisfy their requests.
But it's not just them. It's also with the environmental agencies.
We've been working closely with the county as well.
So, we believe that, as demonstrated by the permit, that we've
moved forward in agreement with that -- that settlement agreement
and have implemented the wildlife corridor as requested.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That agreement based on entries
into the public record says that the south side of Immokalee Road will
be limit -- will limits -- limits the use there to golf courses and not
allowing it for residential uses.
Is that changed?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: That has changed. And what has
changed that is the fact that when that agreement was established, the
rural fringe mixed use category was not in place, the TDR program
was not in place.
As a part of a lot of hard work and evaluation, the county and
stakeholders group identified this property as appropriate property for
development.
And the result of going forward under the guidelines of the rural
fringe category is you preserve the areas that are under sending zone.
That's the goal is to put development in the right place where the
infrastructure is in place to handle it and the result is preservation of
environmentally sensitive land.
Because of that, we have an agreement to allow development
Page 108
~'.~'.-
- ",.--".~.'.._....,.,--_.".
January 6, 2004
consistent with the rural fringe category.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I would assume that some of the
environmental groups that have accepted this proposal that you have
here today have done so based on that settlement agreement as well.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I -- I don't want to speak for the
environmental groups. I think that they are here and prepared to speak
to you on their own behalf.
I've learned a long time ago I don't want to tell you what
somebody else thinks. But we've worked closely with them.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This property that you'd like to
have a sending land, your company was also going -- it was going to
previously preserve that property anyway and those areas of high
value.
So, what is it we're gaining by giving you the rezoning of an
isolated district in the form of a sending land --
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- that we don't already have?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I don't think that we agreed to preserve it
in its entirety as is -- would be shown under this 80 acres sending
zone.
What we are allowed to do right now is to develop that property
at one unit per five acres.
We would likely cluster the development but there would
nonetheless be development on that 80 acres. There would be areas
that would be put under conservation easement but not the entire
thing.
We think that this is a solution that provides a better preservation
of the area and -- and -- and I don't want to present it as though, you
know, this is the -- the answer to everything, but -- but this is the
implementation of what the -- the desired goals through the rural
fringe were.
We're to preserve those areas in as large of areas as -- large of
Page 109
"._".,",.,.~-~"".".-
January 6, 2004
contiguous parcels as possible particularly when they connect to
regionally significant areas. And that's what this amendment allows.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN : Well, your previous presentations
before the EAC on -- on June 5th of 2002 and before the CCPC on
November 24th, 2003, there are a lot of comments about preserving
large blocks of preserves. There will be a hundred percent wetland
preservation and that preserve amounts to 214 acres, roughly, over a
hundred, 110 represent Cypress Habitat.
It seems to me that a lot of this was going to be preserved
anyway.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Well, what is --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I've since found out through
reading the staff report, there are no jurisdictional wetlands there to
begin with.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Well, let me -- let me clarify that.
Two points. One is Bonita Bay Group, our -- our mode of
operations is we do projects that are environmentally sensitive.
I am not going to threaten you with going out here and nuking
this site because it's not going to happen. I'm going to do the best
project that I can do from an environmental perspective, no matter
what.
I see this as an opportunity to do something better. And you are
right, that we have submitted two projects now; one that was a golf
course, and if you'll look at the site plans, there was golf down in the
middle of that 80 acre site.
So, a significant portion of that 80 acres was impacted by golf
development.
We submitted a second plan for a residential PUD that didn't
include the 80 acres, but included the 153 to the north, and there were
a series of cul-de-sac residential areas in that area.
Are we going to work to save the areas that are wetlands? And
the point about the wetlands is there's a big distinction between
Page 110
~.._.~.~,,"-~,.~>~..._....._-
January 6, 2004
wetlands and jurisdictional wetlands.
There's areas of cypress on this property, but because of the
change in the hydrology, they are not jurisdictional wetlands.
So, you are accurate that there are not jurisdictional wetlands on
this 80 acres.
If you're look at the flux map, approximately 32 percent of the
site is -- consists of cypress habitat.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions?
Any other presenters in your team?
MR. MULHERE: Good morning for a couple more minutes.
For the record, Bob Mulhere with RW A, Inc.
I'll -- I'll try my best not to be repetitive and I think I can be fairly
brief in the portion of -- in my portion of the presentation.
I recognize that's a little harder to see -- hard to see. Maybe Joe
can make it a little bit larger. If not, I can go over it.
I just want to start out by saying -- and I think it was Mitch that --
that referenced this -- this point and that is that, you know, this is a
comprehensive plan amendment.
And I think it's incumbent upon the planning commission and
ultimately the board to look at all of the issues, public policy benefits
that might be achieved through a comprehensive plan amendment.
This happens to be just a map change. This little spreadsheet
here, I don't know if you can read it. Sometimes it appears a little
better on your -- on your screens.
Basically, tries to provide you with -- with a concept of how
we're achieving a number of benefits that address the very
stakeholders, the county, including the public at large, the developer
and the environmental groups.
From the county's perspective, this provides an opportunity to
create a very important connection between Immokalee Road and
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, and I want to talk a little bit further
Page 111
January 6, 2004
on that in just a moment.
The county will be asking, and has already asked for, and will be
receiving well easements on the property in appropriate locations.
And that's an objective that they're always looking for on any piece of
property that's going to be developed.
Obviously there will be utility easements in the provision of
utilities to this site which includes enhancing the user base.
There could be water management enhancements, particularly
with the 80 acres in the south, for water quality and water recharge
and especially with proximity to the canal at the southern terminus of
that 80 acres.
I'm not going to go over each one of them. The list is before you.
The point that this spreadsheet, I think, brings to mind is that
there's been a very diligent effort to try to bring all of the divergent
interests together so I could address all of the issues of concern and
all of the benefits that could be achieved.
And -- and to further illustrate that, I -- I just -- excuse me -- want
to take a moment to look again at this conceptual rural village plan,
keeping in mind that you've got Immokalee Road at the north and
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension at the south.
Really, what better perspective from a planning -- what better
location from a planning perspective to put a rural village.
I believe the actual acreage assuming that the 153 acres is
changed to receiving is in excess of 450 acres, which provides for
considerably more than the minimum required and allows for the
green space and buffer areas that the code requires as well.
We talked a little bit with the -- Amy Taylor, who represents the
school board, and I believe she's here today and may wish to speak to
you as well. We've also talked to transportation staff.
And one of the things that, you know, I saw when I looked at this
was that wouldn't it be nice if potentially the county park site could be
flipped in its location and the high school and elementary school could
Page 112
._.,."..".«_w.__
January 6, 2004
be located over here.
I'm not sure if that can happen. I think, however, we have an
opportunity to look at that comprehensively with transportation staff,
Parks and Recreation and the school board and the Bonita Bay Group
in order to determine if that's viable.
What's the benefit of that? Well, obviously, locating the county
park approximate to this 80 acres and allowing for some passive
recreation within those 80 acres controlled through the park site would
be, I think, a good public benefit.
The other benefit to the school, an obvious one I'm sure you can
see, is to be able to provide access to both the future park and the
school via this connecting road, at least as a secondary means of
ingress and egress as opposed to just from Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension.
One of the problems you have when you have a high school is
there's a lot of vehicle traffic, both with the high school and the
elementary school. You'll have the bus traffic the teachers, but with
the high school you have the students driving as well.
And we have, I think, a new high school that only -- at this point
only has one point of ingress and egress; Golden Gate High School.
And I know that there -- folks are looking at an opportunity to
create a second point of ingress and egress at that location.
So, this would be, I think, very significant. I'm not sure whether
that's achievable, but I think this gives us the opportunity to look at
that.
One of the points that came out in discussions with Amy Taylor
is that there are some well easements, I think, along this corridor right
here.
But I don't think it's, you know, extremely difficult to relocate
those to be adjacent to the roadway and whatever alignment that
roadway ultimately takes.
Getting back to some other points. In a staff report -- primarily, I
Page 113
~",_---""-' .",_.~"-"".,,-~-".._"._,...~,~._~._-
January 6, 2004
think, the focus of the staff report, at least what we gleaned from it,
was that there was concern that this was really an isolated 80-acre
sending district.
Most of the other sending districts or all of the other sending
districts are larger and -- and they're contiguous to a larger block of
sending land or to the crew lands or something along those lines.
And I think Mitch did a very good job of -- of providing or
depicting for you the connectivity that this site actually has. I think
we probably didn't do a very good job of communicating that to the
staff.
The -- the -- the wildlife, I'm going to defer to others who have
expertise in that area, but it seems to me that if the county is spending
a considerable sum of money to put a wildlife underpass on
Immokalee Road at this location, it makes sense to continue that
wildlife corridor down to -- to this 80 acres and then beyond.
I -- you know, again, I think the wildlife really -- and there are
wide-ranging species here such as the black bear, but there are also
other small species and, of course, birds.
In terms of the preservation, and -- and I think Mitch touched on
it, but to be very specific, under the neutral designation, the minimum
preservation -- the preservation requirement is -- is 45 percent of the
site. The minimum preservation is 45 percent of -- of the site.
And if you do that calculation, you come up with 104.4 acres as
being the minimum amount of preservation that would be required.
Under our proposed change, assuming 80 percent preservation on
the sending lands, which the code requires, and a minimum of 25
percent preservation on the receiving lands, which the code requires,
there is a 2.95 difference, acre difference.
And as Mitch indicated, we would commit to maintaining at a
minimum, and in my view, we will exceed it significantly, that
original minimum preservation amount of 104.4 acres. Most likely we
will exceed that because, as you can see, we're required to have a
Page 114
- I
January 6, 2004
significant green belt around the -- the rural village.
And there are some wetlands in that area that we would try to
avoid impacting through the development process, which would
increase that amount of preservation.
The -- I want to talk just a little bit about the neutral designation.
And I'm not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that the
Bonita Bay Group would develop a proj ect such as this in this
fashion.
I want you to know, however, that these roads and these road
easements exist as they're shown on this plan today, and I don't know
that they're improved, but they do exist in terms of being platted.
We know there's a market for this type of development. This
would be what I would call ranchette type of development. There's a
significant market in Golden Gate Estates for 2.25 acre parcels. The
neutral designation allows development of five-acre parcels.
Now, you can cluster that development and I think Mitch already
suggested that if the Bonita Bay Group was to develop this property
under the neutral designation, certainly they would likely cluster that.
There's a benefit to them in terms of lesser cost to extend utility
provIsIons.
And, so, there would be -- probably be more open space. But I
think it is important to know that, you know, this could and is
permitted under the neutral designation, and perhaps they would not
be the ultimate developer in the future if this remained in neutral.
The other thing I want to mention is they're -- at least they likely
still would create this wildlife corridor coming down here, so some of
those parcels would obviously not be developed in this fashion under
any circumstance.
But, clearly, not developing these 80 acres here and preserving
them and connecting them to these -- this public infrastructure here in
the form of high school and/or park, depending on the ultimate
location is more beneficial than what will ultimately happen under the
Page 115
._---,.....,,-_.~"_.,-'..._-
.,_.._~,_k.'...'....
January 6, 2004
neutral designation.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bob, are you saying that the
settlement agreement that you have, the environmental groups allows
that?
MR. MULHERE: I do not know whether the settlement
agreement allows that or not. The -- I think the settlement agreement
does require some sort of a wildlife corridor coming down, but I -- I
believe it allows residential development --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well--
MR. MULHERE: -- so--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The record I have says it doesn't
but if --
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think it's been amended.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's been amended.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, they amended it to allow that.
I wonder what the environmental group gained to have
something like that even permissible and -- because that's what I keep
hearing is the downside to the way we leave -- if we left the rural
fringe the way it is.
MR. MULHERE: I think I'd have to defer that to somebody
with, you know, specific experience in -- in the environmental realm
that was a party to that as well. And I certainly am not privy to that
information.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Before we go too much farther, do
you have a -- that map with a flow way with the blue lines on it and
the dots?
Not the flow way, the habitat quarter. Do you have that
available?
MR. MULHERE: This one here on the telustrator?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. It was the one before you had
an outline of where the wildlife corridor would be.
Page 116
. ,.".~_~__M~·'·'.·>'·'
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: With the blue arrows.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: With the blue arrows on it.
MR. MULHERE: It's -- it's here.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, there it is. Okay. Well, could
you leave that there?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Where you -- where it shows the
blue arrows going through. They basically stop at Immokalee Road.
And you're going to be building out a rural village in the north part of
Immokalee Road south.
So, how is the 80 acres that you're talking about as a sending land
going to benefit from being a wildlife corridor? How did it get there?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I'll address that. The arrows are
hydrological connections.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: The dotted line is a wildlife connection.
And as I've indicated --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That lines up with the road.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: At this point right there, there is a
wildlife underpass under construction today. And there is a ground
connection that would allow them to cross from the north side to the
south side without crossing the road and without crossing a canal.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'm probably not
understanding your maps.
Could you put the rural -- the village -- the rural village map back
on here now?
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Yeah. I--
MR. MULHERE: I think I can show you --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Now, if that's the rural
village, how does that correspond to this map?
MR. MULHERE: There's a connection, a wildlife underpass
right here.
Page 11 7
_"...__~."~",_w_.~,., ,....._
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, they'd run down between the
houses.
MR. MULHERE: No. No. No.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. How did the wildlife get all
the way -- now, first of all, I'm wondering what would entice them to
get down there. But how would they get down through all those
houses?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think they're -- they're going there
right now, the ones that make it across Immokalee Road. The other
ones we see, when we drive by, flattened.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. Until you build the road--
until you build the houses, I would imagine, but if you build --
MR. MULHERE: These houses here?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: This is still going to be a -- a wildlife corridor
right here.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did they make a --
MR. MULHERE: This is -- this is a wildlife corridor right here.
And if you look at this, there's a significant amount of native
vegetation in this area here. I mean, the wildlife uses this golf course
as well.
So, when you couple the wildlife corridor that we're proposing
with the -- I mean, it certainly makes absolutely no sense to build.
Keep in mind -- let me just -- keep in mind, this is receiving land.
This is receiving land here. So, you know, something is going to be
here.
But there is going to be an underpass and the wildlife corridor,
the intent is to allow them to skirt the development area using this to
come down to these areas.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And their GPS equipment.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: And I think it's important to point out that
under the rural village standards, that green belt is required currently
Page 118
.,._,-_.,.,----
January 6, 2004
to be 500 and proposed to be 300 acres -- or 300 feet.
So, what you see is a continuous 300- foot connection from
Immokalee Road down to the 80 acres. It's continuous, not separated
by roads, not separated by housing. It's continuous.
Then it connects north of the road under the road, so you don't
have to cross the road, and goes continuous for another five miles up
to the crew habitat.
So, I see that on our property as significant and then when you tie
that with adjacent wildlife, it's significant.
MR. MULHERE: I think we may have a failure to
communicate.
Mr. Strain, are you suggesting that because of where we're
showing the -- the line on this exhibit right here, which looks like it's
running right through the middle of the houses, that's -- that's only a
conceptual location?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. I'm not suggesting that.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Because, I mean, obviously, that's
flexible and we've located here because it lines up with the underpass
and because it allows for the -- the animals to transverse through here
and take advantage of a whole lot of additional open space here in --
in habitat.
That golf course, I mean --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know what your -- your intent
for the line was just to indicate that there's going to be some kind of
connection --
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- between the upper part and
lower part. And then when I saw this, I realized, well, where would
you possibly put a connection that was realistic? And I - you
explained to me where you think the connection is.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think we've put the location in the
correct area, because again if this gets developed in a receiving area
Page 119
'......0·........-"___·"'-
January 6, 2004
but not as a village, and it will, you're going to have larger lots spread
out more and there will be less opportunity for wildlife. They'll be
running through the houses even more than they are under this
circumstance.
At least you have a dedicated, preserved wildlife corridor coming
down.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, if you look at the
northern part, it's actually -- the trail is actually more screwy because
they'll have to -- the trail comes down, they're going to do like a
three-sided turn. I don't think that's going to happen either.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: But let me clarify because what you see
here is a line on the map.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: When you look at what's on the ground,
there's probably a continuous, contiguous thousand acres without
fences in there.
So, for the sake of our map, we drew a line but could that wildlife
come here and come through here and down through the golf course
and across and cross here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course it will.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Absolutely.
So, I -- I think that the discussion over where is the line on the
map is really an irrelevant -- all it's showing is a connection.
The fact is it's tying together significant areas of preserve that are
on our property, that are off our property, the crew regional
ecosystem, the Corkscrew swamp, that's with this wildlife corridor.
And, again, I want to go back to the comments in the permit.
These were not things that we did independently. We did it with the
cooperation of Jim Beaver and with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
There was a lot of environmental permitting agency input into
how this plan came together.
MR. MULHERE: I just have a couple minor -- additional points
Page 120
.>.._"_.._^-_."^~-
January 6, 2004
and -- and then I'll be finished.
I think that the -- the concept of this being 80 acres and,
therefore, isolated, I think we've demonstrated that it's not.
But beyond that, I can tell you that perhaps not under the sending
designation but certainly under the conservation designation it is --
often developers are required to preserve much smaller parcels of land
because they have habitat value, whether it's animal or plant species.
Sometimes ten, 15 acres of -- of land that has a unique species on
it is requested to be preserved completely surrounded by development.
Of course, that's not the case here. This is not isolated but it is
not uncommon at all. You have much smaller parcels of land. You
know, requested and required be preserved in a conservation status
due to the environmental benefits of that, at least from the perception
of the regulatory agencies.
In conclusion -- you know, I just -- I just want to reiterate from
-- I think from a planning perspective, you have a very unique
opportunity to have in my view a well respected developer come in
with the opportunity to create a rural village, maybe not and probably
not in this exact design, but to create a connection point between these
two, which is very significant, these two arterial roadways.
To address, you know, a pedestrian access to the future school
and park site, a bicycle access, a very short distance, take some of the
students from this surrounding area, make it easier for them to get to
this location and to have the environmental benefits of this 80-acre
preserve and this wildlife corridor which extends again some six miles
north to literally thousands and thousands of acres of crew land.
I'm happy to answer any additional questions you have.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions?
Anything more on your team presentation?
Then we'll move on to the staff comments.
Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: Public speakers?
Page 121
January 6, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll follow the staff comments with
public speakers.
MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon, commissioners. Michele Mosca
from the Comprehensive Planning Department.
The comprehensive plan amendment that is before you is actually
a map change only. There are no commitments by the developer in
this particular amendment. The amendment is for the redesignation
of neutral lands to both sending and receiving lands.
Both properties that are being proposed for redesignation to
receiving on the northern portion and sending on the southern portion
have very similar composition of native vegetation. There is no clear
distinction between these two properties.
Redesignation of the sending on the plus or minus 79 acres would
-- would in fact create an isolated sending area, very much different
from the other sending areas in that they are -- the other sending areas
are very well connected.
This would provide a linear strip for wildlife habitat only. It is
six miles is what I've been told, which does provide wildlife value.
I want to keep my comments as brief as possible. That's why we,
in fact, are recommending denial not to transmit this petition because
the properties are so similar in native composition.
Is there's any questions?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of the staff presentation.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. You can go
first.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Michele, what would -- if -- if this
were to pass, what would stop other people from doing the same thing
anywhere they felt they wanted to do it with comparable land?
MS. MOSCA: It would be -- I believe it would be a policy
decision. I would defer maybe to either David or -- or Stan, that if
we're going to redesignate lands to accommodate rural villages, again
Page 122
-->-~-
~~.....---<. -
January 6, 2004
that would be a policy decision.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well--
MS. MOSCA: Did I answer your question?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, yeah, but this isn't being
done to accommodate a rural village. It's being done to generate
TD Rs so they can -- don't have to buy them.
I mean, that's worth about a million dollars at the base that is
there now and the price that TD Rs are going for, if they were to take
the same amount and get the benefit from the TDR proposal that's
coming up, they would end up with 64 TDRs, which will then be
generating a much higher value.
So, I don't think it's being done for the rural village as much it's
being done to generate the TDRs because, one way or another, they're
going to use them.
But that's my thoughts on it. I just worry that other people are
going to take this idea and run with it. And we're going to have
isolated sending areas popping up everywhere and I don't believe that
was the intent of the whole thing.
MR. WEEKS: For the record again, David Weeks of
Comprehensive Planning. I'll just make a couple observations.
I'm sure the petitioner would -- would take the position that this
is a unique circumstance, that though their sending lands -- they've
already stated though their sending land that's proposed is - is
isolated from other sending lands, that because it is adjacent to other
habitat areas, over the golf course notably, and because it has the
linear connection with massive preservation areas farther to the north
across Immokalee Road, that the isolation, that they would -- I think
their position is the sending land is isolated but the habitat itself is
connected via a corridor.
That is clearly different than the other sending designations on
the future land use map and I believe they have acknowledged that.
The other sending lands are either very large in and of
Page 123
--
,.,.-,-..""",-_._..,.~""
January 6, 2004
themselves, or in the cases of they're very small sending lands, they
are abutting massive conservation areas such as the crew trust lands,
Corkscrew Sanctuary, et cetera.
The other point, I think, Commissioner Strain, you're -- you're
right. Any -- any other petitioner does in fact right now have the right
to walk in with an application and ask to have the -- the map changed
to sending so that they could benefit from the -- the increased number
ofTDRs -- well, in this case from neutral to sending to get TDR
credits to be able to apply to a project and that's a case-by-case policy
decision that you will -- you would be faced with.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And isn't that a good thing that
they would do that?
MR. WEEKS: Well, that's part of your decision-making process.
Is it a good thing to have an isolated sending land?
Isolated from the staff perspective in that there is -- that there's no
other sending lands approximate to it. It's all receiving.
Yes, there's certainly the value of protecting that land. We can't
deny that. There's also a value to having the corridor connection.
Is this the appropriate way to go about that? Do you need to
change the sending land?
I think their position is, yes, we do because we want the TDR
credit for it as well. And also I think their position is as a result of
designated as sending, stripping the TDRs from it, the actual value of
that land is now greatly diminished, therefore, cheaper to the
taxpayers of Collier County to acquire through the Conservation
Collier program.
That again is the policy decision, is do we want to make future
land use map changes to accommodate the development, say, of a
rural village as proposed in this case and/or to benefit the taxpayers of
the county by making the land available for acquisition?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But my question was
Page 124
.---
January 6, 2004
though, would they be able to do the rural village without this?
MS. MOSCA: It's my understanding that they would not because
they don't have the required numbers -- number of acres --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you.
MS. MOSCA: -- to build a rural village.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question, Michele.
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm a little bit mystified why
Collier County decided to put a wildlife underpass there because I
know that's fairly expensive.
I just don't see wildlife underpasses that I'm familiar with have
large wildlife areas on both sides of the road and this one doesn't.
Can you enlighten me as to how that came about that they
decided to put the wildlife underpass there?
MS. MOSCA: I don't know the answer to that, but let me see if
Bill -- is Bill Lorenz available?
He doesn't have the answer to that as well.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions?
Do we have any advertised public speakers -- or excuse me.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Public comment.
MR. SCHMITT: We have three public speakers, the first
speaker, Brad Cornell followed by Amy Taylor.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, commissioners. Brad Cornell
on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
And I'm here to voice support for this petition. Weare a party
that has worked very closely with the petitioner, Bonita Bay, over a
number of years dating back, as you've heard, to the days of
bankruptcy litigation involved with the Twin Eagles development.
And we have found the Bonita Bay Group to be very helpful
partners in protecting habitat and -- and furthering the goals which we
Page 125
_...-."".~-.....",._,_._-...._.."..,_._---
-'~~.'.'---.-".-~..
January 6, 2004
believe are public goals of protecting habitat and wetlands in Collier
County .
And we also believe that such a collaboration is something that
when it produces something good for the public, we should be -- we
should be doing that, and that's what we -- that's why we are pursuing
that.
I also want to support the big picture approach to examining and
reviewing the issues concerning this petition. It is not a narrow issue
and I believe you are correct in asking the questions as you are, which
are regional questions, the comprehensive role and the situation that
this petition sits in.
In that context, the comprehensive regional context, I think that --
that that supports the approval of this petition to amend the future land
use map.
The -- first of all, the -- the 79 acres at the south end of the -- the
project that would be put into sending category is certainly supported
as you have heard by the environmental nature of the land and that's
confirmed by the Conservation Collier staff report and the board of
county commissioners ranking of highest priority to purchase.
So, I don't think we have to -- to discuss that. And it certainly is
connected via the wildlife corridor, which is 300 feet wide, and 300
feet is a very viable corridor for wildlife to move within.
300 feet, to answer Mr. Midney's question about why is it here.
Yes, it's not the massive, you know, thousands of acres of -- of habitat,
but there is a connection to a terminus that does include hundreds of
acres of habitat that is useful in an -- let's acknowledge this is an urban
context or a semi urban context now in the rural fringe mixed use
district along Immokalee Road.
I think we all understand where the development has gone along
that corridor. This is something that's very significant in that regional
context. And, certainly, when you -- when you connect it north, is a
very -- we see it as a very useful habitat connection.
Page 126
",.'-""~-'"._.__..,~-.
January 6, 2004
And I want to add one more Conservation Collier note on that.
There's a project called Unit 53 in Golden Gate Estates that is being
purchased as a multiparcel project that is directly north of Twin
Eagles.
And you can't see it on the map that's up there now, but it's a
significant habitat portion that's directly contiguous to crew and it is
also contiguous to this wildlife corridor.
So, I think that the county and the state have recognized the
importance of this regional wildlife resource and I believe that this
amendment to the future land use map would support that and we
encourage you to recommend approval.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MR. SCHMITT: Any Taylor followed by your last speaker,
Nancy Payton.
MS. T A YLO R: Good afternoon. F or the record, I'm Amy
Taylor. I'm with the Collier County Public Schools, their long range
planner.
I just wanted to put on the -- the view finder --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: You rotate that 90 degrees. There we go.
MS. TAYLOR: The Collier County school district as a public
facility provider also has an interest in this proj ect.
We have been working closely not with the -- with the developer
or the owner of the property but with the county itself in this particular
area.
We have, as noted on there, several school sites that would -- that
would be affected.
School -- high school site EEE and elementary school R are on
that property, this property, kind of beyond this property here.
The high school is scheduled after the opening of Vanderbilt
Beach Road Extension, the completion, roughly around 2010-2011 is
Page 127
"----
"'.,--,....,~,._.,-
January 6, 2004
when that's scheduled.
As a result of that and how important that has been, that road
extension, we have been working closely with the transportation
department as well as utilities.
I'm not going to bring up my -- my -- my visual because it's,
roughly, the same thing, but what it does show in addition to this is
our working with --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: It's temperamental. You just need to
shake it a little.
MS. TAYLOR: It's all-- utilities department as well with the
county, that we early -- they have an easement on all of our property
and several well sites along the perimeters of our property.
So, it seemed natural that when transportation again began
speaking to us about Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension that -- and this
project that the alignment of that road be along with -- because that
would be an access road itself already planned.
In addition to that, and this is really a great opportunity at this
point because of it, is that parks, transportation, utilities, and so forth,
we've all had preliminary discussions but we are -- our ultimate goal is
to prepare a conceptual master plan.
With the introduction of this project with the opportunity for an
additional road from Immokalee, this brings about many more
opportunities for not just these other concerns from a regional
perspective from environmental, but also a more regional perspective
when it comes to providing relief for some of our schools.
For example, Gulf Coast High School will be -- it is one of our
more challenging high schools in order to keep the population down.
With an access directly from Immokalee Road, this would greatly
increase our ability to directly -- directly funnel those students,
teachers and parents through another access corridor rather than 951,
which would have -- would have been the case, 951 to Vanderbilt.
So, it's a great opportunity.
Page 128
'--".---.--.--
.....'+0.__-·.--····"··
January 6, 2004
And just on Immokalee Road, there is another school site, an
elementary school R -- L, I believe, and that would also be the
opportunity for enhancement of access could be provided for that as
well.
So, we're -- in terms of the -- the staffs recommendation, we
have no opinion on that, but in terms of the infrastructure that this
property would provide for the -- for additional enhancement to
access, the school board supports.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
There are no other speakers?
MR. SCHMITT: Nancy--
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh, I'm sorry. My mistake, Nancy. How
could I overlook you?
MS. PAYTON: Okay. Allright.
Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation.
We have a very long history with this proj ect and we have a very
good cooperative working agreement since 2001 with Bonita Bay to
do creative and forward thinking, smart growth techniques, or
whatever you want to call them, on these -- on Immokalee -- on Twin
Eagles property.
We amended our 2001 agreement early last year to allow for
TDRs in hopes of promoting a rural village south of Immokalee Road.
We support this amendment and we support a rural village there.
It provides the opportunity for the first rural village and it will set a
standard.
We're confident that Bonita Bay will set the standard for how
other rural villages could and should be done.
It also is an important component for a regional planning effort as
you've heard from Miss Taylor and others who have spoken regarding
roads, schools, and conservation lands.
It uses TDRs. We like that because it saves lands in sending
Page 129
--
'"..,-...-.'----_._...~'
January 6, 2004
areas.
It includes the conservation parcel that was proposed by Florida
Wildlife to Conservation Collier. And also is supported by north
Golden Gate Estates residents who are our members who live
immediately south of this parcel. They like this idea and they like it
as a buffer.
The parcel, the 80 acres, was rej ected by Collier County recently
because -- as a Lake Avalon Park because of its high environmental
values. And I don't think any of us dispute that the 80 or 79 acres, 78
acres has high environmental values.
I did pull up some of the comments I had made when it was
proposed to Conservation Collier, and I'm just going to go over them
quickly and that is about the regional con activity to public and
private conservation lands, connects the crew lands to the north.
It's a wildlife corridor and flow way that was designed with input
from both state and federal wildlife agencies and it's incorporated into
our Twin Eagles settlement agreement.
The wildlife crossing under Immokalee Road was designed to the
specifications of both the wildlife agency. It connects those
conservations plans north and south and provides that corridor with
con activity.
That's -- Immokalee Road is the only road that cuts across that
corridor. And there's fencing along the road to encourage wildlife to
use the crossing.
It's a crossing that is large enough for black bear. Our board
member, Franklin Adams, lives immediately in -- south of the 80
acres. I think it's on the 15th. He has black bear in his backyard and
this will help ensure that he will continue to enjoy black bears in that
area.
The corridor includes a flow way that brings water from crew
lands. The breached berm above Bonita Bay's golf course preserved
land comes under Immokalee Road and as it comes down from the
Page 130
,.--
January 6, 2004
crew lands it rehydrates wetlands along the way.
It abuts the county park and two school sites or maybe three. We
like the idea as well of changing the -- flipping the park and the
schools and also redesigning the road and we're going to be watching
that very closely.
It provides co-location for parking and related activities so
Conservation Collier would not have to -- should they receive this
parcel with the fourth -- or the third bonus TDR, there already would
be an opportunity for people to park their cars and other amenities.
Excellent nature opportunities for people that are in the urban
area, the rural fringe area and the estates area.
There is not a large conservation area that's close to this part of
the estates and that would provide that opportunity.
It's accessible from the urban area via Vanderbilt Beach
extension, accessible to the estates through the 13th Street Northwest
bridge that crosses the canal into the school and the park property and
potentially from Rock Road.
We urge you to look at this as a package and how the rural
village concept and the sending lands fits into a bigger picture for that
area and not to think about, well, somebody else might want to do it
and we don't want to set a precedent.
You should look at this as how it fits into that part of the
community. And it does help that part of the community.
Nature benefits from this amendment, the 80 acres, the corridor,
the TDRs, no five-acre lots down there on well and septic, the rural
village is required to be on central water and sewer.
We -- we urge you to please -- urge -- recommend approval for
this and we look forward to working with all interested parties on
roads, utilities, parks, schools, land conservation and the rural village.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: There are no -- no other registered public
Page 131
--
_.,~...,.._,,~._","_,~._,.~._m'·"'._
January 6, 2004
speakers.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Michele, did you have some summary
comment?
MS. MOSCA: Yes, I do. Again, for the record, Michele Mosca.
I just have three additional points that I wanted to add on to the
record.
With regard to Conservation Collier and the potential future sale
of this 79 acres, I've spoken to a representative from Conservation
Collier and they're interested in the property, whether it's designated
neutral or sending.
Second, as stated by the applicant, the wildlife corridor will --
will be built whether the property is neutral or sending.
And, finally, this is a legislative process, so these commitments
for road construction, development of a rural village in providing a
wildlife corridor is not binding with this amendment.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you.
Summary comments by the petitioner?
MR. ANDERSON: We want to avail ourselves to answer
questions and I wanted to answer a question Mr. Strain had posed
about designating the sending lands and that being the real motivation
for this to strip the TDRs.
We ran some numbers here and the 80 acres, if all the bonuses
are approved, would generate 80 TDRs. The rural village itself would
require a total of between 600 and 700 TDRs.
So, we're far going to exceed any TDRs that we generate from
the sending lands.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I knew that.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I wanted to make sure.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's saying that those TDRs that
you're going to generate from lands that didn't generate them prior to
this are worth something.
MR. ANDERSON: But we can't do the village without this
Page 132
...........-, F1OV"
January 6, 2004
change --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got a question for--
MR. ANDERSON: -- and there are only four that are allowed.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Were you on the rural fringe
committee or were you -- did you attend those meetings?
MR. ANDERSON: I attended the meetings. I was not a member
of the committee.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You've had a lot of people speak
here today. If I'm not mistaken, a lot of them were in the committee
meetings, too, or attended them.
This property was shown this way and approved this way and
recommended this way less than a year ago.
Why wasn't this discussed at that time, during -- prior to its
recommendation?
MR. ANDERSON: First of all, it was two years ago, and second
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, was--
MR. ANDERSON: And, secondly -- I'm going to answer your
question.
The settlement agreement limited the use of this property to golf
courses and neutral allowed golf courses. So, at the time Bonita Bay
did not object.
Since that time, the settlement agreement was amended to allow
use of the property consistent with the new rural fringe regulations.
And, lastly, the thing that has changed is Conservation Collier
didn't exist to want this property either.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The TDR program was approved
in March of'03, wasn't it, or enacted? Or '04. I'm sorry.
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, but the -- but the -- the neutral
designation was placed on the property two years ago.
Page 133
. "'"'O"_'_""~'__'F'"
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to know the
approval date.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you.
With that, we'll close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion on this item?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I make a motion that we
move to forward this with approval-- forward CP-2004-2 for approval
to the board of county commissioners.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Schiffer, second by Ms.
Caron.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The applicant has -- suggested
some things that they would do. If they're not part of the motion, how
do we make sure they're done?
Maybe the County Attorney can answer that since we know -- or
we're learning that things said on record don't count as much as we
think they do.
MS. STUDENT: Well, again this is a legislative matter, so for it
to be binding on the property would somehow need to find its way
into the text of the amendment.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I would certainly think the
motion maker might want to suggest that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Anderson, do you want to guide us in
that effort?
MR. ANDERSON: Most certainly.
The commitment that was made was to file before the final
adoption hearing. So, if we have not filed when we come back before
Page 134
January 6, 2004
you, because you -- you're back in the adoption process, then that is
the time that you enforce it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're going to file the rural
fringe village application? What is it you're intending to file?
MR. ANDERSON: The rural village PUD rezone application
will be filed, assuming all these amendments are approved, will be
filed before the final adoption hearing for these amendments.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And at that time if you've not
complied, and we're at the adoption in June, we can reject at that time.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm -- I'm sure, Mr. -- you all will find it in
the minutes and remind me of it.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, ten -- Marjorie, is that--
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll probably do that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- sufficient?
MS. STUDENT: I think it -- it has to be because it's not going to
be an adopted amendment yet. So, you will be having -- you will be
having it come back before you, and then if the condition has not been
met, then that -- you can take that into consideration at the time that
you make your final recommendations on adoption of the amendment.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further decision on the motion?
There being none, we'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
Page 135
>......,-.,...---'-~_.-
January 6, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Let's have the show of hands on
those in favor.
(The commissioners in favor raised their hands.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: One, two, three, four in favor.
Those opposed?
(The commissioners that were opposed raised their hands.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: One, two, three opposed.
Motion carries.
So, with that, we will break for lunch. It is 12:40. We will take
one hour. We'll be back here at 1 :40 to hear the next agenda item.
(A luncheon recess was had from 12:40 p.m. until 1 :40 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. We'll call the planning
commission back to order starting with the Item D, No.3, CP-2004-3.
That is the amendment to the future land use element, future land
use map to create the new Vanderbilt Beach Road neighborhood
commercial subdistrict. I'll hear from the petitioner, please.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the
record, Rich Y ovanovich representing the petitioner. With me today
are Tammy Kipp and Amy Turner, who own one of the parcels and
has a contract to purchase the other parcel; Wayne Arnold, the -- with
Grady Minor, the professional planner on the project; Dean Smith
with Grady Minor to answer transportation questions; and Chuck
Mohlke, who did our market analysis to answer any questions
regarding the market analysis.
I'll take you briefly through the request. This is a request to
create a new subdistrict on two parcels -- I'll try the mike to see if it
works -- the two parc -- the two parcels on Vanderbilt Beach Road.
The first parcel is approximately 9.18 acres, and it is on the corner of
Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
This aerial is a little dated. Livingston Road is obviously in place
and operating. That's a six-lane facility. Vanderbilt Beach Road is
scheduled to be upgraded to a six-lane facility in the near future.
Page 136
~-,-
January 6, 2004
On that parcel we're requesting 100,000 square feet of retail and
office uses that you would typically find in the C 1 to C3 zoning
district and/or a combination of up to 200,000 square feet of indoor
self-storage.
The second parcel is approximately 7.73 acres. It has an existing
PUD on it that would allow an ALF or a skilled nursing facility.
We're requesting the same type of uses of C 1 through C -- C3, retail
and office uses, and -- but that's 80,000 square feet on that parcel and
up to 160,000 square feet of indoor self-storage.
Staff, I believe, has provided you with some revised language
with your packet. That language is acceptable to us, and it includes
the conversion factor if we do the indoor self-storage versus the retail,
so there's a -- there's tradeoff of basically two square feet for each --
for each -- for each 2 square feet of indoor self-storage, we reduced
the retail by a square foot.
The firm of Fraser and Mohlke has performed a market analysis
to determine if more retail and office is necessary for the area. Your
packet includes this report, and your staff agrees that in the year 2005
there's going to be a need for additional retail in this area.
As I mentioned, Livingston Road is now open, and Vanderbilt
Beach Road is scheduled to go -- go under improvement in the
relatively near future. Your transportation department has reviewed
the petition and has determined that the petition does not adversely
affect Livingston and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The remaining public
facilities, water, sewer, drainage, solid waste, et cetera, will not be
significantly affected by the project.
Your staff has recommended that the planning commission
recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners, and we
are requesting that the planning commission also recommend approval
to the Board of County Commissioners.
The staff report was very detailed. I won't reemphasize anything
in the staff report. We're available to answer any questions you may
Page 137
,~-~-
January 6, 2004
have regarding the proposal, and with that I'll keep the comments brief
so we can keep the day moving.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Any questions for the
petitioner? There are none at this point; sure to be some later.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're going to start with staff.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, you caught me off guard.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'll give you a little minute to breathe. I'd
like to hear the staff report, please.
MR. MOSS: Good afternoon. John David Moss with
Comprehensive Planning. As Mr. Y ovanovich stated, unless there are
any questions, staff is recommending that the CCPC forward Petition
CP 2004-3 to the BCC with the recommendation of approval to
transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Questions? Mr. Weeks.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure it's clear.
You received in your packets right in front of your staff report for this
petition a memo dated December 22nd. It's got revised language.
I just want to make sure that you're all aware of that. And that's
the language that staff has recommended approval of and which the
petitioners are in agreement with.
The -- the language shown in that December 22nd memo is a
strike-through, underlined version modifying the version that is in the
staff report as well as that shown within resolution Exhibit A, so that's
__ that memo reflects staffs recommendation, and -- excuse me -- and
the petitioners have agreed to that language.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Very good. Any questions? Mr.
Abernathy.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Moss, does the county
have a capability of doing its own market analysis of a project, or do
you just rely on the petitioner?
MR. MOSS: We rely on the petitioner. In this case they used
Mr. Mohlke's firm.
Page 138
_".......,.__..",,_...m......"_
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I know -- I know all that,
and I know Chuck very well, but I have sort of a jaundiced view of
market analyses as well as traffic analyses performed on behalf of the
petitioner. They always seem to come out in support of the petitioner,
but we don't have anything to counteract that.
MR. MOSS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Weeks.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'll just comment briefly that, of
course, we don't just accept it at face value. We do review their
application -- their -- their market studies, and to the best of our
ability we -- we check it for accuracy and appropriateness of -- of their
findings and their conclusions.
If they're suggesting there's a need for additional commercial, we
want to make sure all the facts are straight; have they identified all of
the commercial zoning that's in place within their identified trade area,
as an example, and the amount of developed commercial, the
population, and/or dwelling unit projections they've shown for the
surrounding area. We do our best to double check to make sure
they've got their ducks in a row.
And we certainly agree with you. I've never seen a study that
came back that said, no, we don't -- a study saying that it would not
support what's asked for.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: David, I was just thinking.
It just occurred to me that perhaps there's more than one methodology.
You're checking what he did using his assumptions and so forth
and so on, and there might be another way of -- of slicing that onion,
but that's for another day, I guess.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got a few.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's get Mr. Schiffer's short list --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All right.
Page 139
....,_.,....."'----,,..~~"... "
January 6, 2004
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- first.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The indoor storage would
normally be in C5 zoning?
MR. MOSS: That's right.
MR. WEEKS: And C4 as a conditional use.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have a chart that
shows the surrounding zoning? I don't have anything that actually
shows -- because the only really concern I have is that 360,000 square
feet of indoor storage is huge, and it's an industrial use. I mean, your
report points out the other zoning, but it doesn't really point out that
this is, in essence, an industrial zoning you're requesting on
Vanderbilt.
MR. WEEKS: I'll make a couple of comments on the
surrounding land use. First of all, this map doesn't show either to the
west or the south. To the west of this site, jumping across Livingston
Road, is a golf course maintenance facility and then golf course within
Pelican Marsh. And, of course, as you can clearly see, to the north is
the Pelican Marsh PUD. The land use in that area is also golf course
only.
So it's abutting golf course and a maintenance facility on a
couple of sides with -- with Livingston Road intervening. To the --
directly to the south of both parcels across Vanderbilt Beach Road is
residential development multifamily within the Vineyards PUD and,
let's see, to the south -- to the southwest. So both south of Vanderbilt
Beach Road and west of Livingston Road is also residential
development within the Vineyards PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the driveway is a nice
landscaped rural kind of area. I use it every day, and it doesn't -- to
me -- I'm not sure where an industrial zoning would be appropriate.
MR. WEEKS: I think I'd agree -- agree with you. As I think
you're aware, the -- as we just stated, the -- the indoor self-storage
facilities are allowed in industrial and in C5 and C4 by conditional
Page 140
^____"'_,._'~^m"~"__
--,._-~.".,~'~ '.
January 6, 2004
use. I would mention to you, as I imagine the petitioner would as
well, that the -- the type of indoor stealth -- self-storage facilities that
we're seeing developed are of a -- I'll call it a softer look than a typical
storage facility that you might envision.
If you think of some of the newer ones that have been built -- for
example, the one up the road on the east side of Airport Road just
north of Davis Boulevard is one example, another one built in the last
few years on the south side of Pine Ridge Road between 41 and
Goodlette. These are some of the newer storage facilities. They have
to comply with the architectural standards in our LDC. They--
certainly they're multi-story, but from a visual standpoint I would
characterize them as having a much softer look than what you would
anticipate for a -- for your basic industrial development.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I've designed one,
probably the nicest one, I hope, in Marco Island, so I know what they
are. But the concern is that, you know, they are rooftop and
pavement. They're huge. I mean, that's -- and especially 360,000 feet
of building and then the pavement in front of each of those bays is
something -- at least I'm not convinced that that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Brad, I tend to agree with you
I live not too far up the road in Island Walk. I go back and forth
on that road every day. I can't see the need for a storage facility in
that area. It's just way out of -- it's usually in a Commercial 4 or 5
zone. There's a need here for residential. It's fine. But why do we
have to have a storage facility there when there's other places we can
put them? And they're usually 24 hours--
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: --which is not appropriate for
the area.
MR. WEEKS: Perhaps the petitioner will want to respond to
that at a later time.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And then, while the petitioner prepares
Page 141
..---
~..O".,,,,,,.·~_<,T"""'U_,",,'^
January 6, 2004
their response, it's interesting to me that we've been beating the
stuffings out of transportation issues all day and in favor of a storage
facility which people visit every few months, six months, a year,
certainly don't go there every day, to suggest that we would put in
residential within an infinitely exponentially greater traffic impact --
I'd much rather see a great big storage facility, but I'm -- I await the
petitioner's comments.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Would they be affordable storage
facilities?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Affordable storage facilities, yes, even
better.
MR. WEEKS: Then we can triple it for you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Then we can increase our densities, yes.
Other questions?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, you're on.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know if Rich was going to
respond so ...
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, let -- okay. Let's go that way.
Richard, if you would address that issue, and then we'll -- while you're
up there and batting, we'll let Mr. Strain have at you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, it's not him. I wanted to --
MR. YO V ANOVICH: He wants staff, which is kind of a nice
thing.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got questions of staff. Equal
opportunity .
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I understand the comment and the
concern about self-storage and the industrial-type use, and we're
certainly, you know, willing to include architectural standards, if that's
the concern, and hours of operations. What we had in mind is the type
of facility that Olde Naples Self-Storage has done on Goodlette-Frank
Road, which is close to Pine Ridge, also close to Autumn Woods --
Page 142
-,........ ",,~--_..-.-~
January 6, 2004
and there's a project going in immediately adjacent to it -- or, you
know, Lock-Up, which was on the south side of Pine Ridge Road, as
__ as Mr. Weeks had pointed out, which is immediately adjacent to a
residential neighborhood.
I mean, literally right behind us are homes, you know,
single- family homes, and we worked with the neighborhood to make
sure that we had good architectural standing. That building looks like
an office building. It really -- you know, and you pull in for
self-storage there -- we're talking about those -- that -- those
compatibility issues will obviously be addressed at zoning. It's not our
intent, Mr. Schiffer, to build 360,000 square feet of indoor
self-storage, and it's not our intent to have self-storage on both
parcels.
I mean, if we need to put a provision in there that says we can
have it on one or the other, we can -- we can live with that. It was
never the intent of -- of -- of doing that. It was -- you know, you had
to put an upside perimeter -- parameter in there. There we -- it's not a
24- hour operation.
You know, Mr. Budd, I appreciate what he was saying about
traffic. I mean, from a traffic standpoint, I would think you'd want me
to build 360,000 square feet of indoor self-storage because that's the
best thing that could ever happen on -- on the road from a traffic
standpoint. I'm not saying that's the best thing from a neighborhood
standpoint, but from a transportation standpoint I would -- I would
think that definitely is better for the community from a transportation
standpoint.
And, you know, we've -- we've talked about transportation issues
on earlier petitions, and -- and we're working with the same type of
issues here, so I think that self-storage is an appropriate use there, the
type we're talking about, not --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Strain, your questions?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Some of the -- I've got two
Page 143
^.____'"_w~.,__~_"q_·..~_'"'_.._·,__~,··_~_,,···
January 6, 2004
or three different versions of this document, so if I'm reading from one
that's been improved, just tell me --
MR. MOSS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- and I'll go on. But one of the
elements for Parcel 2 -- Parcel 2 is the one that's an existing PUD.
MR. MOSS: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In that existing PUD, there are
very -- specifics involving buffers and things like that and I'm sure
will come into play in comparison when the new PUD comes in as a
response to today's meeting. But one of the things you include in the
GMP, which is normally found in a PUD, says the maximum building
height for any use shall be 42 feet above the finished grade of the site.
My concern there is we have two definitions in the LDC. One is
called building height zoning, and one is called building height actual.
And I don't know which one of this you're referring -- which one
of these you're referring to. I think the actual starts at the grade. But
is that the maximum building height? Is the 42 the actual, or is that to
be the zoned?
MR. MOSS: I'm going to defer to David for that.
MR. WEEKS: We had not even thought of that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the only reason I'm
thinking of it is someone's going to live with that because you put it in
the GMP. Maybe we should just strike it from the GMP.
MR. WEEKS: We wouldn't object to that, to deleting the
language. As you know, it's not uncommon to have height limitations
and other --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right.
MR. WEEKS: -- development standards that some have --
generally speaking are more appropriate in a PUD. But we've got a
tradition here in Collier County of being rather specific on a lot of our
amendments. Staff has no objection to -- to deleting it. You're
certainly correct that at the rezone stage that will be evaluated as to
Page 144
---'---~-"'-"~"~"-'-'"^-' -,
."M~~~'_""-'<O·'·_~···_··_V
January 6, 2004
what the appropriate height is when you get much more specific
information presented to you about the surrounding development and
the proposal for this site as well --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the existing--
MR. WEEKS: -- just as you would for setbacks and buffers and
so forth.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The existing PUD is for -- you see
a lot of this -- is three habitable floors. Kind of interesting is Parcell
doesn't have any height listed in it, so that's what made me wonder
why we bothered with listing it in Parcel 2.
MR. WEEKS: I believe that's because it's -- it's abutting the
residential development; whereas, Parcel 1 is not.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I just -- so what would
staff like to see? I mean, I don't want to -- either give me a zoned
actual or an elimination of it, and then we can fight it out at the PUD
level.
MR. WEEKS: The petitioner's saying they want it to refer to
zone height.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Staff has no objection to --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Of course he's going to say that.
MR. WEEKS: Staff has no objection to simply deleting it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think that would be best
because then if he doesn't provide the proper buffers then we can fight
with the height when it gets to that point at the PUD level, so -- okay.
So that's going to go out. I've got to make notes so I can tell some --
on the second page of one of the reports I have, it's talking about
changes to the Urban Commercial District Policy 1.1, and everything
that's underlined is new.
We've got Item 11, which is Vanderbilt Beach Road
Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict -- and I'm going to slow down
for you; sorry -- Item 10, Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill
Page 145
,-'0_--""'·
,--.-,-
,~.~---~----_.-~~
<,~,.".,~~-----,,,_._...
January 6, 2004
Subdistrict, and 9, Livingston Road/Veteran's Memorial Commercial
Infill Subdistrict. Why are these underlined for this entry into the
GMP when we're only -- we should only be doing -- dealing with the
one on Vanderbilt Beach Road?
MR. WEEKS: The -- the reason for that is -- is a bittle -- a little
bit of a housecleaning that half -- staff inserted into there. If we
didn't, then to correctly identify this subdistrict, it would be -- I think
the last one you said was No. 13. It would be skipping two numbers.
What's happened is we've adopted two other subdistricts but failed to
amend this policy to reflect them, so we're doing that housecleaning
matter at the same time so we can properly number this item.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I was afraid we were
approving something we haven't seen --
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- at least in this context here.
And, David, I guess maybe you can answer this. I notice that
this intersection has some other empty parcels around it in between
these, for example, south of these, across the road from these in that
one case. Why are we not master planning this area instead of having
it come in piecemeal? Is there -- I mean, when we went through with
this -- with the GMPs for the -- countywide we picked places that we
wanted to use for accommodating activity centers and things. Has
anybody thought of looking at that in regards to this issue?
MR. WEEKS: Not specifically. We've done the -- the
broad-scale planning that we've -- that we've accomplished so far in
the original adoption of the plan and going through one EAR, and --
and now a second EAR has been adopted. Our next step is to
implement those amendments -- implement that through amendments,
but we've not identified this or any other major intersection for
specific master planning.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So is it assumed that it's better
just to come in piecemeal like this? Because it helps maybe if it's
Page 146
January 6, 2004
master planned to get the interconnections and all the other criteria for
access points and things like that, I would think. I just was hoping that
maybe after today someone would at least think about it over at the
staff.
MR. WEEKS: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know you can't do anything
today about it.
MR. WEEKS: I can't disagree that master planning would be
the better way to do it. I don't think the staff has the resources -- or at
least the commitment to provide the resources necessary to -- to do the
master planning for all of the various intersections in the -- in the
county -- major intersections in the county such as this. Even though
that may not be an extensive list, there's a heck of a lot of work
involved in -- in doing that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On the memo that you sent out --
or whoever sent it out -- I think it was from one of you guys -- there
made -- you made some word changes. I kind of want to understand a
couple of them.
You said that for mixed-use development residential density
shall be limited to 16 dwelling units per acre. Isn't that what the GMP
allows anyway? Why -- is there a necessity to restate it here?
MR. WEEKS: What this is providing for is -- is that they're
specifically eligible for 16 units per acre development here. If we did
not state that, then they would be limited to the density rating system,
which essentially would be four units per acre. What -- what we've
done is, as you will recall about -- I think it was October of last year.
The last amendment cycle we adopted the residential mixed-use
neighborhood commercial subdistrict and, also, the commercial
mixed-use subdistrict, both of which provide for a mixture of
commercial and residential uses and have specific provisions for what
density is allowed, which is different from the density rating system.
We want to promote mixed-use development, and one way of
Page 147
.--------....
,.~.,_.--._-,~....,.---
January 6, 2004
doing that is allowing a higher residential density in those
developments, so we're -- we're --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're giving it to them, and
they're not even asking for it.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, wow.
MR. WEEKS: I mean, so it will be their choice if this gets
approved and ultimately the rezoning as well, similarly, it will strictly
be the developer's choice whether or not to do a mixed-use
development or not. Staff inserted that, and the petitioner didn't
object, because we wanted to provide that opportunity to develop
mixed use.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I noticed staff also struck their
references to C 1 through C3 and substituted the word "commercial."
Now, I'm assuming that means the intensity of that can be regulated to
any way the BCC finally decides when it comes in for a PUD rezone;
is that right? Because commercial could connotate different meanings
in a C 1 to C3.
MR. WEEKS: We're -- I think you're referring to under Parcel
1(n)(2) where we struck through some of the material.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. I'm sorry.
MR. WEEKS: That was for ease of reference. What we tried to
do was clarify that all of the -- all of the uses other than indoor
self-storage would be considered commercial as opposed to having to
say -- regarding the square footage adjustments, if such square footage
of storage is built, then there's a reduction in the amount for the other
uses. Rather than have to continuously spell out C 1 through C3 plus
the other commercial uses allowed, we just said commercial uses.
If you look at the lead-in paragraph that -- the first paragraph of
this new subdistrict, it spells out generally the types of uses allowed,
C 1 through C3 plus some other types of commercial uses. So it's
really just a matter of convenience --
Page 148
. ... ,.....~..-......-...--"'"._- ""'.
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: -- to do that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On the staff analysis, traffic
capacity/traffic circulation analysis, the TIS and everything was
reviewed. It says that based on the construction of the program
improvements, which I -- I understand is the six-laning of Immokalee
__ of Vanderbilt Beach Road, so based on that I -- my question coming
up for the applicant eventually will be -- I'm hoping he's not going to
ask for building permits until that road gets six -laned, but we'll get to
that.
Under the appropriateness of change on the staff report, page 6,
the third line, it says, "As the subject property borders the North
Naples and Urban Estates Planning Communities" -- where is the
Urban Estates Planning Community on that zoning map? I -- since I
live in the estates, I didn't understand it to be that far over.
MR. WEEKS: I believe the boundaries are both Vanderbilt
Beach Road and Livingston Road.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the Urban Estates Planning
Community goes -- even though this is not anywhere near the estates
area, this goes -- it goes all the way over to Livingston Road?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. That's just the name of the
planning -- for example, the -- the Golden Gate Planning Community
includes some of the estates, Golden Gate City, and some non-estates
area. The -- the Rural Estates Planning Community also includes
some -- some non-estates.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't think the Golden Gate
Planning Community contains anything that doesn't have the name
Golden Gate in it, though.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, it does. Actually, it does include maybe
a couple of sections or so of part of the Berkshire Lakes development,
as I recall.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I didn't know that. Okay. My
Page 149
-,,"-,-,,~~,,-,"~,~.._.".,,_._,..-
January 6, 2004
other questions center around the market conditions, so I'll wait till
Chuck can go.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any other questions for staff?
Well, then keep on going with your questions. Chuck's available.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Chuck, it's kind of -- I
mentioned to you earlier the primary trade area that you used for this
report included the Golden Gate Estates area or at least a portion of it
I know there's a deficiency in commercial in the Golden Gate
Estates area, so it really helps to use that, but I'm not sure that Golden
Gate Estates people are going to drive all the way over here to benefit
from this commercial.
Having -- living there myself, we've got much more prime areas
north and south on 951 than going this direction. I'm just curious as to
why you used that -- that area.
MR. MOHLKE: If it pleases the honorable commission, Mr.
Chairman, what I'd like to do is make some preliminary remarks. I
will, of course, respond to Commissioner Strain's very good question,
and I will begin by commenting, if I may, on Commissioner
Abernathy's opening remarks.
It should be made clear to anyone who examines these reports in
any detail that everything -- everything is referenced as to source.
And what is the source? Mr. Weeks' Department, the Transportation
Division.
There are no -- in this report no independently gathered and
reported information that will require separate authentication in terms
of determining its appropriateness, its accuracy, or its viability. There
is none of that in any of the reports that we have ever submitted since
1989.
So we are -- I use a word here that is unconventional for this
kind of comment. Weare totally hostage to the information that is
provided by the Comprehensive Planning Cepartment and the
Transportation Division or other of the county departments who
Page 150
January 6, 2004
provide routinely to this commission and to the Board of County
Commissioners and a variety of other users of these resources the
information which you rely on in every instance.
And I'm now going to make a comment which I'll use in
conclusion because I think it's very important. One of the concerns
that a person like myself has in regard to this is we are working with
very elderly data. When we look at the build-outs that were done in
1994, May of 1994, which had been updated to some modest degree in
1997 and again in 1998 and early 1999, that information has led to a
variety of outcomes that you have heard me before when you had
your November meeting and there was comments on the Golden Gate
area and some of the issues which were before you at that time that
we now are confronted with the dilemma beginning this year in terms
of population projections in the Golden Gate area planning
community in which we are frozen in terms of our population
estimates because this is board-determined and mandated policy that
those population proj ections cannot be exceeded in any document
that the staff provides.
You look at the population projections, and Mr. Weeks will
advise you that by the time you get to the year 2020 you will have
four planning communities that have frozen populations year to year
because in the build-out study it was determined that those would be
the maximum population. Mr. Weeks will respond as he thinks
appropriate to those remarks.
Then one final response if I may, and it's important that this be
mentioned because at the time of the EAR back in 1995 -- there are
some sitting here who have been a part of this process since then, but
many are relatively new to the process. There was determined at that
time -- and I will read from this -- that every market study to
determine viability must include the following: "Evidence of
population growth and the adequacy of infrastructure capacity,
particularly roads, to support future residential and commercial growth
Page 151
.---...-.---
January 6, 2004
in the analyzed area."
You must document that. That's what we always do in Section 1
of these reports. And the data which we use is county-generated data.
This is not an invention, something sprung like a phoenix from
the head of the annex okay.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Chuck, what -- I mean, I can get
to my question real quick. You're just telling me that the data -- the
primary trade area was determined because of the county data. You--
if that's all you --
MR. MOHLKE: No, that's not what I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If that's where you're going, that's
okay. I just need to know.
MR. MOHLKE: Commissioner Strain, I'm not saying that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, okay.
MR. MOHLKE: I'm not saying that. I'm just going to finish my
point, and -- and I don't mean to be tedious, but I thank you for your
patience. Secondly, the amount, type, and location of existing zoning
and developed commercial used in proximity to the proposed
development and, lastly, a market demand within a generalized service
area surrounding the subject site, those are requirements. They have
always been requirements.
Now, back to the market area. The market area does not include
anything -- anything east of I - 7 5. It includes nothing east of I - 75.
That's made clear in Section 1. The reason that the information is in
there regarding market demand is it struck us, and there was
agreement with our consultants who are here with you today, that we
needed to have something by way of comparison.
And if we're talking about the urban estates, which does go
below Pine Ridge Road and has as its western border Livingston
Road, that we be able to make some comparison between adequacy of
supportable commercial throughout Gold -- the entire Golden Gate
area and make the specific comparison for purposes of this study of
Page 152
<.~"'~~._._...-.-"~...
January 6, 2004
the urban estates, which goes into deficit this year.
The urban estates, half of which is west of 1-75 and half of which
is east of 1- 7 5 -- so if you are concerned that we are using for purposes
of making recommendations, Commissioner Strain, information
which applies to analyzed Areas 2, 3, and 4 way out into the far
reaches of the state, we are not.
And here gives me a chance to compliment staff in regard to Mr.
Abernathy's question. The material which is in here regarding market
demand is a staff-generated, very professional market demand
analysis done, as you know, Commissioner Strain, because you served
on the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee. Tom
Tomlinson late of the comprehensive planning staff did all of that
work. We are using the body of that unedited in this report.
And Commissioner Abernathy should receive some level of
comfort that the staff had taken this initiative and provided this
information as an update of the work done by Plan Tech, Reynolds,
Smith & Hills way back in 1986 and 1988. They did that work. We
rely on that work, and we use it for the purposes of this study.
So we are reliant for purposes of defining a market area of the
roads, a virtually unobstructed major arterial road, Livingston, and a
major collector road, which will be greatly improved on Vanderbilt
Beach Road, and we use for purposes of defining a market area the
two-mile radius concept, which is typical for determining
neighborhood centers which this certainly is because it does not
exceed 225,000 square feet, therefore, to qualify as a community
center.
That's a long, and you may find it, a tedious response to your
question, but it's important that those predicates be down before we
start the discussion.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Before we start the discussion?
MR. MOHLKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm not going to ask
Page 153
" _.'.m..._..,_____
---~_.._-~-"----"'._-.
January 6, 2004
you anymore questions today because I can ask you about it via phone
call and be more productive than taking everybody's time now. So I'll
__ I'll defer to that before -- between now and the time these come
back to us.
MR. MOHLKE: Because, Commissioner Strain, to be overly
aggressive about this, had you provided me with that opportunity via
phone call before this meeting we could have resolved a lot of these
Issues.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don't--
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mark, don't allow yourself to be stymied
be a respondent that's even more particular than you are in your
questions.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Chuck, if you had given me your
report in enough time so I could have read it before today's meeting, I
would have done that.
MR. MOHLKE: The report was supplied to Collier County on
the 23rd of April of last year.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then you should have given it to
me because they just gave it to me last week, and I had --
MR. MOHLKE: I can't respond to that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- three of these -- well, that's--
that's the reason so ...
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further questions?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. Oh, one of Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was so close.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Richard, I'm sure you want to not
pull a building permit till Vanderbilt Beach Road is six -laned; right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm not sure of that. Mr. Strain, we
__ we're -- we're like any other, you know, petitioner. We -- we --
we're willing to live with the county's concurrency management
system, within those rules. Weare willing between now and the
Page 154
n -.."..,,-,-,>~
January 6, 2004
adoption hearing, because I'm not prepared today to say it's all or
nothing, to think about a possible phasing schedule that could -- could
work for everybody, but today to say absolutely -- because we -- we
don't know what we might bring to you.
We might bring something to you that will have an absolute
minimal impact that there's no reason to wait for building permits until
the road's done, but, you know, we have the -- we'll be willing to make
that commitment, but between now and adoption we'll look at and see
if we can propose some kind of a schedule that would address the
concerns about Vanderbilt Beach Road because we believe, especially
on the corner piece -- I mean, you have Livingston Road -- that if --
I'm sure we've all used it. I mean, I use it as often as I can. It
functions great.
So why would we want to limit -- I mean, we may have no
impact on Vanderbilt Beach Road while we do the corner. I don't
know. We'd just -- we'd just like to leave that open preferably till
zoning, but between now and the adoption hearing we'll do some
thinking about that, if that's acceptable --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- to the commission.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- there's eight people up here, so
it ain't me.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Rich, I have a question. How
about hours of operation and the fact that you'll maybe use just one
parcel instead of two for storage?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can commit that it'll -- we won't have it
on both parcels. So if we come in on Parcel 2 we won't come in on
Parcel 1 and vice versa. And if hours of operations are an issue we --
we can commit to an hour -- hours of operation as well as
architectural standards. We have no interest in a 24/7 operation, to
give people access 24/7.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine.
Page 155
TIIIII""-_'_""_'^_
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is -- is there -- are you thinking
about a mixed use, though?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. I mean, I don't -- we're not -- you
know, it's not our intention that we're going to have a hundred percent
self-storage.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No. No. No, I realize that, but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You mean residential and --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Three-story mixed use?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Residential -- we -- we don't know.
And, honestly, it was an idea that staff generated, but it seemed like a
good idea. I mean, the concept is we're trying to encourage that where
possible, and it's very similar to the commercial -- the commercial
criteria that's in -- in the comp plan already. I mean, it's -- we're
almost verbatim with what's already existing for commercial--
commercially zoned properties already that you're coming in and
asking for a mixed use. We -- we haven't thought about that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, what's the depth of the
site? Do you know? I mean, that's --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just under 600 feet, we believe.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the concern is, I
mean -- and I guess it may be a question to the chairman. Do we have
to approve both of these parcels? Can we break this application up? I
mean, because this is a beautiful strip down through this area. There's
no commercial on it at all save a dog-and-horse thing out there. To--
to put commercial into this area -- I mean, is -- is there -- I mean, I can
understand around the corner at Livingston and Vanderbilt. I don't
understand a deep -- across from Village Walk and everything.
And, again, I'm still not a fan of the, you know -- and I know as
nice as they can be designed, you know, a mini store-it is a mini
store-it. It can be a good-looking mini store-it. You know, it's the
Page 156
"--
_ _o~_. ~ .._"
January 6, 2004
lipstick-on-the-pig problem. It's still a mini store-it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then, I guess, the thing
would be is if we did allow mini storage, could we, you know, require
a certain distance off of Vanderbilt for the gates and all?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is -- this is all things, Mr. Schiffer,
that we would expect we would address in the -- in the -- at the zoning
hearing. I mean, we're not -- we seem to be talking an awful lot about
self-storage, but don't forget we're asking for, you know, retail and
office as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But, you know, we would -- we would
expect that -- and I don't -- I don't re -- I don't think you were on the
planning commission when we came through with the Lock-Up's
project on Pine Ridge Road. I know Mr. Budd was and Mr. Adelstein
was. I think, Mr. Midney, you were on there. We went through--
and, Mr. Abernathy, you were.
We went through quite a process with the neighborhood to make
sure that we were compatible with the neighbors, and that's what we
would expect would happen at the zoning to make sure that we would
address all of those issues. It's difficult to do it now because I don't
have -- I don't have a real project for you, but at zoning we can come
back and talk about setbacks, and we'll talk about the height.
I mean, Mr. Strain has taken out the 42 feet, so there's no
guarantee -- no guarantee of 42 feet. We can -- we can get in all these
details, and you may ultimately determine at the zoning that, you
know what, on Parcel 1 you don't want self-storage. I mean, we don't
know. I mean, we'll have to -- we'll go through those details at the
zoning, but we're -- we're committed to making sure that
architecturally it looks good, operationally hours -- we're not going to
be a 24/7 operation, and we do think that traffic-wise you'd kind of
want us there.
Page 157
,.._".....-,""~~""^'''-
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the concern is the
neighbors aren't involved. I'm -- I don't know.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: But they will be in zoning, as you know.
And, you know, it's totally different, and if you want us to, you know,
like -- like we -- I volunteered earlier, to go out and do, you know, the
neighborhood information meetings that we do typically with zoning
related to comp planning, we'll be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I haven't been on the board
long enough --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- but I do know that projects
come forward and everybody says, "Well, we approved that back at
the GMP thing." I mean, that's been used. So what you're saying -- I
mean, I just -- you know, I just can't believe that we'd put --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Other they may have. I mean, you
know, a comp plan's no guarantee. It's a parameter. You know, we've
got to come in at the zoning process and justify. If we want the
maximum under zoning, we've got to show you that, you know, we
meet the criteria. It's just -- it's an outside limit.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then the problem is we're
zoning with a PUD and you can't discuss the look of the building
because everybody's going to say that's taken care of at SDP, and then
it's gone; it's out of our hands. And then it's just the architectural
standards so we don't get to put the hammer that we should be putting
maybe now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well -- and we're committing to that.
We're committing to architectural standards. I mean, if you need to
put them in now, we understand.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know those standards well.
They're not good enough for Vanderbilt Beach Road with a mini
store- it. But, anyway, I'm through.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Weeks.
Page 158
__ ~,~_,_...........-.,,,,__40".~" -,
January 6, 2004
MR. WEEKS: Just a couple of points responding to Mr.
Schiffer's -- Schiffer's comments. Number 1, unless Margie tells me
different, I would say you do have the ability, if -- to go to the extent
of only approving this subdistrict change on one of the two parcels. I
believe that's fully within -- she's acknowledging. That's fully within
your -- your powers to make that recommendation and for the board
to act on that as well.
Secondly, seeing as how the comprehensive plan amendment
does establish parameters, if you think the parameters proposed are
not appropriate, you have the ability to recommend something
different. That -- that could be in the realm of, say, a self-storage fac
-- as an example, self-storage uses are approved for both of the
parcels, but only one can actually develop with it. So if you develop it
on one the other one can't have it.
You could do that and/or place a different square footage cap on
the self-storage. They have ranges proposed here. You could always
say, however, in no event will-- will the self-storage exceed 50,000
square feet or 100,000 or whatever number you think is appropriate.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Further questions? We -- Mr.
Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. I just wanted to
interject. It seems like there's a lot of discussion about the
mini-storage component of this project on Parcel 2, and, as we've
discussed, it's an optional component for either because it didn't fit
nicely and neatly into C 1 through C3, but I think we all have
recognized that it is a very low-intensity use, which is what we were
trying to achieve so that there can be transition.
And in respect to our neighbors at Wiltshire Lakes that was
viewed as something that would be a potential very compatible land
use relationship with them developed properly, and I think that, as
Mr. Y ovanovich said, we're clearly here to commit that we're willing
to include architectural standards or whatever else may be necessary
Page 159
-..-............-.-----
"'.......'''~_..-..
January 6, 2004
to allow the planning commissioners to -- to understand that this
doesn't have to look like an industrial use.
And it hasn't in other context been viewed as an industrial use. I
think it's been viewed really as a very good transitional use in the
context of -- of our planned developments in Collier County. It's not
said, but I think that clearly we would be hopeful to come back
through the planned unit development process for both parcels so that
we can demonstrate, you know, all of these criteria to you.
And, as Mr. Y ovanovich said, these are the outside limits. The
comprehensive plan designation -- you know, all of Collier County
has a plan designation on it, and we -- we come back through at
zoning within those limits. And today at the comprehensive plan
level we have certain criteria that must be established for these two
parcels which we think are -- are justified.
We'll come back through zoning whereby we will have very
specific standards that we will live by, and hopefully at that point we
have a very specific project that we're selling so that, you know,
maybe mini storage isn't even a component at the time that we come
back through this in the next 12 months, likely, with zoning for
you-all to look at that. But I would hope that you would at least keep
that opportunity open for a lower intensity use that we can make look
like an office-type use.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just out of curiosity -- David,
maybe this is a question you could answer -- if they have a GMP that
says they can have these commercial -- commercial uses, C 1 through
C3, and we use the words "and indoor self-storage use shall be
allowed," does that mean that if they come back with it we have to
allow it?
I guess that may be where the fear is here is that they may not
come back with a plan using self-storage that works at all and for what
we feel would be the right thing to do.
MR. WEEKS: What that language is simply providing is that all
Page 160
-.-
January 6, 2004
of those uses are allowed. I mean, they -- they are -- they shall be
allowed within the subdistrict. Okay. The subdistrict is there, and it
allows that use. That is not a mandate that you must approve the use
at zoning stage.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is that a right they have? I
mean, can we deny them that use later?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly. As -- as part of your -- your review of
the rezone petition and based on the criteria in the land development
code, if you determine that's not an appropriate use for any of the
reasons, the public facility impact, the compatibility, going back to
your comments of the -- possibly the size of the structure or its
appearance or -- or the associated parking and so forth, I -- I believe
that's fully within your right to deny that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Miss Student.
MS. STUDENT: I think probably to more accurately reflect the
intent and what Mr. Weeks has stated, the use of "may" instead of
"shall" could be placed in the amendment. And, also, there's case law
that tells us that when you do a comp plan amendment unless there's a
public health, safety, and welfare reason to deny something, if it's
consistent, you know, you pretty much need to allow that unless you
can show there's a connection between that, an ill effect on the public
health, safety, and welfare, which we look at the criteria for a rezone
as going -- and, you know, as -- as being, obviously, for the public
health, safety, and welfare.
So because of all of that I would state that we may be better
served to use the word "may" instead of "shall" because then it could
be interpreted like our density rating system where those maximum
densities are not a right. You can approve them, but you don't have to
approve them. I think that gives us a little more leeway.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. And, Mr. Weeks.
MR. WEEKS: And certainly I would defer to Margie's
comment. I'd want to make an additional comment. I think, as I look
Page 161
>. . ".~.","'o.,_..........-,_..."._,.."......,.__.,~
January 6, 2004
at the language specifically where we struck through the word
"include" and "shall be" -- I think that's what Commissioner Strain
was referring to -- the reason we made that change was because we
wanted it to be all inclusive.
If we left it as the uses would include, that suggests that there are
additional uses. We were trying to place a limit on the use. We didn't
want the -- to anyone, petitioner or -- or the public or anyone else to --
to read this to mean those uses listed are allowed, but there may be
others as well. Again, so it was trying to be limiting, but we'll
certainly refer to -- to Margie's opinion as to the correct wording to --
to meet that intent.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Further questions? We've
had the petitioner's presentation, the staff report. Are there any
advertised or registered speakers?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Summary comments? They've
been made. No need to make them if you've said all --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. We'll close the public
hearing. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, I have a motion to
approve contingent upon some of the changes that Rich agreed to; the
hours of operation, not to exceed one parcel of the two.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do you want to add something to that?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll make a -- first we need a
second. I'll go ahead and second the motion for discussion, and that
will be it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good. Motion by Mr. Vigliotti, second
by Mr. Strain. Further clarification on the motion?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The only thing I'd suggest -- if
we could put in specifically that the height references in Parcel 2 will
be removed and that the word "may" will be substituted where the
Page 162
January 6, 2004
word "shall" is in regards to the storage areas.
And one other question I had -- I wanted -- would like you to
consider if Margie -- I would -- I want to make sure that Richard
comes back with a proposed schedule. Is there some way -- between
now and the time we hear this for adoption, is there some way that can
be weaved into the motion, or is that inappropriate?
MS. STUDENT: I wouldn't recommend that that be included in
the comp plan because we're getting -- I've talked to staff over the
years about how specific these are getting, and it seems like they could
be getting even more specific. I don't think that's appropriate in a
comp plan amendment.
If he wishes to make some kind of commitment on the record,
that may, you know -- I think that would be helpful, but I just don't
think it belongs in the comp plan itself.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. He's already made -- he's
already told us he'll consider it and come back. I just would like
Richard to know that's going to be an important consideration at the
adoption level. So that would be fine then.
MS. STUDENT: What you may wish to do is make a separate
motion that -- you know, related to this but that directs them to come
back within that time frame, but it would be part of the comp plan. It
would be a separate motion as a planning commission direction.
That's a little unusual. We haven't done that before, but I think that
does give it -- what shall I say? -- not some dignity, but it does give it
some weight in terms of something to hang our hats on.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Bob, those two
recommendations, if you wouldn't mind as an amendment to your
motion, I'll second that with those recommendations.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, discussion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'd like to discuss could
Page 163
'~'~"""-"--"--'''-'' .
January 6, 2004
we put in a requirement that the indoor self-storage can't be closer
than 200 feet to the public right-of-ways.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves at a
growth management plan amendment?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- but they're going to
come to us with a design, and that's what I'm saying. We may as well
tell them.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: No. No. No. They don't -- they're not
going to have a design.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're going to come with a
PUD?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: No, they're not going to have a PUD.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: At the adoption hearing?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. No. No. I mean the next
time you see me in the -- in the stage of the project.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: At the adoption hearing assuming
the adoption report gets to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But what we come up
with today is what we hopefully will get adopted.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the next time is what
I meant.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason is that that would
prevent -- I mean, they could do a lot of designs. They've got a lot of
options in terms of uses that could be in front of that. We're not
diminishing the use of the property. We're just preventing industrial
uses alongside of Vanderbilt Beach Drive, which is a beautiful drive,
once agaIn.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't have a problem with
adding that onto my motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, I -- I have a huge problem with it.
Page 164
--,-"'--~_....,-.
w.·_··_·,__··__···~·__..·,_,,_,·_
January 6, 2004
We're not in the zoning site development plan. We're -- I think -- you
know, maybe we need some staff advice on that. I think we're getting
the cart way ahead of the horse.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we're doing height
requirements. What's the difference?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, we're not. We're talking out
the height.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: No. No.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're cleaning it up. We're
actually making it the opposite direction to the height issue.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. I think you have a good point,
Brad. I think it's just not the right point -- the right time to poke it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here is the problem: Ifit is
adopted, it will be adopted as it is today hopefully --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- when it goes through the
process. And then the next time we see them they're going to have a
site plan with a mini store-it along the road, and then they --
everybody's wasted time and--
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, then we can reject it and they can
redraw it and they've wasted their time.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would -- I would ex -- I would expect
that when I bring the PUD I'm going to have development standards.
And, remember, we just went through on Buckley. You froze me at a
certain -- at -- at a certain distance off of Airport Road.
I mean, I think we would -- we -- that's where we would deal
with it, at -- at -- at the -- at the PUD. I may come with you and say,
"I want to be, you know, 150 feet," and I may show you that makes
perfect sense because it keeps me away from the people of Wilshire
Lakes, but if you put me at 200 you may be put -- putting me closer to
the people at Wilshire Lakes or closer to the golf course.
I just think that, you know, we'd like to bring you the
Page 165
.------ -"--^-"'''-''--'-~''._'''--
January 6, 2004
development standards at the PUD and not at the comp plan.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're right. You're right.
MS. STUDENT: Oh, may I just --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Miss Student.
MS. STUDENT: When you start doing this at the comp plan
level, first of all, you box yourself -- the more stuff you put in the
comp plan amendment then you're boxing yourself in when you come
to the rezone and you don't have the flexibility because, as I stated,
that you -- if they come in with something consistent with the plan,
unless there's a public health, safety, welfare reason to change it and
you can show that there is, then you're stuck with what's in the plan.
So instead of being helpful to you-all -- I don't think that's helpful.
Furthermore, to amend the comp plan, you have to go through
two hearings, a DCA review, and --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just what we're going
through now.
MS. STUDENT: Right. And then, God forbid, somebody wants
to challenge one of those things. Then the county's put through an
expense of going through an administrative process. So a comp plan
is to establish densities and intensities and land uses, and it -- you
know, just as I look at this it seems like we're getting more -- you
know, it's kind of like once the -- there's a crack, you know, it
becomes a hole and then the whole wall goes.
And I see that's what we're doing with, "Well, we got specific in
one amendment," and now we're just doing that more and more and
more. And you really start to box yourself in when -- when you get
that specific because, again, the law requires land uses, densities, and
intensities and that they be in the future land use element and they be
on the future land use map. And so I -- you know, I -- I just see some
practical difficulties with getting that specific in the amendment time.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir.
Page 166
.-,"",--~_.-,._,."
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ifwe fiddle with this much
longer, we may have something that we won't even recognize --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- six months from now. I'd
like to call the question. I think we've got a motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Weeks.
MR. WEEKS: I'd just like to get clarification on the motion, Mr.
Chairman. I believe there were four points. One was -- not -- not in
the correct order. One was striking the height-limit sentence.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Secondly was changing the word "shall" to
"may" regarding the uses allowed. The third was limiting the hours of
operation, but I'm not -- I didn't catch what that would be, and I -- do
we want to include that in the --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think that's what we just got an
extended discussion --
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- from the --
MR. WEEKS: Right.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- assistant county attorney that it's
inappropriate at this time.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
MS. STUDENT: I don't really think that belongs in the comp
plan amendment.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. And -- and was part of the motion to
allow storage on only one of the two parcels?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's correct, yes.
MR. WEEKS: So there's three points then; height shall -- okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti, is that consistent with your
intended motion?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. I will change the
Page 167
January 6, 2004
motion. As long as I know we get another pass at this --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- I don't have a problem with
that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And, Mr. Strain, that's -- your second is
consistent?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As long as we define what parcel
was it that we're limiting the storage to.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Either one.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Either one?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Either one, 1 or 2.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Motion and second are
cleared. Call the question. All those in favor signify by saying "aye."
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: It is 7/1. The motion carries.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A C5 with lipstick isn't
appropriate there.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We will be moving on to
CP-2004-4, a petition requesting an amendment to the future land use
element to amend the rural fringe mixed-use district sending lands to
add three transfer of development rights (TDRs) bonus provisions for
each one TDR credit for the following items.
All right, Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Budd and members of
Page 168
.._--_."~~." ..- .-.~_._~----_._--
January 6, 2004
the planning commission. My name is Bruce Anderson. I'm here
today with Robert Duane, AICP, planning director of Hole Montes &
Associates and the planner on this TDR amendment who put together
the data and analysis to support the amendment, a Herculean task.
Also with me today is David Ellis, the executive vice president
of the Collier Building Industry Association, and also present with me
today -- I'd like to introduce CBIA's co-applicants on this petition,
Nancy Payton of the Florida Wildlife Federation and Brad Cornell of
the Collier County Audubon Society.
Indeed, you did hear right. Large segments of the development
community and the environmental community as represented by these
three organizations are working together to try to successfully
implement the county's growth management plan for the rural fringe,
and that is to direct new development to appropriate locations, already
impacted lands, called receiving lands and to protect from new
development valuable environmental lands called sending lands.
One of the primary ways which the growth management plan
seeks to accomplish this is through the transfer of development rights,
or TDR, program. The TDR program's intent is to allow an owner of
sending lands, quote, "To recoup lost value and development
potential through an economically viable process of transferring such
rights to other more suitable lands," end of quote. The key phrase is
"economically viable."
An economically viable TDR program is a very important
defense for the county to have in defending against more than 500
ERASAC (phonetic) private property rights protection claims that
have already been filed by owners of sending lands. Simply put, the
Harris Act provides for a compensation remedy based on loss and fair
market value of property before a new regulation and after a new
regulation is applied to property.
Now, I know that some folks don't like it when they hear
someone, particularly a lawyer, mention the Harris Act, but that is like
Page 169
~.,._----,._... '.
__w_~_',_<'""'_~·'· ""_'__ß --..,..-......_______
January 6, 2004
trying to ignore the elephant in the room. You just can't ignore it.
The staff report states, quote, "To date county records indicate that
zero TDRs have been severed from approximately 21,127 acres of
sending lands eligible for particpa -- for participation in the TDR
program," end of quote.
I submit to you that the rural fringe TDR program is stalled out
at the starting line and is not succeeding in its aims to encourage
voluntary preservation of environmentally sensitive lands. As the
material submitted by CBIA reflects, as prices have risen for platted
estate lots so have prices for land in the nearby rural fringe, and
although sending lands generally have a new restricted density of one
dwelling unit for every 40 acres, all of the previously deeded parcels
that are less than 40 acres, even less than 5 acres for that matter, are
permitted one dwelling unit for each previously severed parcel.
The county's TDR web site lists 1,457 separate parcels of
sending land that are less than 40 acres, and of those parcels 1,078 are
five acres or less. Now, according to those who have unsuccessfully
sought to acquire TDRs, because of estate lots escalating in value,
five-acre sending land parcels being bought up to be used for
ranchettes and are being purchased for upwards of $10,000 an acre;
however, the same market forces that make these five-acre parcels
attractive for development of single-family homes make it nonviable
economically for a developer to pay $50,000 and more for the right to
build one dwelling unit before they've ever bought any property upon
which to put the dwelling unit on.
Hence the problem with the present TDR program is that even if
TDRs could be purchased at $50,000 or more a TDR unit, it is not
economically viable for them to be bought and used at the present
time. The solution proposed in this amendment would make it more
profitable to conserve the land and sever TDRs than to sell it for
residential development.
Instead of $50,000 for title to the property, or one TDR unit, the
Page 170
<,..-.-.,..«--.---
....".'''___-,---..c..
January 6, 2004
owner can receive more and the developer can pay more than $50,000
if there are more TDR units available to be severed from the five-acre
parcel. And, of course -- as Dr. Nicklaus will explain, of course the
market will determine all of that.
The amendment is a four-way win all the way around for the
environment, for owners of sending lands, for owners of receiving
lands, and for the county. The county's environmental advisory
council recognized this and unanimously recommended approval.
Now, in a moment Mr. Ellis, Miss Payton, and Mr. Cornell will
each explain about one of the TDR bonus proposals of which there are
three. Mr. Cornell will elaborate, but I want to tell you that we have a
concern with putting in the comprehensive plan a 25-year maintenance
requirement. We think that the term of a maintenance requirement is a
more appropriate specific matter to be put in the land development
code.
Closely related to the problems of -- of getting the program off
the ground are some changes that are proposed in the very specific
standards that are listed in the growth management plan for rural
villages, which is where higher densities and commercial uses are
encouraged.
The proposed changes to the rural village design standards
include some changes proposed by county staff. In a rural fringe
stakeholder meeting held by the county in July of this summer, a
consensus was reached by and between county staff, the
environmental community, and the property owners/development
community interests that in order to encourage the establishment of
rural villages and to provide for flexibility and proj ect design and
more creative use of open space that the average width of the
perimeter green belt that is required should be changed from 500 feet
to 300 feet and that the minimum width be changed from 300 to 200.
The minimum average 500-foot requirement was felt to be a serious
disincentive to rural village development.
Page 171
_..o,._.~_,...,",_¥,_...'·_·
January 6, 2004
After you hear from Mr. Ellis, Miss Payton, and Mr. Cornell, if
there are questions -- and I'm sure there will be -- I and other members
of the team will be glad to try to answer those questions. We do urge
you to follow in the footsteps of the environmental advisory council
in recommending approval of these amendments. And I'll ask Mr.
Ellis to come forward. Thank you.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for
hearing us today. And, again, the -- the bonus they've asked -- asked
me to explain is the early entry bonus. By the way, my name's David
Ellis. I should have said that if I didn't.
The early entry bonus is probably the easiest one to understand.
It really is just like the bonus you approved for the eastern lands.
Those that participate in the first five years, they're -- an early entry
bonus there, this would actually be a three-year window for the early
entry. Dr. Nicklaus recommended that.
The idea behind it is really to kick-start the program. It's, you
know, that extra incentive to get going. One of the challenges, as Mr.
Anderson mentioned -- the really unanticipated escalation of property
values in that area has really exaggerated the need to move ahead
quickly, and the hope with the early entry is it'll encourage people to
move quickly and get involved in the program.
We -- we're -- we think it's very important that this piece come
into the puzzle because, again, it -- I think it's going to help get
everything going as soon as possible.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon again, Commissioners. Brad
Cornell on behalf of the Collier County Audubon Society, one of the
petitioners on this. And I'm here to give you a little more information
about the restoration and maintenance TDR bonus -- the
environmental restoration and maintenance TDR bonus.
And this is the second of the three, and it's a -- it's being
implemented and suggested and proposed in recognition of some very
serious problems that we have with the -- with the rural fringe TDR
Page 172
. ..._---,_._.~--
January 6, 2004
program and the rural fringe protection of sending land,
environmental values, and that is that we have no incentives or no
way to achieve management on private lands without something to
intervene.
We -- you know, a private landowner can sell his TDRs, and
that's good for getting development off there, although, as you have
heard and will hear more, we're not getting even that. We have no
way to actually effect management of the land, and that is what is
necessary if we're going to have red-cockaded woodpeckers or Florida
panthers or Florida black bears or any of the species that currently live
and occupy this habitat.
And certainly we would not be able to do prescribed burning or
introduce rehydration of overdrained wetlands that exist on -- on
North Belle Meade in particular. So it's very important from our
perspective, from an environmental perspective, to achieve some
incentives for landowners or -- or the purchaser of the TDR with the
land to do management on that land.
Now, the other failure that we have recognized is that the high
land prices have resulted in a greater incentive and a greater value for
landowners to build a house on that land, particularly when you look
at the -- the ownership pattern. We've got 1,130 property owners of
lots less than 5 1/2 acres, and if all of them build a houses because
they're allowed to based -- based on the program that's like Golden
Gate Estates, and that is not going to preserve the environmental value
of the sending lands. And -- and if that occurs I will have to say that
this would be a failure, a miserable failure.
So we've got to recognize that shortcoming that we did not
realize we had before partly because we did not anticipate the -- the
escalation of the land prices -- the incredible escalation of land prices
and the other problem of being -- we have no -- we recognize now we
have no way of inducing or incentivizing management. So those are
the reasons we would like to propose an environmental restoration and
Page 173
--~.._.",_...~.,,-~.-~-,-~--~-,.,-_.~-
,.+""-,._,,.~,."
January 6, 2004
maintenance TDR bonus.
So the way it works is a landowner who wishes to receive an
extra credit in addition to his base credit and in addition to the -- the
early entry bonus that you just heard about, although not necessarily in
addition to that if they do it after three years, would contract or
actually perform management of land -- the land that he has himself
in accordance with a listed-species management plan or -- or
management guidelines that are in effect for the habitat and area that
__ that he owns land within. Excuse me. That was a very terrible
sentence.
That -- the cost of that conceivably would run as high as $3,000
an acre if it was highly exotics infested, which some of it is.
Maleleuca and Brazilian pepper are -- are the bane of environmental
existence in much of Collier County and -- including in North Belle
Meade, the 10,000 acres of sending land in North Belle Meade.
So that's an expensive proposition; however -- and -- and
because of that this bonus is probably the most expensive to achieve.
There are, however, incentive programs available through the federal
government, the -- under the Farm Bill and -- administered through
the NRCS that provide grants and -- and incentive programs to enable
landowners to do these kinds of management actions, and we fully
expect that those would be taken advantage of and reduce the cost
per acre for each of these.
In addition to that, there would be a requirement for -- before
they would receive the TDR credit, the bonus credit, for this they
would have to pay into or provide assurance for perpetual
management and maintenance of that land once you have cleared the
exotics and done whatever management is necessary under the
management plan for that land, and that is an important -- a very
important step because it also goes along with the next bonus, which
is the conveyance.
That money that is paid into a fund to provide for the perpetual
Page 174
. ,.~.,-,,~...........--_..^. ~
....,~--_.
January 6, 2004
maintenance of the land would go along with the land when it's
deeded over to get the conveyance TDR, and you'll hear more about
that from Nancy Payton. The amount, though, however, is
surprisingly less than you would think. About $722 is -- is the figure
that -- that we are to understand is -- is correct, and this is based on
the South Florida Water Man -- Water Management District
management figures for CREW lands. When people have to give
mitigation land to CREW, they require $722 per acre to provide for
perpetual man -- management and maintenance of that land, per acre,
and that's -- if you figure it out, based on a $24-per-acre cost, which
is the way the management -- water management district figures it,
that's over 30 years' worth of management.
In the -- that brings up another issue. So, anyway, that -- that's
the parameter that we're expecting the cost to be, about $3,000 tops for
managing really highly exotics-infested land and $722 for perpetual
management. Perpetual management right now has been listed in the
-- the growth management plan amendment language in front of you
as 25 years, and that came from Conservation Collier and Bill Lorenz
from the environmental services department having to figure out a
way for Conservation Collier to interpret their perpetual requirements
-- you know, they're required to perpetually manage Conservation
Collier land. They needed a budget for that. Well, what does
perpetual mean? Well, it's a long time. So they -- in order for them to
budget, they figured 25 years.
We propose to you that 25 years is really something that ought
to be in the LDC. Perpetual is the intention, and perpetual is
interpreted by the district, water management district, which would be
a very likely recipient of these lands, as $722 per acre, and that's the
high end. I asked Ed Carlson, who manages the land at Corkscrew
Swamp what does he pay per acre to maintain his land. Less than five
acres -- less than $5 per acre per year, and the reason for that is it's
better-quality land that's deep wetlands, and Cypress slough, and
Page 175
+----....-..--...-",.,..-.-..,,,-
~,..~_."~~~-'-- "
January 6, 2004
doesn't get invaded with exotics so easily. So that's a very important
distinction. So you understand $722 is the high end.
I want to point out what I believe will be a likely outcome of
this. I want to -- I think we all acknowledge that the TDR program is
confusing and hasn't been really sold well to the landowners out there.
The landowners definitely understand that the land values are going
way, way up. They do not understand how the TDR program works
necessarily unless they've really done a lot of homework. It's -- it's
hard for everybody.
So what we anticipate will be the likely outcome will be that
developers will be incentivized to buy the land with the TDRs still
attached, and they will -- that will enable them to offer a higher price
that would be very competitive with the prices that are -- the market
prices now for land just -- regardless of TDRs.
Then the developer will be responsible for doing the actual
management and providing the $722 per acre for the perpetual man --
maintenance, and they will go through all the legal requirements and
procedural requirements to get those TD Rs severed and -- which is
much easier for the landowners, and we believe that will make that --
that work.
And then the developers are highly prepared. They've got the
staff. They've done the homework. They understand the program;
that's why they're in front of you, and that's why we're in front of you
because it's going to protect the sending lands, and they will be the
ones who actually do the work.
And then, finally, I just want to point out that the -- this
management bonus TDR is very closely tied to the third TDR bonus,
which is the conveyance bonus, because in order to convey you must
manage the land first. You've got to get the exotics off of it. You've
got to introduce a fire regime if that's appropriate for that habitat or --
or whatever the management protocol is for that land, and you can't do
that conveyance until you've done that.
Page 176
^.._..~-
>-"'."_".'..0_""'__"'"··'
January 6, 2004
So to give you more information about the conveyance bonus is
Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton representing
the Florida Wildlife Federation, who is also one of the petitioners.
And I'll speak briefly about the third bonus TDR, which is
conveyance; that is, conveying, giving, free (sic) simple to a public
agency, and that public agency may be Conservation Collier, South
Florida Water Management District, or the State of Florida's Florida
Forever program, and that would probably be applicable to South
Belle Meade, the Picayune Strand, where there's still some
in-holdings in the state forest that are opportunities for TDRs.
This program -- the third TDR is probably most attractive to
landowners who purchased sending lands for TD Rs in mitigation, and
North Belle Meade's NRPA area, natural resource protection area,
would likely benefit the most from the management and conveyance
bon -- bonuses.
And I'd like to read into the record, which I think you also
received, a letter from the South Florida Water Management District,
Big Cypress Basin supporting this amendment, and it's from Clarence
Tears.
And it reads, "The Big Cypress Basin and the South Florida
Water Management District staff had the opportunity to review the
rural fringe mixed-use district bonus TDRs concept and its
applicability to the North Belle Meade natural resources protection
area. Weare supportive of the anticipated outcome of this program.
The North Belle Meade NRP A sending area consists of approximately
6,000 acres.
"If this area can be acquired through this amendment, we,"
meaning the district and the community, "have an excellent
opportunity to rehydrate an extensively overdrained area to improve
water quality, enhance wetland functions, and provide flood" -- and I
can't quite read the word -- "attenuation opportunities for the rapidly
Page 1 77
--~.~-
January 6, 2004
urbanizing northern Golden Gate Estates.
"The North Belle Meade rehydration will also provide aquifer
recharge and the reduction of excessive freshwater inflow to Naples
Bay. We can help Naples Bay through this TDR amendment. In
addition," the letter says, "this initiative supports the goals and
objectives of the Southwest Florida feasibility study."
The Southwest Florida feasibility study is Southwest Florida's
component of the $8 million comprehensive Everglades restoration
proj ect.
And then the letter concludes, "Your support of the proposed
revisions to the Collier County Rural Fringe area TDR bonus program
is in the best interests of Collier County."
Again, that was submitted on January 5th to Commissioner
Donna Fiala.
And I'd like to go over to the map and show you a little more
specifically how this TDR conveyance bonus has value to the
community and to the Everglades. This is a map of northern Collier
County. I'm going to have the same problem, I think. This is North
Belle Meade. The yellow is the Golden Gate canal. The pink is the
Miller canal. The Golden Gate canal, we all know, goes into Naples
Bay.
The water management district currently is putting in a structure
right there so that it can hold water and divert water elsewhere. The
North Belle Meade NRP A is directly below it, and it provides an ex --
excellent opportunity to divert water from the canal into North Belle
Meade for rehydration, just an example of how this TDR bonus has
opportunities not only to encourage responsible growth and creative
growth in the receiving area; it also has tremendous environmental
values.
It is far better to concentrate the density in the receiving area,
and I want to emphasize we are not increasing the density caps in the
receiving area. Those were determined when the original TDR comp
Page 178
.....-._....._.<,-~-
_"v_~,__·
January 6, 2004
plan amendment, the rural fringe amendments, were adopted. And
concentrating it in the receiving area where infrastructure, central
water and sewer, is -- is most appropriate. And it's much better than
the sprawling ranchettes in sending areas that will be on well and
septic.
It's clear that to do this we have to further make the TDR
program more effective and more attractive and more useful not only
to landowners but, also, those who want to develop in the receiving
area, so we encourage you to recommend approval to the County
Commissioners. Thank you very much.
MS. MOSCA: Commissioners, for the record, Michele Mosca.
Prior to hearing from the county consultants -- both Marti Chumbler
and Dr. James Nicklaus is here to speak with you -- I have a few
minor corrections and additions to the staff report and the exhibit, and
I'll pass those out and explain them real briefly.
The first page is page 3 of the staff report, Item 6, early entry
TDR bonus, that should state three years consistent with the analysis
in the staff report rather than the five years that you have in your
packet.
The second item is Exhi -- is Exhibit A, and if you look at page
2 -- I'll go right down to No.6, early entry TDR -- TDR bonus, and
that also -- also should state three years rather than five.
And then a few more corrections. We have additions to page 2,
No.3-D. Number 2 of the Exhibit A, it starts on page 1 --
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: -- D and continues on page 2. Page 2 should
read, "The properties from which TDR credits were -- were severed
prior to" -- and add in the phrase "and subsequent to." And on that
same page, No.5 under the conveyance and TDR bonus we would
like to change the word from "may" to "shall." And then, finally, on
No.6, a grammatical error was made on the fourth line down. It
should state "implementing" rather than "implemented."
Page 179
_...____~.___,~_"_.ü,·, ~
--..,...--<---
,.._,-~_.,._..._-'
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER CARON: So these are not corrected in ours.
MS. MOSCA: That's correct, those made today.
And then, finally, you have your last attachment, which was an
attachment to the staffreport. It was -- Dr. James Nicklaus's
memorandum dated November 30 is presently in your staffpacket.
The memorandum was actually revised on December 2nd, and only
the last paragraph has changed. It's the conclusion. It starts on page 1
and concludes on page 2. And that's all.
If you want to hear from the county's consultants, Marti
Chumbler and Dr. James Nicklaus.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions at this point?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have questions of staff at
whatever point staff feels it's most appropriate to ask those questions.
MS. MOSCA: You go -- go ahead. That would be great.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Exhibit A.
MS. MOSCA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Second paragraph, last lines you
have a series of lines crossed out. "To ensure appropriate
compensation to landowners," et cetera, "provides the Board of
County Commissioners some right to adjust the transfer right," why is
that crossed out?
MS. MOSCA: I'm going to defer to Stan, I believe, on that or
Marti.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or Marti. Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: Good afternoon. Marti Chumbler, Carlton
Fields law firm, outside land use counsel to the county.
Commissioner Strain that, in effect, is what we're doing today.
It was always contemplated that within some period of time after the
TDR program was instituted that we would come back to you and
determine whether there needed to be some adjustments. Effectively
that's what this is.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well-- but if you left it in
Page 180
..--<,--,..",""..- "-~-~"---"'_.--~--
January 6, 2004
wouldn't it mean they would have the right to come in and adjust it in
the future if they felt --
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, you always have the right to do that.
You didn't need the language. The reason that language was included
was a direction that you had to do it. The commission always has the
ability, of course, given the cycles in which you can amend your comp
plan to adjust the TDR program or any other provisions of the comp
plan as you can see fit -- or as the commi -- County Commission sees
fit.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So this doesn't take away
anything the commission --
MS. CHUMBLER: It does not, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The text, as I understand it -- I
guess it's Item 3-D, TDR credits. That is retroactive policy, which
really doesn't mean a lot because there's been no TDRs, according to
what I heard someone saying, transferred.
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, that's true, and, of course, these
provisions won't be implemented until the -- the LDRs that implement
them go into effect. So there is some period of time within which
someone could come in, sever TDRs, and even though these
provisions were not in effect because the LDRs weren't yet in effect,
they would be grandfathered in effectively.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Prospective retroactive.
MS. CHUMBLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Under F it's talking about using
the sending areas that are the areas that had TDR credits, separate
sending areas for mitigation for other permitting. So besides the TDR
bonuses that are acquired and the remaining usefulness of the land,
depending on how they use the bonus at this point -- how are they
going to use that for mitigation in order to get the bonuses if they turn
around and reconvey the land to another party? All this would have to
be done ahead of time?
Page 181
.,.....~.,-;----~".....-~"~_.
...._-"-".......".....,,....._-
January 6, 2004
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, it wouldn't. If they've conveyed it to
another party, then they -- they wouldn't necessarily be using it for
mitigation.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if it's mitigation as a
requirement, per se, of the Corps of Engineers --
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- wouldn't be that conveying it to
another party through mitigation to the corps?
MS. CHUMBLER: No. Normally what happens in mitigation
is you're not conveying. You're -- you're perhaps giving a
conservation easement to the corps, but you're not conveying a
fee-simple interest to the corps.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So if the easement's given
then it can't be used for conveyance at that point?
MS. CHUMBLER: If the -- if the easement is -- if the property
is in a conservation easement before any TDRs are severed--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You can't use it.
MS. CHUMBLER: -- you can't use it. You cannot generate any
TDRs, but you can -- you can sever TDRs and then after the fact use it
for mitigation.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I noticed in the -- and,
again, I didn't have time to read the staffs latest version. It was nice
they gave us all that -- pages today. But in the old pages Brad's point
about 25 years, what's your thoughts on that? It seems to me that if
you've got to maintain it for 25 years -- who does after that? What
happens after that point?
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I think the 25 years -- and that may be
a reason to -- to delay that until-- until the LDRs. It is my
understanding that 25 years is -- is derived from the water
management district's practice of requiring monies be put forward for
maintenance of properties given as mitigation for a period of 25 to 30
years. So my understanding of -- of the 25 years is that's where it
Page 182
"--.--'-"",,._....""-'""".._~.
January 6, 2004
came from.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there a legal reason to leave it
25, or could it be put to 30?
MS. CHUMBLER: There's -- there's no legal reason to have it
one way or the other, and if -- if -- you know, depending upon the
will of -- of, ultimately, the County Commission it could be left to the
LDR stage. It could be adjusted upward or downward. It could be -- a
number of things could happen to that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Under your rural villages, Item 3,
you struck the words -- I'm saying you, but somebody struck the
words -- "shall" -- what is it? -- "be sufficient to serve the residents of
the village." And they're talking about commercial uses and
recreational uses. I know "be sufficient to" is somewhat ambiguous,
but it did go through years of underwriting and review before it got
approved. So why is it being struck now?
MS. CHUMBLER: I'm -- I'm sorry. I'm struggling to find
where you have -- where that is.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's on page 3 of the staff report.
It's under Item 3 called rural villages, and it's the only strike-out in that
paragraph. I'm not sure if you and I have the same paperwork we're
reading from, so I'm sorry.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yeah, our pages -- it doesn't surprise me
that our pages are different. They always have been before.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've seen this before.
MS. CHUMBLER: I think -- this is not something that I was
specifically consulted by, but just my response -- I wasn't consulted
about, but my response to this if they had asked me would have been
that I would have suggested striking it just because "be sufficient to" is
such an amorphus term. When you -- when you strike that language,
it says, "all of which shall serve." It -- it -- the "be sufficient to" just
as a lawyer bothers me. It's -- it's a gray -- it's what I refer to as a gray
term.
Page 183
..,,,.-..,.~-,",,._--,,,""'~-""'""""~ "-~.,""",-_...",,,"~
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My question was not to say it was
wrong. I was trying to understand why it was -- got this far before it
came today, but that's fine. You don't have to answer it now. You
answered what I thought would be the answer, so --
Item -- in that same page, Item C(3)(B), I've read that. I've tried
to understand what it means. Could you tell me how it equates to
overall density? Does it mean there's a -- if you use a TDR for rural
village, do you get an extra TD R just for doing that?
MS. CHUMBLER: That's always the way -- that was the way it
was initially.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, this is underlined language,
so I was wondering why.
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, because this -- this no way makes it
clear that -- are you talking about the sentence that now begins with,
"For each TDR credit"?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes.
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I think it's just clarification because
there was already language indicating that in -- in order to meet that --
that minimum density of two units per acre you did that through your
base density, your TDR credit, and the -- the one additional credit that
you got for being a rural village. So I think this is clarification
language.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if we -- if the bonus
provisions were enacted you got one plus three, four, and this would
be -- if you did a rural village, you'd have five.
MS. CHUMBLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you did affordable housing,
you'd have 5.5.
MS. CHUMBLER: Only if you go beyond the minimum
density. Remember, to get to the -- you only can use other density
bumps if you want to go to the full three units per acre.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But you'd have -- end up --
Page 184
""W""'",._........·.···~~,,~··,_·,·,··_'-"_·_··,~~·_····_---
>--,.'.,'~"'--
January 6, 2004
at least five credits.
MS. CHUMBLER: And to be -- to make sure the record is
clear, if you want to go to the full three units per acre, you also have
the ability to seek additional density by increasing the amount of
native vegetation retained on your site and by increasing the amount
of habitat area that you've retained on site. So there are -- there are --
if you -- if you choose to go from the minimum required density in a
rural village to the maximum allowed density, you've got some other
options available for you that were already in place.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On the next page under D(l)(F)
you're reducing the requirement for specific uses and public parks to a
minimum of 10 percent total village acreage.
Now, I'm assuming it's because of the analysis provided to you
by Hole Montes, Bob Duane. I read his letter where he came up with
some conclusion that since parks and recreation don't take up 15
percent that you shouldn't be asking for 15 percent. Is that -- can you
tell me why staff went along with this?
MS. CHUMBLER: I think the staff after analy -- analyzing--
and Stan and others can probably answer this more specifically, but
my understanding is that after analyzing the information provided by
the petitioners here that they felt comfortable that -- that, yes, 15
percent was perhaps more public space than was really needed for a
rural village, that 10 percent would be ample.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did they -- I mean, in Bob
Duane's argument he only did an analysis for neighborhood parks,
community parks, and large parks. His conclusion was based on those
three elements that the 15 percent was too great and it should be 10
percent, but the title of the line is "Civic Uses and Public Parks."
What kind of allocation is there for civic uses to justify the reduction
from 15 to 10?
MS. CHUMBLER: And I'm going to have to defer to either Bob
Duane or -- or Michele to answer that question.
Page 185
"^"""'''''''-'~'''",''--'-'.
January 6, 2004
MR. ANDERSON: It was -- Bruce Anderson for the record. It
was -- it was determined that the 15 percent was simply too high.
There was no particular basis. We asked staff what the basis was for
the 15 percent originally, and they conceded that it had been pulled
out of the air.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, so -- so you don't know if
civic uses and public parks need 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent, or
5 percent?
MR. ANDERSON: Correct. These are minimums.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But we know enough we want to
change it. Okay. I guess that answers my question.
Did you want to take a break, or do you want me to continue?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Finish your questions or we'll get into a
lull.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was just getting going.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, have you got a pretty good stack of
them?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, I've got a half a dozen.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's go through your half a dozen.
Before we hear any more presentations, we'll break.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you want to ask yours now?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. I don't -- I have a very
personal question here, and if some body's going to listen to this -- is I
find the word "severed" very harsh and sometime offensive, and I
just don't know why we're using it that way. I mean, you can use the
words "taken," "removed," "subtracted." I mean, there's a lot of
words.
MS. CHUMBLER: And I don't know that what we were -- what
we were trying to distinguish -- the reason -- the only reason we
started using the word "severed" here was we -- in -- in the initial
versions we often used the term "transferred."
MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay.
Page 186
" -""-'..........-..,., ......."..,....,~..-,.".,..~..'. ..,-_.
January 6, 2004
MS. CHUMBLER: And it -- that was a very confusing,
confusing word to use because what we realized once we really begun
adopting the ordinances or working on the ordinances to implement
the TDR program is that this may not happen and often won't happen
as a -- as a single transaction. There's just going to be instances in
which a sending landowner decides to remove, sell off, sever,
whatever term you want to use, the TDR rights.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Or taken. I mean, it just --
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, taken we don't want to use for -- for
legal reasons.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Right. I agree. But
then removed.
MS. CHUMBLER: Removed -- the only -- the only concern I
have about using something other than severed is that severed is used
throughout the L -- that's the term we chose for the LDRs, so if we
change -- if we use another term here the question is whether we then
have to go back and amend all the LDRs to make that terminology --
see what I'm saying?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: I don't -- I don't know that -- that -- that
severed is the perfect word. It's just the word we started using to
distinguish what happens when you remove the TDR from the sending
land from what happens when you go and apply it to a receiving land.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Did that answer you?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I got the answer.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Before we resume with Mr.
Strain's questions -- we've been going for better than an hour and a
half -- we're going to take a 10-minute break and resume at 3:30.
(Recess held.)
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. We'll come back to order
after our break. Mr. Anderson, I've got some sad news for you. Mr.
Budd had to leave. That means you're stuck with me. So with that
Page 187
~."....M"""'_"""'-'m__'''''.·'
January 6, 2004
we'll move forward on the questions I had.
And, Marti, if we could start on G-1, page 4, we're talking about
the second paragraph that says, "Each rural village shall be served by
a binary road system that is accessible by the public and shall not be
gated. The primary road system within the village shall be designed to
meet county standards."
They're talking about two different kind of road systems, a
binary and a primary. I'm wondering why they defined it that way.
Are any of these roads anticipated to be gated, or are they all to be
ungated roads?
MS. CHUMBLER: And I'm going to defer to Bruce Anderson
for that.
MR. ANDERSON: The private roads may be--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are the private roads the primary
roads you're referring to?
MR. ANDERSON: No, binary.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The binary roads. The binary
road says -- or that is accessible by the public and shall not be gated.
So the binary are not gated. I'm just -- the way this reads, the fact that
you eliminated the gated road -- the gating application to the binary
road system -- where is it you intend to put gated roads in rural
villages? Are these private communities, then, instead of rural
villages?
MR. ANDERSON: Right. Right. This was just intended to
allow some flexibility for other than the primary road. Like, you
know, we may want to have roads that are not as wide to give more of
a village feel. And this, you know, requiring it to the county
standards of 60 feet in width, doesn't provide any of that flexibility.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I agree with you on that
point. I just want to make sure that this isn't lending itself to have a
bunch of gated communities in the rural village area. That's what I'm
trying to get to.
Page 188
.._.'" .. .~... iIt;~__"'~"O.H"~.' ~w"
,,,~.__,,,~," "_.··"·""_4"'_'.~""_"_Y'_"_"~'^_"'_
January 6, 2004
MS. CHUMBLER: And I -- Commissioner Strain, I'm not sure
this answers your question, but the county standards currently would
prohibit a primary road from being gated. Other -- other standards
would.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I notice on the -- page 5, Marti,
that the overlays and special features -- we're talking about -- and this
happens to be in the North Belle Meade overlay, but I believe it's all
parts of the rural village. There's a half a bonus point for affordable
housing?
MS. CHUMBLER: Is this -- are you looking at the North Belle
Meade overlay, three receiving areas, North Belle Meade villages --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, that's not--
MS. CHUMBLER: -- and the like of --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, they're referencing half a --
half a unit there, but it's not -- it's not what we're talking about, I
guess.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yeah, the half a unit there is for the TDR
credits and the TDR bonus credits.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My note there, though, is that I
know in other parts of this we have a requirement for half of a bonus
point for using affordable housing. Is that correct?
MS. CHUMBLER: In pre-existing language -- I don't have that
in front of me -- I know that there are provisions for affordable
housing. I don't recall what the amount is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Extra half.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I thought it was. My -- my
concern was if we got all these additional -- if we have these
additional bonuses being looked at, are any of them being dedicated to
affordable housing?
MS. CHUMBLER: They wouldn't necessarily be, but keep --
but keep in mind -- I think it's -- it's important to remember than in
rural villages, in order to reach the minimum required density, you
Page 189
January 6, 2004
have to do it through the TDR program. That's the way it's been set up.
This -- nothing changes about that. All that affordable housing
and any other kind of things you want to use to increase your density
only comes into effect if you want to bump above that minimum
required density in a rural village.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You get half a bonus point for
going above it?
MS. CHUMBLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In the staff analysis -- and it's
page 6 -- there's a discussion about TDR bonuses and how the -- a
group got together on July 20th of 2004 to discuss the program, and
apparently at that -- you know, they realized or they think there was
problems with the program at that time. What group was this? Was
this the official group, the rural fringe group, that put together and
that met for two years or --
MS. CHUMBLER: No, this was a stakeholders group of people
who had indicated -- various people and representatives who had
indicated interest in the TDR program, specifically the rural fringe
program, and there was a fairly widespread notice that was put out
with an invitation to attend this meeting. So the -- the group that met
were those who responded to that notice.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There was a charting or a listing
of the people who attended. You were one --
MS. CHUMBLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- of them of that group. I went
through and tried to analyze those attendees. There were 18
developers or developer companies listed. There were 8 attorneys or
counselors for developers. There were 4 environmentalists, 1 member
of the press, 10 Collier County employees, and 1 member of CBIA.
And out of that meeting -- that was a stakeholders meeting that
evolved what we have today?
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, Commissioner Strain, I -- this may
Page 190
"~",. I -~,_.~"--"
January 6, 2004
not be responsive to your question, but it's very difficult to twist
people's arms and force them to come to something. A widespread
invitation was put out. These are the people who responded.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: People -- and did anybody -- I
mean, I know the other group met once or twice a month for a
two-year period. They had more opportunity to get a much broader
public -- or I don't know how often they met, but they met over a
two-year period. That, to me, is a process that brought a lot more
people to the table if they wanted to find a convenient time to attend
and express their thoughts.
Has anything else occurred that would have brought the public
other than those 18 developers into this program?
MS. CHUMBLER: And other than the notice today and the
notice for the board meeting and the -- so those things are also
opportunities for the public to come participate. I -- you know, but I
want to remind you -- I think we need to keep in mind that we're
talking about two very different processes.
That two-year series of meetings of the rural fringe committee
was a result of a governor- and cabinet-mandated assessment of the
entire rural fringe. This was not a procedure of that magnitude. We're
not talking about doing a complete starting- from-ground-zero
assessment like we were with that rural fringe committee.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well-- but you're going to be
affecting property owners throughout the entire area.
MS. CHUMBLER: As does virtually every comp plan that
comes -- amendment that comes before this body.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The -- one thing I wanted to
understand was is that change in density that could come out of this
program. Is it --
MS. CHUMBLER: No, sir, I don't believe -- well, it's -- you say
change in density. The densities haven't changed.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The number of increased units
Page 191
.'-" '~"'''"''"-''~-'' . -." .. "'~"''''-~'"'~'' ,~.,..-
.... "._..,~.~._--_.~_.".,,,~.."_..~---,, ',"",,-,",..",'.~-~--
January 6, 2004
that could be built as a result of this TDR program.
MS. CHUMBLER: Maybe and maybe not. The densities that
are allowable in all of the areas have not changed, and this doesn't
change it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you create more TDRs, do you
create more available units to build?
MS. CHUMBLER: Possibly, maybe not.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I got some analysis here
from one of the engineering firms, and you probably have it too. It's
in this package. It shows a potential of over 70,000 units out there and
100 percent effective. Okay. That's a long distance from where we
are today.
MR. ANDERSON: Seventy thousand people, Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: People. Right. Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: Not units.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Not units. People.
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And how many people are
estimated as the program is today?
MS. CHUMBLER: I'm not sure what the -- what the testament
was, Stan.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It would be about four times
whatever it is.
MR. LIT SINGER: Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning
Director. The original calculations on possible densities and
population as a result of the TDR program were calculated based on a
hundred percent severance of a base of approximately 5,000 TDRs,
and we know now that that base is approximately 4,300. When the
population was in the neighborhood of 27,000 people --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
MR. LITSINGER: -- maximum potential additional from what
the land uses in place prior to the rural fringe mixed-use district would
Page 192
,-.~,,,.~_..,,~._,,,~-,-,.,."_..<>
January 6, 2004
have permitted. Now, I think a key point to remember as we look at
all these potential bonuses is that I think that we're not adding units as
much as we're adding achievable units.
We're not changing the maximum receiving area densities or
uses or the number of rural villages or any other method of applying
the transfer of development as we're trying to create the -- an
achievable number of units that can actually make those opportunities
be realized.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But the -- and thank you, Stan.
The answer to my questions was simply we're going from a -- a
potential of 2,700 -- 27,000 people to over 70,000 people.
MS. CHUMBLER: Well-- and I -- I guess where -- where I--
where I differ a little bit in my analysis is it's coming from other
jurisdictions and seeing how other jurisdictions look at their density
figures; whereas, a very typ -- a very typical way of looking at it is
taking your maximum densities and -- plus all your land-use
categories, multiplying those out and saying this is the possible
population or number of units. If you did that under the existing
scenario and you did that under these amendments, you'd come out
with the exact same numbers because the densities haven't changed.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand. But I'm -- this
county's been unique. It's proven that. We're No.1 or 2 in the nation
in growth and all the things we do. It wouldn't surprise me that this
program we have will be utilized.
MS. CHUMBLER: And you're still not going to go beyond the
densities that you would have before under your maximum densities
which were approved by DCA, and that's one of the ways that DCA
looks at your -- the densities that you've allocated is have you
outstripped the need. So I think what we're -- we're doing here is
trying to create a system whereby the TDR program gets a jump-start
and we also achieve some benefits to the environment hopefully by
encouraging people to pla -- to -- to ensure that there's going to be
Page 193
.^_.;.........-."._"'.~'"""'.....«.~ ~
January 6, 2004
exotics removal and maintenance.
And if you recall there were a lot of comments when we adopted
the TDR program to begin with, a lot of concern raised, yes, we put
property in a conservation easement once the TDR rights have been
stripped. And then what happens to it? It sits there and it becomes
infested with Maleleuca, so we're trying to correct that.
So there are a number of things that we're trying to do here, but
one of the biggest is to jump-start the TDR program.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one last question before I
turn to Commissioner Schiffer. Mr. Ellis made a comment that
providing these bonuses would, and I quote, "Make it happen faster."
W as the intent in this county to build that rural fringe faster? I mean,
we have growth going in the stewardship areas. We have growth
going in the urban area. We have growth going in the urban fringe.
We have every corridor packed tight. It's -- why are we trying to
speed up the development of this area?
MS. CHUMBLER: And I'm not sure that we are speeding up
any development. What we're speeding up is the return to the sending
landowner of any value that they may have lost through the
implementation of the rural fringe amendments faster because recall,
even under the early -- early entry bonus provisions, you can sell off
your TDR rights. Those TDR rights may not be used for years and
years and years. So we're not -- we're not necessarily encouraging
faster development. We're encouraging faster participation in the
TDR program.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But we're not putting any
brakes and saying that you can't have faster development.
MS. CHUMBLER: Well--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If somebody wanted to initiate the
program, they could build as fast as they could spend their money.
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, that -- I mean, you do have some
other things in place within this county, one of the biggest being your
Page 194
'~__""__;'_--'-_"__.""_~""~M .
January 6, 2004
concurrency system.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And I -- and I
think, Brad, you mentioned you had a question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I did. One was
answered.
MS. CHUMBLER: Commissioner Strain, I'm sorry, Bob Duane
would like to -- if it's all right with the commissioner -- would like to
further respond to your question.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes.
MR. DUANE: Robert Duane for the record. I did a very
detailed analysis assuming a lot of different assumptions, but between
the development allowed under the plan today versus an increase of
9,000 additional units, which was the worst-case scenario I assumed in
my analysis, the increase in population was 23,580 more. And, for the
record, the conclusion of my analysis, even though it was on a gross
level, showed particularly that sewer and water could easily be
accommodated with even the increased population of the study.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
Brad, did you still have a question?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just a quick question.
One thing is why are we still sticking to the fact that we can't sell these
off in terms of fractions? I mean, we're still prohibiting it. If you
look at the people that have them for sale, they have --
MS. CHUMBLER: You can't sell them in fractions. You can
sell them in fractions. You just can't -- when you go to apply them to
a receiving area, you have to have accumulated enough fractions to
make whole numbers.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it does say here,
"Utilization of TDR credits and bonus credits may only occur in
whole number increments."
MS. CHUMBLER: Right. Utilization can -- can only be in
whole numbers. And -- and this language was added because when
Page 195
January 6, 2004
we got to the LDR level, again, we added very specific language about
the fact that you could create fractional TDRs, but you have to
combine those in whole numbers.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That makes sense.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the same thing, this 3 on
the handout we got -- and it's, "Any sending land from the TDR
credits that have been severed may also be utilized for mitigation
programs and associated mitigation activities and uses in conjunction
with county, state, federal" -- what does that mean exactly? Does that
mean that these people could also be selling these for mitigation or --
MS. CHUMBLER: Correct. They can -- they can -- if you -- if
you strip off the TDR rights from your property, then that property
still can be used as mitigation under any local, state, or federal
program.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you would get
credit still if you maintained it.
MS. CHUMBLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess, obviously, if you gave
it away you'd lose the --
MS. CHUMBLER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFFER: -- mitigation opportunity.
MS. CHUMBLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Donna.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I want to go back to the
population -- the total population here. And, I don't know, Stan,
maybe or -- yeah, Duane, you can talk about this because I am looking
at your figures.
MR. DUANE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ifwe go to your population
summary sheet and we look at scenario -- the lowest scenario here in
C, it's 50.
Page 196
January 6, 2004
MR. DUANE: Scenario A was the existing.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. It's existing.
MR. DUANE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So the population is not 27,000
that -- that Stan just said. It's forty-eight seven; correct?
MR. DUANE: Well, I'm on page 12 -- on page 9, and I'm on
Table 1, which is the high range that compared the population under
the current density, which is 18,600 dwelling units, I believe, and then
under Scenario 2 that was 9,000, and the resulting difference --
COMMISSIONER CARON: But I'm asking you to go to your
populations summary sheet.
MR. DUANE: What page are you on?
COMMISSIONER CARON : You -- you -- well, your pages
aren't numbered.
MR. DUANE: Well, they are in the upper left-hand corner.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, sorry. One, two, three, four--
fourth page in. It says -- all right. Population summary, are you
there?
MR. DUANE: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So if we go over -- so that
means that at the 50-50 if you're -- if you're saying -- we -- we know
it's not going to be 100 percent, so everybody's saying let's use 50
percent as a number -- that's a fair number to use. It -- base
population now would be forty-seven eight.
MR. DUANE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: With the new TDR program, it
would come up to fifty-three five; correct?
MR. DUANE: Well--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Under the least --
MR. DUANE: Well, under the least you're correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Under the --
MR. DUANE: Under the worst-case scenario --
Page 197
- I
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I don't even want to go to the
worst case.
MR. DUANE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's go to the least-case scenario.
MR. DUANE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So we've gone from to
forty-seven to fifty-three in population. Now, if you skip to the end, I
have an exhibit here from Collier County. It's labeled Exhibit 14 here.
It's at the end of -- of your letter, and it says population and water
demand projections for the rural fringe areas, and it says at build-out
we should be expecting forty-four thousand four hundred sixty-nine
thousand (sic) in population with an additional 12,000 for parts of
Golden Gate Estates.
MR. DUANE: Well, I--
COMMISSIONER CARON: And my -- my question is, if our
water is being based on forty-four and we're putting a program
together that's at the best going to give us fifty-three, I just want to
make sure that we have in place the infrastructure to handle this
additional.
MR. DUANE: But if you look at the way that the plants were
sized for the sewer and the water -- and that data is in here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh.
MR. DUANE: -- they were sized to accommodate a much larger
population than the data.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Than -- than what they are saying
here?
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. DUANE: A much larger population. And those
population figures go back a few years. I know that they're -- they're
in the process of being updated right now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Updated even more?
Page 198
January 6, 2004
MR. DUANE: That is correct. But sewer and water plants were
-- were oversized. I'm not sure I can give you a reason for that, but
they are adequate, and they can accommodate the additional dwelling
units that we proposed in the amendment.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because that's really critical, not
so much to the TDR program but to Collier County.
MR. DUANE: That's correct. And that's, of course, why we did
the analysis.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anything else, Commissioner?
Marti, I had one other question. Someone earlier -- and I don't
remember who -- had talked about a letter from Big Cypress Basin,
and the letter supports the concept being talked about here today
because it's based on the fact that they believe that in the North Belle
Meade sending area consists of 6,000 acres, and it's how -- it's very
important that this area be acquired, I guess, for a recharge and
reduction of excessive freshwater flow into Naples Bay.
The letter only talks about that portion of the project. Is there
something in this TDR process that's being proposed today that is
telling us that if it goes into play that North Belle Meade is going --
the sending areas there are all going to be provided for preservation?
MS. CHUMBLER: No, obviously, Commissioner, this is -- this
is their hope. This is what the Big -- Big Cypress Basin hopes will
occur, and -- and no one can give the guarantee that it will occur. But
providing additional incentives to a property owner through bonus
credits to incentivize them to convey their interest to the Big Cypress
Basin or to some other governmental entity at least as a step -- how
large a step I can't tell you, but at least a step in that direction.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Is there any
other questions from the panel? None.
David, do we have any other speakers?
MR. WEEKS: None registered.
Page 199
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. With that--
MS. CHUMBLER: We -- we do have Jim Nicklaus who
where did he go? He may have stepped down the hall, but he is here
and is available certainly to offer any insight or answer any questions
you may have regarding his analysis of these provisions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And he would discuss the
value ofTDRs? Is that his background or--
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I'm not -- he has a -- he has a very--
he has a lot of experience about TDR programs in general. I'm not
sure exactly what your specific question is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MS. CHUMBLER: But perhaps if we hear what your question
IS we can --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my question is last time
we talked about this, which was not long ago, they were $25,000.
Today they seem to be $50,000. How are we determining the market
value?
MR. NICKLAUS: Obviously the market value -- excuse me.
My name is James Nicklaus. The market value's going to be
determined by the market. Now, we aimed originally at trying to get a
TDR which would get in the marketplace 25,000. From what I
understand, that's probably been realized.
Unfortunately, that offer price has been rejected by the sellers,
so they're saying they will not sell at that price which we were aiming
to establish. So now in order to get some sales going we have to
structure something to get a higher offer price.
Now, from a de -- the developer's point of view, the user's point
of view, obviously, when you start running it up to twenty-five, thirty,
forty, fifty thousand, obviously you're reducing the economic
feasibility of using those in development, which we don't want to do.
What we want to do is to encourage their use, so that's the reason
we came to add additional bonuses. So what hopefully will happen
Page 200
^_~_.~~_^'.__>o"..~.__ ."
January 6, 2004
here is that we will not increase the value of a TDR. What -- because
people now own more for the original unit of land, they can net back
higher values to their lands, which, of course, is exactly the way they
are looking at it. They are looking at it on how much do I get per acre
or per parcel. Because parcel size varies, we can look at it per acre.
The original was they would get 5,000 per acre, which is where
the 25,000 per right comes in. Now, by giving them more rights--
say, we double it -- and if we maintain the same price, we're going to
give them 10,000 per acre. So that's what the intent here is to do. We
don't want to raise the price of the TDR -- that will discourage the use
-- but want to increase the net back to the sending area property
owners by giving them more rights.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, when you said
that the people weren't selling it for twenty- five, what did they want
for it? Do you know?
MR. NICKLAUS: From what I gather on it -- there are no firm
figures. We do know that twenty-five's not enough. Now, how much
is it going to take? I think we -- we don't really know because, again,
you get posturing in the market, so people, at the time they're going to
negotiate a number -- one's going to start at a low; the other's going to
start at a high.
And then we -- we look at the end and -- and say that that, in
fact, is the market. Well, we haven't had that happen. All we've got is
the lows and the highs, and I think we need to be very, very cautious
in trying to attach too much significance to either of those numbers.
We do know that 25,000 was absolutely rejected. And so, again,
the intent here is to, in effect, double that on a per-acre basis, which
would get back to $10,000 per acre. Now, that is equivalent, then, to a
$50,000 TDR value, even though -- because, again, the TDR value
price should stay the same because we're going to double the number.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the most a person could
take it is up to three credits? Well, to get four essentially what you're
Page 201
." .~.."~",,~_..__..__",U^
January 6, 2004
saying is that I'm going to maintain it and then you give it away, so
that's how you get four. So that's -- I mean, why would -- anybody
who's going to do the fourth step would automatically do the third step
right before the fourth step.
MR. NI CKLA US: I -- I think that those are theoretical
possibilities. You're going to find in very unique sets of
circumstances where somebody's going to be able to use all of those.
In my opinion, the one you're going to see that's going to drive the
system more than anything else is the early entry bonus because that's
applicable to everybody and they don't have to do anything other than
sign up within three years. That's all they have to do.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Nicklaus, in your experience
-- and I'm assuming -- I know you've done a lot of this -- in Collier
County five acres of land is -- is real nice to have, especially between
Ave Maria and the urban area. That's been escalating very rapidly.
If you were to sell your five acres for the TDR price at 50,000 or
even 100,000, you couldn't replace that five acres with a home you
may want to build. I don't see this incentivization program helping to
acquire five-acre pieces because those people want their homes that
they bought the five acres for. And if you want five acres you can't
replace it. I'm trying myself, and you can't buy it in Collier County
for anywhere close to that number.
So I think what this is going to do is take the big land -- chunks
of land, and it's those that will be, actually, probably buying into this
system more than the five-acre parcels. Is that a fairly accurate story
-- or statement that could be a possibility?
MR. NICKLAUS: I think it is. Of course, we're assuming that
all those five-acre parcels are buildable. We know a goodly number
of them are not. But of those thousand-plus five-acre parcels probably
the majority of them are buildable, so they're -- for all practical
purposes, they're probably out of the marketplace.
Then we've got the other five-acre parcels plus then the larger
Page 202
,..._-.",-,' -. "f
January 6, 2004
pieces. It's the larger pieces that this is very attractive to because they
can mix and match. They can take -- for instance, if you had a
10-acre parcel, you can reserve one 5-acre piece of it to build on,
sever the other -- off the other 5-acre piece, sell it off, and then turn
around and sell the 10-acre lot.
Now, that's where these things become very, very valuable. And
-- and, of course, obviously it gets multiples up as you move up into
the larger and large pieces. Now, when you get up into the 100-acre --
or 100-acre or plus, that type of thing completely falls by the wayside
because now we're no longer dealing in lots. So there is a band there
that's going to be very, very attractive.
Now, those are the people you expect to come in first to sell
them because it's an absolute win-win for them. It's a windfall. They
have not, and elsewhere those are the ones we've seen. Now, the ones
at the smaller end where, in fact, you're effecting how they use the
land -- and they're -- they're -- they're reticent about this. The others
are equally as reticent, and the only thing we can conclude is that they
simply have rejected the value.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What if some of these people
already have bought their large tracts of land and through this
conversion they could simply internally do the whole thing and the
TDR program, as far as enhancing people that were hoping to benefit
from it, really may not materialize? Is that a possibility?
MR. NICKLAUS: You have some of that here, I'm certain of it.
You have some large pieces there, some in common ownership of
people that can do this. And the main, though -- the reason this area
was treated differently than the stewardship area is because you had
close to 2,000 parcels, so you had a tremendous mixed group here.
And a stewardship solution, which is all internalization, won't
work here, so what we have to do is to come up with something that --
that can be used in a variety of different circumstances. The only
thing we have in our tool kit is a TDR, recognizing that for some
Page 203
~o"...~.,..".''''''~....'''_.,..~~,.
January 6, 2004
people it will be internal, but that probably will not be the dominant
mode. The dominant mode will probably be some type of transfer.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you aware of the recent land
sales in the rural fringe in the past year?
MR. NICKLAUS: I saw the numbers, yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, 2,300 acres, and they are
divided by 131 transactions with only 12 different buyers. And it
seems that maybe early in '04 somebody anticipated a possible
increase in the TDR program, started purchasing land realizing that
this increase could go through holding it, and maybe that's why the
TDR program hasn't jump-started.
MR. NICKLAUS: I'm sure there are a variety of reasons. When
we initially discussed this program, I warned against too many TDRs.
That's one of the most common mistakes made is to flood the
market, and then no one wants to buy them, and you destroy the
credibility of the program. And so I kept cautioning against that.
"Don't do that. Don't do that. Don't do that." And Collier County did
not.
We were very, very restricting on this, the fewest number, the
lowest ratios. Now, at the same time we also discussed, well, what if
we overshoot. What if we overshoot? What if we're too cautious on
this? And my response at that time is that's a solvable problem. We
can solve that problem. If we go the other way, we can't solve it.
Once you lay a bunch of rights out there, you don't turn around
and take them back. So we were very, very cautious here. And, if
you will, we can say that, you know, our worst case came true because
they're not being sold.
Contrast this -- I'm working now with Dade County, and they
have got the huge areas of TDRs where the owners of the sending
areas are out knocking on doors, "Would you please buy them?" And
we've got a tremendous different circumstance here because we're
being very, very cautious. They're now watching your experience and
Page 204
,._-~_..._......."."._,-
January 6, 2004
saying how can we replicate that.
And then, frankly, these are the kind of problems you want to
have because they are solvable. And, now, what the concern here was
to not just turn around and give blanket huge jumps, and that's why the
early entry bonus is for a limited period of time. And, as you know, it
started off at three year -- pardon me -- five years, and now it's come
back to three to try and be somewhat restrictive here.
What you want to do is incentivize the use of it and not give
away the store, and so that was the compromise to try to get this thing
to work. Now, certainly there are a number of very, very astute
people watching this whole thing, of course, and I think that's very
typical of what we see elsewhere. But if we look at how this program
is evolving -- we anticipated that this might happen. We go back to
the documents that we had at the time and say, well, what would we
do if they do happen. Well, we would come back and readdress.
That's the reason the readdressment was written in was a guarantee
that we'd come back because of this potential.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what everybody's
been sitting around waiting for, I think, is the readdressing.
MR. NICKLAUS: Now, unfortunately, there's -- the side effect
of that is are you going to readdress it again next year, and I think
that's always the unfortunate consequence of doing that, and if
everybody's going to sit and wait because next year might be a better
deal than it was this year you're going to have that standoff again.
And I wish I could give you any -- any solace on that. I'm afraid I
cannot.
But I go back to where we begin. I think that that was the
correct thing to do with the commitment being made at that time that
if we overshot, which means underallocate, here in Collier County
we're going to come back and readdress it, which is, again, exactly
what's happening. But I really want to encourage that -- I don't think
there's anything wrong with the basic system. It needs to get up and
Page 205
<.-,.-..~----~-"_.__.,~~~.__..
January 6, 2004
become in operation, and that's what the early entry bonus is all about.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You mentioned --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Paul.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What harm would there be in
reducing the entry from three years to two years? It might help.
MR. NICKLAUS: It might. You know, the -- it's a judgment
call to begin with. I thought five was too long. That means people
can sit around for several years still watching, and what you want
them to do is to act. And how long do they need to -- to work?
Again, I thought five was too long. I suggested three. I think a year
would be too short.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why? Because everything's
silent. Maybe, you know, make it a week and a half and see what's
out there.
MR. NI CKLA US: That -- that would -- I -- you know, I think
that it's -- you know, there's a lot of emotion in the whole thing and
whatnot, and so my sense is a year's too short. Five is too long. You
know, I'm comfortable with three. If -- if it felt that there was a great
concern here, I mean, maybe -- maybe a little bit shorter would be a
good idea because, again, you don't want to flood the market. That's
not the point.
The point is to get this moving, and once it moves -- everybody
seems to be very confident, once it starts moving and it establishes
itself, this can be very successful. So now it's a matter of how to
nurture it ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With what Mark exposed,
could we be doing this backwards? In other words, what we're really
saying is a guy with a nonconforming lot, less than five --
MR. NICKLAUS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- what we're showing him
today is that he could get -- at your fifty thou, that lot's worth
Page 206
I .~~.,-""~..~,"......,,..-
January 6, 2004
$200,000 just in this program alone. Are we affecting the price
backwards with this program?
MR. NICKLAUS: Certainly. Of course you are. Of course you
are. We saw in -- Suffolk County, N ew York, out on Long Island has
a very similar TDR program to yours. They use all the existing lots as
a base and then multiples for -- for the larger pieces, so it's very
similar to how they did it. Absolutely people would come in and they
would be off -- making offers on the smaller lots based upon a
combination of the use value and the TDR value.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. But what we're
saying is any lot out there now would be worth $200,000 if your fifty
thou is a correct number.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If we're waiting for three years,
and if nothing happens after two years, then we're really going to be
desperate. I think we might be better to make the time shorter.
MR. NICKLAUS: I -- you know, I can give you my best
opinion on that, and I already have. It's a judgment call. You
certainly want to provide adequate time, but you don't want to provide
too much. And it's -- you know, we want to be Goldie Locks here, not
too hot, not too cold, just right. And sometimes those are difficult
calls to make.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd like to -- if the panel's finished
questioning Dr. Nicklaus, I'd certainly like to move on with a motion
and move on to our other items. Thank you very much, sir.
David, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You say you were going to
close the public hearing now or --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I'd like to ask Brad
Cornell a quick question. Is that all right?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Go right ahead. That's what we're
here for.
Page 207
.... """,,",~-"'-q-;"'""''''".'-'''-_.~'-'. -
January 6, 2004
MR. CORNELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad, what it is -- it's about the
reservation and maintenance of it. I mean, the way these are set up,
somebody could, like we just discussed, theoretically apply for that,
establish a plan, and then immediately turn it over, convey it. Is there
anything that you would want to do -- in other words, he may not even
restore it. He may do it so fast that it's automatically conveyed. Is--
is there something that would --
MR. CORNELL: Those kind of details we would take -- that's a
compliance question, and that kind of a detail we would put in the
LDC. We would provide for some sort of assurance, whether it be a
bond or something that would make sure that we have a test that
would show that we have success with -- with the management, the
initial management. And then, of course, the -- the test for the
perpetual maintenance is the donation of money to a fund that would
provide for that, and then this conceivably could be contracted -- and
probably likely would be contracted out to perhaps even the agency
which would be the re -- receiver of the land -- let's say it's the water
management district -- and they implement, devise a plan, and -- and
they identified that they want to get the conveyance and the
management bonuses, and they convey it to the -- the district with the
understanding that the district does the implementation and actually
does the management.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is
the smaller lots -- I mean, we're treating every lot as if it's equal for at
least the five-acre and below for that TDR. Is that fair; in other words,
a fellow with an acre-and-a-half lot to maintain versus a guy with a
five-acre lot?
MR. CORNELL: Well, if you look at it that way, it's kind of a
windfall for the smaller lots because they have less to manage.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they would get them into
the system, which is the ones you really want probably.
Page 208
....... ,
.o>_.,...,_,.·>.<".o._.."._·..._~"_'·n."__
January 6, 2004
MR. CORNELL: Well, they are -- they are problematic because
that -- that cuts up the -- the habitat if you've got a lot of small little
lots in there. So that would -- that would be an extra incentive to them
because it's of a less -- a lower cost to manage their land. You're right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CORNELL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, Brad.
David, there's no other speakers, so --
MR. WEEKS: No.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. At this time we'll close the
public hearing, and the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Commissioner Strain, I would
like to move that we forward Petition CP-2004-4 with the -- with the
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Motion made and seconded.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Are we going to be making any of
the changes that we've talked about?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm hoping's
going to come out in discussion.
COMMISSIONER CARON: One was no readdressing. I think
that's probably a good idea. If everybody thinks we can readdress this
every year, I don't see the incentive.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What do you mean?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How could we deny a --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's a BCC option is what
they're implying, so I'm not sure if there's any control over that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Yeah. Okay.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: David kind of clarified it and said
that BCC -- or Marti did.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Marti did.
Page 209
'""...._~---_._."----
.."------,=_._--"."-~_.,<"
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They have the right to change
anything they want as time goes on, so I guess it might not work.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're only a
recommendation anyway.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My concern is that this is going to
expedite, as we heard from at least one person here, the development
of this rural fringe area. I'm not sure that was the intent of the rural
fringe group to begin with. I thought it was to make sure that the
property owners got some compensation for providing their properties.
But, also, the way the sales have gone in the past year and the
holding of those sales to convert to TDRs, I think this whole thing's
being -- by the stakeholder's group, that is, doesn't seem a
cross-sectional representation of the property owners out there. I
think that this is something that's not going to really generate the TDR
program like we think it will. It's going to generate the internal TDRs
to the individual property owners that currently hold the properties. I
don't see that as a need for us to rush into.
My recommendation would be that we provide only one
additional bonus to the TD R program -- and that was for a conveyance
__ and drop the others at this point. And, as Mr. Nicklaus said, we can
always make it better as time goes on if time proves it needs to be
made better. So that's my thoughts on it. If there's no other comments
I --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is that an amend you're
asking for?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I mean, I--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mine is for the four.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, his is -- that's quite a
radical change from what Paul was recommending, so I didn't think
he'd go along with it. But, anyway, with that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, you know, Mark, I think
the reason we may not see action, too, is that these things are really
Page 210
h...","",,""~"_·""""'·····"-
January 6, 2004
only useful to people that are going to build pretty good-sized projects
that aren't happening yet. I mean, it's going to take time for them to
stockpile up the TDRs, and everybody's probably waiting to see,
especially if rumor of this is out -- if we had meetings with the public
with this, nobody would move until this goes through.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, some of the names on some
of the properties that have been transferring are -- are names that I've
been hearing talked about. Vision in Faith, we know that's a project
that's not too far down the road. They've bought some property, 530
acres of land in June and January of last year. I mean, there's a lot of
rural fringe activity going on by parcels that could be developed rather
quickly. If that's what this committee feels the county is wanting, then
fine. But I don't believe that was the intent.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But your concern is once we let
it out of the gate it could take off faster than we --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There would be no control over it.
And we currently don't have the infrastructure to support the
areas that are being developed in the urban areas let alone the rural
fringe. I mean, there's argument that we have plants that we're going
to have water and sewer, but everybody out there's going to want to go
to the beach. They're going to want to do things internal to the urban
area, and the urban area's a mess right now, so I just -- I don't think
we're there yet; that's why if this project takes -- if this process takes a
little longer and we have to incentivize it slowly over a period of time
I don't see anything wrong with that. That's my thoughts on it, and I --
and I -- there's a motion on the floor and also there's further
discussion.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, did the
motion include the minor staff changes made at the hearing?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. They have to.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Hearing no further
Page 211
-'--"~""""'.'
'V'___~"··~'·'_'·~·'_·"'_·~·'__·_'>_"_···'·'_'''···'''_
January 6, 2004
discussion, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion
signify by raising your hand.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Two -- three. All those opposed
__ four -- five in favor of the motion. Okay. All those opposed to the
motion?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Two. Motion passes five to two.
Thank you.
MS. CHUMBLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Our next petition -- we
only have two left, so that means we might be able to finish up here
today -- CP-2004-5. It's a petition requesting an amendment to the
future land use map for the Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road
Mixed-Use Neighborhood Subdistrict. If you could take your
conversations outside so we can move on with the next petition. All
those wishing to speak on this next petition, would you please rise and
raise your right hand to be sworn in.
MS. STUDENT: You don't -- you don't need to --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, we don't need to.
MS. STUDENT: This is legislative. It's not quasijudicial.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: You don't need to be--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Sorry, guys. Put your
hands down.
MR. MURRAY: Hi. I'm -- for the record, I'm Donald Murray.
I'm with Coastal Engineering Consultants, and I'll just take a brief
Page 212
-.._"._-
---~_..,~,-,._.._-,~.----".._,~_.~..,-
January 6, 2004
moment to introduce the people who are here with me. Mr. Berry and
Mr. Lee Goldmyer (phonetic), the clients, are here. Larry Bennett,
transportation consultant; Terry Liday (phonetic) with Earth Balance,
our environmental consultant; and also Mr. Chuck Mohlke was here
earlier, but he had another obligation that he couldn't get out of that
he had to leave, so -- also, Clayton Miller, Coastal Engineering, also
. .
IS an engIneer.
This proposed district that -- that we're asking for is located at
the southeast corner of Davis Boulevard and -- I'll point to it. It's at
the southeast corner of David Boulevard and County Barn Road. It's
this area right here outlined in red.
The project or the district boundaries incorporate 22.83 acres of
land. The property is in the residential -- excuse me -- the urban
mixed-use district, urban residential subdistrict. It's also within a
residential density band of activity center No. 16 located at Santa
Barbara and Davis Boulevard.
The surrounding uses to this property where we're proposing this
district to the north is Glen Eagle, which also has an ACLF with
four-story buildings. To the east is the Seagate (sic) School property,
and that -- they also own property on the south side of this property as
well.
Just to the south and along County Barn Road is the Berean
Baptist Church. They own that property there. And across County
Barn Road to the east is a condominium proj ect over there with
three-story buildings.
The intent of the proposed district -- and I'll -- I'll keep this
short. It's pretty simple. The intent of the proposed district is to
incorporate traditional neighborhood design, mixed-use neighborhood
design features, and also incorporate some of the recommendations of
the county's community character plan.
We believe that this proposed district as stated in your staff -- in
the staffs report does that. The clients are -- are willing to put as
Page 213
W"_".~""'__"~· ..
January 6, 2004
much into it in the traditional neighborhood design as possible.
They're incorporating design features that include pedestrian-friendly,
bicycle- friendly streets including access from off site as well.
You can see this on the -- the poster board. I understand this
mike's not working well, so I won't go over there. That's just a
concept of what they're proposing. Interconnections to adjoining
properties where feasible. They're proposing a small park. This
would be open to the public as well as to the residents who live there.
They're also integrating a residential, commercial, and office
component, which would be in this northeast corner area of the
property. They're also providing common areas, trails and boardwalks
where environmentally feasible. The commercial component -- or
resident component would also have a small market, maybe a small
market up to no more than 15,000 square feet, boutiques, shops,
possible cafes, and other types of uses.
They're not proposing any large-scale-type uses, no convenience
stores with gas -- gasoline sales or anything like that. The idea is to
capture internal trips to make this truly a traditional neighborhood
design that gives you that mix. The -- you'll have, like, parking under
the buildings with the residential and commercial above it or
integrated with it. There'll be paths that integrate the traditional
residential neighborhood design which would be like grid streets,
front-porch concept, sidewalks, and allow people to ride their
bicycles or walk to the commercial area or to the park.
There will be those traffic-calming techniques that are typical in
these neighborhoods that'll -- that'll slow traffic to make sure that it is
safe for the residents. And it also incorporates those features that we
mentioned before allowing neighborhoods around the development to
access certain strategic points to get to the commercial and retail areas
as well.
There'll be less dependency upon automobiles, more -- more
encouragement of walking, riding, and a healthier lifestyle as well.
Page 214
- ,.~"...",.........-~-,,,-~-~,,,._,-
. ·,.,.....u.___.._---."·"n...--..".-w..·--.."'·.".".....···.".-.-.--,-.,,..___
January 6, 2004
The project also, as staffhas recommended -- well, it's -- first off, they
-- they have also said that it is consistent with the growth
management plan. Policy 5.6 encourages traditional neighborhood
design. That's what we're doing here.
The only -- only item that really was considered inconsistent by
staff, if I remember right, was the building height that we're proposing.
This district proposed originally five stories. Staff said that's
incompatible with surrounding buildings, that three stories was the
norm, but we looked at the -- this property at Glen Eagles across the
street. These are four-story buildings within 200 feet of the property,
so if staff and the planning commission would agree we'd like to
reduce that plan to four stories to be compatible. And that's --
everything else we're in agreement with staff on. And if you have any
questions at this time --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any questions of the applicant? I
have questions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The drawing you show there --
it's the one on the board -- you're going to be using an access drive and
share it with the church?
MR. MURRAY: Yes. We're negotiating that as well as one
access drive which is more to the residential area as well. There's no
direct access to the commercial retail area, so that's -- also, that area's
-- I believe is where the transportation department would prefer to see
it, so that is shared access.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Commissioner Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I -- is it -- anyone here from
the traffic department?
MR. EL-URF ALl: Alan EI-Urfali, project manager.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: My question is, on County
Barn road --
MR. EL-URFALI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- you are going to put four
Page 215
~'_'_'O..,...._.,.._.,^._'M__m,_.,.,_._._.,_.M__""""_H..___
"' ....~,.",.,;',"-',,-~""-,.~
January 6, 2004
lanes in?
MR. EL-URFALI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are they going to have any
lights?
MR. EL-URFALI: You mean streetlights?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Streetlights.
MR. EL-URFALI: Yes, I believe so.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You believe. Well, there are
none there now, and I've asked this before and found that there was no
real statement that, well, we're going to put them in.
MR. EL-URFALI: We are in the design phase right now only.
We've actually submitted a notice to proceed for the design process.
It's scheduled for 2007, somewhere around there. We're working on
getting the right-of-way, so I think --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: County Barn is supposed to
be done this year -- started this year. That's what we were told last
year, it will be started in oh -- '05, and I said that that's fine.
MR. EL-URFALI: The design; right?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, the development. That's
what -- anyhow, there's two phases to this. One, County Barn right
now has no lights. It's probably the most dangerous street I've ever
driven on. Widening it won't make it any better. It would just be
faster. And you can't pass on County Barn now. You will be able to
pass then, and then we'll have some real problems.
I'd like to know for sure that, in fact, A, it's going to commence
this year and, B, that it's going to be a lighted street.
MR. EL-URFALI: Okay. On the lighted part, I don't know for
sure, but I have the CIP on my laptop, and I can give you the exact
dates.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. I'd appreciate that.
MR. EL-URF ALl: Sure.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, we can move on if there's
Page 216
."___~~~~.._..m'.._,_,.....,_~____""' 0' .'....._n__~"···_
_..,.-.._.._...."',úw,"
January 6, 2004
other questions while we're waiting for that response.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just -- just so you know, it
says right here in this report that County Barn is programmed for
construction of two additional lanes next year, being in parens 2005.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what I --
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you weren't losing your mind.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I didn't think so. I didn't
have one to start with. No, seriously, that's what we had been told.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And, again, I requested the
information about whether or not there was going to be lights on that
street. Again, I got a little look saying, well, we don't know yet. And
I just couldn't -- can't consider a way of approving this with that
particular situation not cleared up.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, while staffs looking
for that answer for you, if there's no other questions of the applicant,
I'd like to move on to the staff presentation. Are any other people on
your team that are going to be speaking?
MR. EL-URFALI: Not at this time.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Glenn, if you could start.
MR. HEATH: For the record, Glenn Heath with the county
comprehensive planning staff. The first thing I want to make clear is
that we're not proposing to adopt the language as submitted by the
petitioner. We're proposing to adopt the language as modified by
staff. The difference -- one easy way to recognize the difference is
that theirs starts with the number 12, and ours starts with the number
15. I don't know where they are in your staff report because I
understand the paging is different. It's page 8 of my staff report, but
that may not be the same as yours.
The other -- one other thing I would note is that as we -- we
analyze the property with re -- respect to the various provisions of the
density rating system, we came up with some different unit numbers
Page 217
~~._-
_____'"..,"~_P,,--~-,.>-~..,-,_·,-,·_'"·"
'".,'...."-".-".._--,,...,_.~
January 6, 2004
and -- from those that were originally in the appli -- petitioner's, so
we're looking at that.
But, also, I noticed -- noted in the staff report that we had some
concerns about the marketing analysis for this project, that it was
incomplete. I have been working with Mr. Mohlke in the meantime,
and he has submitted some additional information that I'm reviewing
right now. And I -- I have every reason to believe that we'll have the
marketing issue satisfied by the time this goes to the board for their
transmittal hearing.
There are a number of differences between the -- the
staff-recommended language and the petitioner's recommended
language. The -- as I first noted, the subdistrict number is different.
We -- we're recognizing a number of -- of subdistricts that have been
placed in the growth management plan before this one, so that's why
theirs is 12 and ours is 15.
The way that the name was written is different from what -- the
format that was usually used in the future land use element, so we --
we need to make a change in the title of the subdistrict.
There were grammatical and some word-smithing changes, and
we had to update the land development code references because, as
you know, the land development code format recently changed, and it
uses a different numbering system than the one that was used
previously.
We deleted their Criterion D, as it -- we felt it was redundant.
Also, we deleted their Criteria P, Q, and U. Q is -- was not
appropriate for the subdistrict, we felt, in the -- because the intent of
the -- of Item Q, which was from the residential mixed-use
neighborhood subdistrict, is different than the way that they were
using it, so we made that change.
And then there's another -- a number of other criteria. Number--
our Change No.8 explains the -- the changes that we would
recommend based on the -- the density rating system. We get a -- we
Page 218
,.~_..'>-
.-..,^..--
"-""--"~-~-,;",,-,,,""'"," .
January 6, 2004
arrive at a different number of units than what the -- the petitioner
had had.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is ...
MR. HEATH: Let's see. They -- I believe that they originally
proposed 184 -- a minimum of 184 and a maximum of238, and we--
we changed that because you can't apply the residential density to the
commercial tract of this proposal, and it -- it -- it -- it drops down to a
min -- the minimum drops down to -- actually, to 71 so that the -- it's a
minimum of 71 residential units.
COMMISSIONER CARON: To a maximum?
MR. HEATH: I don't think we put a maximum in there, but --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The applicant did.
MR. HEATH: That would be based on however many
commercial square feet is actually constructed.
MR. WEEKS: It would be a function of the density rating
system is what the density would be; that's why there's no maximum
provided because we don't know what they'll ultimately be requesting.
MR. HEATH: There is a -- I would just note, also, that there is a
-- currently a PUD in-house that we're reviewing for the residential
portion of this project. The reason that this requires a plan
amendment is to construct the commercial portion. The -- right now
if -- if nothing else was done then the petitioner could not seek
development of the commercial area because that would be
inconsistent with the future land use element.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Before we go on with questions of
you, Glenn, I'd like to get the transportation question settled real
quick, and then we'll ask you questions that we may have.
MR. EL-URFALI: The anticipated start date for construction,
you're right, is 7/15/2005, and the anticipated completion is 6/30/2007.
The scope is basically six-foot sidewalks, four-foot bike lanes,
four-lane divided. No mention about lights.
Page 219
+0<_---.-.,.-_·'_· ...--
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, that -- as far as I was
concerned -- I was told there was not going to be that way. I wanted
to make sure it came out. I don't know how many people here have
driven down that road, but if you try doing it at night it's a horror
story. I mean, it is absolutely terrible. You can't pass anybody or they
can't pass you, but they do. And, again, there's absolutely no way to
see it. It's very, very dangerous. I don't think that -- as far as I'm
concerned, as a road to entering -- let's put it this way: To me it's --
right now it has failed and it will be failed unless there is lights on it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is this something, though, that we
could address at a GMP? This is more likely when they come back in
and ask for their development zoning that we would probably address
this kind of an issue.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, we can't because it's
such a -- the matter is it isn't theirs to do. We're talking about a very --
a reasonably long street that must have streetlights in order to be
effective.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If it isn't there, then I -- as far
as I'm concerned, it's not --
MR. WEEKS: I would just interject that -- I think as you're
alluding, Commissioner Strain, when they do come in for the rezoning
and ultimately the site development plans, at least at their project
entrance, lighting would be required. That's a routine part of that
process. But you're correct.
The whole street, that's a county -- county function.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And it's a major problem.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. If -- we'd like to get back
to Glenn now and finish up questions for him. Does anybody have
any questions of him? Brad, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Glenn, you have a requirement
here that the frontage of the commercial component shall be no
Page 220
'-",-----.....-....- _....-..._~--
... -'-~,- T ~--".__..-
January 6, 2004
greater than twice its depth. What are you trying to achieve with that?
And isn't that a dirty trick on a corner lot?
MR. HEATH: That's a requirement, I believe, from the -- the
residential mixed-use neighborhood subdistrict. And this project is
designed to be similar, although not exactly the same, as that
subdistrict, and that's where that came from.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But on a corner lot it's going to
be very -- I mean, it's going to be awkward. What are they going to
do? Are you saying that each individual building meets that or when
you add up the total frontage on Davis and add up the total frontage --
MR. HEATH: The commercial component as a whole, not --
not any indiv -- not individual buildings. The -- the -- the entire --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From end to end. But if
they're going to do a traditional neighborhood they'll have walkways
and openings and patios, so you're going to penalize them for
separating buildings then. I mean, why is that in there at all? And
they didn't put it in. You put it in. From a design standpoint, you're
not going to -- all's you're going -- you're going to end them making--
forcing them to do a big box almost.
MR. HEATH: Well, actually -- no, actually, the logic was to --
to -- to make them do a smaller box.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On small -- on the street's face.
In other words, I can understand that if each building met that
requirement. And, in essence, to build a traditional downtown, the
frontage of the building and the depth of the building is important.
But -- but what you answered is Davis Boulevard versus County Barn
that requirement has to be for the gross. I don't think that's what the
the -- the neighborhood plan wants.
MR. HEATH: Well, if you -- we've also said here that the
commercial component shall be no larger than five acres in size and
limited to 45,000 square feet, the very next criteria.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then that's kind of what
Page 221
... ¡r' ,......",»-."---"">
January 6, 2004
they had.
MR. HEATH: Right. I mean, that's similar to what they had,
but it's a -- it's a -- it's -- it's a -- it's kind of an architectural or a view
design function, and it's -- it's -- it -- it relates back to, I guess, a
concept of what traditional -- old-style traditional commercial used to
look like.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think if you look at where
it is it's per building. It's not for the whole street, for example, and
stuff like that. Take, for example, a traditional street. The width of it
would certainly be greater than the depth so, therefore, you couldn't
even meet your standards. Anyway, you've got it in there for a reason.
I'd be -- you know, you end up -- may mess it up with that.
MR. WEEKS: I'd just quickly offer the rationale was to try to
avoid strip commercial. Without that limitation theoretically -- and in
this case I don't think it would be feasible, but theoretically they could
take their entire Davis Boulevard frontage and have it be their
commercial tract. Because of their cap at five acres, it would be a
relatively narrow parcel. And, again, the result would be strip
commercial, and that's something we want to avoid.
So we -- we do want to force it to be a little bit more of a --
closer to a square shape. We want to avoid it being a very long,
narrow strip of commercial along the -- along the frontage.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Abernathy.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. Glenn,
they asked in one instance for five stories height. You came back and
said three. They said, "Oh, ah-ha. There's four across the way." My
question is, why is this in here anyway?
MR. HEATH: Why is a height component in there at all?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah.
MR. HEATH: Well, first -- initially they put it in. As far as
staff was concerned, we -- you know, we feel that it's -- it's probably
more appropriate at a zoning stage, but --
Page 222
-,--...,~-'.,_.""<>.."..-
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah.
MR. HEATH: -- you know, if it's -- if it's there then we at least
want it to be compatible with the surroundings.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why don't we just take it
out?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But I said most of these
components that you're talking about more appropriate at a rezone --
at a rezoning stage instead of now. I mean, you're going into much
more detail that you've argued all day we shouldn't be going into.
MR. WEEKS: Let me comment. Again, this subdistrict is
patterned after the -- the residential mixed-use neighborhood
subdistrict that was just established, I believe it was, last year, and that
__ that was the pattern. They essentially took that, and they just
tweaked it a little bit. That's why that level of detail is there, because
it exists in that other subdistrict.
Certainly from the standpoint of the height we have no objection
to removing that. We would certainly agree with you. That --that
could be dealt with at the zoning stage. Possibly some of the other
provisions. Again our rationale was patterning it -- patterning it after
an existing subdivision.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you've got a floor ratio here,
you know, too --
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: --which is rare in Collier County
to use.
MR. WEEKS: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm glad to see we are. But,
David, what is the best way to proceed with this? I mean, are we
better beating this to death at the GMP level, or is it better off being
handled so the -- but I don't want us -- our hands tied behind our back
either --
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
Page 223
~""..'" - 1 ,.. ill'
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- at the rezone level.
MR. WEEKS: Because the other subdistrict was adopted, which
is a countywide provision -- this being site specific -- the other is
applicable as long as you meet the locational criteria. And because the
petitioner is -- does not object to these changes and unless someone is
identifying any particular concerns or issues that we might be tying
our hands to the point that that would be problematic at rezone stage,
my suggestion would be leave it as it is. If you want to take out the
height, that would be fine.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right.
MR. WEEKS: But, otherwise, leave it as is.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if we don't take it out,
we ought to decide which number it is, three four or five. I say take it
out.
MR. WEEKS: I think that I would concur with that. Just take it
out.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Take it out. Let them prove it at
the rezone stage.
All right. Any other questions of Glenn? Because I've just got
one, basically. David or Glenn both, in the previous commercial
application we talked about just stating that there's a maximum density
allowed at the site and it's X. In this one you've gone to a minimum of
71. I'm not sure I understand the philosophy behind that.
MR. HEATH: The logic, well, first off, is some of the language
in here is, again, based on the residential mixed-use neighborhood
subdistrict and the way that is structured, but, also, part of the -- the
logic here is that their commercial area could conceivably be not
commercial alone. It could have residential interspersed with it.
So once we begin to be getting in there we'll have to use a
different formula to actually determine how many residential units
they have, what the -- the ultimate density is, and that's why there's no
maximum. The minimum is simply a statement of the density rating
Page 224
~-,--
_._,~._~_..."._..~-,.".~.-.,~._,.,._-_..."_.,..,","_... .".,,,
.".""._~,,,,.........--"-~....<,,--..,.,,~,- ~
January 6, 2004
system as applied to this project based on the residential area alone.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, doesn't that exist today
without having -- saying it?
MR. HEATH: Yes, but there was a -- well, the other point, too,
is that there was a -- initially there was a difference of opinion as to
how many units the -- the minimum was.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just was wondering was there a
reason why we just couldn't do what we normally do and say this
proj ect will not have a density greater than a maximum of X.
MR. WEEKS: What we're trying to do is -- is link this directly
to the density rating system. The only exception to that would be on
their commercial tract, if they choose to -- to have a mixed-use
project; that is, mixture of residential and commercial, that they
would be allowed to have the 16 units per acre. Beyond that they
would -- the residential component will be subject to the density
rating system.
The reason for putting a minimum density in there is that part of
their argument is that we're going to provide a mixed-use
development. Well, let's make that commitment firm. Give them the
minimum number of units that they are mandated to construct. In this
case 71 is based on the density rating system. The site would qualify
for four units per acre exclusive of the commercial tract. We don't
know how big that commercial tract will be, but we know it can be no
larger than five acres.
We took the total site, subtract five acres, multiply it by 4; that's
where we came up with the 71. If we didn't have a minimum, I mean,
theoretically -- whatever the market dictates, but theoretically they
could come in with 1 house or 10 houses, that ranchette-style
development that we've talked about out in the rural fringe and other
places in the county. If the argument is this is going to be a mixed-use
development, let's make sure that's what it is, so mandate an amount.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions
Page 225
-_.~-,---~~-"..,..._~-,._--_._.,"---_._--"...~-,... .
_'_.. ,...~",,,~__,,,,--,_'",""_"';'_'W_"'_'_"'
January 6, 2004
of staff? Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Glenn, if they do mixed
commercial and -- and residential, is that then considered still a
commercial component? In other words, why don't we just let them
design the site with the -- with the town and not -- because you're
going to really get messed up with what's the width and what's the
depth of -- especially if they blend everything together.
MR. HEATH: Well, you know, as -- as -- as Mr. Weeks said,
part of the logic of the -- some of the site -- the site specifics for the
commercial component is to -- is to kind of confine the commercial
space to a particular portion of the project without making a -- creating
a strip mall, which is considered undesirable, not that they would
necessarily want to do that anyway.
The other issue is, I -- if you look under -- a little bit further into
the -- into the staff report, there's a discussion of the differences
between their proposed subdistrict and the -- the existing residential
mixed-use neighborhood subdistrict, and it looks at the -- the -- the
residential mixed-use neighborhood subdistrict has a requirement that
bases the commercial square footage on the number of residential
units. You get so much commercial square space for -- for the number
of residential units you construct.
The -- the numbers work out to be a little bit different. Theirs--
the -- the residential mixed-use neighborhood subdistrict is -- is
roughly one acre of commercial property for every five acres of res --
residential property. This one would work out -- because it's actually
a little bit smaller than what was anticipated in the other subdistrict,
this one works out to about one 1 of commercial space for every 3.5
acres of residential area.
So to a certain extent we're trying -- we're trying to fit the other
-- the existing subdistrict into a smaller box, and that's why -- why we
have some of these requirements and changes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other
Page 226
January 6, 2004
questions of the staff?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: David has a question.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: David.
MR. WEEKS: I apologize. I need to make a correction on what
I just said. I incorrectly stated that the commercial portion of the
proj ect could contain residential development at 16 units per acre, and
that's not true. It's 4 units per acre; however, the density is calculated
on the entire subdistrict; that is, the entire 22.83 acres, so the net result
is they do get a much higher density on the commercial tract if they do
mixed use, and that's what we want to promote.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Is there any
other presentations, David, or any public speakers?
MR. WEEKS: No to both.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that will close the public
hearing. I'll entertain a motion -- motion from the commission.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move it, Mark. I'll make a
motion that we forward the petition to the County Commission for
approval of CP-2004-5 with staffs --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: With staffs language.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- with staffs
recommendation. I'm still not a big fan of Item No.2, but if the
applicant doesn't mind I don't mind.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second it. And I want to
tack on the -- the no height -- taking out the height provision.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's been a second. In
discussion recommendations to take out the reference to the heights in
that.
MS. STUDENT: The motion made --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Brad was the motion maker.
MS. STUDENT: Does the motion maker agree with that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with it. I'm not sure I
Page 227
-,..,_.,-." , -"",.-."-..-.,,,
.__._.._.._..··,'''M·'_._.. _...______._
January 6, 2004
see it in the staffs -- is it in the staffs --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It was there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll trust you. I'll take it
out. We'll--
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The top of page 3 of the
staff report.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Three?
MR. WEEKS: In staffs version it's on page 9 under Number
C-2.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The staffs version starts on 9.
MR. WEEKS: Page 9, Item C-2.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that okay with the motion
maker?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Yes, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Both places.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other
discussions on this motion? Hearing none I'll call the vote. All those
in favor?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One -- one opposition
Okay. The motion passes. Thank you.
David, I think we've all probably read these and --
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
Page 228
._........___.......__'.m__·. _,....,.._"~~,~."_·.·.m_'_._'_..·.··
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- heard a lot today. I would hope
that you're not going to repeat every one. What I'd like to do, if there's
no objections from the commission, is to ask for specific questions,
and if -- we'll address those, and then if there aren't any we can just
go through this. This is more of a housekeeping issue, if I'm not
mistaken, than anything else.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I have only one question,
and I'll ask mine, if the commission doesn't mind, and that's the -- I'm
almost to the last one on page 11, the location of Wiggin's Pass Road
and U.S. 41/01d U.S. 41 intersection.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're moving the CHHA
boundary or you're redefining it or clarifying. Will that have any
impact on the Coconilla project since that was what spurred this issue?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir, it will not.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I didn't think it did, but I
wanted to hear your comments on that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: David, I just have a question
about that too. When you try to look at the maps in here, it's pretty
difficult even with my magnifying class. You're not trying to connect
Wiggin's Pass with Old 41 and 41, are you?
MR. WEEKS: No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because it -- okay. All right. It
does fall two-tenths of a mile below that, and I just --
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You can't tell when you look at
the old map versus the new map.
MR. WEEKS: Right. The problem is both of those are
incorrectly shown. Both the intersection of Old and New 41 as well as
Wiggin's Pass Road both need to be shifted north about a quarter of a
mile.
Page 229
,-~_."'_.,.,,..,."
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, David, where's the map --
and I don't -- I didn't have a map. I mean, we do have future land use
maps somewhere, but where's the one that would show how you're
shifting that?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's -- it's -- it's after page 7, Brad.
It's the fourth map back. That shows the existing. And the fifth map
back shows the change they want to make.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's in the tab--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Under the resolution.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's on the very last tab--
MR. WEEKS: Your first notebook.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- the CPSP-2004-7.
MR. WEEKS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't have the map.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have the map.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: After page 7 I don't have a
map.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That'll speed the process.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe the other book.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You mean the one that says
existing and the following is proposed.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Did you get a map?
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's just back to 51 in the very
front.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, is it?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, in the book.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you want the other book? Is
that what you want?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yea
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. In front of the other in
the resolution. The little big book.
Page 230
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The next book would be the
smaller one.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All right. The other book then.
The other notebook.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's your other other book.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, David, it was a good plan,
but I guess it's not going to work.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I've placed the -- the -- the new
proposed map on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you zoom on the Wiggin's
Pass move?
MR. WEEKS: Okay. Probably the easiest way to tell it is if you
look at Wiggin's Pass Road up to the intersection of Old and New 41,
that box that represents the coastal high hazard area and a bold dashed
line is much larger than it -- that it appears on the existing map. It
goes from a -- basically from a rectangle to almost a square.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the -- the line that
runs down Wiggin's Pass Road to the -- to the -- up to Bonita has not
been changed?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any other questions of
staff on any of the elements of this 04- 7?
David, are there any speakers?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other
questions, Brad, are you--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But, I mean, I didn't know
if you were going to have another question or not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. No.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If not, I'd like to close the public
Page 231
. _,_'e _"'_~"__.-_ ,-.
January 6, 2004
hearing and entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll make the motion to
forward to the commission with a favorable approval CPS -- or
CPSP-2004-7.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Is
there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by
saying "Aye."
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any anybody opposed? No one's
opposed.
Okay. Well, we're through the -- the agenda items. We're on
new business. Is there any new business by the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one quick comment that
__ the report we get from Joe Schmitt says that we're going to have
LDC meetings, a special thing with the sidewalk issue. None of them
were noted to be in the evening. Margie, is that a requirement that we
have? Any LDC change, isn't it a requirement that they're in the
evening?
MS. STUDENT: There -- there have been changes, and with
what's transpired I don't believe that -- I don't have my LDC with me
to read it exactly, but, in any event, the law only requires -- because,
as I recall, it could be changed by the board if they didn't want to have
all of them in the evening, but that's only if you have a land-use
change, a conditional-use change, or a prohibited-use change. And
sidewalks are none of those, so I don't think there's a problem.
Page 232
....,...._-_.,_.~-~._~.~.,-'-_.".,.
January 6, 2004
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other new
business? If none, public comment. There's nobody here. Well, Stan,
you're a member of the public. So are you, Glenn. And you're
employees. So I guess there's none -- no comments from the public.
With that, motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move to approve --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's go enjoy rush-hour traffic.
Second. Motion made and seconded. Adjourned.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:48 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
RUSSELL BUDD, Chairman
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KAREN WHITE.
Page 233
,".,.."~,~,,,,,.,-,~,-