Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/20/2005 R January 20, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NAPLES, FLORIDA, January 20, 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 Brad Schiffer Mark Strain Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Majorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Mike Basi, Zoning & Land Dev. Review 1 "~,',,"-.-'_.,,-- ~'-"-_.., ,,- .'".._" AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2005, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MA TERlALS 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. APPRO V AL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 16, 2004, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - Not Available at this time 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: V A-2004-AR-6793. Leobardo and Maritza Gutierrez, represented by Daniel Peck, of Peck & Peck, are requesting a 65-foot after-the-fact front yard setback variance from the required 75 feet, leaving a 70-foot front yard to allow the already poured house slab to be utilized under building permit #2002090941. The subject property is located in the "E" Estates Zoning District at 1815 47th Avenue N.E., Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) 1 ____"._....e___ --.--. ...~<---~_..- ._--"" - '"'.---.-.-.--- B. Petition: RZ-2003-AR-4961, Southern Development Company Inc., represented by JeffL. Davidson, P.E., of Davidson Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural and "C-2ST" Commercial Convenience with a Special Treatment Overlay to "C-3" Commercial Intermediate for retail, office and restaurant and other uses. The property is located on the north side of U.S. 41 just east of Collier Boulevard. The property is located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.0H acres. (Coordinator: Michael 1. DeRuntz) C. Petition: RZ-2004-AR-6209. Collier County Board of County Commissioners, represented by Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc. and Dalas Disney, of Disney and Associates, requesting a rezone from the E Estates zoning district to the P Public zoning district to expand upon the current use, of repair and storage of vehicles belonging to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, and relocate similar facilities for the Collier County Sheriffs Office and Emergency Medical Services on-site. The property, consisting of9.96 acres, is located at 2901 County Barn Road, Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) D. PUDZ-2003-AR-3588, Frank Clesen & Sons, Inc., represented by William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to POO to amend the Clesen PUD, pursuant to the sunsetting provisions of the LDC, to update the POO document in compliance with the current LDC PUD requirements, for property located on the north side of Pine Ridge Road, approximately 1,000 feet east of the Whippoorwill Lane and Pine Ridge Road intersection, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. This property consists of 4.33:1: acres. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) CONTINUED INDEFINATEL Y E. Petition: PUDZ-A-2003-AR-4942, Conquest Development USA, LC represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RW A, Inc., requesting a PUD to PUD rezone known as Silver Lakes PUD for the purpose ofreconfiguring tract boundaries and acreage, bringing the POO into compliance with what currently exists on the subject property. The property is located at 1001 Silver Lakes Boulevard. The property is in Sections 10 & 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 146::1:: acres. (Coordinator: Michael J. DeRuntz) F. Petition: PUDZ-A-2003-AR-5168, Brentwood Land Partners, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural and the "PUD" Planned Unit Development Zoning District to a new PUD known as Malibu Lakes PUD for the purpose of adding approximately 3-acres of "A" Rural Agricultural Zoned land along with the Brentwood and Crestwood POO's to the commercial areas of the Malibu Lakes POO. The proposed 178.5 acre Malibu Lakes POO permits 330,000 square feet of commercial space, while retaining the currently approved maximum of 708 residential dwelling units. The property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to and east of the interstate 75 right-of-way (unincorporated Collier County), Florida and west of Tarpon Bay Boulevard, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 175.67 :t acres. (Coordinator: Michael J. DeRuntz) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 01120/05 CCPC Agenda/RB/sp 2 ,;,."-""-~,,,..,,,,~,";, January 20, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: We are live. We will call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order, and ask you to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon all participated in the Pledge of Allegiance in unison. ) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning. We will have our roll call. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Budd is here. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Everyone is present. Addenda to the agenda. I understand we have three continued items. That would be item A, petition V A-2004-AR-6793, Leobardo and Martiza Gutierrez requesting a 65- foot after-the- fact front yard setback variance is being continued to February 3rd. Also item D, that is PUDZ-2003-AR-3588, Frank Clesen & Sons requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD to amend the Clesen PUD is continued indefinitely. And item F, PUDZ-A-2003AR-5168, Brentwood Land Partners requesting a rezone from "A" rural agricultural and the PUD Planned Unit Development Zoning District to a new PUD known as Malibu Lakes 2 --~. .- January 20, 2005 is going to be continued to February 3rd. That last item is also commonly known as the super Target at 175 and Immokalee Road. So those three items -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Target, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah, Target, that's correct. Any other addenda to the agenda this morning? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to have a brief discussion under old business. As far as followup to the AUIR questions and the AUIR assignment of the BCC to CCPC regarding Commissioner Midney's concerns over concurrency. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Very good. Any other addenda? Motion to approve the addenda is modified? MR. ADELSTEIN: Motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Abernathy. All those in favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Agenda is modified. Any anticipated planning commission absences in our future? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. I'm going to be a grandfather again. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good for you. 3 -..--.--.------ '"' ,.~. --_._"-----~...- January 20, 2005 COMMISSINER MIDNEY: I'm not sure, but at the end of January beginning of February, I will miss a meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. For myself, the second meeting in February, that is February 17th, I'll be out of town and not able to attend. Any other absences? There are none. Approval of minutes. We have our minutes of the December 16th regular meeting. Do we have a motion to approve or modify? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second by Mr. Adelstein. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion to approve by Mr. Abernathy, second by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion. All those in favor of approval signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? Minutes are approved. Board of County Commission reports or recap. Anything, Ray or Joe? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the signed variance for Fidelity Investments was approved by the Board by a vote of five to zero. The Warm Springs PUD, motion to approve by a three to two vote, but didn't achieve the super majority so the motion failed. I here file for rehearing or -- MR. SCHMITT: Let me correct. At the end of the meeting, Commissioner Henning asked to have the meeting recalled and brought back, and the Board agreed, so it will be on the next agenda. 4 .._-"<----- .. .. ~~- January 20, 2005 MR. BELLOWS: And then on the summary agenda, the board approved the conditional use -- excuse me. That was continued. That was for the Bethel Church. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. That's all? MR. BELLOWS: That's all. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. We have no chairman's report. We'll move into our advertised public hearings starting with item B, that is petition RZ-2003-AR-4961, Southern Development Company, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural and C-2ST Commercial Convenience with a special treatment overlay. C3, commercial intermediate and other uses. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Are there any disclosures by the planning commissioners? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I spoke to one of the staff members about a discrepancy that before the meeting -- before we get into this, I need to ask the county attorney's opinion of it, at some point, but other than I have no disclosures. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Would you like to do that now or -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If everybody else is done with their disclosures. Marjorie, I think Mike might have briefed you on it, but I'd like for the record to get it clarified. The resolution in '87 that adopted the zoning for this property was C-IST. The staff report, and I believe the advertising indicated it was C-2ST. So we're really going from C-l ST to a request to go to C3. Because of that discrepancy, are there any 5 _.~"."-~--"-',-'--. January 20, 2005 problems with the advertised public? MS. STUDENT: This is Mr. White's item and he's running a little late this morning, but he and I discussed that yesterday and concluded that it was -- because it was a reference to an existing zoning district and not the future zoning district, that it, in fact, could be corrected on the record and wouldn't pose a problem for re-advertising. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Then the record will be so corrected by this discussion then. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. CURIALE: Good morning. My name is Mario Curiale. I am the owner of the project, also I'm the developer of the project. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, after four long years I finally have a chance to get back in here to present this rezone. We had a chance finally to meet between the staff, myself, and the engineer. We finally came up with some kind of a conclusion that we all can agree in order to make this presentation today. This rezone is based on six acres. And we go from, like I said, also from partial four acres from C-2ST it was once C-1ST to C3 commercial unified. The property adjacent to an additional eight acres of C5 total property. Title development would requests the rezone of petition RZ-2003-AR-4961. Southern Development Company, Incorporate requests the rezone from a rural agricultural and C2 as to commercial convenience with the special treatment overlay, the C3 commercial intermediate to the retail office and restaurant and other uses. The property is located at the north side of US 41 just east of Collier Boulevard, also known as US R951. The property is located in section 3, township 51, range 26 East, Collier County Florida. Consists of 6.07 acres. I have with me my proj ect for the rezone. A great staff. I have 6 -'''',,^ '^-_...,,-~._,. -.."- January 20, 2005 Jeff Davidson, engineer for the rezone, my agent. Kelly Smith, rezone specialist, coordinator for Jeff Davidson. Jeremy Stirk, environmental consultant. I believe that they will be able to answer all kinds of question. You guys are required to do this. And having said that, I call on Kelly Smith, which is the rezone coordinator. Thank you. And I will follow up with my presentation after all questions been answered. I will have my own presentation and questions to the public and questions to the Board. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MS. SMITH: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kelly Smith, and I apologize, I apparently have some laryngitis this morning. I'm going to do my best. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Hold the microphone closer then. MS. SMITH: As Mr. Curiale explained, the subject property is located just east of the intersection of 951 and US 41. We're requesting a rezone from agricultural and C-2ST, which is C3. The proposed uses for the property include bank, retail, office, and restaurant. But as staff pointed out in your staff report, it would not be precluded from constructing additional structures on the property. The current conceptual site plan also includes a lake for water management, and also as a design element, and the preserve as it's shown on the site plan is located in the back portion of the property that's adjacent to Falling Waters. In our original proposal, we also proposed a wall to be along the back border with Falling Waters. Because of some preserve requirements for the property to the east, that is currently under development by the applicant, we had to increase the preserve on this property to accommodate the preserve requirements for the adjacent property. In doing that, we've had to extend the preserve all the way back to the property line. We're still looking at whether or not we can accommodate a wall and we will -- the property will, and during the 7 ____.. ".m._._+__..,_,__~_..._.__.,_. --"--~>..-. -.'"- January 20, 2005 site development plan, will be considered by staff and will have to comply with all land development code regulations. As your staff pointed out, this project has been -- rezoned project -- has been proposed to be consistent with the future land use map. This project is located within activity center number 18. It's also been deemed compatible with adjoining commercial land uses. Regarding the stipulations in the staff report, the applicant agrees to all stipulations for approval, with the exception of the construction of the sidewalk along US 41. It is not possible to construct the sidewalk unless the existing drainage ditch is filled in and the drainage is piped. This section of US 41 is also scheduled to be widened at some point in the near future. At that time the sidewalk can be properly installed without impacting the drainage. Therefore, the applicant would request, and agrees, to pay for the sidewalk in lieu of the installation at this time. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ma'am, something you said rung a bell. You said that you have to increase the preserve area in the back of this property to accommodate a problem on the adj acent property; is that right? MS. SMITH: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you didn't own this property, how would you be accommodating the problem on the adjacent property? I mean, is that your only alternative, because it sounds like you're going to undo a wall and separation that would help the residential project behind you, to replace it with a preserve that you are required to do on a project adjoining you. If that's all for your convenience and savings, I'm not sure how it benefits the public. MS. SMITH: Well, I think also the expansion of the preserve will link in with the adjacent property and will provide a greater 8 --.... .~-~-~;-_.~- -~--"-- ..-- January 20, 2005 buffer than the wall would. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But the wall will-- we'll have to wait and see if the public has any comments on the wall. But in regards to what you're required to do on the property next door, is there another alternative to meet the preserve requirement that should have been placed next door, that apparently isn't going to be placed next door? Is there off-site mitigation that could be utilized, or some alternatives like that, that maybe they'd be more costly to the landowner, but they would allow the wall and the buffer to be properly installed for the residents behind? MS. SMITH: There's no option for off-site mitigation because this is the preserve, the native vegetation preserve requirement set forth by Collier County, and there's currently no opportunity to do off-site mitigation for that requirement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, apparently there was a preserve requirement next door and it's not there. Is that the synopsis? MS. SMITH: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So the option is, you could restore whatever was damaged next door to the way it should have been, although it might be costly. That is an alternative to removing the wall. MS. SMITH: That is correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're saying that there is a chance that 41 would be widened? My notes say to me that it's not on the agenda for the next five years. MS. SMITH: I'm going to let Mr. Davidson answer that question for you. 9 -- -------" --- January 20,2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Say what? Pardon me? CHAIRMAN BUDD: She's going to let Mr. Davidson answer that question. MR. DAVIDSON: I'm Jeff Davidson. The answer is, we don't know when it will be widened. And we have been told by DOT that it will be widened, but like you said, it's not within the five-year plan. It's sometime in the future. I don't know when. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: In that regard, sir, we might as well talk about access coming north, I guess one would say, it would be ease of getting in there, and maybe going south if you're at the intersection of 951 and 41, but what about somebody trying to turn around and coming back? MR. DAVIDSON: The accesses to the project are already permitted through DOT, and there is a left -- there are two accesses from 41 and this will be -- this project that we're here for now, you can see the access on the plan. That's already permitted with DOT. The left in there is currently permitted. The problem is, we can't build it until, you know, hopefully we get this project rezoned. We could build it, but we'd rather wait until the rezone is done and then build it. There's two accesses -- there's another access further to the east, and that's a right in, right out only. So you could go -- in this project -- if you're coming from Naples or Marco Island, or the populated areas, you would make a left in here and then drive over to, you know, to the area there that's not shown that's on the right-hand side. It's all interconnected, and then you could make a right in there if you needed to to get back towards town. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That does not have -- does it have -- I can't think of the word -- an access lane to make that or right angle turn. MR. DA VIDSON: It has a designated deceleration lane for the left turn in. 10 ...'-<^------.., ~-- January 20, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Deceleration lane. That's what I was trying to think of. Thank you. Okay. And I have one other question -- two other questions. One regarding a pit. I notice that it's used for a pit. Is that dug out or is that level ground now? MR. DAVIDSON: No, sir. It's all wooded now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's not been dug out? MR. DA VIDSON: Not been dug yet. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And the last question that I have would be, interconnectivity. Is there any -- and I don't mean commercial interconnectivity -- is there any opportunity for pedestrian access from Falling Waters, even though they may not want that? Have you considered the potential to make that access and leave space for that? MR. DAVIDSON: It has not been considered, but I think we could consider that. I mean, would you have -- I mean, we could do that. That's not a problem. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I thank you. That would be my questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of petitioner's presentation? MR. CURIALE: Mr. Strain, will I be able to rephrase the question that you had concerning about the preserve? The reason why the preserve had been increased is because the land code development -- okay -- does not require to have -- does not calculate any more the additional parcel alongside the island, alongside the parking lot, has been considered as a preserve. So what they did -- this has only happened maybe six months ago, okay, the LDC code they change. They said they would like to see the preserve only one spot. Only one location. So all the smaller island, they not use that anymore for population. So it kind of change the project. It kind of change. Before we had a different plan. Let me bring the other plan we have. 11 -<-,."-_._-------_.- u____ January 20, 2005 As you can see, the preserve we had made previously was only about .91 acres. Therefore, it shows the lake, it goes almost about 100 feet to the property line. Then when we got the rej ection prior to submittal again, staff said that we need to increase the preserve to be only in one location. So what happened, what it did, if you see from the rendering, the rendering was made about over a year ago. That was the place that we had all designed. All of the island alongside the parking lot, it was all part of population as vegetation. I change the code like as being implemented six months ago by the LDC, were they allowed to have all preserve in one spot. So, therefore, if you remove the plan, now the lake is much shorter than it was before, and we have a big blob of about 1.56 acres in one location. So, by doing that, in order to accommodate the amount of square footage you're required for the preserve, we can no longer utilize the 15 feet buffer that we had to install the wall. Now, furthermore -- I'm a developer myself and also a builder. I'm not a paper pusher developer. I'm a builder and I'm a developer by my own hands. When I work on a proj ect, I put my heart and soul in the project. I want to make sure the people around me, they all appreciate what I do. So I can't make a project and run. My calculation was, by having the lake to be longer, the broad scenery -- we going to have a couple fountains and a lake also for neighbors. Since we had to do away with that, shorten the lake up, we need another addition of around, I would say, four or five thousand square feet. And that brought us the idea, if we get this wall stopped right on the C5 property, whatever started as C3, we may incorporate a chain link fence between the trees to give privacy. And I believe that the people in the condos, instead of looking at the wall, which is right alongside the roadway -- because right now, this area here abuts right next to the road of Falling Waters. So, for the people in Falling Waters would like to see a wall, like the China wall all the way across with no buffer whatsoever, so be, but I would recommend to leave the 12 .-- -, .-.-",.."....=~. "-.._.. .-- January 20, 2005 wall out of the section. We can make a privacy chain link wall with the bronze, or what kind of railing, the way people see the trees, instead of see the wall. But I leave it up to the people of Falling Waters to make a decision. And I hopefully will go along with what they have to say. As far as the entrance going, we never come to that. We had a neighborhood meeting with them. Nobody ever brought that up to us at the time. If you guys need something right now, I'll be glad to consider something to do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As a follow-up to some of the things you've said, sir, I've got some questions. The young lady before you indicated that the preserve had to be expanded to accommodate some preserve area that should have been in the proj ect next door. Is that true or not? MR. CURIALE: That's not true at all. That was some kind of misled or misunderstood between the staff, and the engineer that brought it up. Because I had a meeting with environmental people and staff and they said that they no longer calculate individual islands as part of a preserve. They like to have a single mass preserve in one location. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, let's go back to the other question. Do you have a problem with the preserve area next door? Is there some violation there where you're supposed to have a certain preserve area and you don't have what you're supposed to have? MR. CURIALE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So all the preserve area that's supposed to be on your existing property, you have? MR. CURIALE: We have the preserve area that we supposed to have, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Didn't you have a code enforcement case on that issue? MR. CURIALE: The code enforcement case derived from the 13 -- January 20,2005 fact that I made a clearance to bring some culvert pipe from the back of the property to 41 in order to unload the pipe to make the entrance to put a culvert pipe. The violation -- I made a path of around 20 feet wide. I had to remove around 20, 30 trees. Those trees, it cost me a fortune. Plus delay the project for about two years. The code violation had nothing to do with the preserve whatsoever. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'll have to ask staff. MR. CURIALE: Staff, right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The other side -- and I hope the staff will opine on this. I believe that when you put a wall in, as you said, the great China wall, it's not necessarily a great China wall. You're supposed to have additional implementation of landscaping and things like that so the wall won't appear as the great China wall. Maybe staff can clarify that as far as re-buffers and things when we get to that issue. And the last thing is, at your neighborhood meeting, did you tell the people that you would have a wall there? MR. CURIALE: When we had the neighborhood meeting, I believe sometime in September, the meeting we had, we were not aware that the rejection from staff was told to us that we have to increase the preserve by another .91 acres. So we were not aware of that. Now, we went to the meeting with the rendering that I have on the wall over there in the original plan that we have over there showing that the lake was much longer, therefore, we had enough room to accommodate the wall. When the rejection took place two weeks ago, three or four weeks ago when we got it, they told us that we have to increase the preserve, so we have no other place for us to get the land, you know, to accommodate the preserve. So by getting back to 15 feet that we're being utilized to put the wall up with the buffer, it gives us additional space for us to go ahead and make this project workable. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So your response to meeting more 14 ------ . ...__._"--"~-"' ._- January 20, 2005 preserve is not to take it out of paved areas, but to take it out of buffer areas? MR. CURIALE: It's not really buffer. We increase the buffer area with the preserve. Before it was only about .91 acre, now it's .56 acres, so we did not reduce the buffer, we increased the buffer. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'll get some clarification too when we hear staff. Thank you. MR. CURIALE: I have couple more presentations to make. I don't know if you guys remember this. Most of you guys maybe have changed. I think Mark was one of the members of the Planning Board when I first came here about nine years ago for some of the regional things here. This project has been like this since 1996. I have not deviated any plans from day one. It start from the Eckerd Drug at the comer, it came from this point all the way down to the end right next to Falling Waters. When we first got the rezone for the eight acres of land, we had to make a major change. The DOT did not allow me to make a left-hand turn or right-hand turn for the trucks to come in because it was for my new store for Marco Building Supply, which I own Marco Building Supply. It was the second spillover store, because at that time we could not get material to supply from Naples to Marco. We were at the mercy to get that. I don't want to get into that. I want to get to these issues here. We moved over so I got the entrance at this point here. We had three or four meeting with staff, also the developer of Falling Waters And at that time, we recommend to have an entrance on this side here for the traffic lights that would allow the entrance for Falling Waters, myself, and everything else. But Falling Waters people at that time did not want any part of anything. What I did, I went ahead and put my own entrance in here, they put their own entrance to the right. So we went ahead and did that. I put this building up. It's already up. We just finally got a chance to 15 --- January 20, 2005 get it running. This building is nearly completion. This building here, is this one here. We waited for the STP for about a year-and-a-half. As you can see, what we tried to do, we tried to do something that looks halfway decent here. We don't try to do something that we just throw buildings up and run away. As I stated before, I'm a developer and I speak for my work. I actually, physically build this project. When I build a project, part of my life goes into this project. So I'm not here to get approval and run away from this. I'm not going to do that. So I be fully concerned and make sure that my neighbors around the property, that it be very well kept and understand that I'm not here to do anything illegally or anything to disrupt livelihood. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's not going to be the new Carrabba's restaurant, is it? MR. CURIALE: This two buildings in here, as we state a long time ago, is three-story building on this side with a bank on the bottom. But now I'm running out of money, I don't think I can do the bank. This is another building. A three-story building. It's the same as it was nine years ago. It has not changed. This is supposed to be an upscale restaurant here. It still has not changed. This is the plans that we submitted right now. Right at this corner over here is the CVS Pharmacy, which is supposed to be Eckerd Drug. I believe if I come through to build this proj ect here, not only we enhance the whole quadrant because I phase -- we are a visionary developer. We not guys that -- we vision things ahead of time. I vision this project about 15 years ago. And I vision this project, this quadrant was going to be one of the busiest quadrant in Collier County. And it is going to be within the next five, ten years. As you can see, this is not -- this is really beautiful project in here. It's a good-looking building, and they work uniformly with the design and the serenity of the whole design that all the architecture, it 16 -- ~-,~._-,,-~_. - ~-,-----'~ ---.- January 20, 2005 blends in as you go along. We don't have bits and pieces, one look one way, one look another way. We try to keep uniformity all the way across. As you can see, this top part over here somewhat matches the CVS Pharmacy, the rooftop of the pharmacy. So when the pharmacy is right next to here, the building is actually continue from the corner, it brings all the way down to the end of strip, and what we plan ahead of time, we went ahead to go from the C3 and C5, and C4, and even my C5 building, they fit it into a C2 or C3 area the way it's built. I don't have a block of buildings just throw them across over there. Everything is unique that fits in the neighborhood and environment that is there. Who said Carrabba's restaurant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did. MR. CURIALE: Who's that? You have stock in there? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No. THE WITNESS: If you do, we talk to them. If you don't, we bring somebody else in. You don't like Macaroni Grill? You don't like it? What restaurant the most favorite one you like? Carrabba's? The restaurant, the person who suppose to have run this, this was supposed to be my restaurant, believe it or not. Okay? Unfortunately, the cook is older than me now. When I start this I was young. I had no gray hairs. Now all of a sudden ten, eleven years later, my cook is 67, he can't see. I am same way, I can't see either. So make a long story short, the food would not taste as good as it was before. But, what we have done here is something that really makes a whole schematic over the area of the quadrant that I believe over 15 years to make an entrance, that when people come off Marco Island, or people come over from the north side is coming up. With all the development we have from Fiddler's Creek and also Lely, they have a place of serenity that they go out there and enjoy a good meal. And the idea for me to have the lake over here, which actually cost more 17 . .~~---,,-~',.- ..- January 20, 2005 to build the lake than to leave the trees the way they are, to bring some kind of ambiance to the area. So, having a restaurant overlook the water. We had a jacuzzi -- I mean a cabana over here, a tiki hut that we would have had, when the people waiting to be served, instead of wait outside in a parking lot, like any restaurant you see, or Carabba's, they look outside a parking lot, they would have a place to come over here and you have a drink over here. When their name is called, they can go back in and eat. So my plans somewhat seems to be pretty good. Well, I would like to know from all you guys have any kind of problems deter from these plans. I would like to answer any kind of questions you guys have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for the petitioner? There are none. We'll hear from the staff, please. MR. DERUNTZ: For the record, my name is Mike DeRuntz. I'm a Principal Planner with Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. We mentioned earlier about the scribners there. This, unfortunately, did occur. There was, resulting on the property -- well, initially the petition was for C-2ST, but it was during the zoning process it was changed to C-1 ST. And unfortunately the map didn't pick that up. Petitioner is going to be sending out a notice to the list of property owners that was noticed for the neighborhood information meeting of that discrepancy that this request will be going for C-1 ST to an AG, and C-1ST to a C3. This property is in that activity center. And, as such, commercial mixed use is proposed. Our goal for that area -- we do have a change. I do have copies, large copies if you'd like, of those proposed changes that is on the visualizer now. But if you don't, that's okay. I know there's some questions about what changed between the two. I did a quick review of the two. They're increasing the preserve area from one point -- or .91 acres to 1.51 acres. They're increasing 18 '---' . --. ~ _.~ -_.--. ~---- January 20, 2005 the open space area from .97 acres to .1 -- or 1.3 acres. They're decreasing the lake area from .83 acres to .55 acres. The conceptual site plan shows the illumination of the two gazebos in the island, which would be utilized for public space. They're illuminating the I5-foot landscape buffer. They're illuminating the wall. They're maintaining the proposed three buildings, and keeping the total square footage of 53,300 square feet, and the number of parking spaces is 201 spaces. We have to remember, this application that we're reviewing this morning is for the rezoning. It's not for the site development plan. We need to take into consideration that this request is consistent with the growth management plan. While there may be, you know, issues subordinate to the adjoining properties about the preserve area, those items will need to be addressed during the site development plan, or we can incorporate conditions in our stipulations with this proposal. If you would like a copy of those plans, I do have those here for you now, if you would like that. This application had gone before the EAC, and the EAC did make a favorable recommendation for illuminating the ST on this request. They did incorporate a stipulation that they would have an opportunity to review the site plan as it pertained to this particular property. To review how the applicant is meeting the mitigation requirements for the district. That was not sure at the time of the meeting, how many credits that you would have to acquire because they're impacting some wetland areas on the site. They wanted an opportunity to see what was addressed by that petitioner, and what was required by the district for this property. It will not be a requirement of approval for any of the site development plans. They just want an opportunity to review what had been required of the developer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Excuse me, Mike. I really want to ask Patrick White if that provision causes him any problems. 19 '--.- January 20, 2005 It seems to me a couple of meetings ago, I asked that the matter come back before us at the time of SDP, and was told that it couldn't do that without changes to the way we operate. Is this distinguishable in some way? MR. WHITE: Good morning. Assistant County Attorney, Patrick White. I believe that it is. The only point of this particular condition on a straight rezone is that they will review it. They are effectively going to have it under agenda at that time. They'll be essentially briefed by the staff. They will take no action other than to have noted for the record, either by motion and vote or otherwise, that they did review it. And, thus, the condition will be complied with. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What's the point of all that? MR. WHITE: I can't tell you the genesis of it, other than I think there was a desire to be informed, and that this would be a way to assure that would occur. It is not related in any way to the approval in the sense that the SDP would be otherwise not approved if it didn't occur. The only thing that wouldn't occur, would be that the zoning wouldn't move forward until that review. So, I think although they're similar, the degree of distinction is sufficient that this isn't a process concern. I believe that the gist of the request at your last meeting was one that would have re-invigorated the review process further on in the development cycle timeline. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I agree. I don't want to do meaningless things like the EAC is setting out to do. So, if it didn't have any meaning, I wouldn't want to do it. MR. WHITE: I don't want to characterize it one way or the other, but just want to hopefully give you an adequate explanation of what the distinction is. In fact, you'll note that this particular condition is one that says they will review the approved permit from South Florida. So the 20 ,---" --~~_. &,--_., --- January 20, 2005 presumption is, that there would have been an adequate addressing of those impacts at that time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you, Mr. White. Is there more to your presentation, or are we at a point for questions now? MR. DERUNTZ: I wanted to state for the record that in the ordinance that you have before you, there has been some modifications. That last statement that Mr. White had mentioned. There are four conditions. One was the no site development plan at ST for the subj ect property shall be approved until the level of service for the new section of activity center 18 and Collier Boulevard, Highway 951. It is reported to be a level C classification or better. I'd like to modify that to meet Department of Transportation concurrency requirements. I don't think it's going to meet a level C there. It's not on the radar screen for improvements. They just added an additional turn lane there. The highway department -- the State Highway Department is not looking at doing any improvements. I know the county is wanting to talk to them about additional improvements to try to improve that intersection. The second condition prior to the ST approval, access to the adjoining commercial property shall be provided in the form of these to the adjoining property owner so they cross access between the commercial properties to the east and west. I don't know if we wanted to add Mr. Murray's comments in there about the pedestrian access, but I think we need to have that subject to, you know Falling Waters' approval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For clarification let me just address that for you. My intent was to provide an opportunity for Falling Waters now or in the future, to concern itself to be able to access the commercial property when developed. And, thereby, avoid additional traffic on the roads. And that would be in that case. So it's not -- it's an opportunity, a reservation and perpetuity so as to assure that if Falling Waters does decide, that it can be accomplished. And 21 - January 20, 2005 I have another question when the opportunity presents. MR. DERUNTZ: Thirdly, the sidewalk shall be constructed on the front of the subject property on Tamiami Trail per section, the LDC. And the fourth was prior to the approval of the original SDP, the Environmental Advisory Council reviews the approved South Florida Water Management District permit litigation for wetland impacts. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Does that conclude your report? MR. DERUNTZ: YES. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Even though you've indicated that it may not be appropriate to discuss it, I'm going to discuss it anyway. I'm going to ask you questions. When the additional preserve area was required, determined to be required, the wall had to be considered. And so Mr. Curiale has indicated a desire to have the preserve act as a buffer, if I understood it correctly, and to have a chain link fence somewhere in, presumably, the end of his property, perhaps 15 feet set back, whatever. But its point is to eliminate the wall of China. Was it made clear, and if you tell me it's inappropriate, but was it made clear to Mr. Curiale that the responsibility for the maintenance of the preserve and the maintenance of the buffer -- which will effectively become one -- on both sides of that fence, are his responsibility? Is that not true? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir, that is true. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And he understands that to be the case? Because I saw a little bit of surprise when the indication of the wall was there, that perhaps he reacted thinking, gee, I don't have this responsibility. So, I just wanted to get that clear in my mind. MR. DERUNTZ: That is his responsibility, and it is also a stipulation in the land development code that a buffer shall be provided on commercial properties which adjoin residential properties. 22 u ... ._'_~"_'_,_.....,___._..,. January 20, 2005 So at the time when the SDP comes forward, that is something that the staff is going to be looking to see that they have on that property. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So he would understand, that even though he's presuming that this preserve constitutes a buffer, that the buffer is within the preserve, and that's still factually valid, correct? MR. DERUNTZ: I might ask -- I think the buffer has to be handled separately as an easement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the indications are that there is sufficient room for a buffer, that's why I'm posing it that way. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The landscape buffer requirements are not exclusive of the requirement to provide required buffer. So there will be a buffer requirement along with any preserve area. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And they can be concurrent, or they could be essentially -- well, are you telling me they clearly demark it? MR. BELLOWS: It has to meet the requirement. It can be intermixed, but it has to meet the requirement of meeting the intent of the required B buffer between residential and commercial. The preserve area may be included in the overall definition of the buffer requirement, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So if I understand you correctly -- MR. BELLOWS: But you can't mix the two because part of it, there's a landscaping water maintenance requirement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So I'm clear on that. I got the impression that Mr. Curiale believed that they were all to be all in one. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ray, can you check on the microphone, it seems to me, and I've heard comments by other planning commissioners, that the microphone that Mike is speaking at, I can 23 -'-- January 20, 2005 hear his voice directly, but I'm not getting any amplification out of it. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No. And this is not on and I cannot hear. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There's something weird going on with the microphones today, and it's hard to hear what we're saying. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I believe Mr. Adelstein had a question. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. As I understand it right now, Collier Boulevard and, actually, 41 are both running at over capacity. If they're over capacity now, and there's nothing planned for it for the next five years, it would mean that nothing can happen until 2011. Now we're discussing what we're going to do to build, and I have no idea what the code is going to be in 2011. I think it's time for to us look at this thing on a reality basis. We can't build it because we can't -- there are no more rooms for cars on that road. MR. DERUNTZ: I understand exactly what you're saying, and transportation has expressed similar concerns about this. That's why the stipulation was incorporated in there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I saw the stipulation, but the point is right now, we don't know exactly when it's going to happen, and that's fine. But we know it can't happen before 2011 because it's not on this agenda at all. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If this is going to be approved properly, I think we should know the conditions at that time. And this should be actually put off until the road area, at least, is on the agenda to be approved. MR. DERUNTZ: Well, you can take that into consideration in your decision. But this location -- like I said, this is an activity center 18 and it is designated in the growth management plan to meet what is being proposed by this petition. And what we can do though is to, you know, restrict the development of that property. We can, you know, change the land use classification, but then, you know, restrict the 24 -- -_.~.. -- January 20, 2005 actual development of that until such time that there is capacity to support those services. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein makes a point that may be considered in the future motion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Scott, you're anxious to talk, I can tell. Can you tell me why you recommended denial of this rezone? MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. Based on 951 south of 41, which is, at the moment, we have like six other things in the queue, like W al- Mart, super W al- Mart that wanted to come forward. Based on the fact that we are over capacity with the vestibules in that segment now. What we talked about at the A YR meeting is having the six-lane portion of that south through the intersection included in the project to the north, which would bring that into compliance, but we don't have an approved agreement yet with any of the property owners in the area, specifically W al- Mart. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Which leads to Mr. Lindy's concern. You recommend a denial of this rezone based on inconsistency with a GMP 5.1? Staff report though, recommends approval of this based on consistency with GMP 5.1. Which is it, inconsistent or consistent? MR. SCOTT: If you're talking about the way it's trickling in right now, it's inconsistent by our -- I don't have a solution at the moment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then, I mean, so how come reports previous -- you know, the entire county is inconsistent right now. How come required transportation comments didn't point out inconsistencies as this one does? You were very specific in this one, which I was pleased to see under your conchision on page nine of twelve, it says, transportation staff evaluated this position -- petition. It has recommended denial of the rezone. And it says under policy 5.1 -- and you quoted it -- the county commission will not review all 25 --- "'~_H_""'-__ January 20,2005 rezone requests with consideration of their -- will review all rezone requests, with consideration of the impact on the overall system, and shall not approve any such requests that significantly impact roadway segments already operating and/or projected to be operated at an unacceptable level of service within the five-year planning period. MR. SCOTT: That's correct. And, unless I come up with a solution, it will still be operating within the five years below level service. Now, the opposite of what you're saying. You're saying the whole county, where we have improvements programmed that solve that, that's where we would say it's consistent, as long as it met it at that time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The other issue was, I noticed you said, traffic impact analysis was not submitted, yet there was a TIS included with our packet. I'm not sure what the two discrepancies there are, and I'm not sure, maybe the TIS was for the adjoining project. It did seem to take account in this property. The TIS showed percent of impact on the south side of951, I think a 4.83. MR. SCOTT: 4.4. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. Something like that. Which is above the three percent. The TIS though used five percent as the standard -- as the threshold, the threshold to hit. And if three percent is the threshold, do you know why the TIS would have used five percent as the threshold? So, you didn't write it, but, I mean, in your review, did any of this strike you? MR. SCOTT: I'll turn the review over to staff. MR. ALORV ALEY: Good morning. Alan Alorvaley, Project Manager. The old previous -- the previous TIS that did the five percent threshold was in the old format. And new format is three percent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So they would be breaking a threshold? 26 --. -,-~~ ,-~..._.~~ January 20,2005 MR. ALORV ALEY: Oh, yes. Contrary to other TIS -- okay. Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that gets us past the transportation questions maybe. It did say that the standard rezone application, you're submittal checklist, they were required to do a TIS. When your response to question number ten said one was not submitted, I was a little surprised. So, apparently, one was submitted, there was just an error in the report. And, Mike -- if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I'll finish my questions. Mike, in the original 1987 rezone request, statement said, planner Duane stated that the petitioner had originally requested C2 zoning on this property, but staffs recommendation, they are requesting C 1 zoning. Staff apparently didn't buy the C2 for greater intensity at that time. Do you know anything, any history in that, or is that something that's unfamiliar to you? MR. DERUNTZ: I'm unfamiliar with what transpired. It was prior to the road management plan identifying activity centers at that location. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'll get into some of the questions I have. There was an agreement attached to the '87 resolution. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There were two items on this agreement, maybe three, but actually two of them in particular I wanted your verification on. Item T said, only one access drive shall be permitted to the site. This one drive that's down here, is that the only access drive that this site will have on 41 ? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Item V, was the petitioner shall demonstrate the need for additional commercial zoning in the commercial node. Now, this was signed and submitted by the 27 ,--'- --'---<.~~ "'-- January 20, 2005 petitioner. Have you received any documentation that demonstrated the need for the additional commercial zoning in that commercial node? MR. DERUNTZ: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, like the other commercial request we had in our last planning commission meeting where they had reports on commercial zoning needs, there's none been supplied with this rezone? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir, that's correct. Staff with comprehensive planning did note that, but they also stated because it was in the activity center, that they felt that this was inconsistent with the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I don't -- I'm not disputing that. Just if someone has an agreement, I'm just wondering, did we make them adhere to the agreement or not, and apparently, that one item hasn't gotten adhered to. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On page two of your rezone findings, item number five, it talks about going from industrial zoning to C5. Obviously, that paragraph is in error, because we're talking about C 1 to C3. So I think that, for the record, number five is probably not appropriate to this rezone and maybe fits another. Am I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: On page two of the findings. Top of the page. MR. DERUNTZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'm going to try to get through these. The Affidavit for representation, Mr. Davidson has been here today speaking. It has not been signed by the owner. Is that -- do we have a signed one on file? MR. DERUNTZ: Pardon? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's an Affidavit attached to 28 --."^" -- January 20, 2005 the package that allows the property owner to be represented by someone else? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know he represented himself in most presentations this morning, but also -- MR. DERUNTZ: We do have a signed copy, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Their evaluation criteria response. I'm assuming this was provided by the petitioner? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Number nine says, whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent area. And his response was, those building areas will occupy approximately eight percent of the subject properties. Because he volunteered that percentage, is that something that could be stipulated as a maximum coverage for building footprints in regard to this rezone? MR. DERUNTZ: I don't believe so, but I am going to defer -- I don't think that that can be a stipulation. If you'd like -- like Mark was stating. MR. BELLOWS: I didn't hear that last part. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The petitioner in his response to question number nine, whether the proposed change would seriously reduce light and air to adjacent area. I know that's kind of a fluff, ambiguous question, but his response provided some factual information. He said, the proposed building area will occupy approximately eight percent of the subject properties. Is that eight percent like an FAR that we could say their building footprints in this property cannot exceed a certain percentage? MR. BELLOWS: Well, for the record, he's answering in general questions on the application. Those aren't typically incorporated into the ordinance of adoption. Staff typically just relies on the criteria of the land development code. There is no specific requirement in the 29 _n~_"~ ,.--.--- -- January 20, 2005 LDC for floor area ratio. He is generally making a comment, or commitment of what he's intending to try to do, but that is not necessarily a requirement that the county will enforce. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The reason I ask, Ray, is on PUDs, we've actually stipulated maximum FAR's. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This is a rezone, so, it's a bit different. That's why I was asking the question. Maybe the county attorney can shed some light on legally if a rezone were to exceed, can it have a stipulated maximum percentage or FAR. MR. WHITE: Again, Assistant County Attorney, Patrick White. As Ray mentioned, these are -- this type of application is for a, quote, straight rezone, a conventional zoning district. Traditionally, in planning and zoning law, the inclusion of conditions is not one that is favored. In our jurisdiction, they are authorized by means of acquiescence on the part of the applicant as a condition of approval. Thus, if you were anticipating adding that, you would have to have certainly the acquiescence on the record of the applicant. I think that's the only manner and means by which these conditions can be considered to be lawfully implemented. MR. BELLOWS: In addition, I think the overriding factor is that we have setback requirements, landscaping requirements, buffer requirements, parking requirements that take up the site more than the FAR would probably easily address anyways. So, I think that's one reason County hasn't adopted floor area ratios for commercial properties, straight-zone properties at this time. Because we have such stringent landscaping and buffer requirements and water management requirements. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My last question involves the buffering. This gentleman seems to indicate that he's not -- the buffer is going to part of his reserve area. I'm wondering, isn't a buffer, especially with the option of a buffer, that's another stipulation that we 30 .~-"" .-----...,."'--." --- January 20,2005 can probably talk about of having a wall, but aren't buffers outside preserve areas? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then all the discussion we've heard today about having to increase the preserve area by using the buffer area, how does that fit into the equation if buffers are outside of the preserve anyway? MR. BELLOWS: They're outside the preserve. I think the intent is that they can maybe -- during PUD's, they kind of get deviations and try to incorporate some of the preserve area. But in straight zoning, I would just say, keep it subj ect to the LDC and have the buffer requirement and the wall requirement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, ifhe can't count a preserve area as part of the buffer that was presented here today, then there are other parts of the site then that are going to have to be changed to make the preserve area larger to accommodate for the loss of the buffer area. Is that a correct assumption? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the site plan we're seeing today may be changed further yet? MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to point out, the site plan is not a document that we're adopting. It's only conceptual to allow you to visualize what is being proposed for the site. They still have to go through the site development plan process and they'll be subj ect to all county codes and requirements. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So unlike a PUD, by approval of this today, we're not approving any particular site plan whatsoever. We're basically saying, of the overall site, certain percentages will be preserved, certain percentages -- well, no, not even that. We're just not approving anything but zoning. And then for the site plan and these renditions, actually have no bearing on this at all today? MR. DERUNTZ: That's correct. 31 --'." ~._---~ ._o..'_"__.-~--"~ .---'" --- January 20, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just have a general question. When a project fails to meet transportation concurrency, is it ever proper for us as a planning board to deny, or should we always refer to the site development plan concurrency? And if that's true, why even present the transportation element to us if it can always be argued that it will be handled at the SDP stage? That's kind of a question that I have. MR. DERUNTZ: That's a very good question, too. And those requirements were established in the growth management plan to guide development to appropriate places. We do have an issue here with the level of service for northbound Collier Boulevard at that intersection, but we have a conflict with the property being in an activity center. And the proposed request meeting that criteria as far as changing the zoning from C 1 to the proposed C3. This is an element that, you can deny it, based upon the situation, but it's also an element where the Board of County Commissioners can evaluate, you know, this situation and make, you know, recommendations for approval or, you know, or follow the growth management plan for denial because of the stipulation. We do have a conflict here. And I wish it was more straightforward and we didn't have this situation for us. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And, Mike, wouldn't your condition, number one, go without saying? THE WITNESS: We're just, you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is, this is up against the neighboring property. How are they handling, for example, setbacks? There is a building shown right on the property 32 --- ^_.,~---- '''~''''-'-~'~'' ~',_"M___' -"- January 20, 2005 line on the C5. How are these being treated, or would they be unified together as one property? MR. DERUNTZ: They're separate parcels of land. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Treated independently? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And he has a building, 4,000-square-foot building built right on the property line which wouldn't be allowed. Wouldn't there be buffer requirements between that and some fire code issue at that point? MR. DERUNTZ: Are you talking about property to the east? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, his property. The balance of this. MR. DERUNTZ: I'm not familiar. I know there is a site development plan that's going forward with that parcel. I'm not sure what the status of that is and if the proposed building of that 4,000 square foot has been, you know, approved at this time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I have a question. This is not a rezone to go from C 1 to C3. This is a C-l ST? MR. DERUNTZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: That means it's a special treatment overlay. And if we read about special treatment overlays here, it says within Collier County, there are certain areas, which because of their unique assemblages of flora and/or fauna, their aesthetic appeal, historical or theological significance, rarity in the county, or their contribution to their own, and adjacent ecosystems, make them worthy of special regulations. But in this staff report there is not a bit of discussion on anything environmental. And you've said that they're going to impact wetlands, and yet there's no discussion in the report about that at all. MR. DERUNTZ: Well, the EAC did review that element, and 33 -~ ,. -----^~--"-~,.- ~~--- January 20, 2005 they did not have an objection to lifting the ST criteria with the one stipulation that they would have an opportunity to review what the district is going to require them to do for mitigation on this site. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you think it's appropriate to go from a C-1ST, special treatment overlay, to a C3? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? That concludes the staff report. Do we have any registered speakers? I'm sorry. MR. SCHMITT: We just want to clarify. The ST overlay is certainly an ST designation that was designated by the Board of County Commissioners based on earlier recommendations by the staff. So this area has been developed. There are pieces of ST, and based upon the EAC review, and staff can provide that. Fundamentally what has happened is, because of the development, some of the ST destination is somewhat deluded because -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, nothing has been developed. It's still C 1. MR. SCHMITT: And it is still an ST overlay and that's why it has to go through the ST review process. But it's the special treatment aspect of it, has certainly been somewhat deluded by the other development that has taken place in the area. Now you have just an isolated special treatment area. So, the Environmental Advisory Council took that into its consideration and rendered its report, and certainly you can opine on that as well. But that was the purpose of bringing it to the Environmental Advisory Committee. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. Registered speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: First speaker is Tom McNutt followed by Don 34 ^.__.._~.-'-'- .,. ,'" -----,,_...~_...- ~-- -- January 20,2005 Drake. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ray, the gentleman standing at the speaker there, is he being called up to speak for some reason, otherwise maybe he can -- MR. BELLOWS: He has registered but he's not-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Maybe he can be seated until his time. Okay. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Who's our first speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Don Drake. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. He's coming forward. MR. DRAKE: Where would you like me? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Either one. MR. DRAKE: My name is Don Drake. I'm President of the Board of Directors of Falling Waters Beach Resort, Phase IV. I'm here on behalf of Falling Waters Beach Resort, phase IV and the entire Falling Waters community. I'd like to thank the planning commission for what appears to be a very thorough review, especially by Mr. Strain and Mr. Adelstein. We have a concern with the development. Our concern is that the wall of China presently exists along the earlier portion of the property. And I believe that may include that 4,00O-square-foot building that was alluded to earlier being on the property line. And I think that building is physically there. I thought I heard someone discuss that it may have been -- I believe that building is built. It may in fact be on the property line without any setback. We do have a wall in place. That wall is not landscaped on the Falling Waters side. It's just been built and painted. Our concern is that we not only have that wall continue, but that some effort be made to insure that it is aesthetically pleasing. I don't want to look at the wall, but I don't want to look at the back end of buildings either. Especially buildings that may, and probably will, have storage material behind it. Certainly not going to be in front. 35 ~"- January 20,2005 I have concerns on the restaurant. I'm going to guess that's building three on their plan, which puts it closest to Falling Waters' property line. And restaurant tells me food, tells me cooking. It tells me storage of grease, food products, old food in dumpsters, spillage, rodents, other creatures of the night, and a chain link fence won't stop them. I don't know that a wall will stop them. Mr. Adelstein seemed to consider delaying the project until 2011. I'd go for that. I'm concerned about maintaining the property values that exist in Falling Waters Beach Resort. And, at least, under my direction and what I can do along with other board members who are presently here. Our function is to enhance our values. The proposed plan looks nice. It looks nice on paper. I like it. It's pretty. Building that on the actual ground, however, is another factor. It was alluded to that there was only one ingress, egress on this property. And that may be, but there's another one tied next to it. The one with this 4,OOO-square-foot building. That also has ingress and egress. So there's actually going to be two along 41. It was alluded that Falling Waters had an ingress, egress to the southeast. I get confused out there. That's not true. There is a cut through with a gate that we are not permitted to use. That's emergency only. That doesn't benefit Falling Waters Beach Resort. Might as well not be there. We can't use it. I have a concern about what's on the north side of the property. And I guess my question to the developer is, does this -- and I guess I'm looking at this little plan over here -- does it go all the way to the CVS store, or is there another hunk of land in there yet to be developed? Because I was confused about the preserve area. Questions, please. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the speaker? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Ray, it might be more ofa question for you. This gentleman indicates that the wall that's on the 36 --,.~ ,--"""".-.-- -_._-~--_.". ""- January 20, 2005 existing building that's there, on the adjoining parcel has a wall, it's not finished on one side, or apparently the side facing him, and apparently doesn't have landscaping either. From my reading of the code, both of those items would be required. Is there a reason why they're not? MR. BELLOWS: I have to check into that. I know there was a code enforcement action on it at one point. I don't know what happened on the other. MR. SCHMITT: There are several issues ongoing with the Marco Building Supply project. I currently have the project on CO hold. Those were pending several resolutions, or several issues that Mario needs to address. There was -- the site was red tagged. I removed the red tag so Mario can at least finish the project and make the corrections that need to be noted. Don has been out there, and there are several issues in the building department and engineering that still are pending resolution. And I will withhold the CO until all the site conditions meet the requirements of the code. And Mario knows that. MR. BELLOWS: And you are correct. There would be a requirement for landscaping the residential side of the wall. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So, at least the people in Falling Waters can be assured that when the project is CO'd, this wall that's there is going to be finished as it's supposed to be pursuant to the code and have some landscaping in regards to the minimum requirement? MR. DRAKE: Our parcel staff will require that it would be consistent with the landscaping requirements. MS. SCHMITT: Just for the record, what I did, I lifted the red tag so he could finish the work that needs to be done. That project has been under construction probably almost three years on and off. So it needs to get done. We need to finish the wall that was part of the issues that we discussed between my engineering staff and my 37 -.._._-~-' ^~---.. --- January 20,2005 building staff and Mario, and it will be landscaped as required. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The gentleman's other question was, the parcel that -- he believes there might be a parcel in between this one and the current home center. The aerial that I have shows a lot of vegetation between the existing disturbed property next door to the east, and where this new parcel we're talking about today begins. Is all that undisturbed area to the east part of the original home center application, do you know, or is there a parcel in between the two? MR. DERUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz. You're correct, on the aerial, it shows the CVS property adjoins this property. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But it's on the west. The other side is what I'm concerned with, the east. MR. BELLOWS: On the home center plaza side. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The home center plaza side shows, on an aerial that you provided to us, shows the large disturbed area, which looks like the buildings that they just had under construction. It also shows a vegetated area between this parcel and those. That vegetated area, is that another parcel? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. That's one that is under review right now for the site development plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Under what zoning? MR. DERUNTZ: It's C5 zoning classification. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you got C5? MR. SCHMITT: Mark, you're talking actually to the east of the home center building? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. The east of the subject property we're talking about today. MR. DERUNTZ: This would be this section right here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that section that's got C5 zoning on it? MR. SCHMITT: That's the existing currently built home center. The building supply right there. 38 --^-.... ---- January 20, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But that's what the aerial doesn't show, and maybe the aerial is too old to show it. MR. SCHMITT: That is the second phase. These are under review right now. MR. BELLOWS: The aerial is 2002. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, you had a question? MR. DRAKE: Wait a minute. What did you say? MR. SCHMITT: I have to ask Mario. Is this not -- I have to ask Mario. Is this not the -- just to orient -- is this the existing -- MR. CURIALE: This is -- this is the one as we stand right now. This one is right next to the tennis court over here. MR. DRAKE: Isn't this the property line? MR. CURIALE: There's no property line in here. This is the continuation of the whole thing. This is the buffer and the sidewalk for this building in here. MR. DRAKE: Where is the one we're talking about right now? This one? MR. CURIALE: The one we're talking about right now is this one, this one, and this one. The CVS is right over here. MR. DRAKE: Does this go all the way to the CVS? MR. SCHMITT: No. There's an ST area in between, special treatment area that was preserved as part of the development of the CVS. MR. DRAKE: Will that ever be developed? MR. SCHMITT: No. It's part of the PUD for the CVS. And, no, that will never be developed. That was preserved and set aside as part of the CVS development. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With the answer to that question, let's get back on track. We're looking for public representations that are competent and credible testimony to inform us so we make the best educated, the most proper and appropriate decision. And when we get into a side dialogue, we become irrelevant to the process, and 39 ~._._-_.~".. -"-- January 20, 2005 that doesn't work. Are there any other questions for this speaker? MR. WHITE: Yeah, I do. Mr. Chairman, I just ask, as a point of order that any of the speakers would use the microphones, please. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. We got a little off track there, but we're calmed down and back on focus. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The Falling Waters, how many stories is that project? MR. DRAKE: Two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it appears that there is parking, and then most of the units are all oriented into the waterway system in the center. MR. DRAKE: All of the units are oriented into the center waterways with parking garages outside behind the units that go completely around the entire roadway. Perimeter road is about 1.5 miles, and then there's parking behind the garages. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the units that are adjacent to this parcel, essentially those would be bedroom windows which would look down onto the parking garages, and then beyond that would be his site? MR. DRAKE: There would be one bedroom window and then one kitchen window looking down towards the garages, over the perimeter road, and either a wall, or as it exists now, some trees. And I don't see much wetland in there, incidentally. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any other questions of this speaker? Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. DRAKE: Thank you very much. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker is Don Drake followed by Garrett Beyrent. MR. DRAKE: For the record, Don Drake spoke first. MR. BELLOWS: Then Tom McNutt. MR. McNUTT: Thank you. Tom McNutt. I'm a resident of 40 - -... - ~ _.__._.~,._~.- ^-'-~',--"--,- ._,-- January 20, 2005 Falling Waters in the buildings that are probably most affected by the project because they're directly across from it. I'd just like to echo some of Don's concerns about the impact of the project on the quality of life in the development. As Don indicated, the so-called wall of China already exist for a substantial portion of the property line between the proposed development and the existing residential area. Even though I share his concerns about extending the wall, the fact of the matter is, it's the lesser of two evils because, in fact, it's there. And it does offer some kind of a buffer, not only from the noise and the other problems that Don has indicated could occur as a result of the development of a restaurant. We're going to be exposed to the dumpsters, the delivery aspects of whatever type buildings are there. The other problem that's a concern is, it seems pointless to have a wall end right at what is a new parking area that can be a staging ground for whatever type of impact activity that could impact the safety of the residents in Falling Waters. A lot of the residents use that roadway, that is right on that line, for exercise, for jogging, for walking, for biking. There's a recreational area with tennis courts and stuff that is adjacent to this area, and it exposes those people to a parking lot that gives any type of unsavory element, that is looking to prey on people, the opportunity to hop right off of 41 into that area at night and expose the residents and compromise their security. I would urge the council to seriously consider requiring the extension and maintenance of that wall from a public safety standpoint, as far as the residents are concerned. The aesthetics are obviously important and so are the property values, but so are the safety of those people, many of whom are elderly that walk that road and use those recreational facilities. I would urge consideration of continuation of that wall in order to protect those residents. Obviously, there's little we can do about the noise factor I guess at this point in time. But, the safety is something we can do to protect those people. And we would 41 ~_~._.',__'__"__'_M_____..._ - _.__.~.__.._._-- --- January 20,2005 urge you to carefully consider that. We would also, because there seems to be substantial unanswered questions about a lot of the impact of the project, that I guess we would urge you to not approve the petition at this point in time. With that, I appreciate the opportunity to express myself and we thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Garrett Beyrent. MR. BEYRENT: For the record, my name is Garrett Francis Xavier Beyrent. I have been a developer in Collier County since, today, 35 years. I used to own this project. In fact, I bought it from the Land Ex Corporation in 1981. And I bought it -- strangely enough it was Dick Class from Lely called me up and said, hey, I need a favor, man. I've got to dump a piece of real estate really quick. And he was -- somebody you might remember. Dick Class was a member of the planning Commission. Mark Strain remembers him. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know Dick Class. MR. BEYRENT: You know everybody. That doesn't count. In any case, I bought this property. And the deal was, I gave Lely eight condominiums in my project which was known as the Glades Country Club. I gave him eight apartments and it was $200,000 in cash. He gave me this PUD, which was called Woodfield Lakes PUD. That was a nice name so I didn't change it right away. I didn't change the name until 19 -- let's see, I bought that in '81. First thing I did was, I brought it back in for rezoning again, because that's when I discovered the front parcel was an activity center, proposed. So I brought it back before the Board of County Commissioners. And after about 45 minutes of doing my dog and pony show -- which is what I call it, and I'm doing it right now. I'm really good at dog and pony shows. Long story short, 45 minutes into my discussion, Commissioner Max Haas says, hey, Gary, hey, Gary, is this a mobile home park? I said, Max, it's a 453 unit multifamily 42 .. -"'.~----",.,_.. '---,,----..- '. "- January 20, 2005 subdivision. I'm squishing it up tighter and I'm cutting out five acres in front so I can get my money back. See, I knew Kmart was going across the street and all that crap. Everybody knows what's going on, if you know what's going on. So anyhow, I drew up this plan. Particularly, I drew up Falling Waters Beach Resort because it was nothing out there that looked any good. So I thought, well, I'm nowhere near the beach so I'll call it a Beach Resort. Right? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, sir. It's a great historical perspective, but what's the relevance to this rezone? MR. BEYRENT: Well, I'm going to explain to you. Would you like me to explain to you or not? It's up to you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'd like you to get to the point. MR. BEYRENT: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We need you to fast forward. MR. BEYRENT: Okay. Would you like to talk to Gary Galberg? Would you? He wanted me to get to the point too, and he didn't get to be mayor, did he? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well I'm not running for mayor. I'mjust trying to -- MR. BEYRENT: Well, you will probably one day, and I'll be there. I'm going to live forever. Anyhow, getting back to the subject -- don't interrupt me, please. Seriously. Getting back to the subj ect, so what happened was, I tried to drain that big old lake into that canal, and, of course, it was a weir there. And it just mysteriously kept blowing up. I don't know what was going on. A long time ago -- I don't remember a lot of stuff, but apparently the people uplanded the weir. Didn't like the weir and they kept blowing it up and they kept blaming me. I said, hey, I don't go there. 43 _ "_>__'_....mm_ --- January 20, 2005 Long story short, I couldn't get the sand at the end on the eastern end of that property to go into the water because of the problem with the weir. So what he did was, kind of like invented a Beach Resort. Now, while I was processing the rezone, I did get C4-5 out front. They gave me five acres of commercial in exchange for squeezing the units together, which didn't seem to bother anybody because I had 14 units to the acre under the 89 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Then what happened was, they made me come up with another thing, which is that piece of property everyone is asking about. That funny little piece f property there. Are you familiar with that? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Continue with the presentation. MR. BEYRENT: Okay. Thank you very much. Now the piece of property was actually supposed to be a fire station site. But the county changed their mind and figured that was too far out. So I ended up getting stuck with this piece of property that I bought, only because they told me I needed another access point because I had all these units. Very long subdivision. Right? So I had all these units so I bought this piece of property. I didn't even know what to do with it, so put some tennis courts on it seemed like a good idea. But, long story short on that one, the front five acres ended up to be public storage, which I found, ew, I wouldn't have done that again, but, you know. No accounting for taste. However, relative to this man's application, it's -- first of all, you got to understand something. The wetland classification on the original Woodfield Lakes PUD, which is the one we're talking about now. Now it is Falling Waters Beach Resort. When I bought that property, that property was about 80 percent transitional. Okay? However, I managed to convince the Federal Government that it was not a functional wetland. That is, the water that was coming off of that property, along with everything to the north of that property, didn't sustain any wetlands because of the construction of US 41. It 44 ~ "-'--~"-""'" ._--,-,~_. .,'. --- January 20, 2005 became a natural man-made berm that prevented the wetlands from spreading. Okay? So that's why -- they're trying to figure out why this guy doesn't have any mitigation land is because he's probably not going to be required to put up any wetlands whatsoever. It's not functional. And the Government is now saying, boy, we've got all these little mosquito nests everywhere. Let's eradicate them and try to put something nice in. So, I just want to make the comment that my original plan, it turned out really nice. I think it's a really nice subdivision. And I like the name of it. There's nothing I don't like about that project. I drew it up one Saturday morning. I remember it. Took me an hour. Anyhow, getting back to the bottom line, this guy's got a nice project. What I think he should do for the benefit of the people that live in Falling Waters is, what I used to do in the old days. When you got all this commercial stuff next to multi-family, you do have concerns that people are going to wander off the street, homeless people, and they're going to try to get into the back side of Falling Waters. But what you do is, you put the wall up and you put a gate in the wall. And you give everybody -- all 454 people that live, own units in -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, sir. Your time is up. MR. BEYRENT: All right. Just give them keys to go through the gate so they can go have a nice meal in this guy's fine restaurant. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, sir. You only have five minutes to speak, and your time is up. MR. BEYRENT: Thank you. Oh, my five minutes is up. Oh, gee, thanks so much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ray, do we have another speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: No other registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any summary comments by the petitioner? MR. CURIALE: Yes. I think I have to recess myself for a 45 ~-- ."~-'- January 20, 2005 minute. I'd like to look myself before I can start addressing items. As I can remember, I'd like to start with Mr. Bob Murray. I know I don't have a tape-recorder to remember what you said, but somehow I have a pretty good memory. Your main concern was the connection of the properties from the CVS Pharmacy to my property, which is the proj ect as we speak. We already have allowed to 0 that. That is interconnection driveway from CVS Pharmacies. It goes all the way through my project. Therefore, the traffic that would not -- actually, it would go from 41, they can actually get in from 951. They can get off on 41 way past my side, which is about 1,500 feet south, or north, whatever we call it. So they don't even have to go through 41 whatsoever. We have a left-hand turn lane, which actually goes down that way. I don't know, what is it, north? Oh, no. It's east. It goes down east and make a left-hand turn and go into the project. Therefore, they don't have to go back to the intersection on 951 and 41 to get out. They can get out on 951. I hope maybe they can solve some of the concern that you had. The next concern you had, you said what about somehow the people from Falling Waters, they can actually go and instead of go around the whole subdivision to go outside, maybe we can have some kind of a pass through for them to go through if they have to go to the pharmacy. Well, that's a good idea. I think what we should do on that, we should try to contact the owner of the CVS Pharmacy who owns the land. I own the land and maybe we can get together and make a nice walkway right through. It can be through the preserve. The way they have a nice promenade walkway. You can have a gate on one end. If the people in Falling Waters agree with that, I go along with that. I have no problem with that at all. Some concerned with safety that it require for them and give them an accessibility for my center and also accessibility for the drugstore, if they need any drugs for them. 46 ~"._- ---- January 20, 2005 I hope I answer some of your questions, Mr. Murray, and maybe if you have comment, maybe you can bring it up in a second. The next question I would like to answer Lindy Adelstein. I don't know if I said it right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Close enough. MR. CURIALE: You were very concerned about the traffic. This board has approved three major projects in about a year-and-a-half. The planning commission and the county commission approved a major subdivision called Henderson Creek, which is a major commercial center. When in turn, it should never ever have been approved until all the condos and low income housing had to be built first. Now all of a sudden they decide to move ahead with the shopping center and they forget about the housing. At that time the TIS was not considered. I don't know why. Maybe those people have more money than I got. If you guys know, I was here in '99 with that proj ect, and the staff is well aware that this proj ect has been in existence for six years. So, therefore, the TIS should rectify and oversee the fact that staff knows about this proj ect long before all the other proj ect got together to try to make this one here stall. That's two. The next question, I had a meeting with the person in charge of the transportation. He lied to me. And I don't like when people lie to me. I asked the person, I said, with regard to about the TIS, he goes, he was not going to favor me the rezone to apply for the rezone. And I says to him, I said to him, why is that? He says, because already we have so much congestion on 951 quadrant, therefore, we cannot allow any more congestion. And I said to him, let me ask you a question. Which project are you talking about? Well, Henderson Creek has been approved. We got a Home Depot that goes there. We got Lowes that goes down Fiddler Creek. Wait a minute. I said, what about my project? You knew about it before. Then I said, Falling Waters has been in existence. Okay? But now what about Divosta? You 47 ~._~,_._._, .-"---.- _."-~- January 20, 2005 approved a project in Divosta. Within a year-and-a-half these people put in 1,000 units. And I asked the person the question I asked, the same question I ask you now. I said, does Divosta have the okay by the TIS showing the increase of the traffic flow that goes from 951 to corridor all the way down to Marco all the way into Naples. He said to me at the meeting, he says, they do not have any approval based on the TIS until somewhere in January or February of2005. Guess what? The people been living in Divosta since June 2004. So, what am I doing here? Furthermore, the TIS situation is nothing more than a blur because, if they have all these quadrants so developed -- Henderson Creek is going to be built. He's got 350 units. We got -- what you call -- Fiddler's Creek. Fiddler's Creek is going all the way back on 41. And eventually, by the time they get to 41, it'll be another five, six years down the road. We have several development going east on 41 also. As we speak right now, the criteria of a traffic TIS on 41 from east is very relatively long. The only place the TIS shows an increase of 3.4, up to four and maybe five, is from when they're going west on 41, which came off from Marco, that came off Fiddler Creek, but they not coming down right now from, which is the east side of 41. Now, if in case there's any kind of increase in traffic, which we talking about really a minute amount of people here. We got two office buildings to put up. And my idea to put a two office building up was the idea because I wanted to save open space. I could have put a bunch of little apartments in there like they doing across from Lely. I figured it look very awkward to do that. That was my idea to put two individual buildings that give you an ambiance of open space. Back to the TIS, they don't have to go back to 41 at the intersection. We haven't even mentioned connection here on 41 within our own site. We can get off east on 41, and we can get off north on 951. So what kind of problem do we have with quadrant? We have no problem at all with that. So I don't know why the 48 "-- January 20, 2005 transportation department is at issue to that. So that's the question. I hope I answer your question, Mr. Lindy Adelstein? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Adelstein. Any other further summary comments? MR. CURIALE: Well, I would like to relate, because this has been a long thing that staff had to say, so I try to bring it up some clarification that we have. I don't know, Mr. Strain, you brought some kind of concern before regarding about, if I remember correct, about preserve with the wall. And if the people from Falling Waters, so desire to be that they want the wall to continue all the way to the end, okay, if that's what they like, we're going to have to have concession where we have to put the wall up. What is going to happen is, we're going to have to reroute the plans one more time to find out all of preserve that we lose for the wall. We going to have to find another location to incorporate the preserve. I hope we can alleviate the problem. I have one problem though. I had several meetings about four or five years ago for the first time with the people from Falling Waters. And at that time, we were supposed to put the wall on the property line. Most of the staff present at the meeting are no longer with the county. I have nobody there to back up what I'm saying. At that time the property, the wall on the property line was supposed to be right on the property line. It was devised between by the board, by my engineer, the people at Falling Water and all that because they would like to have a wall there for privacy. The wall facing their side, I was going to put the wall up. They were going to do all the vegetation, maintain it, spraying all the landscaping. Maintain all that because I have no way for me to go back to wall and try to do the maintenance. That was the agreement that was done at that time when we had a public meeting. I hope maybe I clear some of the air. If you have any other questions for me, I'm here and I'll be glad to answer that. 49 .--.--" "- January 20,2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question, depending on how Ray is going to answer my question to him. Ray, this is in an activity center so I believe the requirements for a PUD are below ten acres, or actually even do a PUD here if you wanted to; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. In an activity center you can go below the ten acres. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My concern with your project is, you have offered some concessions. There are a lot of issues that were presented to us on the site plan. There are a lot of issues that need to be discussed here. Could be stipulated here today, but as a straight rezone, it's not easy to do. If you come in with a PUD, we could have modified the PUD and stipulated it to make certain restrictions on it that are not broad brushed when we do a complete straight rezone, as being requested here today. I want to tell you up front, that's where my concern is. We cannot stipulate to you what we could if you had come forward as a PUD today. MR. CURIALE: That was a mistake that was taken place from day one. We should have gone with the PUD from the original plan, and we did not. I was advised not, whatever. I don't want to talk for the past. We do not have a PUD in place. The only thing is the PUD, I believe. Is anywhere from ten acres and above. We only have -- we talking about six acres over here. It's part of PUD. Six acres can be a PUD? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you're in an activity center, you don't have to meet the ten acre threshold. MR. CURIALE: At this point in time, what would a PUD do to us to make a change from the rezone we present in front of you, or come back with something else? I don't know what kind of change I would make. It still has the same requirement, same preserve, same 50 -- - ....-.-..- '--".'~."~ _._"_._-'-~'-'-~'- --- January 20,2005 thing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: PUD would allow you to tailor the project inconsistent with our requests and possibly the request of the audience. You wouldn't be -- right now if you go in and want to change that site plan, and you're zoned C3, there's nothing to prevent you from doing that. Under PUD, that site plan would be made part of the record, and you would have to build pursuant to exactly what you're saying here today. I know that may be your intent, but if for some reason that changes, the market changes or you sell the property, you get an offer you can't refuse, someone else can do whatever they want there. That's where my concern comes in in regard to changing the zoning today. And I just wanted to tell you that. I appreciate the way you've approached it today, but that issue still bothers me. So, I just wish you came in with a PUD. It would have been a little easier to walk through it. MR. CURIALE: It's kind of very unfortunate to the fact that why -- we had at least six or seven meetings with staff concern about this before we got to this point. It was never addressed at the time to try to incorporate this PUD that we would be able to work it out. Under my idea and ideology of what I believe and what I was in before, I was anywhere like ten acres and above, I had no idea that six acres rezone can fall under the PUD category. I really don't know. If I either knew at the time, if I knew then, maybe I would have come down with that. As far as what I'm trying to do here, I'm trying to speak with the word of what I said before, the project is still going to be the same. I's not going to be changed. The only time I may change is if something drastic happen to me. But as long as I'm around, this is what I would like to do, and I think I'm doing something halfway decent. Okay? And it looks great value increase also for the people of Falling Waters. Instead they have another storage warehouse on the front. And I know they had the remark that I said before about the wall of China, but the people says the derogatory part, but I did not meant as 51 -",.,'----,.._--_._<^ .------...'^ January 20, 2005 derogatory part. I meant for me as a designer and builder. And I have a preserve, which is about over 100 feet deep. I mean, I rather see vegetation than see a wall and then the vegetation behind the wall. That was my personal criteria. And if they really concerned, they would like to have a wall up, then we have a concern. We've got to put the wall up. We try to do everything we can to satisfy this. I would like to get this project approved because it's been at a standstill for a long time. And as you know, my STP sit around for about a year-and-a-half as it is. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Curiale. Any further questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for Ray. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Question for Ray Bellows from Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, we've seen a lot of stuff here today. But isn't the bottom line, this is a blanket R3 zoning. So the question to us is, is this an appropriate site for R -- or C3 zoning. I'm sorry. And that the site would not be developed unless it meets the concurrency of the transportation system now. I mean, it's just simple questions. We have a lot of stuff we've gone through today, but isn't that it? MR. BELLOWS: That is basically the crux of the petition before you today, is that it's in an activity center that allows for commercial uses. The C3 district has been found compatible by the planning department. The environmental advisory council has reviewed the petition and has recommended approval subject to a site development plan to be brought before them. The landscaping requiring staff has recommended that it be consistent with the land development code, which includes a wall and landscaping on both sides. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Everything is going to come from the C3 zoning and the code. MR. BELLOWS: That's right. And the transportation issues 52 -..-.--'" --- January 20, 2005 being addressed by concurrency and we're not going to approve the site development plan until the road is concurrent. MR. SCHMITT: Correct. And unless a deviation is granted, the LDC requires a wall between commercial and residential. And a buffer can be incorporated in the preserve, as long as the preserve meets the requirements of the buffer and the exotics are removed. So all that will be part of the STP, as you well know, the STP review process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Most of what we do today goes without saying anyway. MR. SCHMITT: Almost all the things that I believe that Mr. Strain was going to stipulate, are already in the code and are required. Many of those are. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is he required to do that site plan pursuant to the code of C3 zoning? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That site plan that he produced here today? MR. BELLOWS: It's permitted, but not required. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions by planning commissioners? Are there any other advertised speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No others for this PUD. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to recommend denial of RZ-2003-AR4961. It's been inconsistent with the growth management plan, Sections 5.1 and 5.4. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Strain and a second by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion? There is none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. 53 ""--"---" -~--"'-_.'------'~-"-""""-'~"~ ~-,-,-_.~ - January 20, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that one opposed? Motion carries eight to one. Motion to deny carries eight to one. We will take a ten-minute break and be back at 10:27. (Whereupon a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Moving on to petition RZ-2004-AR-6209, a request for a rezone from E Estates zoning district to the P Public zoning district. Are there any disclosures on this item? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've had communications with the attorney for the land owners, Mr. Pires. And I have a procedural question for the county attorney. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. White, I don't have any letter of authorization for any agent for this owner. Is one required to be in our packet, or required to be on record, or maybe staff can verify one? MR. WHITE: Staff can verify. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Staff can verify one is on record? MR. WHITE: I ask the staff to do that. MR. BELLOWS: I think we're on the wrong petition. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Which one are we looking at? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 8C. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Item C. 54 , ,--.- "C"'e_,__w. _'V''''"''~___"'_''''''___'_'_'''__''''_____''_'''' __._.m__._._,_ January 20, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sorry. I thought it was 8C. CHAIRMAN BUDD: It is item C. MR. WHITE: Then I ask Mr. Bosi to respond to your question, please. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning Land Development Review. Commissioner Strain, there is an agent Affidavit on record in the file. I apologize if that wasn't included within the staff report that was provided to you. I can get that letter of authorization. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Mike, as long as you're going to say today there is one. They're usually included, but I didn't have any in any of my packets. I am going to ask the same question. F or some reason, either they were in here and weren't signed, or they weren't here at all. Usually we do receive copies of them. MR. BOSI: It's traditionally included as part of the application that we require. So, I'm at a loss as to why it wasn't included on mine, or any of the other petitioners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Note for the record that that was not sworn testimony. If you want to hear it as sworn, then -- we haven't procedurally gotten that far. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. We hadn't gotten there yet. Any further disclosures? There are none. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn In. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Ifwe can hear from the petitioner, please. 55 --- January 20, 2005 MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm representing the Board of County Commissioners with this rezoning from the Estates zone to the P zone. This is an opportunity for Collier County to re-develop their existing County Barn site, that currently services the county vehicles, except for road and bridge. There would be an addition of a sheriffs fleet facility maintenance area included with that. I do have a full presentation, if you'd like to hear it, otherwise you may want to hear from the architect or staff. The issues are fairly benign. We're complying with all of the nonresidential building design requirements of the code. The project will be code compliance, and we will have substantial buffering to make the project compatible with the surrounding land uses. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's go with the short version presentation. If the questions bring up the necessity for the long version, then we will go there. MR. NADEAU: Then I will then defer to staff. Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Basi. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman Budd. Mike Bosi, Zoning Land Development Review. As a matter of procedural, addressing an earlier point raised by Commissioner Strain, within the original application for this petition, an agent authorization form was submitted. For whatever reason, it was not included within the application package, but I did want to put on the record, that Dalas Disney was named as the official agent of the applicant. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, who's making the presentation today for the applicant? MR. BOSI: Dwight Nadeau was named as a subsidiary agent as well. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BOSI: The proposal has been evaluated by growth -- against the growth management plan and the land development code. 56 .._._-~-----,..,".'-'--' ---- January 20, 2005 Of course, this is a straight rezone, as we kind of learned in the last petition. As a straight rezone, this is just to authorize the zoning within the package of conceptual site plan was submitted to give you an idea of how the project will materialize after the rezoning action. But this is just for the zoning. To bring the land use in concert with the actual zoning of the property, it's currently zoned estates, but the truer nature -- the true nature of the facility is public in nature, meaning it serves primarily as the main service station for automotive repairs for the county. With that, I would open it up to any questions. It's been evaluated by the Transportation Staff, Environmental Staff, and all other reviewing departments and the petition's been found satisfactory. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have only one question regarding the water matter and the elevated levels of arsenic. And I understand, I've read here that there'll be alternative methods, perhaps considered for mitigation or mediation of it. But we're going to change the road, and I note that the water ultimately runs off. Now, can we be assured that whatever material is lying in that soil and that chemical plant, it is going to be trapped there? It's going to be secure and not leak down into the water table and thereafter drawn elsewhere? MR. BOSI: The component of environmental review and the aspect and the recognition of it, the contaminants, and the assessment required of this petition, will be translated within the site development plan towards, where those contaminants and the discovery of all -- of all materials on site, will have to be addressed before the environmental staff will give final approval and sign off of the site development plan that would follow. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And the material that was deposited there over the years comes, obviously, from exchange of fluids and so forth. Whatever is done. So the new impervious surface 57 ,.-..,,'-..-."".---"---- -" ~--~ ~-- January 20, 2005 is intended to prevent such an event in the future? MR. BOSI: I will defer to the applicant who is much more familiar with the site development specific phasing of this project. Where we were concentrating more on the rezone. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. But I have a concern with regard to that and I'd just like that answered for the record, please. MR. NADEAU: Of course, Commissioner Murray. Again, for the record, Dwight Nadeau, R W A representing the Board. County Commissioners, the contaminated soil is in a very small location. If I may, I can point it out to you. If you look in this area right here, there was an area where chemicals were mixed. If I were to show it to you on the visualizer, it would also be located in that location as well. There are several opportunities to remediate the contaminated soil. We're going to be pursuing the most cost effective for Collier County. One opportunity would be to remove the soil and haul it up -- I think it's to Alabama -- to be incinerated. F or additional remediation would be to take the soil, include it in berming around the perimeter of the project with greater topsoil. It's our intent, or it is an option for us, to remove the soil and place it underneath either a concrete or asphalt parking area, thus eliminating the opportunity for brown water percolation and having the chemicals percolate further into the soil. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, my point would be that our communities can be assured that, regardless of what method is used, that soil will not get into the water supply, and contaminants will not get into it any further. That would be correct? MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, sir. Based upon the remediation recommendations of Ardamon Associates. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. 58 "~,- - -- --- January 20, 2005 MR. NADEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have questions of Mike. Mike, I didn't get a TIS included with my report. Was one done? MR. BOSI: Yes, Commissioner Strain. As part of the application packet that I submitted, attached to the staff report. I apologize. Once again, I'm at a loss. Maybe it's with the authorization of the agent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I can move ahead without it. My question was, in the transportation paragraph -- maybe Mr. Scott, see if he wrote this. It says, based on the trip generation submitted with this application, 91 additional vehicles per hour will be generated by the expansion of the peak p.m. hour. It says, this additional traffic will not cause a requirement to be a problem with the traffic generation because it's so minor. But since this was a CU that was never a CU, it was never officially applied for, are we taking into consideration the existing vehicles that were already there in addition to the ones that we're adding? Has that been taken into consideration in the traffic analysis? MR. TREMP: I'm Scott Tremp, Station Planning. First of all, there wasn't a TIS done. It was actually just a trip generation. Based on not meeting 100 vehicles per hour, peak hour, threshold, or 1,000 per day. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But that was because you only based it on the new trips; is that right? MR. TREMP: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But, who is looking at the existing trips that have been there since this facility was never legally there to begin with? MR. TREMP: Well, we looked at the overall trip -- obviously from our standpoint of backing up and saying, okay, what do we look at for the whole development that is there. County Barn is being 59 --" .._---' ."---" ..^-- January 20, 2005 widened, so we looked at that from that aspect, and turn lanes that we would need. But when they asked about threshold, we said we looked at the overall development, but just asked for the trip generation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You feel confident that all the existing that's there, whatever that may be, plus the 91, isn't going to cause any level of service impacts on a negative level of service? MR. TREMP: Not with County Barn being programmed to be widened later this year. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Part of the neighborhood information being there was a discussion of a perimeter wall. It's my understanding there is a perimeter wall around this project, except from where the front of the -- the furthest building in the front goes along the roadway. Is that generally right? MR. BOSI: There currently exists no wall. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, but there's going to be with this application? MR. BOSI: On the conceptual site plan and land development code will require that the wall be implemented. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That seemed to be an issue on the informational meeting with the residents. MR. BOSI: It was the topic of discussion. And I believe at the neighborhood information meeting, I believe the applicant satisfied the concerns of all that was present at the meeting. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's a question in the standard rezone consideration, number 12. It says, whether the proposed change would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Part of the answer says, the existing uses, although in existence in one form or another for a number of years, are more consistent with a public zoning district under the current land development code. The word "more" bothered me. Is it consistent, or will it be consistent, or are we deviating from 60 ~ . ~,_....,<,u ---._-~_..,>- .- January 20, 2005 the consistency of the LDC in regards to what can be done here under public use? MR. BOSI: No, it is consistent. It's a public use facility. And the more that that descriptive -- or adjective, was incorrectly utilized. And I would like to offer one clarification. This is -- it never received a CU, but it was not -- it's not an illegal facility. It's a legal nonconforming use that never received a CD. I just want to make that clear. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, thank you. I appreciate that. You're right. That's a good clarification. In your Ardamon Associates report, it talked about the environmental problems on the side in regards to pollutants, there are some things in there that I don't believe are even allowed today. For example, the floor drains in one of the buildings are connected directly to the storm drainage system. Is someone looking at changing these things as part of the new -- I mean, I'm sure that if they don't go in and rehab an old building, the building department won't ask them to realign those floor drains and treat them properly before they go into the groundwater. MR. BOSI: The conceptual site plan that's submitted in the intention of the county, has all along -- the entire facility will be phased and redone. All of the existing buildings will be removed, and all new facilities will replace the existing facilities, and the functionality that exists today will be altered and be aligned with the regulations that are contained within the building code and the land development code. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because that report had, the problems with hazardous substance containers, vile sides that were leaking containers. There is a lot of areas of concern in the soils report that went beyond the arsenic that was mentioned in the staff report. One of the other elements that they recommended there was 61 ._-~----' ._.._...'"....,~,.~." "~.. --'- January 20, 2005 some concern with, is petroleum impacted soil. I know we talked about the arsenic impacted soil. I'm assuming then the petroleum impacted soil is going to be cleaned up the same way? MR. BOSI: The assessment and the findings of the environmental set, all of the components will have to be addressed by the applicant as they go forward with the new STP. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. MR. BOSI: For the commission's benefit, and I forgot at the very beginning. I should have included it. About three days ago I received a correspondence from William Jones of 3000 County Barn Road, not opposing the project, but rather he asked a series of seven questions as to whether the proposed rezone would be consistent with the growth management plan and the land development code. I apologize. I was not able to include that within the staff report because of the timing of receiving it. I will distribute this to the planning commission and to the county attorneys and the court reporter to put on record. But I think as you review this, you will find these really -- it's a reiteration of the rezone findings and contemplations that you're tasked with at every rezoning stage. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein, you have a question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. To Don Scott. At our last meeting questions came up and no one had the answer. I hope maybe you would. I know that the road is getting widened, but is there also going to be lighting on that road? MR. SCOTT: My understanding is that there is not, but we are __ you brought that up and we're looking into that further. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: When making a road capable of handling traffic, it has to be also capable of handling traffic in the evening and at night. Without it, I don't see how you are going to do it. MR. SCOTT: Duly noted, and I'll have an answer by our next meeting. 62 "....- -....--. --- January 20,2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Dwight, you can probably answer it. It is one of this fellow's concerns, is the hours of operation, I mean, we're going to - is it going to be a limitation, or is there a way to control that? MR. NADEAU: I have been advised that the facilities will operate as they have been in the past. The addition of the sheriffs facility will also comply with those operational guidelines. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what are they? MR. NADEAU: And they would come directly from the code. 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they're not repairing vehicles overnight? MR. NADEAU: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one for-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- Mike. It's a housekeeping matter. Your rezone findings become Exhibit A to the ordinance that goes forward to Tallahassee. Take a look at paragraph two. Your answer there. I don't mean right this second, but afterwards. Somebody had their map turned upside down because the directions in every case are just the opposite of what they ought to be. In other words, it says that County Barn Road is to the east. It's clearly to the west. So look at all those directions. MR. BOSI: Duly noted, Commissioner. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, in response to the letter you handed us from Mr. Jones, I want to make sure all the questions are 63 -."----.-.."--'- --- -,-.---,...,~--- _...~-- January 20, 2005 answered, because I'm not sure they are. Number three, for example, this facility should be in an industrial park and not in the state zoned area. This site is in an area of churches, single family homes, and condominiums. There is no commercial industrial use currently on County Barn Road. Is the county following it's own land use code? Do they plan to expand the size? It doesn't sound like he's in favor of the project. MR. BOSI: I'm not sure -- I guess you could construe that as not being in favor. It sounds like it's a question to me. The answer to that question is, yes, they are. And yes, a public use zoning category is provided for within the urbanized residential sub district, which this project falls. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And to follow with the lines of compatibility that we would want to have on a facility such as this, he asked the hours of operation. Can this facility be operated from 6:00 to 6:00? What provisions are included in the request to keep the noise level after these hours? What are the hours of operation that this facility will be restricted to, if any? MR. BOSI: I believe the applicant, Dwight, answered that. It was 6:00 to 6:00 was going to be the hours that it's restricted to. So, there should be no noise generated beyond those hours. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. And commissioners, just as any other business, it would be required to meet the same requirements with the code, in regards to noise. If there is operations after hours, it would have to comply with the code in regards to the noise continuing beyond the perimeter of the property. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. I just wanted to make sure these questions were addressed. There's a couple more. Does the request require the owners install a sidewalk? MR. BOSI: Commissioner Strain, with the expansion of County Barn Road, the sidewalk is being programmed within the project. 64 "._....._.~._._-_.~...,.,-_._' -, ._,.' .- January 20, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And the last thing is, is night lighting designed to shield the glow from the neighbors? MR. BOSI: The land development code requires that all on-site lighting -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: He has some other questions. I think -- I understand the answers have already been made to those. I wanted to make sure they were addressed as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is this a five-day or seven-day week operation? MR. BOSI: The applicant indicates it was a five-day operation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just one curiosity. From time to time we see vehicles here in the campus being made available for auction, and earlier I asked a question in another event what would happen, and facilities' manager indicated that they were contemplating going elsewhere. Is there any contemplation of use in that facility for the storage and auctioning of vehicles? MR. BOSI: I would have to defer to the applicant. I have heard they chimed in with a no. If you would like the applicant to get that specifically on the record. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So we can be assured that we won't have additional traffic as a result of such an event. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Do we have the complete staff and petitioner presentation? MR. BOSI: Yes, commissioner. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any summary comments by the petitioner? MR. NADEAU: I have none, commissioners. Just that this is a facility that helps the health, safety, and welfare of your residents and 65 """0..'""_-' "..~.-- January 20, 2005 I request that you give us a unanimous recommendation of approval for the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. We'll close the pubic hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-6209 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for the recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion to approve by Mr. Adelstein. Second by Mr. Murray. Discussion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just would like to make a comment. In the environmental site assessment report, it was noted, by the people who did this report, that it was a limited scope. And they listed several things that were not tested for. And I would hope that, as the county, we would go the extra mile and make sure that if there are PCBs or radon gas, or asbestos, or anything else that's listed here, that we test for those things as good neighbors, for one thing, and as county for another. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Would the motion maker like to adopt that comment in the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I would. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And the second? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second agrees. Further discussion? There are none. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. 66 --~~_.- ___'__W'___""' -- January 20, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. . COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? Motion carries. It's . unanImous. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next agenda item, E. That is Petition PUDZ-A-2003-AR-4942. A PUD to PUD rezone known as Silver Lakes. Are there any disclosures on this item? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. The disclosure I made previously was supposed to be for this item. And I, again, have my same question about the letter of authorization, when the appropriate time comes up to answer that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: At this time we'll make sure we get our swearing in so it's done on the record. All those wishing to present testimony, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in on this item. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Strain, your question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Again, I don't have a letter of authorization. Do we know who the authorization is to be representing, not only the developer, but apparently each one of the homeowners here today? MR. DERUNTZ: We did have letters of authorization. Dwight Nadeau is representing the petitioner. I apologize for that not being included in the application. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No problem. I just wanted to 67 ,_,__,_<"w_,_"'_~___..,~._._." .-.-- -..- January 20, 2005 make sure for the record that we had it. But, Mike, you said he's representing the petitioner. Since this is changed in the PUD, a lot of the elements in the PUD go beyond the developer's initial responsibilities. Is this -- do we have representation here today of the property owners that they've accepted? As long as someone who is going to be speaking for them today. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, that dovetails what I was going to say. There are an awful lot of people here. This is the last item on the agenda. Are none of you intending to speak on this item? CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you are, there's speaker slips out in the hall. You can give them to Mr. Bellows and we'll swear you in if necessary, if that desire should occur. With that, if we can hear from the petitioner, please. MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good morning, again. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, Planning Manager for RW A. I'm representing Conquest Development as well as Silver Lakes Property Owners Association. I related to this rezoning from PUD to MPUD. This petition has been a long time coming. Many of you have heard this petition before. Some of you may have heard this petition twice before. Our Board of County Commissioners has heard this petition twice before, as well as our Environmental Advisory Council. There were some issues between the property owner or the developer as well -- and the Silver Lakes Property Owners Association. Through diligent efforts on both parties, there is harmony between the developer and the association for the purposes of this rezone. We've come to you to modify the PUD master plan to increase the conservation area from three acres to 25 acres. We'll be re-designating some RV development area to be recreational residences. We have affidavits from those individuals. They are party to the petition. There is going to be 38 lots that were in the original PUD along 68 .~ --- . ~-~_. ~~- January 20,2005 the southwest boundary. Those lots were chose not to be constructed and a golf course was constructed over those designated -- those R V destinations, and the County permitted the golf course. This remedial amendment will move those 38 lots up to a previously approved location in the northeast quadrant of the project. There was a South Florida Water Management District permit issued for the 38 lots and a conservation area was required as a part of the district permit, in addition to a substantial mitigation contribution to the Panther Island litigation bank to the tune of$130,OOO. There is going to be one eight-acre parcel, approximately, on the west boundary where commons recreation uses are permitted. They were always permitted in that location. In fact, all land in that northerly 40 acres was, or currently is, designated commons recreation. But in line with the Water Management District permit, it's all -- except for the eight acres -- now under a conservation easement. All of the subdivision is completed. All of the infrastructure is completed within the project. Even the infrastructure to support the 38 lots that are being relocated as a part of this remedial amendment. With that, I can defer to our co-applicant's counsel, Mr. Pires. He is a registered speaker. However, as a party to this petition, he may speak. There are also some fine residents of the park that will have some things that they would like to say in the public record. So I'd like now to open myself up to any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for Mr. Nadeau? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Not at this time. There may be some to follow up. MR. NADEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Staff presentation? MR. DERUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Zoning Land Development Review, Principal Planner. As Mr. Nadeau mentioned, 69 -...-..-- .-.- January 20, 2005 this amendment is to correct the master plan to reflect what the actual activities are on the property itself. There has been a change from the original master plan. The golf course was incorporated over areas that was identified for recreational vehicles and park and trailer units to be located, conservation areas. And this has been changed to reflect that the conservation area will be entirely located along the northern property line, and it would go from the three acres to approximately 26 acres of land. The neighborhood information meeting was held. Various issues were discussed about concerns about the location of the common recreation area, and different proposals had been presented, but we had come to the conclusion where we would have this consolidated area along the Northern property line. This is what the master plan looks like that's being proposed currently. Along the Northern property line you see the conservation area. The area where the 38 units would be relocated is just below that. You see it's identified as tract AR and R just east of where the clubhouse area is. Any questions, I'd be glad to address those at this time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, I noticed in the information meeting, one of the issues was the concern about what limits would exist for accessory structures. In reading the PUD, I did not find any separate standards for accessory structures. It seems that they will fall under the existing standards of principal structure, whether that's a 25 foot or a 10 foot, or whatever size setback. As long as the people understand, if they have sheds or something to accommodate their mobile homes, and they're outside that setback, this PUD is not going to cure that problem. MR. DERUNTZ: That's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Under the development standards -- under the commons recreation area. I'm sorry. There's a 70 _w. -~. --- January 20, 2005 reference under B and it's on page 5-2. And it says, under B3, fourth line up from the bottom, it says, said accessory commercial uses shall serve the exclusive trade of the service needs of the person presiding in the project. N ow I know that that is a concern of the residents, but what I'm concerned with is, where is the -- where are these said accessory commercial uses? I don't see anything up on top defined as an accessory commercial use. What of those items are you considering meeting this criteria? MR. DERUNTZ: I believe it to be under BI and B2 and the first part of B3. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So anything in these categories you're believing, is what you're referencing as a commercial use, and should be subject to the use of those residents? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The development regulations down below, where are the storage area development standards? Because at one time in our previous discussions, and I went and pulled the minutes, there was a concern by the residents to have at least a 50-foot setback from the property lines of that storage area. Does that exist today, or where are we at with the standards for that storage area? MR. DERUNTZ: It would be what the LDC requirements are in place. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, it falls to the LDC. What would be the LDC requirement for the storage area setback from the nearest mobile home residential side lot? I would think the residents would want to know that since it wasn't in the PUD. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The LDC has a section for accessory structures, and front setback is typically the same as principal structure. The side is the same as principal structure, and the rear is usually reduced to 10 feet. 71 --.-- January 20, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, rear is reduced to ten foot. So you're saying in the storage area they can have a storage unit 10 feet off the property line to the adjoining mobile home lot? Is that what you're telling me? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just want to know that and say it for the record so the people here understand that that's part of it, because I went through and read all the minutes to all the previous meetings we had on this until it was continued at the BCC meeting. And they seemed to be concerned about having a 50-foot setback. If that's not a concern today, I'm fine, as long as the residents are. On page 5-3 there's a new reference under H3. Now this is under your development regulations, and it's calling it a convenience commercial area. Again, what is -- previously we had said accessory commercial areas, now we have convenience commercial areas. I'm wondering what the difference between the two are. MR. DERUNTZ: Could you repeat that question, please? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On page 5-3, item H3. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It references convenient commercial areas. What is it you're referring to as a convenient commercial area? Because I haven't found anything defined in this PUD as a convenience commercial area. MR. DERUNTZ: I believe that these standards were in the original PUD, and it's reference is what the LDC standard requirements are and that's for this district. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, since there's no commercial areas defined, this doesn't even apply? MR. DERUNTZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'm wondering why we have a PUD. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, Ms. Student? 72 ..~-._- January 20, 2005 MS. STUDENT: I may have misread something, but under H-3 on page 5-3 it says convenience commercial area, and then it references for all uses set forth in subsection 52-B3 of this document. So it has a cross reference back to B3, and B3 calls it convenience establishments of a commercial nature. So I have to ask, it seems that there's a connection for the parking. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then all the uses on B3 would have to have the setback or space requirements that are on H3. Is that what it says? MS. STUDENT: That's what it seems to say to me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's fine. MS. STUDENT: And I want to make sure we didn't take it out because -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, I wasn't suggesting taking it out. I just couldn't figure out how to link it together. Thank you. Under 5.4, hurricane shelters. The previous PUD had a lengthy one page or more discussion on requirements of hurricane shelters. This one simply says, the clubhouse called Silver Lakes clubhouse has been constructed, has been stated by the Collier County Emergency Management Department to be appropriate. Appropriate for what? MR. DERUNTZ: To serve as a hurricane shelter. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It can't. It's in a coastal hazard area. You're not allowed to have a hurricane shelter in a coastal hazard area. So, I'm wondering how misleading that statement is, if the people think their clubhouse is a hurricane shelter, I doubt if it's built to those standards. And you can't evacuate to a shelter in a coastal hazard area. You're supposed to be evacuating out of those areas. And if that's the case, I'm wondering why don't we simply state what the reality is under 5.4 instead of a misleading one that might tend people to think they have a shelter on their site when they're probably not supposed to. MR. NADEAU: Commissioner Strain, for the record, Dwight 73 <'----~"- - January 20, 2005 Nadeau. The clubhouse was built to the standards in affect at the time, back in 1991, as directed by Ken Pineau, your former emergency management director. It was found subsequent to that time that it wasn't an appropriate location for a hurricane evacuation facility. And that Mr. Pineau signed off on the project that people aren't going to evacuate to the clubhouse. It's just high ground. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's not the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to say is, it is not a hurricane shelter. It cannot be a hurricane shelter, so why are we alluding to the point that it might be, thinking -- I'm worried that someone may go there thinking that it's a shelter and it is not. So, why don't we clean this document up in regards to the reference to that shelter and state it for what it is. And that way, we don't have people going there and coming back later saying, the county said that was a shelter. Here's what it says right in this public document, and we have a mess on our hands. So if that point seems to make sense, maybe staff can follow it up. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. We can revise the PUD document to reflect that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's the last of my questions. MR. NADEAU: We have no objection to that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Does that conclude your presentation? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The first registered speaker is John DeChellis, Anthony Pires, Junior. MR. PIRES: Can we reverse the order? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give on this matter now in hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and 74 ~---- "- January 20, 2005 nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) MR. PIRES: I'll try to be brief. Mr. DeChellis who is the president of the Property Owners Association and will address the board briefly. It's been a long time coming this path to get here today. And we are -- the Property Owners Association joins in the application. We just have a couple clarifications we'd like to make. The staff had suggested on page 5 dash -- section 8.88. Excuse me. Which is at page 8.7. The language in that particular provision dealing with exotic vegetation removal monitoring and maintenance plan, we had agreed with the applicant, the co-applicant, Conquest Development, the developer, to have language in there that the exotic vegetation removal monitoring and maintenance plan would be submitted to the department by the developer for review. And then scheduled for removal of said exotics by the developer, with all preservation areas shall be submitted with the above-mentioned plan. And staff requested that be deleted. We request that it be placed back in there. And my understanding from Mr. Nadeau, that the developer is in agreement with that. By way of example, the South Florida Water Management District permit for the storage facility on the western side had a number of special conditions imposed on it. One of those is that a mitigation program shall be implemented in accordance with the exhibits, and the permittee, which is Conquest, shall create, enhance and preserve point 6.92 acres of wetland area. So, the removal plan, removal of the vegetation, we've all understood to be the developer's obligation. Any long-term maintenance of the property owned by the association, would be that of the association. So we would ask section 8. 8H make it clear that that plan would be submitted by the developer in those two locations. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Tony, my document says the developer is going to be doing that, so I'm not sure -- 75 --""-"----."----"-'-"'--.-- ~~'-- January 20, 2005 MR. PIRES: This is a last-minute change I received. It's not in your packet. I think your packet has the language we like, but the staff that requested last week, and then to delete that. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page on that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm just wondering when we make a motion to approve, what copy do you want? MR. PIRES: The one that has by the developer in it, which obviously is the one that we told you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: And, Mr. Strain, you made an excellent point with regard to the storage area. Part of the South Florida Water Management District permit, as a special condition number 26, it was a product of the administrative challenge and administrative hearing with regards to that permit, it states that there is to be, in addition to the existing 50-foot natural buffer located between the northern edge of the western storage facility and the property boundary, the applicant -- which is Conquest -- shall also provide a 50-foot natural buffer along the southern edge between the proposed storage facility and the existing Silver Lakes parcels. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's the protection for the residents in getting their 50 feet that they asked for a year ago in that permit instead of the PUD? MR. PIRES: That's correct. It's a combination of protections of critters that want to walk back and forth, that was one of the issues, and the residents, who are also two-legged critters in this particular instance. Hopefully, we can clarify this particular issue. And we thank you. And Mr. DeChellis will be the next speaker. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. Is there another speaker after that? MR. BELLOWS: No. MR. DECHELLIS: Good morning. My name is John DeChellis. I'm the president of the Property Owners Association at 76 __..__"'____m__n . _.____"_.____,_... "~h.._m --..------. -.-- January 20, 2005 Silver Lakes. I want to thank the Board for allowing me to speak, and I also would like to thank the members of Silver Lakes who are still here and thank you for coming. It's nice to be here finally in favor of something rather than against it. However, I would like to make some comments because speaking in favor of it, it might appear that it's like a reversal of what we said in the past. So I would like to explain how this decision came about, and I also would like to thank you Mr. DeRuntz and Mr. Schmitt, whom I had conversations with over the summer months, and helped this along in some of the decision-making process we had. We agreed with a lot of this stuff here because there was something in it for everybody. We had had some problems in the past with the developer. We're going into our third year now of where the owners are actually in control of the Property Owners Association Board, and it's been quite a learning process. But sometimes you have to take a step back in order to move forward. That's kind of the position we took at the board meeting a few months ago in order to go favor with this position. During the months, and the summer months, we originally had asked for some common recreation land up in this area here, and Conquest was saying fine, we'll put that in there. But when it got to staff, it was going to require a new environmental study, which would have held up this PUD further along, and we don't want it. The majority of the owners in this park, we want the developer to finish the park and move on. So by holding this up, we would be holding that up as well. In addition, even though there was CR going to be placed on this, it still had an underlying conservation easement, which, in my opinion, would have controlled really what could have been done. So, it was just not an issue that was worthwhile holding those things up. In addition, we have very little land in the park that we can use for the park maintenance itself. We have a very lovely golf course, 77 "___ u ------...---. ....,.----....., .-.-..-- January 20, 2005 we have equipment. We have no place to put it. Those of you who had ever been in the park, and may realize, down in this area here is the old construction site. It might be an acre or two. Not a lot of land, but it is something. And this is now going to be common and recreation land. They'll clean it up and it will be turned over to us. These other areas basically are just going to be put into compliance. The developer has promised he's going to build a third pool which will create the -- put into compliance, I guess as a water flow issue. So many people, you have to have so many gallons of water flowing and we don't. So when he builds this third pool, then it will put all the pools in compliance with the water flow. So we need that done. There are certain acres of land. There's a certain amount of land right here that right now we don't have access to. Because we don't own it. All this land here where the clubhouse is, it's still in the name of the developer. We've spent thousands and thousands of dollars on that clubhouse, and we don't own it. We pay for the insurance on that clubhouse. God forbid if Hurricane Charley came through and took it out, the insurance company would write a check to the developer, not us. So, I mean, mine, all these things considered, we felt it was time to follow up this PUD, get these 38 lots built, and finish the third pool. And, as this PUD will put things as they are on the ground as opposed to what they were originally supposed to be. Weare in agreement with that. We did have that public information meeting back in March, which was very informative. The people got a chance to get up and speak their piece. And the biggest concern we had was for the developer to turn over these common lands to the association. Now, at that public meeting, I asked Mr. Nadeau specifically what land, south of the Deltona lot, which is this lot that runs right here, will not be turned over after this PUD is 78 __---.0--_- _ _ -~-- ---- __ m."_______.... ...."- January 20, 2005 accepted by the Commissioners. And his answer was none. All of it will be turned over. So everything in this area here that is not a lot, he said -- and I assume Mr. Nadeau speaks for Conquest. He said, they will turn this over. So that will allow us to now own these little pieces of land and be able to do something with them, with proper permits, obviously. And then during the summer months they also had conversation with Mr. Bridgett -- who is one of the members of Conquest Development -- and he stated to me that his attorney had also advised him that all this conservation land up here now, they would have to turn that over to the association as well, after they clear it of exotics, they will then turn that land over to us as well. Which is fine. The crux always has been here, and you people who have been here before know that we did not want storage area along 951 on the front of the property. We still do not want it, however, you know some things you just have to go with the flow as it is. And this is not the time. We do have an ownership issue of this land. We do have a court case pending on the ownership of this land. And we will let the courts decide who owns it. If we prevail, then we can come back at a later date, knowing the way things are. You know, what you can't do today, you may be able to do down the road. Maybe with mitigation, we can perhaps flip this up to here in the future, if the time comes and we are successful. But this just felt like this was just not the time to do it. There were too many other things that we, as a group in the park, we wanted to get the developer to finish his lots and move on so we can run the park the best way the community wants to run it. And I think I said everything I wanted to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sir, you had brought up some areas that you believe the developer has committed to eventually turning over to the association. And I would like the developer's representative to agree to that at this meeting today, so we know what 79 ...._M_.__ ---- January 20, 2005 you were told, was going to be an actuality what's going to happen, then we can stipulate it that way in the approval. MR. DECHELLIS: That would be fine. That would be very appreciated. MR. NADEAU: Commissioner -- for the record, Dwight Nadeau. As you're probably aware, Collier County typically does not insert themselves into homeowner association issues. When I was asked by Mr. DeChellis whether the common land would be turned over at the time of turnover, I responded to him positively. I can do the same thing now, but I don't know the matters at hand on the court cases. So to the best of my ability, I can make that commitment that all common areas associated with the park operations would be turned over at the time of buildout of the subdivision. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Associated with the park operations. You want to expand on that? MR. NADEAU: Maybe it was a poor choice of words. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The entire property that's at question. MR. NADEAU: Those areas that are common to the park. In my limited understanding of condo law or condominium association law, yes, they will be turned over. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Tony, since this is directly impacting the folks you represent, do you have a reference to these area that are to be turned over that would clean up a stipulation should one be made? MR. PIRES: Mr. DeChellis indicated-- he was pointing with the pointer. We don't have the actual plat references here, but there is -- oh, the area in the -- I'll call it the southwestern portion of the CR tract which consist of -- MR. DECHELLIS: Hole number two is golf holes in the old construction site. 80 --. -.. "-- January 20,2005 MR. PIRES: To put the entire CR in the southwest corner of the property, I think would be appropriate. Because the clubhouse up here has already been turned over. Is that correct, Mr. DeChellis? This portion of the golf course is turned over. It's this portion in the southwestern corner. And I could get page reference number, but not at the moment unfortunately. And then the other one is the tract CR -- which clubhouse is that? MR. DECHELLIS: Diamond Lake clubhouse, pools, tennis courts. MR. PIRES: That's the Diamond Lake clubhouse, pools and tennis courts that's along the northern border boundary in the center of the property. Okay. Yeah, the yellow ones have been turned over as indicated on this particular graphic. And we can, Mr. DeChellis, I'm sacrificing this be part of the record. So you will not be able to take this from the room. We can make this part of the record our graphic representation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Basically the issue is two parcels that you're -- MR. PIRES: Two distinct areas, the southwestern portion is proposed to be designated tract CR, which is not tract CR at the present time, but will be tract CR. And tract CR with a clubhouse, tennis courts and pools are in the central northern part of the property abutting the new conservation area. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, gentlemen. Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: We typically don't -- this has to do with ownership and temporarily who is going to own what when. And we put conditions in here related to development and the impacts. And I have a concern about, you know, going down the road of starting to put in development documents, you know, private matters -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ms. Student, you previously opined that if we wanted to make a stipulation and the applicant 81 ._~- January 20, 2005 consented to it, it was okay. Is that -- are we changing that position? MS. STUDENT: No, we're not. But I think what we were talking about, and I believe Mr. White opined that based on discussions that we've had, I believe that those matters have to do with development and its impacts. And I have a concern about how we're going to enforce something like that. And also -- and I'm talking about residential value. You get involved -- are we impairing the obligation of contract, which is prohibited by the constitution, and starting to go down this road. That's why -- ifhe agrees to it -- I'm just concerned about the residential value of it. That's all. MR. WHITE: Commissioner Strain, potentially you can indulge me. I did not notice that Mr. Bridgett, who is a partner of Conquest Development, he would like to respond directly to your question, as far as turnover, as well Mr. Murray's confirmation. Mr. Bridgett has not been sworn. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir, would you please raise your right hand and be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you? MR. BRIDGETT: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Will you state your name for the record? MR. BRIDGETT: William E. Bridgett. I am the partner in the development. And to clarify, the turnover, is the only thing I have concern with. As a developer I think we have stated different times that the only things that have not been turned over at present are parcels of land which were not in compliance. I believe that in a court hearing when there was a request for summary judgment, our attorney stated that we would turn over everything the day of the court hearing, provided the homeowners would take responsibility for putting them into compliance. If I can refer to the map, and I'd also like to correct one thing. 82 ,-,._.. . . .~..~^ ,-~,.,..~,.,- ---,-.---.-." ._'_.~- January 20, 2005 Our attorney didn't advise us we were turning over conservation. Our determination is the conservation we will turn over. So, if I can refer to the map, I can -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Just use the hand-held microphone. MR. BRIDGETT: As far as we're concerned the only piece that is in controversy is this northwest corner, which we have mitigated, we had a permit and we withdrew the permit. And I think everybody here knows what's going on with it. But, as far as any of the other things, when we're approved by the commission, and we can turn around and put the other pool in to bring things into compliance, everything here, with the exception of this, will be turned over to the homeowners association. And I believe that's the way the documents read. With the water management permit, that we all know there's a conservation easement already recorded and in place over everything but. So everything will be turned over. For the record that's where we come from. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. That does help clarify. And Tony, I'd like to ask you one question. In order to try to work with Margie's concern at this point, not adding a stipulation that isn't strictly zoning related -- although I know that the people are here based on what's been told to them, which is a zoning related matter -- are you comfortable with what has been said, or do you feel that a stipulation, or do your folks feel a stipulation should be part of the record? MR. PIRES: We would request that a stipulation be part of the record. I think this commission has before, for example, seen in the past one issue where the commission at one of the PUDs on behalf of the community required construction of a third pool. I think the developer stepped to the plate and said he would agree to that. And typically that in the past has not been, I guess, quote, unquote, typically been an issue with regards to development approvals. But I 83 .,..-.- ~,,_... w..__ -'..-- January 20, 2005 think we would request that the stipulation be made part of this particular document and part of this approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. DeChellis. MR. DECHELLIS: For the record, John DeChellis again. On all this -- once the county, and the way I understand it, once the county commissioners approve this PUD document, the lands that are currently not in compliance by the mere signing of the document, they will then become in compliance. The land down in the southwest corner, nothing has to be done physically to the land. Maybe clean up some trash. Nothing in the Diamond Lake clubhouse area, tennis courts, et cetera, has to be done physically to that land, other than just turn it over. The area where the third pool is going to be built is currently owned by the property owners association. So, in my opinion, once the PUD is signed and made official by the county commissioners, there should be no prohibition to Conquest deeding the title over to those pieces of land to the association. Building the pool on our land, he's agreeing to do that anyway. When he does that and it's completed, the water flow fixes itself. There's nothing that has to be done to those lands. The only thing that has to be done, prior to obviously our accepting a piece of land, would be the removal of the exotics in the conservation. I would not want to take control of that piece of land without the exotics having been removed, or a side letter that says, you know, we're turning it over, but we will, in fact, remove those exotics. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Are there any other registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: None registered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any summary comments by the petitioner? There are none. Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: I just had one summary comment, and just to make sure for on the record. This has been a long process, well over 84 -- ,-_._,. -~'...~" .___w<."._~_,_ -.-- January 20, 2005 two, maybe three years. Both parties have come together, and just for the record, so you know, this does resolve a long-standing code case issue in regards to the use of land within the PUD, and concessions were made on both sides, and I appreciate that from both the residents and the developer. And I think based on the agreement from both representatives, this should resolve all the issues out in Silver Lakes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Great. Thank you. With that we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to recommend approval of petition PUDZ-A-2003-AR-4942 Silver Lakes PUD, subject to any staff recommendations, plus the following stipulations. Number one is that the section 5.4 of the PUD concerning hurricane shelters will be rewritten, pursuant to the discussion we had here today. Number two, paragraph 8. 8H, the exotic removal will be rewritten to reference the developer as the primary individual responsible for that paragraph. Number three would be that, when this project is in compliance, and all the areas, except for the northwest CR tract, that those areas will be turned over to the association. And during discussion I'd like to explain my reasoning why I believe it's a zoning issue. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Motion by Mr. Strain, second by Mr. Murray. Discussion, please. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. And I understand Margie's position on this. This has been going on a long time. While the turnover issue is not directly zoning related, in this particular case, with so many members of the mobile home park here who have relied upon commitments made to them to sign off on the zoning of this property, I think those commitments then become needed parts of the zoning. And for that reason, I wanted to include the reference to the 85 -~~,..'--~- . .. . .~,~.- ~, "-.-~'" - January 20, 2005 turnover to the association of those lands. That's all my discussion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further discussion. There is none. We'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? The motion carries. It's . unanImous. MR. BRIDGETT: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that we'll move on to Agenda Number 9, old business. We'll move on to our next agenda item. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you could please clear the room, we have a little more work to do. Agenda item 9, old business. Mr. Strain, you wanted to have some discussion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. During the AUIR meeting on December 17th, I believe, there were two items that came out of that meeting that I still would like to see followed up eventually. I know Mr. Schmitt has been working on one of those, at least, and the other one I would like to get an answer to. The first one being Commissioner Midney had to leave that meeting early. And I'm not sure he realized it, but the BCC honored his request to further study the issue of the 12 months of transportation impacts instead of 10-month transportation impact. And we were remanded by the BCC to produce to them, I believe, a report, or at least recommendation in regards to this issue. I want to make sure the issue is moving forward 86 --.". -- January 20, 2005 in the system, and that at some point we're going to have a discussion of the issue. And with documentation well enough ahead of time so we can study it prior to the meeting. Is that still in the works? MR. SCHMITT: Well, since we brought that up, we never resolved it at the workshop and that was a proposal. And it was on, at least on the record, but at the end of the meeting, you as a board were to advise staff on how you want to handle that, in regards do you want a separate workshop. Because basically what the board had asked you for, as the planning commission, to formulate a recommendation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But I thought the transportation volunteered to provide -- to do the study so we have something to review and base it on. And Joe, that's fine, but if we can get the study, get time to review it, and then schedule possibly a workshop to follow up, I think we'd be meeting the intention of the board and resolving Commissioner Midney's concern. MR. SCHMITT: Study was the first step. And I would have to defer to Don Scott, but basically, a final result -- the commitment was that we simply provide the data to show what it would be 10 months versus what it would be at 12 months and basically display if there is any significant difference. Don? MR. SCOTT: I'm working on doing the comparison of both so you can look at what it is at the hundredth and what it is at 250. And also, if there's any -- one of the things that was raised by Commissioner Coyle, any economic impact of that change. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If it's being worked on so I know it hasn't been dropped, that's what my concern was. And I would hope that you would give us that report well in advance of any scheduled meeting so we have time to understand it and digest it so we can ask the appropriate questions at the meeting then. MR. SCOTT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They're in the scheduled meeting, unless we want to schedule one, is there, on that issue? 87 ~~,.- -- ,.-- January 20, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: We can have it as the item of discussion following the conclusion of one of our meetings. But I think I prefer to wait until Don gets the data and schedule it as an agenda item. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And my second question concerning the AUIR was that I had asked a series of questions -- and I know, Mr. Schmitt, you're working on them. I just want to make sure for the record that answers will be coming at some point. I don't want to just -- I am concerned about the answers. I would like to get answers. MR. SCHMITT: Two specific answers I know -- well, there's actually three. One, the issue was raised in regards to the utilities. We're getting those answers. I will provide those in written correspondence back, both to the board and to the Planning Commission. The other had to do with the Parks and Rec, specifically having to do with the $285 million that was in last year's AUIR for capital costs or-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Capital inventory. MR. SCHMITT: Capital inventory versus what was in this year's report. I've yet to receive anything from Ms. Ramsey in regards to that. So I'm going to have to push that. But bottom line, I will finish a report and send it, with or without the input. And I will have to defer to county manager -- Assistant County Manager. I will talk to Ms. Ramsey. The other issue will be -- well, it's an issue I can't resolve at staff level. And that has to do with the level of service regarding the j ail. If you recall the discussion we had with the jail in regards to the population and number of prisoners, that is a political issue and a policy issue that still has yet -- still needs to be worked out between the sheriffs office and the county. It will be worked out, but I suspect it will not be for several months. So, what I really don't want to do is have the AUIR be something of a continuing opening dialogue. I want to close the 88 "-"----.---".,..._~-,." ~....,,~,---. ~'"._-,._- ~~.....".- .-,".-- January 20, 2005 chapter. I will close the chapter at least on the three issues in regards that I just mentioned, specifically with utilities, Parks and Rec, and with this transportation issue. But the issue in regards to the jail is above, frankly, it's above the staffs level. We have plans to work that out with the sheriffs office, but it's really going to be a policy issue as well. And we need to bring back the Board of County Commissioners. And eventually the board will have to resolve that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Commissioner Budd? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you would indulge me, Joe. Sometime, I think it was in GNP amendment, but I can't remember anymore. It may have been LDC. It had to do with the permitting to take down trees, then we spoke about the cost of $250 from one to ten trees. I just wondered what ever happened because you had indicated several times that you were rethinking that fee as being high. And you tended to agree with my question. Do you have a recollection of how that ultimately turned out? MR. SCHMITT: I recall the issue. I'll have to research and get back. I know what I said on the record and I know what I looked at. I have to talk to the staff. It was a $500 -- I believe $500, if I am not mistaken. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: It was a lot of money as I recall. MR. SCHMITT: And it was. But it really was staff time. Because I do have to send a landscape architect out to do a site visit. We're coming back with an additional requirement at the request of Commissioner Henning in this LDC cycle dealing with trees. I think it's probably best we look at the entire issue at that time during the LDC cycle because the fee is already established in my fee schedule, which is a separate ordinance, separate from the LDC portion. But I know exactly where you're coming from. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And the reason I bring it up is, 89 ---- -..----... '.._._~..,_.,.,_.,--. -~~-_.... -- January 20, 2005 is because you had revisited it in your mind several times at our meeting and considered that it might have been excessive. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. The issue really was that the cost was more of a dissuader than an encouragement to come in for a permit. That's what I don't want. But I'm also faced with the dilemma of, if I don't charge enough, then I'm using other permitting fees to supplement that service. So it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I understand your quandary. MR. SCHMITT: It's the issue I have to balance those. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. At the same time, when we go over the roads and everything, can we have a presentation on how the concurrency system works? The methodology you use or something. I feel like I'm the only one that has -- MR. SCHMITT: You want that as well? We owe the board the same briefing. Weare looking at -- Norm and I talked yesterday, Mr. Feder and I talked yesterday about a workshop. I know Don is working on it. So Don is probably at that same meeting. We want to come back and discuss the entire philosophical application of the concurrency. MR. SCOTT: I would appreciate that. They have asked for other things above and beyond. Some of the things we're talking about here. I wouldn't mind including that within what we're discussing. Also, I would like to say that one of the questions that came up earlier from Lindy. There is lighting that is going to be included on the County Barn proj ect. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is this the workshop that's been referred to by the BCC at their last meeting? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. There were two things that Commissioner Fiala had asked the county manager. The one had to 90 _"___"._"'W .-- January 20, 2005 do with application of the transportation concurrency issue. And it really was as a fallout of the warm springs petition, 951. The second was dealing with density. Density one really is going to be addressed in detail as part of the EAR report. As you recall, the valuation appraisal report dealing with the entire application of density, specifically in a coastal high hazard area, and that will be debated extensively as part of our EAR based amendments. We'll probably come back to the board and address some issues on density. But what we really need to come back to the board -- and Don knows this as well -- to explain how staff reviews a petition, applies the guidance in the camp plan in regards to concurrency, and in the LDC, and then what you as a Board and the Board of County Commissioners are faced with in regards to your decision process. Because the failure -- I wouldn't call it a failure -- but it's the dilemma between, you can zone without getting a local development order, but the zoning does create a perception that eventually someday I'll be able to build. So it's that dilemma, and we need to come back and explain it. There is an assumption on the petitioner's part, that once I get it zoned, that eventually someday I'll be able to build. But then they come in, and certainly we under the concurrency rules can apply the concurrency rules as regard to level of service. And then we either do or do not issue a local development order, which is the approval of this site development plan or final plat and plan approval. But then the issue is, okay, it's zoned, eventually some day what are you going to do to help me get my zoning. To get my project approved. And that's, I guess, philosophically the issue. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: But it comes to more than philosophically I think because it adds value to that property the mOl!1ent it is zoned. And that means that everyone that is zoned, the spiral continues to rise, and that is definitely a factor. 91 -'-"-"""-"'-~"- --~_.-. ...._,,----"~,..- .,,'--- January 20, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: And then the other piece of this is the vested development that's already out there. Vested regardless. They have the development right. And we cannot in any way right now stop that development through the denial of a local development owner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, you're saying that anything vested does not have to meet the requirements of concurrency? MR. SCHMITT: It's already deemed meeting the requirements if it's vested. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. DRI's are projects that are deemed vested. And through the DRI process, they were committed certain road improvements. And that's the purpose of going through DRI. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What about non DRI? Are they vested? MR. SCOTT: There are some that are vested that either went through a developer contribution agreement or some other means through that time over the last 20 years. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: DRI never has a sunset? MS. STUDENT: I can answer that question. A DRI is a creature of state statute. And within the development order, there is a timeline for which it has to commence development, and there is a date from which it has to -- termination date to be completed. And many times, you know, those dates can be like 30 years long. So that's taken care of by the development owner through the application of 380.06 of the Florida Statutes. MR. SCOTT: I just want to make one comment from the earlier petition. The Lowes was mentioned and some other things. There are actually six site development plans down there that are being held up, based on 951 south of 41. We don't have an official moratorium. I'm trying to get to a solution. But they are adding more on. Obviously if that would have got approved, it would have been the same thing. So there are ones being stopped right now that can't go forward based on 92 -,.'. '~'""-'~~'--~.'-""-"'" ... . . ---~ .~~,,'_.. ""-- January 20, 2005 concurrency. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You know, Don, I drive that area multiple times every day. And I drive the Davis and 951 intersection, and I think Davis is much, much more impacted then that area, yet there's been no restrictions put on the 951 and Davis. And I think that is probably why the frustration occurs between whether your system is working or not. It took me half hour to go a mile through that 175 intersection. MR. SCOTT: And the difference is, we have improvements programmed for the 951 at Davis. I don't have 951 south of 41 programmed, and the vested development that we're talking about. The other thing, is it really failing south of 951 at the moment? It's probably close, but when you add the vested trips, that's what trips it over the edge. MS. STUDENT: And the problem at that intersection is, you have a couple of old DRIs that predated the camp plan at 951 and 41. And why their trips are considered vested, because of Lely Resort and some others. That's why they have to be considered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. That concludes our old business. We have no new business. We are adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 noon. 93 .__.~_._--,-- ---.-- January 20,2005 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC. BY DANIELLE AHREN. 94 --.----.-- -.--..,,-., ".~"""'''-~'-'--'''"-''--'.~'-'''''-~---