Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/03/2005 R February 3, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 3, 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 A. Budd Mark P. Strain Bob Murray Lindy Adelstein Kenneth Abernathy Robert Vigliotti Donna Reed Caron Paul Mindy Brad Schiffer ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. And Env. Services Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Mike DeRuntz, Principle Planner Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2005, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA P ACIŒTS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NOTE: The public should be advised that a member of the Collier County Planning COmmission (Bob Murray) is also a member of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Not Available at this time 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JANUARY 11,2004, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-6015. Palm Springs, LLC, represented by Dwight Nadeau, ofRWA, Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel & Andress, requesting a rezone from the C-l zoning district to the PUD zoning district to be known as Triad PUD Planned Unit Development which will include a maximum of 140 multi-family residential housing units. The property is located on the north side of Radio Lane, east of Palm Springs Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1O.75± acres. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) 1 B. Petition: V A-2003-AR-4327. Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus, (regarding the Tabernacle of Bethlehem Church), represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, are requesting the following variances in the VR zoning district for a Conditional Use (per LDC Section 4.02.02.E.): 1) from the minimum one-acre lot area; to allow an existing structure on a 0.69-acre tract to be converted to a church use; 2) to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 20 feet; 3) to reduce the required 33 parking spaces to 19 spaces (per LDC Section 4.04.04.G Table 17); and; 4) to reduce the landscape buffer on the north and south property lines from the required 15-foot type "B," to allow a 10-foot wide type "B" buffer (per LDC Section 4.06.02 Table 24). The subject property is located at 305 3rd Street South, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) (COMPANION ITEM TO CU- 2003-AR-4326) CONTINUED FROM 1/6/05 C. Petition: CU-2003-AR-4326, Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, requesting Conditional Use approval in the Village Residential (VR) zoning district for a church or house of worship for the Tabernacle of Bethlehem Church pursuant to LDC Sections 2.04.03, Table 2 and 10.08.00. Property is a 0.69-acre tract located at 305 3rd Street South, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) (COMPANION ITEM TO V A-2003-AR- 4327) CONTINUED FROM 1/6/05 D. 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) CONTINUED FROM 1/6/05 / CONTINUED TO 2/17/05 E. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5998. Collier County Board of County Commissioners, represented by Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) for a project previously known as the Bembridge PUD, to change the name to the Bembridge Emergency Service Complex PUD, amend the previously approved PUD document and Master Plan to show a change in use from residential development and a church or a nursing home, to allow development of community facilities to include an Emergency Management Operations Center, other government facilities, and an existing Elementary School. The project consists of 39.82± acres and is located on Santa Barbara Boulevard, north of Davis Boulevard, in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 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 PUD's to the commercial areas of the Malibu Lakes PUD. The proposed 178.5 acre Malibu Lakes PUD 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 ± acres. (Coordinator: Michael J. DeRuntz) CONTINUED FROM 1/20/05 G. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5879. Champion Lakes Development, LLC, represented by Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, PA, requesting revisions to the PUD document to abandon the previously authorized recreational vehicle use and replace with conventional mixed residential dwelling unit types, and change the name of the PUD to Copper Cove Preserve RPUD. A maximum of 300 residential dwelling units are requested, with a project density of approximately 2.95 units per acre. The property is located on the north side of Championship Drive, in Sections 11, 14 & 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) 2 "'n.'~.'__'__~'_"'~__. H. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-5611, Seacrest School, Inc., represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, PA, requesting a PUD Rezone from "E" Estates and "E" Estates zoning with an approved conditional use for the existing school facility to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for expansion of the existing school facility." The property is located at 7100 Davis Boulevard, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 39.4± acres. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 2/3/05 CCPC AgendalRB/sp 3 February 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning. We'll call this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission to order. Please rise with me to say the pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Good morning. Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Budd is here. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney. (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Not here. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any changes or addendum to the agenda? I'm not aware of any. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add an item to old business concerning the update to the AUIR. Questions that I had asked during the workshop in December. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other request to changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion to approve the agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have motion by Mr. Adelstein, second Page 2 February 3, 2005 by Mr. Abernathy. All those in favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The agenda is modified. Are there any planning commission absences? I mentioned last -- at our last meeting, I just want to confirm that our next meeting of February 17th, I will not be here, and expect that Mr. Strain will be chairing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And nor will I be here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any others? There are none. Approval of minutes. Not available at this time. Ray, is there any Board of County Commission recap report? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I have three items. The first one was the Board approved the zone PUD by a vote of four to one. And the Buckley mixed use PUD was also approved by a vote of five to zero. The Board also approved the growth management plan amendments by various votes for each of those particular items. And that's all I have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Good. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you remember who the dissenting vote was on the zone? MR. BELLOWS: I think it was Commissioner Halas. MR. ABERNATHY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions or comments? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are not. There is no chairman's report. We'll move into our advertised public hearings. Page 3 February 3, 2005 (Whereupon, Commissioner Midney arrived.) First item will be 8A, PUDZ-2004-AR-6015. 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 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. Any disclosures by Planning Commissioners? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I've had conversations with representatives of the homeowners, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hampton. I've had discussion with one of the representatives, Mr. Nadeau, of the applicant. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Ifwe can hear from the petitioner, please. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Roetzel and Andress. And I'm pleased to tell you this morning that my clients have worked closely with the residents in the surrounding areas and have reached an agreement and understanding, if you will, and I'd like to read that -- read the provisions of that and make that part of the record. And then Mr. Nadeau will briefly go over the details of the proj ect and the layout. First of all, my client has agreed to record a deed restriction on the property. That will prohibit a rental apartment complex on the property. This deed restriction will be enforceable by the property owners within Palm Springs Village, Unit One, and Palm Springs Estates, Unit One. My client has also agreed to construct an uncovered school bus Page 4 February 3, 2005 stop on Radio Lane, as far east as possible. That bus stop will also include a bicycle rack. Third, the building height will be limited to not to exceed 35 feet, two stories, and both first and second floor units will be offered. The average size of the units will not be less than 2000 square feet in total gross area. The development will also have a 24-hour controlled access gated entry. Fourth, in addition to a berm with a tree shrub buffer behind the existing houses to the south of them, my client has agreed to install a gate or fence, depending upon the desires of the adjacent lot owners. Fifth, my client has agreed to request from County Transportation Department, to try to move the entrance to their property as close to Radio Lane as possible. We have been informed by the County Transportation Department that the closest possible distance is 350 feet from Radio Lane. Six, my client has agreed to request from the County a temporary construction access permit so that construction vehicles will enter and exit the development from the east side of the property off of Radio Lane, rather than Palm Springs Boulevard. And, lastly, my client has agreed to reduce the density to eight units per acre. And I'll ask Mr. Nadeau to come up and address the details, unless there are any questions for me now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bruce, I'm sorry, when you asked that, you sat down before I could ask a question. I know you wanted to. MR. ANDERSON: Hope springs eternal. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One of your items was install a gate or a fence. Can you repeat where that location is for me? MR. ANDERSON: We'll do a show and tell. Dwight will show you, and I will tell you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Page 5 February 3, 2005 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. In addition to a berm with a tree shrub buffer behind the existing adjacent houses, there will be installed a gate or a fence, depending on what the majority of those owners decide. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's along the north property line, where all the property lines are? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes? You answered yes to both questions. Go ahead. MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, Dwight Nadeau, planning manager for R W A representing the petition of Palm Springs, LLC. Commissioner Strain, to answer your question, we are required to have perimeter impoundment for Water Management and buffering around the entire PUD. We have provided for a deviation to allow a fence wall to be located on top of that berm, but that would be at the discretion of the residents, whether they would just like to have vegetative plantings or actually a masonry or a chain link fence. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand the code. I know what the code means, so you don't have to train me on that. What I'd like you to tell me is, in your intent of installing this fence or gate, this option that you're leaving up to the residents, is it around all four- property sides? All four corners of that property, or is it going to be just around a particular property line? MR. NADEAU: It will be just around particular property lines. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Which ones? MR. NADEAU: There is an existing eight-foot high concrete wall that is on the Saddlebrook Village property. It would be along this easterly property boundary that a wall would not be constructed, and that wall would act as the Water Management impoundment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's stop there. You said there's an existing concrete wall there, right? Page 6 February 3, 2005 MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you're not putting another one up? You're just not putting one along that property line because one is already there? MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Who owns that one? MR. NADEAU: That's owned by the developers of Saddle brook Village, Phase II. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the property line -- it's outside your property line, which your property line looks like it's the canal. So is the wall on your property or off your property? MR. NADEAU: The wall is about six inches onto the adjacent property. And we would backfill up against that wall. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Fine. Then if you don't mind continuing then. MR. NADEAU: Absolutely. And then there would be a wall, should the residents desire it, along this frontage, and at the discretion of this body, or the residents, one will be constructed along Radio Lane. And there's the opportunity to construct it along Palm Springs Boulevard as well. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, south, north, and west is what you're looking at? MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. NADEAU: The others are the options, as Bruce reminded me. We're committed to do the wall up against the north property boundary. It would be discretionary on the east -- excuse me -- on the west and the south boundary. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if it's discretionary, it doesn't really mean anything. You can do it or you don't have to do it. MR. NADEAU: I've provided for either or. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Discretionary as to the Page 7 February 3, 2005 applicant, or discretionary as to the residents? MR. ANDERSON: It's not part of the agreement. It's discretionary through the applicant. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm trying to flush out here. So the only wall you're committing to, is the wall along the north property line? MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. NADEAU: Okay. The properties located on the north side of Radio Lane, to the east of Palm Springs Boulevard, the hydrologic character of the property is no longer historic based on the impoundment of 175, Radio Lane, Palm Springs Boulevard, and the streets to the north within the Palm Springs subdivision. The reason why we're here today is to follow one of the incentives in the comprehensive plan related to conversion of a commercial zoning. And the plan allows us to ask for up to 16 dwelling units per acre. The original proposal was for 140 units, or approximately 14 dwelling units per acre, but as Mr. Anderson has identified, we've gone through exhaustive negotiated processes with our most cooperative neighbors, and we've come to a commitment of eight, provided the other provisions are followed in the agreement. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How many units is that? MR. NADEAU: That would be 86 units, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. MR. NADEAU: We have adequate public facilities. We've had an insignificant effect on any surrounding roadways with the 36 percent reduction in traffic as a result of the reduction in density. We have 36 percent less impacts on the roadways than what the original petition was. Yesterday the Environmental Advisory Council heard this petition and they unanimously recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners. With that I'll be happy to answer any Page 8 February 3, 2005 questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I may have some depending when staff speaks. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dwight, on the EAC, was there any conditions to that approval, or -- MR. NADEAU: None at all. We have to go through the environmental resource permit process, and that was a condition attendant to the EAC staff report. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Staff report, please. MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commission members. Mike Bosi, Zoning Land Development Review. As Dwight had mentioned yesterday, this was heard before the EAC, and his assessment was correct. It was unanimous approval, recommendation approval from the EAC. As I pointed out in the staff report, the assessment of this petition was somewhat difficult at times. The conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning in the allotted density bonus that is provided for that, on the surface seems like an easy equation to derive. The circumstances that surrounded this particular piece of property, and the surrounding zoning, somewhat complicated the equation. The neighborhood concerns expressed at the neighborhood information meeting was the -- what was, the reservation of degrading the area with the high density being sought. The applicant originally was seeking over 13 units per acre. And when you look at the surrounding zoning, the adjoining Saddlebrook property to the east is zoned at 12.96 units per acre. To the south is C4 zoning. To the east -- or to the west -- I'm sorry -- is commercial one zoning, and to the north is residential multifamily 12 with a cap of seven. Page 9 February 3, 2005 One of the things that really complicated the issue was that, in that multifamily zoning district to the north, single-family houses have been constructed. And, traditionally, as I pointed out in the staff report, traditional planning theory calls for a step down zoning approach, meaning a transition from the higher densities to the lower densities. The zoning, the straight zoning categories within this area provide for that traditional step down. It's just the land uses that have been implemented prevent the natural flow of the higher to the lower densities. When I was trying to arrive at an acceptable density for this area, I felt that I could not go below the seven units per acre that was allotted to the properties to the north with a recognition that two sides of this property is still zoned with commercial zoning. I also felt that a duplication of that 13 units per acre that was provided for in Saddlebrook, was something that was not going to be compatible with the overall area. Staff had arrived -- I had arrived, staff had arrived, through discussions at 9.5 units per acres. Obviously with the agreement that the applicant has brokered with some of the neighbors, and obviously, we will hear from the neighbors at a later point. But staff would be more than willing to revise their recommendation to be in line with the eight units per acre that the applicant and the neighbors may have arrived upon. Just to put on for the record, this application was reviewed by all of the individual reviewing departments that looks at a rezone petition. All of the applicants -- or, all of the reviewing agencies have signed off on the PUD document as submitted. And with that -- or, one other clarification. Within the staff report in the findings that you were provided, the rezone findings that were provided to you had an inaccurate AR number that was associated with it. The correct AR number is 6015 instead of the 5611, which is a later petition you will be hearing. But Page 10 ~-- February 3, 2005 all of the information in the text that speaks within that document is pertinent to this rezone application. And with that, I will open up to any questions the commission may have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for the staff report? Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, let's start out with your-- I've got a lot of questions on the PUD language, but I noticed in your staff report you said that, projects must be compatible with surrounding land uses. And how are you basing the density that you're proposing here is compatible with basically single-family estates houses to the north? I mean, those are big lots with big homes on them. I think I know what your answer is. That it's zoned for something different. MR. BOSI: The answer to that is, correct, it is zoned for something different. And there are -- all of those parcels of land have not been constructed as of yet. The probability that they will continue to be constructed as a single-family house is high, but the opportunity for -- on a -- or a half an acre parcel for a three-plex can be constructed by right, is completely within the right of any individual property owner based upon the zoning. The problem is, it sort of aligns you with the premise of planning here and how they deal with nuisances. You can't move next to an airport and complain about the airport. You can't move into a multifamily zoning district, and then complain about multifamily housing. That's -- that was one of the basic premises that I utilized as I approached this scenario. I do understand the concerns that were expressed, but I also understand that the zoning in the characteristics of this parcel of land, and the characteristics of the surrounding land use, dictates a higher density than a single-family -- the densities associated with a single- family zoning category. Page 11 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, the plan that I see included in my packet shows that the entire area was subdivided into rather large lots. I know subsequent to that, at some point it got zoning applied to it in a different manner than the way it was subdivided, obviously. I also went back and checked the criteria for compatibility. I didn't find in there where compatibility in based on the speculative future use. It seemed to be based on the current use. Now, is the -- and if I'm wrong, I need you to tell me why or where that I'm wrong. I've got the definitions right here in front of me. If compatibility is based on the current use, then is the 9.5 that your staff -- that you recommended, or eight that they're requesting, compatible with single-family on those large lots? MR. BOSI: I would have to say within a very limited perspective, that assessment would be correct. But this parcel is also adjoined by 13 units per acre to the east. And that has to be given the same equal amount of weight that the single-family houses to the north. And to arrive at a compromise between the single-family houses to the north, I'm not sure what the actual density calculation of those single-family units is. I'm not sure if it's two units per acre or three units per acre. It's zoned seven units per acre. And with 13 units per acre to the east, I arrived at a median, what I felt was the median striking a balance between the two existing -- the two existing land uses that adjoin this property. With the consideration that the two other zoning categories to the west into the south of this property is zoned commercial. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The areas zoned RMF-12, (7) to the north takes up 13 acres -- that's 24 home sites -- that means it zoned at 1.85 units per acre. Your justification at the Saddlebrook Village with a 13 unit per density to the east, makes this viable as a compatible use. I would wonder then if the fault lies, not with this project as much as it does with allowing the Saddlebrook project to Page 12 February 3, 2005 move forward, then it would have been incompatible with the existing types of homes in the area that we're talking about. Is that -- MR. BOSI: That's a fair assessment. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because one mistake was made. We should then continue. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'm not sure if one mistake was made. Next to Saddlebrook apartments is the Estate PUD, which is a mix between commercial and industrial zoning. I'm not sure if a residential proj ect next to a commercial industrial zoning shouldn't be allotted a high density. So I'm not sure if Saddlebrook apartments was a mistake, based upon the existing conditions, and based upon the existing activities center that sits within close proximity to the area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean, I agree we need some kind of transition. And we transition from the commercial to the high density residential, but then from the high density residential, there doesn't seem to be a transition in all cases in this particular area. I have questions on the PUD itself, some of the language. Section 2.6, talking about lake setback and excavation. It seems to reference in item A, elements that already exist within the code. And if they are currently within the code, why are we being redundant in this PUD? I know I've asked this in many meetings, and I'm going to continue to until we figure out an answer for it, but I'd like to hear it again. MR. BOSI: Unfortunately, this is an issue that has come up with a number of the past PUD documents with myself and with some of the other planners. As a policy and as a department, we have not made the necessary steps to make those changes to eliminate the redundancies within the model document that we require the applicants to follow when submitting a PUD document. We haven't updated that to eliminate some of the redundancies that are built into the model document that we mandate for them to submit. I think there's a general recognition among the Planning Page 13 February 3, 2005 Commission, individual staff members that we do need to eliminate this. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten there yet. And I have no adequate answer to address, or to satisfy your concerns, other than we need to get there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think you did. I mean, I just want to make sure that every time you find this, and it's pointed out, that someone realizes that we don't need to be redundant, and by doing so, we actually could trip ourselves up in having something stated here that isn't consistent with changes in the code that occur afterwards, and all of a sudden we're looking into an old inconsistency. So that's my only reason for bringing it up, and I'll just continue to point it out until it's fixed, I guess, if that's okay. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Just, for the record, Ray Bellows. I just want to let you know, we are in a process of doing away with the model PUD format, and basically eliminating the PUD document altogether. What will be submitted to you is an ordinance with the development standards, the uses permitted, and the deviations from the code. That way this kind of confusion -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You'll save a lot of trees that way, too. MR. BELLOWS: That's where we're headed towards. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It will be a nice move. MR. BELLOWS: My goal is to get it to you within the next five months. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. I'll minimize my questions on those issues anticipating that. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Item 2.8, Mike, the last sentence. It says that -- to sum it up -- it says, maintenance of all common facilities and open space, subject further to the provisions of subsection 222038. Parentheses, this section of the LDC was omitted from the rewrite and is intended to be added to the Collier County Page 14 February 3, 2005 LDC. If you put something in a PUD now that isn't in the LDC, but you think it might be added after votes by the various boards involved, does that make it legal? MR. BOSI: If it wasn't transferred from when we converted from the old LDC to the new LDC, those provisions are still valid. They're still in effect. Through the LDC cycle amendments, we're adding whatever we missed in that translation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you have any comments, Margie? MS. STUDENT: Okay. I'm pinch hitting for Patrick this morning. I would have to say, I haven't been apprised to this problem with this particular provision. And, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to probably defer to planning. This is what I would say. If it was saved and not repealed, then it's still alive and it would be appropriate to include it, as long as it is, you know, still an effective provision. If it were not, what I would do is, write that criterion into the PUD document itself because then, if it were not an effective provision, by writing it in here, we breathe life into it as part of this ordinance. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And is that, Mike, something that we can make sure is done before it goes to the BCC? MR. BOSI: Absolutely. But I will, again, remind the Planning Commission that when we adopted the new LDC in the new format, it was expressly stated that this was not to constitute any changes from the regulations. This is a regulation that was in the old LDC. For whatever reason, it was not updated to the new LDC. Weare in the process of updating the LDC to make sure everything that was in the old is now in the new. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just as a cautionary, if you could either see if it was resealed and it's not in effect and we need to address Margie's issue, and we can either put the language in or-- Page 15 February 3, 2005 MS. STUDENT: That will cure it either way. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. Under 2.9E, it's talking about clubhouse facilities may be used as temporary sales facilities, including the resale of residences within the boundaries of Triad PUD. There's no time limit on that. It's talking in the last sentence about a temporary sales facility, but doesn't say that the re-saling will be temporary. It just says it's going to be used for resale of residences, which automatically seems like it would be a real estate office. MR. BOSI: I don't believe so because it says in the first sentence, a portion of the clubhouse facilities may be used as a temporary sales facility. And then that temporary sales facility could also -- could also be utilized for resale. In the very last sentence it says, the temporary sales facility must cease. Well, the temporary sales facility that had the original sales and the resales has to cease, when control of the condominium association is transferred to residents. I can clarify that language even a little bit more. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Whatever the time frame in the LDC for temporary use is, is what I think we should limit it to. That's what I'm getting at. MR. BOSI: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The clubhouse under 210, I read that paragraph and I know it doesn't duplicate language in the SDP -- or in the PUD -- or in the LDC. I'm sorry. But it's a concern because the process listed there, is that different than what the LDC process is for the same thing? Because if it is, then it's a deviation. If it's a deviation, they have to state it and we have to have it specifically noted. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I think we can make it subject to the requirements of the LDC, unless the petitioner has some reason to keep the language this way. Page 16 February 3, 2005 MR. BOSI: One second. As the PUD document is written with recreational areas as a specific section in the document with permitted uses, traditionally you wouldn't be able to develop a clubhouse before the multifamily, or the other provisions are done because they're temporarily addressed as accessory uses, and accessory cannot come before a permitted use. Well, because this recreational area has its own specific section, it's dedicated as a permitted use. I don't believe that this is in violation, or this is something contrary to what the site development plan process dictated by the land development code would provide. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So even though it's traditionally, they have to do accessory uses, which, I believe, the tradition means it's pursuant to the land development code, they can't do those until after the other uses are in place or started. This is accepting that, but it's not a deviation. MR. BOSI: No, it's not a deviation. The PUD document is calling those out as permitted principal uses. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. On 2.13, native vegetation retention requirements, the minimum width of the preserve shall be an average of 30 feet, but not less than 25 feet in width. I don't remember what the code says now. Is that consistent with the code currently or is that a change to the code? MR. BOSI: That is consistent with the code. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. The development standards table, I'm assuming is going to change, with regard to the height of the building? Or it says, two stories, 35 feet. So what they've stipulated to the residents, was already in the standards. MR. BOSI: I think maybe it was just for clarification to the residents, but that's -- that height -- that 35 feet, two stories has been in there since the original submission of the PUD document. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I think that's it, Mike. Thank you. Page 1 7 February 3, 2005 MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for staff? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: If there are none, are there any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The first registered speaker is Thomas Guthrie followed by Rich Hampton. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I remind members of the public that individual speakers are limited to five minutes on behalf of any item. MR. GUTHRIE: Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. I am a resident of the sub development of Palm Springs Village. And I was the first one to move into that development where you find the single-family homes. And I had, I guess, great aspirations when I moved in that, what was going to happen in that area there was going to be a continuation of the home that I have there. And the homes that -- Commissioner Strain you talked about, about the larger lots. Initially I hoped that the property to the south of me and to Radio Lane would be single-family homes, with maybe like commercial at the very end. But, we all have our wish list, and sometimes we don't get it. I'd like to be here on behalf of the developer. I'm here to represent the developer -- or the neighborhood. Excuse me. That we have agreed with the developer of the density unit of eight units per acre. But in sitting here and listening to some of the questions that Commissioner Strain had, as far as consistency to the area, I really didn't think that I stood a chance that there would be single-family in that area, and chances are, there probably won't. So, I guess in choosing the lesser of the two evils, I guess probably, what Triad is representing as far as a product to put up there, it would be acceptable in my mind. I'm a little worried about the area that surrounds that project, especially the adjoining project to the west. It's about the same parcel Page 18 February 3, 2005 of land behind. And not putting the cart before the horse, but maybe hoping that you might consider what's going to happen in that area as well as what's going to happen across the street from it, and whatever you recommend as far as changing and the zoning. It's always been a density issue from day one. Living in that area, I would maybe like to invite the Commissioners, if you already haven't, to view that area and take a look and see what's going on there. And take a look at the conditions that exist there right now. And I guess I best would leave it in your best judgment to do what you see fit for that area there. I'm not a public speaker, as you can probably see -- just a little nervous -- but we all learn by our mistakes. And no matter how old we get, whether we learn in life or learn in our jobs, we certainly don't want to make the same mistakes that we've made before. So, I'll just leave it in your best judgment to do what you think is right. And if you have any questions for me, I'd like to offer them up. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker is Rich Hampton followed by Mark Gagnon. MR. GAGNON: Marcel. MR. BELLOWS: Or Marcel Gagnon. MR. HAMPTON: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm here on behalf of the welfare and safety of our neighborhood. I do live at 706 Pine Crest Lane, adjacent to the property. I have a couple issues that I'd like to raise to the Planning Commission and make sure, at least, it's on record. We did come to an agreement with the developer. We do think it's fair, as fair as we're going to get. And I'll leave that at that. But there are some other considerations that I'd like to bring forward to the Planning Commission. The first is the welfare and safety of our neighborhood based on Page 19 February 3, 2005 traffic. We're having a problem down there with our traffic. It's not necessarily going to be -- for a number of reasons, some that Commissioner Strain already raised. Saddlebrook was an issue for us, but even more is Tuscan Isle. Tuscan Isle is a new development that went up to the back of there. We've got a small court, or lane that's been closed off, three bus stops, a convenience store that becomes a thoroughfare, and multifamily housing surrounding us. As you know, 175 and the entrance, one of the main three entrances from the county, is right there off Radio, or Davis Boulevard, I should say. It's a consideration for emergency management planning. There are a lot of considerations here that I think we're missing. And traffic, because of the pedestrian traffic and the vehicle traffic in that small area, is something we really need to look at. Something the Planning Commission really needs to look at. There are no sidewalks. The lighting is terrible. There's no provisions for the bus stops. I would like to thank the developer for offering a bus stop for the children there. We've had to move bus stops. And for one reason or another, I become the person in that neighborhood that ends up dealing with a lot of these issues because of my professional career. So that's the first thing I'd like to talk about, as well as the access to the park -- for those of you who are not familiar -- we do have a public pack that's located adjacent to 175 behind our neighborhood. And it attracts a lot of our younger adults to walk down our streets with no sidewalks and no lighting. I have to reemphasize that. It's very important for the Planning Commission to understand. And when we're going to continue to build multifamily housing down there, it's going to bring in the density, it's going to bring in the traffic, and the concern for people's safety has got to be foremost. Above all of the provisions and other things, people's safety has got to be there. The second thing I'd like to bring to the commission's attention is we've got -- we've already been approached, and there's another Page 20 February 3, 2005 development, as you are already aware, going in just across the street from this one. Again, back to the safety and welfare. We're going to get into the density issues, and we'll get into the neighborhood town hall meetings. And we're going to have to go through this process again. You're going to see our neighborhood's faces again. There's not as many of us here today because we think we've come to a fair agreement with this developer. But you will see us back here with Mack Builders for the same issues. Just put that in the back of your heads and know that we'll be back. We do appreciate your time and your concerns as well. We'll be happy to have dialogue with you. The whole neighborhood would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question for you, sir. Your street ends at Radio Road? MR. HAMPTON: Radio Lane. Goes to Radio Road. Palm Springs Drive does. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Radio Lane. It's a dead end cul-de-sac, so the only way out of that whole area, including all these multifamilies that are going up, is Radio Road. If I'm not mistaken -- MR. HAMPTON: Well, the gas station, sir. That becomes the focal point of the entry access. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You mean people cut through the gas station to get through Davis? MR. HAMPTON: Unbelievable amounts of people cut through there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But, legally, they're supposed to go down to Radio Road. They can't make a left turn to get to Davis, which a lot of them will, because that's how you get to 175, so they got to make a right turn on Radio, go down and make a u-turn, and come back and make a left on Davis. So, they're making multiple turning points, all of which, the more density we have, the more unsafe it is. MR. HAMPTON: Right. This issue was raised in front of traffic because, our larger vehicles, our dump trucks, things hauling Page 21 February 3, 2005 trailers for building areas like Tuscan Isle, the development that's going up, even when they do try to access Radio Road, they have to make a u-turn in front of the Morande Kia. They can't do that with those type of vehicles. So that's why it's easier for them to go through the Circle K. And that is an enforcement issue that has been raised. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'm just going to ask transportation if they're planning to change the turn signal, the turn conditions at that intersection. And I'll do that when we finish up. Thank you. MR. HAMPTON: Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Marcel Gagnon and Jonathan Smith. MR. GAGNON: Marcel Gagnon. I'm a resident also of the neighborhood. I live on Pine Crest -- or Pine Vale Court. I was the developer of the previous street, Pine Crest, as well as twelve lots on Pine Cone. I saw it as a single-family community. I saw it as a twin villa community. I also saw it as a single-family community with large lots with no deed restrictions. That turned out to be what was really in demand. Large lots with no deed restrictions where you could build a nice home in a quiet neighborhood. I also was involved in these discussions with zoning being -- or density being the issue for the remaining 20 acres at the corner of Pine -- of the PUD. And I was also realistic in dealing with these gentlemen, as far as their requests of 14 units to the acre, and our requests for keeping it a low density community. We came to the conclusion, and we agreed with the other parties to this zoning that they are presenting to you today, and I back it up. But, as has been mentioned, there is more requests coming forward for the other ten acres. And without reiterating everything else that's been said, I also agree that proper planning and increasing the egress and access to that particular neighborhood, vis-à-vis Radio Road and that improper turning lane situation that was created a couple of years ago, that could definitely be approved -- improved. And without Page 22 February 3, 2005 belaboring the issue, that's all I have to say. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did you say you were the developer of -- MR. GAGNON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So you -- when you -- your original intent then looks like it was for single-family, or large home sites for this commercial, ended up being a now multifamily? MR. GAGNON: No. The single-family homes that were developed to the north on Pine Crest, that's what I developed. And then half of Pine Cone, which the north side had already been developed as single-family homes. And what I bought were lots that were already zoned for two family, or RMS7 which was down zoned from 1992, I believe. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You don't own the C1 properties then, do you? MR. GAGNON: Which ones? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You don't own the ones in the C1 properties? MR. GAGNON: No, sir. No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHIFFER: Do you know what the intent of the C1 property, the C 1 zoning was for? MR. GAGNON: Well, it was for -- it was for office type things. Dwight could answer that probably more than I could because I'm not that familiar with the zoning bylaws for C1. Dwight would know what the answer is. MR. SCHIFFER: We have letters from the neighbors that said that they were comfortable with C 1 uses in that area. MR. GAGNON: That was as opposed to what they thought were going to be a lot of density multifamily units, vis-à-vis apartments or condominiums, as the case may be. Page 23 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. GAGNON: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Jonathan Smith followed by Kathy Gorman. MR. SMITH: Good morning. I'd just like to say thank you for allowing us to be here. I'd like to just reiterate what my peers before me have said. I'm a neighbor. I live at 761 Pine Vale Drive. One of our big concerns has been the high density, and mostly for the traffic reasons. Since they've rerouted Radio Road to -- into Davis Boulevard, the intersection there -- it was supposed to make things better, but for our small community back there, it has been a traffic problem. We have to suffer. MR. ABERNATHY: Could you speak up just a little bit, please? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You need to bring the mike closer to you. MR. SMITH: Sure. We've had to -- the exit from there is much more difficult than it used to be, although -- in some of the ways it's better because there is a traffic light there now and there wasn't before. But the right turn only lanes creates us a problem, and cutting through the Circle K is a major problem. But our main concern was keep the density low so that there wasn't too much traffic, and the safety of the neighborhood. That's right about all. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Kathy Gorman followed by Garrett Beyrent. MS. GORMAN: Good morning. My name is Kathy Gorman. I'm at 722 Pine Crest. The developer has worked very hard with us. He really has. And he's worked in good faith to come to terms with our neighborhood. Our neighborhood came together to really basically try and keep it C 1. What we envisioned there was something very nice like barbershops, and a little pizza place. Thingst Page 24 February 3, 2005 that would actually save trips up onto Santa Barbara and down onto Davis and actually save traffic. I still question the traffic study and reducing it 36 percent, but that's okay, because we really are at peace with the developer, and he did try hard. One thing that we will ask you to work with the developer on is, he says he will act in very good faith to move the entrance to this development up towards Radio Lane. We are asking you, please, work with him on that to get it as far away from the single-family homes as possible. The second thing I'd like to ask is to submit our neighborhood letter, which really is very heartfelt, into this. It basically is the agreement with the developer. It's everything that Mr. Anderson brought up. And we'd like to submit it, if possible. The third, really doesn't have to do with Triad. Triad has worked hard. And I, again, I speak, I believe, for the neighbors. We're okay. That's why so many of them are not here. They have trusted the seven individuals named on the letter to kind of represent them. Mr. Guthrie invited you to please come down and see this for yourselves. Other neighbors have begged me to come before you and beg you to come. Not invite you. The traffic is unbelievable. When you come out of our development you are facing people coming out of the apartment complex. They come screaming up there. You really don't know if they're going to swing their left-hand illegal turn into Circle K and cut right through. There have been accidents. There have been many close accidents with -- we don't lie -- our own residents trying to cut through Circle K, and these guys swinging up into here. It's unbelievable. I'm sure Circle K keeps quiet because we're also their patrons as well. But that really is a nightmare. So what we try to do is, we really try hard to do it legally . You have to come out. You make a right-hand turn. You wait at a stop sign for all of the traffic oncoming -- two lanes are coming at you. Page 25 February 3,2005 There is an extremely small area to get across these two lanes of traffic and into the left-hand short turn lane. Now, you get into there. What happens? Now you wait, because everybody comes down Radio Road and backs up for the light at Davis. They don't want to let you in. So you have to wait to be able to swing a u-turn. Now, if you happen to be wanting to get left onto Davis towards 951, now you've got to kind of beg them to let you back in again. Well, what happens? You're in the right-hand lane trying to get into the left-hand lane, and the people who have come down legally in the right-hand lane, they're sitting behind you now. So the whole thing is messed up. Now we're going to add to it about 150 cars coming out of this development, all trying to make that u-turn. Let's talk about Twelve Lakes. Twelve Lakes, 112,000 square feet of commercial. 100,000 single and family -- single-family and multifamily -- multifamily, again, people coming out. Now they can come out on Radio and Davis. But when they do, when they come out on Davis, what's happening right now? Exactly what's happening from Ibis. These people come out. They're forced to make a right-hand turn. You're trying to make a U-turn to go this way, and they're trying to make a U-turn to go this way. You should be there. Please, we're begging you. Before you do anything with Mack Builders, before you allow them to even come before you, please come down and just be there with us for half an hour between 8: 00 and 8:30 -- 7:30,8:00, you know, 5:00 at night. Come down and witness it for yourself. Because we can't exaggerate it enough to you. Our biggest fear. And this is what the neighbors asked me to talk about is, Triad is right here. They're putting in 86 multifamily units. Now, off the same little street -- and this street, mind you, is one street in, three streets across. Nice little neighborhood. Mack Builders is about to come before you. The identical property on this side -- well, they're, of course, I'm sure going to ask for exactly what Triad got. Before you do that, before you add another 150 cars Page 26 February 3, 2005 stacking up yet again onto it, please, please, come down and let us show you what it is. Ask them for a true comprehensive traffic study. The one that I have from Triad, which is fine with us -- again, we agreed to this -- is marked as Radio Drive. Well, the street sign says Radio Lane. I'm not even too sure about this whole study, quite frankly. We're asking you for a pedestrian study. We'll be asking you to, again, just please come and witness it. As Mr. Strain said, just because we've made one mistake, please don't compound it. Please, don't make it on the other side, because that's going to be coming at you as well. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't quite understand what you're trying to stay. On the one hand you say that you're in agreement with this project, but on the other hand, it sounds like it's pretty bad and it's going to get worse. And I notice that both roads adjacent to the site are already at level of service D, and they're going to stay that way even after the road improvements are there. Can you give us any practical suggestions as to what we can actually do to remedy the situations that you're talking about? MS. GORMAN: Yes, sir. What we would like to see as neighbors -- I don't think anyone here would disagree -- we'd like to see single-family homes. We're not against this rezoning. Please understand, we're not. We'd like to see single-family homes with no more than 3.8, just like Twelve Lakes got. We would not like to see another eight per acre. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And that's because of the traffic problem? MS. GORMAN: It's the traffic. There are numerous children. Those apartments are filled with children. Come and see. Talk to the School Board. It's safety for kids. It safety for pedestrians. A lot of our residents walk up to Circle K. It's traffic and safety. That's what it is. Page 27 February 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? MR. SCHIFFER: I have a question. Does the bowling alley come out onto Radio Lane? MS. GORMAN: Yes, sir, it does. MR. SCHIFFER: So you have that traffic also? MS. GORMAN: Yes, sir, we do. And I have to tell you, teams get out at 2:30, right with everybody trying to go get their kids. It seems to me -- I'm not in the bowling alley, but they must have like a 1 :00 to 2:30, because when all the parents are rushing for those school buses, boom, people are like pouring out of the bowling alley as well. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions or comments? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. MS. GORMAN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker, Garrett Beyrent. MR. BEYRENT: For the record, my name is Garrett FX Beyrent. And I'll read this to you so I don't take up too much time, you know. Time is a serious thing here. I'm a real estate lobbyist. I'm a convicted felon, twice. Okay. I have been a real estate developer in Collier County since January of 1970. I've built with my family approximately 5,000 condominiums. Yada, yada, yada. Anyhow, I own the two PUDS that are on that map up there right next to the park. I have one little PUD. It's an acre-and-a-half. And it belongs to the King of France actually. I'm an international lobbyist, too. See where it says Sherwood Park there? And it's a little tiny sliver. Margie Student would tell you about it. Right, Marge? MS. STUDENT: I think that's your job. MR. BEYRENT: Hey, Cecilia. I need to make a pre-ap with you on two PUDs. I'm right in front of the County Commissioner right now. I'm not supposed to talk. I'll see you later. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Hang up your phone. Thank you.e Page 28 February 3, 2005 MR. BEYRENT: Okay. That was Cecilia Martin. She has -- I now have an appointment to see her so I have a pending appointment for both my PUDs. I have my little tiny South Park PUD, and my great big across the street Magnolia Pond, PUD. That's a good one. The lot is 666 units. Dedicated to the devil. Ooooh. Okay. I just want to know who put up those maps, because they're really old. They don't have me on it. Only half of me is there. But that would be better than all of me, wouldn't it? Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: That's it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Strain has some questions for staff. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, now that we've heard the public, I've got a couple details on the PUD plan I'd like to ask you about. It's the one that was in our packet. You have an R-PUD master plan notes. Item number two. It says, open space shall-- I can't read it right. Open space shall be all land not covered with impervious surfaces. Is that consistent with the LDC? MR. BOSI: I believe it is, Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anything that's non-impervious is considered open space? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On the left side of the site plan it says deviation from LDC Section 26116. See section 212B of the R - PUD document. This deviation applies to the entire PUD. I went and looked at that deviation request, and it involves this fence and wall maximum height. I'm not sure what it means. I want to get a clarification on it. F or the purpose of this provision, finish grade, shall be considered no greater than 18 inches above the crown elevation of the nearest existing road, unless the fence or wall is constructed on thee Page 29 February 3, 2005 perimeter landscape berm along the property abutting Palm Springs Boulevard or Radio Lane. If that's focusing on those two locations, and the PUD map language says it applies to the entire PUD, is that an inconsistency between the two, and maybe one we should clear up? MR. BOSI: If you would-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Look at it between now and the time it goes to the Board. I don't expect you to have to know that right away today, but I wanted to point it out. Then the last couple of things I have are Transportation Department. I know everything is okay on the roads, but I kind of want to verify. MS. CARON: It's time we heard from transportation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. Thanks, Mike. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Hi, Don. MR. SCOTT: Good morning. Don Scott, Transportation Planning. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What about their request to move the entry? I know they want to move it as far towards Radio Lane, or Radio Road -- whatever it is -- to the south. Is there a reason they just can't enter onto Radio Road? I mean, they have their current entrance off of the residential street. Would it matter to you? MR. SCOTT: We always try to get it off the residential street, not off the -- which is not as much of a major street as it used to be. We were -- I'm okay moving it back 350 feet. I don't know what the existing distance is now. We're trying to keep it away from the confluence of the intersection. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What if they were to put their entrance road on Radio Road, and not have to deal at all with that residential street? Since Radio Road is a dead end cul-de-sac now, how would that be in violation of any rules you might have at this Page 30 February 3, 2005 point? It's not a connector road. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. It's a different condition than it was previously. Obviously, we're still trying to keep it off the lesser roadway. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, it seems like that dead end road is probably the lesser roadway in this case. MR. SCOTT: It's lesser than it used to be. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, let's go back to the question. Would your department have any problem putting it on Radio Road? I'm assuming the location, somewhere along the frontage, but if we were to stipulate something like that, is that going to be something that you're going to have a problem with? I know you like these challenges at a public meeting. I just happened to hear it this morning, so -- MR. SCOTT: Obviously, the way it was -- the road was more major before. We try to keep it off the residential roadway. Residential come off the residential, commercial come off the major roadway. Being a different condition, I can't necessarily say that it's not legal to do that at this point. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if it's legal, you'd allow it? MR. SCOTT: As long as we can get spacing. You know, as long as there is spacing between the other driveways, then, yeah, we'd allow it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And the second question I have is, this turning movement on Radio -- to get on from -- Radio Lane I think it's called now -- onto Radio Road and the mess that we have there, is that going to be resolved at any time in the future, or is it ·always going to stay like that? MR. SCOTT: Well, why it was closed at the -- when -- the previous time when it was connected up to Davis was, not only from a spacing standpoint of full median openings, but also safety considerations of cutting across, and also the turn lanes, how far they Page 31 February 3, 2005 come back. We have heard that complaint many times. It's going to get a little bit better when Madison Park -- or Twelve Lakes, as it was referred to before -- or Twelve Oaks I guess, is going to connect a public roadway between Davis and Radio. So, at least you'll be able to go down, take a left, cut down and get back down to Davis, which is not the quickest route, but at least there's a solution there. As for the cut through of Circle K, when Davis Boulevard is widened, that's not going to be a full median opening, so you're not going to be able to take a left out of the Circle K and cut across. You're not going to actually be able to take a left into it either at that location. That will change when Davis is widened. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's going to force more people MR. SCOTT: There will be more people going back to the other intersection, that's correct. Or taking a right in, right out of Circle K. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And for that intersection itself though, you're not planning any improvements to that intersection from Radio Lane to Radio Road? MR. SCOTT: Not at this moment, no. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, Don. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What generates more traffic, Cl or a residential eight units per acre? MR. SCOTT: Cl does. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So, I guess then this would in a way -- because he would have a right for C 1 regardless, right, and this might decrease the traffic? MR. SCOTT: Well, obviously we had this discussion even in the Golden Gate City one. If you can -- and it was mentioned -- if you can try to attract trips that wouldn't go somewhere else, that is an advantage. But you also -- depends what type of use ends up in there -- usually, you know, you're talking about with residential, Page 32 February 3, 2005 multifamily, or it's going to be less. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? Thank you, Don. Any summary comments by the petitioner? MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, just a few concluding remarks. As duly noted, the property is presently zoned C 1. This property has been commercially zoned for many, many years. It was down zoned to C 1 10 or 12 years ago as part of the zoning reevaluation program. Commercial zoning districts do not -- and as far as I know -- never have permitted single-family homes as a permitted use. So there could never have been any legitimate expectation that this property would be developed as single-family homes. As Mr. Scott noted, the trip generation rate for what is proposed is less than what we could expect with the current zoning, and I believe it is also a well established fact that multifamily generates less traffic than single-family. This property faces a 24-hour convenience store. The residents to the north are buffered by my client's property from that 24-hour operation. And the residents have said that this front area with its cut through traffic is a major problem. And this property faces it directly. I respectfully submit that no one in their right mind would want to build a single-family home that either faced or backed up to that kind of activity. I'm asking you to encourage people to continue to work together to resolve their differences by honoring and approving the agreement reached with the residents. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? MR. ADELSTEIN: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. Page 33 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: AR-6015, before the Board of County Commissioners for the recommendation of approval, subject to staffs recommendations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Murray. Discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I really like the idea of moving the access point down to Radio Lane. I think that the lake could be shifted down. There's a lot of things that can be done to the plan. It would actually move units further away from the Davis Road intersection, which it actually should help the development. I would support an amendment that would do that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion maker inclined to modify the motion with that in mind? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I would. I modify. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And the second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: May I -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Anderson, yes. MR. ANDERSON: -- address that? My client is concerned about traffic backing up on Radio Lane, which is quite busy -- as you've heard testimony -- by folks waiting to get into their project. And we would respectfully request that you not tie approval to access only off of Radio Lane. Palm Springs Boulevard is a public right of way. My client has as much right to use that road as anyone else and he'll be paying taxes for the upkeep of it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Your client has as much right to build to CI standards, too. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further comments, discussion on the motion? Page 34 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I have at least 10 stipulations I'd like to discuss with the panel. Number one, stipulate that they have to record a deed restriction prohibiting the rental apartment complex. Number two, that they have to construct the school bus stop with a bicycle rack. Number three, that their height be limited to two stories or 35 feet, which the residents have asked for, but the development standards say anyway, so I guess that's a moot point. Number four, the unit size would be not less than 2000 gross square feet. Number five, there will be a 24-hour-gated entry. Number six, they'll install a gate or a fence at the request of the residents to the north, along the north property line. Number seven, entry would be moved to Radio Lane pursuant to Collier County Transportation Department's rules. Number eight, request a -- that the -- shall request a temporary construction access permit from the county for their construction needs. Number nine, to reduce the density to six units per gross acre. Number ten, correct section 2.8 of the LDC versus the UDC language discrepancy. That's all. MR. ADELSTEIN: Did you say six or eight? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Six. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I just wanted to clarify your recommendations, Mr. Strain? You didn't say uncovered school bus stop, and that was part of the resident's letter. Is that what you intended? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, construct a school bus stop with a bicycle rack. CHAIRMAN BUDD: But it's an uncovered stop. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, you can add uncovered. Page 35 February 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: And then on the square foot size you mentioned gross, 2000 square feet, is that an average of 2000 square feet, some larger some smaller? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I heard it not less than 2000 gross square feet. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any unit not less than. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Adelstein, you're the motion maker. MR. ADELSTEIN: I will amend all of the items, except the six uni ts per acre. CHAIRMAN BUDD: What's your intention, Mr. Adelstein? MR. ADELSTEIN: Eight units per acre. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. The second, Mr. Murray, how do you feel on that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just have a question. I did hear an average of 2000 square feet. And I thought that was probably going to be appropriate. I don't want to stop this thing from going forward, but I thought it was based on an agreement reached, so I would like to think that we could revert to the average of 2000 square feet gross. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Adelstein, the recommendation suggested by Mr. Strain, I clarified as a minimum of 2000 feet. MR. ADELSTEIN: That's correct, minimum of2000. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Then it goes to the second. Mr. Murray, are you comfortable with a minimum of2000 feet? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I really think that they ought to go with the average as they stated, which was an agreement that was reached with the community as well. That was my understanding. If I'm in error in that, I'd like to be corrected. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think he said the minimum would be 2000. Page 36 February 3, 2005 MR. ANDERSON: No. This was carefully negotiated. Please do not shatter this agreement. MR. ADELSTEIN: I misunderstood. I apologize for that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then the second would be pleased to take those exceptions. MR. ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to Mr. Schiffer's amendment to the motion. I'm not quite sure I understand it, and I'm not quite sure that we ought to be doing road engineering in connection with this item. What is it, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's actually shown -- well, see where that arrow is? That could be the access to the site, coming off of that Radio Lane. It's noted here as Radio Road, but it's really Radio Lane. As opposed to bringing the traffic up into the residential development. MR. ABERNATHY: Well, I'm curious what the petitioner's position is on that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: He doesn't like it. He made his petition clear. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we would prefer not to because this is -- as part of the agreement with the neighbors, it's going to be a gated community, and we want to avoid traffic backups on Radio Lane, which you've already heard is somewhat of a problem with the 13 unit per acre proj ect next door. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm also uncomfortable with that specific part of it. The items added by Mr. Strain, agreed to by the motion and second, I'm fine with, but I think Mr. Abernathy makes a good point. The traffic engineering on the fly, can be very speculative. And we're not only talking about the specific petition in front of us, but if they're connected, then by default, we're taking all those apartment units and connecting them, and that's a massive change to pick up on the fly. And I'm frankly not comfortable with that. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll remove that section of the amendment. Page 37 February 3, 2005 MR. ABERNATHY: I happen to agree with Brad, but I'm just not sure this is the right way to do it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And I feel the same way. There's merit to it, but I hate to bring it as a mandatory requirement here on the fly. MS. CARON: They did say that they would work with transportation and try to do that. Again, whatever that's worth. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's an important distinction, is the approval contingent upon the Radio Road connection, or is it intended that the approval is that the petitioner will work with county transportation, and if possible -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If possible provide the Radio Road connection. CHAIRMAN BUDD: But if County Transportation won't allow it, for whatever appropriate transportation engineering reason, they will have their original access as requested. MR. NADEAU: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir. MR. NADEAU: If I may. Again, Dwight Nadeau for the record. I put on the visualizer, the survey of the property. I've also consulted with transportation planning director. He's informed me that the spacing distance between driveway openings would be 330 feet, that will not meet the spacing requirements to be between Palm Springs Boulevard and the entrance to Saddlebrook. There's only 595 feet of frontage on Radio Lane, thus it would meet their spacing requirements. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And are the spacing requirements based on what type of road systems? Since we have a rural road now, it's no longer a collector, it's no longer an arterial. It's a dead end cul-de-sac road. Are they still saying that spacing requirements are 330 feet on a road like that? Because if they are, they're all in violation throughout the county. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And rather than engineer it on the fly, I Page 38 February 3, 2005 think we'll be achieving our intent, if you are correct, that it won't be allowed, then that falls to the motion which says that, if county transportation won't allow it for one reason or another appropriate to proper road engineering, then you go back to your original requested access. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. We have a lot of clarifications. Is everybody clear on what we're approving? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. It's still in here about the road as asked, and that's got to be removed. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, my understanding is your original motion was approval, modified with Mr. Strain's 10 clarifications. Mr. Schiffer's one clarification that it's a Radio Road access, contingent upon County Transportation approval. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If available. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If available, if County Transportation doesn't approve it, it goes back to the requested access. Everyone in agreement that that's what we're voting on and it's understood? MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Strain's density stimulation was not agreed to. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's correct. It was in Mr. Strain's complete list of 10. Okay. We know what we're voting on. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? MS. CARON: Opposed. Page 39 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Opposed. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So there's two in opposition, seven in favor. Motion carries. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. We'll move on to our next agenda item. And before we do that, we will take a 10-minute break. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll call the Planning Commission back to order. The next two petitions will be heard together as they are related, but separate actions taken. And those are V A-2003-AR-4327, the Tabernacle Bethlehem Church requesting a variance to the VR zoning district. As well as petition CU-2003-AR-4326, the same Tabernacle Bethlehem Church requesting a conditional use approval. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give on the matter now in hearing, will 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? MR. VIGLIOTTI: I spoke to the petitioners about this. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Midney. Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are no others. We'll hear from the petitioner, please. MR. NINO: Good morning. My name is Ron Nino, for the record. I represent the Tabernacle Bethlehem Church. With me this morning is the pastor of the church, Mr. Brutus -- Pastor Brutus -- his daughter Jenna, who will speak for the group should that need arise. Let me say that we appreciate the support that the staff has given us in Page 40 ,_.__....~~- February 3, 2005 regard to this petition. Staff has recommended approval with respect to the granting of the multiple variances that we have identified in our application, and to the use of this property for a church. I would remind you that -- let me show you where it is in Immokalee. You may not know where it is. I would call it the -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ron. Is that mike working yet? MR. BELLOWS: Use the one on the podium. MR. NINO: It's immediately -- oh, there it is. The site is two streets to the north of 848 going into Immokalee. Not too far to the north, quite frankly, of the -- of the court facilities at that location, and we're over here. This is what I would call the old part of Immokalee. This is 929. This is all Immokalee's downtown, you might say, right, at that compost of 848 and Highway 29. These buildings are quite old. Can we get this one up here? The land in the entire vicinity of that site, with the exception of the lots that front directly on 848 and along 29, that entire area is zoned VR, village residential. I've given you all an aerial. Over here is an enlarged version. We need to zero it down a little. Okay. That's the existing building on the site. You'll note that on your map -- which is at a larger scale -- you'll note a lot of the housing in the area, to a large extent, is what I would call modular housing. It's very old. The building that Mr. -- Pastor Brutus has acquired was the farmer flophouse. I can recall visiting Immokalee on behalf of the County many years ago, and that building was a sorry sight, to say the least. The church has acquired -- I mean, the facts are as follows. The church acquired the site. They have a substantial -- to them, a tremendous investment in this property. We have somewhat of a cultural issue here, quite frankly, members of the Commission. The members of this church and the pastor, in particularly -- in Page 41 February 3, 2005 particular, never conceived that when they bought this building, that public regulation would prohibit them from establishing a house of God in Immokalee. We have been at this process, quite frankly, for a period of two years. This application has been in-house. We have been delayed for much of that time. Not all attributable to staff, I have to say, but a good deal of it was attributable to certain members of staff, who had jurisdictional review authority. And that had to do with the insistence by staff that they were not going to allow us to come before you, unless we did an environmental analysis of the property, did a wetland determination. I can tell you that I made, purposely made inquiries with the Water Management District. I was told by the Water Management District that is jurisdictionally an area of no concern to them. I believe that a member of the Water Management District staff got back to the environmental staff and said, we don't think it's a wetland. We don't have jurisdiction. And there's no need for them to make an application to us. The staff has basically supported the approval of the variance, the variance requests that we made. We don't have a problem with the conditions as they relate to the variance. We do object to some of the conditions as they relate to the conditional use approval. And in particular, we object to the requirement that we make an application to the Water Management District to determine if there is a wetland when, in fact, we know there isn't a wetland. I would remind you that the county's historical way of dealing with wetlands was that there would be an ST designation over the land. And the soils would be reflective of wetland conditions. Otherwise, the soils would be hydric. The county's zoning maps do not have an ST designation over this land. The soils are not hydric and, therefore, there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that there's a wetland. This is a historical burrow pit that over the years accumulated water, but quite frankly, Page 42 February 3, 2005 the land is privately owned by a Jesus Aiala. And, in my opinion, it can be filled at any time that the owner takes a notion to fill it and use it for the purposes for which it is zoned. If we're required to make an application for a general permit to the Water Management District, we're looking at an investment of somewhere in the neighborhood of $6,000 to get an answer that I'm convinced will say, jurisdictionally we're not involved, we'll give you the general permit. MR. ABERNATHY: Ron, why are you beating this to death? We don't have a role to play in that. MR. NINO: Well, you do if you grant the condition. If you approve it with that condition, then you're forcing the church to make that application. MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, it took you a long time to get to that. MR. NINO: I'm sorry. MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. NINO: The church does not have a great deal of money. The second -- and would have a problem with that. The other condition that gives us some problems is the proposal to limit the conditional use to six months. I can tell you that the church does not have the financial resources to go through the SIP or SDP process. They'd be looking at an investment with permit fees and engineering fees in the neighborhood of $15,000 to $20,000. The church is going to need some time to come up with that kind of money, therefore, we would respectfully ask that any conditional use be granted, at least for 12 months and not six months. With those issues, and with those conditions and concerns that I've raised, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for the petitioner? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ron, the reduction of parking, Page 43 February 3, 2005 it really wasn't discussed much in the application, but is that because most of the people would be walking to the church? MR. NINO: Yes. I believe the church members will tell you. They have 35 members at present. They all live within the immediate area. They don't own cars. They walk to church. The reduction of parking isn't new as a technique in Immokalee. I would remind you that the CBD district in Immokalee does not need to meet the same standards that Naples does. It can be 50 percent. So that, in fact, recognizes there are differences in Immokalee. Car ownership isn't as high and people walk to do things. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And there's also a church van? MR. NINO: I beg your pardon? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The church has a van also? MR. NINO: Yes, correct. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ron, the site plan you just put here is the one I looked at in my book. And when I looked at it, I tried to find a way that you could do some more of the gravel parking. It's an inexpensive element, and if you could do that and bring the number up a little bit, it would make everything more palatable, than if the plan was tight, and I didn't see it. Now, if you go back to that area that you just had on here, along the north of that building on the plan you had on there shows a lake. There's no lake there. MR. ABERNATHY: On the west? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, whatever. Towards the top of the page there was a lake shown on the plan that is your site plan, . but there's not one in this area. MR. NINO: Commissioner, are you referring to -- let me get the maps. Unfortunately, this plan is the boundary survey that was done Page 44 February 3, 2005 some two years ago. And since then the lake has mostly disappeared. However, the fact remains as the boundary survey, you know, the site plan is based on the boundary survey, which did show a lake boundary . COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But if there's not a lake there, which means -- it would help your argument about no wetlands, why wouldn't you just put some gravel parking spaces on the upside of that driveway you've got there like you have on the south side, or whatever direction that is? MR. NINO: Ifwe're allowed to do that, we'd be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And that would cure the parking problem, which really seems to be the biggest issue, and it's gravel, so the consequences are nil. MR. NINO: If we're allowed to do that at the SIP stage, we'd be happy to do that. I would remind you, however, that staff has said, they are looking for a 20- foot lake maintenance easement, a separation of 20 feet between a lake if its, in fact, is there, and any parking areas. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But the lake isn't there on the aerial, and the aerial is recent. MR. NINO: Correct, the aerial was December 2004. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Part of the confusion to me seems to stem from the fact that the pro speaks in terms of a lake on the north, and yet this site plan shows the lake on the west, unless this compass arrow is misplaced. MR. NINO: It is on the west. MR. ABERNATHY: Which is it, the west? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, the arrow doesn't show that either. MR. BELLOWS: This is north. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not on the parcel, perhaps Page 45 February 3, 2005 that's why. MR. NINO: It is on the west. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, then, you'd have no objection if there was any stipulation involving adding gravel parking on that other side if it's allowable? MR. NINO: Correct, we would not have any difficulty with that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of the petitioner? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Not at this time. Thank you, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Staff presentation, please. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, and I'm a principal planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. You do have separate staff reports for both the variance petition and the conditional use petition. Staff has provided conditions for your consideration, and has provided findings in support of our recommendation and those conditions. We recommend approval of both with conditions finding that the petition is consistent with a comp plan and it will be compatible with the neighborhood. And I won't belabor it any more than that. I will just answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for staff? Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a question and a problem. Staff analyzed this and said these variances were minimum variances. I can't conceive how you've come to that decision. When you start talking about the acre of land that's required, and now it's .69, that's 31 percent. The setback is 30 percent difference. The parking spaces are 40 percent difference. The 15- foot buffer change is 33 percent. N ow if those are minimum standards, or minimum variances, what are real variances? MS. DESELEM: The first variance is from the site area, one Page 46 February 3, 2005 acre down to .69, that's the size of their site. And that's the minimum they need to let this site work for that use. So that one, I think, is explainable. The others are based on the circulation necessary and buffering necessary. They try to accommodate roadways that are wide enough to allow some circulation, still provide some buffering, and provide parking. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why wasn't that said instead of calling it a minimum variance? I mean, we go through these, and many times it says minimum variances. You have to make the difference without our vote. All of a sudden this is considered a minimum variance, I've got a real problem here. MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. I'll try to articulate that more carefully in the future. But based on the site plan that was provided to us, trying to meet all the requirements necessary to allow development at the site, as far as landscaping, parking, access and circulation, we believed that those were the minimum variances. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And, again, I have no problem with this on this basis of what we're trying to do -- you're trying to do. I just can't conceive of you using these types of terms without those kind of percentages. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Kay, I think you need to join issue with Mr. Nino on his complaints about the added expense they would have to undergo to do the water dance with the South Florida Water Management District and those other things that he alluded to. You're asking us to make those conditions of our approval of the conditional use. Are they really necessary? MS. DESELEM: It is my understanding that environmental staff of the county reviewed this petition, and there was question in their mind as to whether or not it was a wetland area. And they were not Page 47 February 3, 2005 reasonably satisfied that it was not a wetland area. And they agree to allow the petition to go forward, only if these conditions were included, thus the issue could be addressed at the site development time, rather than at zoning time. And that was understanding that there was a disagreement as to whether or not there were wetlands that would allow the petition to actually go forward, and then they could resolve the issue later once they got the zoning in place. And I had hopes that environmental staff would be here to help address it. Last time I looked, they weren't, but other than that, that's about all I can offer. It was their interpretation, their finding, that there was an environmental issue, and in their mind they needed to have these permits and all this taken care of prior to site development plan. As far as the other -- the item eight, as far as recommendations about the six-month limitation, this is actually the first I'd heard there was an issue. Because initially we had a lesser amount than six months. And I talked to the agent, and I thought we were in agreement as far as six months. But, if 12 months allows them more time, that seems reasonable, given the fact that it is a unique situation in Immokalee and things are a little different there. And we just want to insure that something is done within some time frame. We were more interested in setting the time frame, not necessarily providing a hardship to the applicant as far as what that time frame was. MR. ABERNATHY: Well, I've heard Fred Thomas come in here and lecture us more than once about there really are two Collier Counties. One here in the coastal area, and the other out there in Immokalee. Does the code recognize that difference? MS. DESELEM: There are different overlays in Immokalee that would recognize some differences, yes. MR. ABERNATHY: All right. Well, insofar as the code applies to this particular property, is it under the inland overlay rules, or the coastal rules that it's being -- MS. DESELEM: On the particular issue, as far as staff Page 48 February 3, 2005 condition number eight, there is no requirement per the LDC one way or the other for all of Collier County, or any portion of Collier County. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How about number five, same? MS. DESELEM: As far as I know, that's all over Collier County. It's not different for Immokalee or any other area. If you have a suspected wetland, you need to meet certain requirements. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I guess Mr. Nino's argument probably best summarizes being based on economic terms, rather than the workings of the code. But I have a certain difficulty with -- we have people out in Immokalee who are forever telling us they don't want to be treated like second-class citizens, but then there's a footnote to that, unless their regulations are about to be applied to them. I don't think we can walk both sides of that street. Or, I'm not comfortable walking both sides of it. So, you're telling me that what you're requiring, or what staff is requiring, is what would be required anywhere in the county? MS. DESELEM: That is my understanding, yes, sir. MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: With regard to condition number five. I'm sorry that the county environmental staff is not here so that I can't argue with them, but I just don't agree that that's a wetland. It's much too small. It's filled with garbage. There have been dead bodies found in there. It's just -- it's not what you would consider -- what I would consider a real wetland with any environmental value. It's just a wet place and it's very small. I think it's too small to be a wetland. That's my own opinion, and since the staff is not here to argue the point, let me just leave it at that. On stipulation number six, why does he have to provide -- why does the applicant have to provide a detailed native vegetation inventory? There's nothing really there but some cattails. I don'ta Page 49 February 3,2005 know what they saw there that indicated that there was something there of great environmental value. Can you explain why they wanted number six? MS. DESELEM: I don't know whether there is anything there of great environmental value, per se. It's a matter that they need to provide the inventory because code requires it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So then, if code requires it, why is it a separate condition? MS. DESELEM: Because normally this would be done prior to zoning action, and as I mentioned before, this petition was being held from hearing until this issue could be resolved. County staff was asking that the petitioner's agent supply the information, and we got to an impasse as far as their opinion matched yours. It was not a wetland inventory issue. We're not at issue because it was a moot point. Staff did not agree. Therefore, this condition, or these conditions, were added on to allow the petition to go to hearings and postpone that information submittal until SDP or SIP time. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. And with regard to number seven, I'm puzzled. What are they talking about upgrade water service in fire protection facilities? Is county saying that Immokalee's water and sewer district does not have sufficient water pressure, or sewage capacity there for fire hydrant pressure? What are they saying? MS. DESELEM: I have to go back and exactly look at the comments, but this came from utilities saying that there might not be sufficient service at that site and they might need to upgrade it to serve that site. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, if they wouldn't have it there, you're talking about the whole south side of Immokalee wouldn't have it. I'm totally baffled by this comment. MR. ABERNATHY: They are obligated to building-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That information has to be Page 50 February 3, 2005 supplied to staff in a timely manner. They may not have gotten that information in their catchall to get past that point is simply number seven. If it is like you said it is, Paul, and they provided it at the SDP level, then the issue goes away, I would assume. MS. DESELEM: That's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I really don't understand that because -- I mean, if it's this particular site, they're saying that there's not adequate water service or fire hydrant pressure. I mean, that applies to the whole south side of Immokalee. And as far as I know, we have good pressure in that whole area. MS. DESELEM: It doesn't say there isn't. It's just saying-- putting the agent on notice that they may need to upgrade, depending upon what the information shows at the time of SIP or SDP submittal. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: An SDP that requires a fire flow tests to find out if you need -- what type of fire protection you need. And they won't do that fire field test until they get closer to their SDP time. But they're saying if the fire flow is inadequate, you can't build something that's unsafe, and you've got to bring an upgrade -- I would assume -- upgrade it to that. At least that's what I'm used to getting. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But there again, if it's an automatic thing, I don't see why it has to be a separate condition. MS. DESELEM: Utilities asked to be included in the stipulation, and to accommodate their wishes, we did so. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Kay, to follow up on that though, and Paul is heading in the right direction, of course, but, if they were to submit for an SDP and SIP and they didn't provide that, could they get the SDP or SIP? MS. DESELEM: I would say they probably could not because then they would not comply with the conditions of their zoning action. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I would agree with you Page 51 ---,.~"--~~"",-",~-~---- February 3, 2005 because I experience the same issue when I submit things, you've got to have your utilities in order. If that's the case, then number seven is a moot point. MS. DESELEM: Very well could be. Like I said, we included it at the request of utilities. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, Kay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just a general comment. I think it's a wonderful project. When I first started working in Immokalee as a nurse, I would go to this flophouse. It was a place of terrible degradation. It was people who were on their most down and out, drug addicts, alcoholics. It was a great place to catch tuberculosis. Full of garbage. A very dangerous area. And the fact that they're adapting this to a church, shows just how creative people can be to -- I would never have thought to make a church out of this building, but the fact that they're willing to do that, and I think improve the neighborhood, deserves our support. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just have one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it true that it would take $6,000 to get an answer from the Southwest Florida Management -- Water Management District on whether there's a wetland there? MS. DESELEM: I don't know. I don't know what they're charging. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If someone could do that for $6,000, they're a hero, because it costs a lot more than that for just about anything. COMMISSIONER CARON: And is it not something that staff could go out and look, now that we have this new map that essentially shows that there is nothing on this site? I mean, is that something staff could do? I don't know whether that's -- Page 52 February 3,2005 MS. DESELEM: Staff -- excuse me. I'm sorry. Staff doesn't normally do this. It's a requirement of the applicant, not staff. They need to provide us the permits or exemptions from the requirements, staff is not one to go out and do that for any petitioner. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Has an exemption been applied for? I know Ron said he spoke to South Florida, but can an exemption be obtained from them saying that they don't have anything to worry about? MS. DESELEM: I don't know that one has been submitted. You can probably ask Ron. He can answer that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that was going to be my question to Ron. They gave you a verbal notice, would they not write you a letter? MR. NINO: No. On a related case -- we have a similar case somewhere else. And their position is, you need to make an application for general permit. General permit might end up being, we don't have any stake in this. But the fee for a general permit, I believe, is $3,000. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, yeah, but then it's the cost for your firm engineering to put the data together, so, it's expensive. MR. NINO: Correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Ms. Caron? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The only other question I would have is, based on all of that possibility, would 12 months be enough time to make it happen? That would be -- it becomes problematic, I think, unless it's only at the SDP stage that this is warranted. MS. DESELEM: At this point it would be required as noted as part of the SDP, SIP approval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So would 12 months probably Page 53 February 3, 2005 be enough time to get through all of that? MS. DESELEM: They have to supply it to us when they submit for the SDP, so you're right, it might not be enough time. I'm not familiar with their timing. Ron can probably -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm a little worried about them going through that. MR. NINO: Ifwe don't have to deal with The Water Management District, Pastor Bruce says he thinks he can do it in 12 months, to get an SIP approval and building permit. If we need to deal with Water Management District, that's -- I can't tell you how long that will be. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bob, I don't know where you're heading, but I'm thinking, what difference does it make whether it's six, 12,24 or 36? You've got a conditional use, and it's good for conditional use, who cares if it's a short or long period of time? You're going to get it done, when you can get it done. MR. NINO: I can live with that. It's up for staff consideration. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The only place I was going, we don't want these people to spin wheels, and that's what I'm interested In. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions from staff? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What is the county's interest in putting a time limit on this, and why can't it be more than 12 months? MS. DESELEM: Again, as I stated earlier, we don't have a specific time frame. We just wanted it to be tied to a certain date, so it didn't languish. And we wanted to make it clear what they needed to do, that they actually needed to seek an SDP or SIP approval, to get the conditional use and the variances in place, so there wouldn't be any question as to what government action was required to translate the use now, which is a vacant structure into a church. And we were making it clear they would either need to seek the SIP approval or SDP approval, but the time constraints aren't necessarily that Page 54 February 3, 2005 important. It's whatever the applicant can work with. Like I said, we had negotiated with Ron as far as, I think we started at three months and he said this wasn't enough and he asked for six months and we readily agreed. Again, I still don't have a problem with it if you want to extend that longer. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If they get approval today on a conditional use, is there a time frame necessary? MS. DESELEM: The LDC already has a time frame of three years. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. That would be what it would be, three years? MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Ifwe get the conditional use, they have three years without any opposition or problem? MS. DESELEM: Right. The only thing I would I ask, that you still include the condition that states that they have to do an SIP or an SDP. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand. But now they have three years to do it if we approve it? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And would the three years -- this isn't that good a question -- but the word seek, that means they have to apply; is that right? MS. DESELEM: That's correct, otherwise -- yeah. It doesn't say you must have approval of, it just says seek. You need to apply. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you said, the LDC has a three-year requirement in it. Then why would this be any different then? MS. DESELEM: Again, we just wanted to make sure what uses -- or, I'm sorry -- what action would be required by the petitioner. It Page 55 February 3, 2005 was more important to say the SIP, SDP and maybe it was misleading to actually put a time frame on it in retrospect. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'd also like to point out that we're dealing with an existing structure here that could allow the use to occur without the site plan, and that's why I think the concern arose. We wanted to make sure the site plan would be applied for before the actual use of the church could occur. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other questions on the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Thank you. Any other registered speakers on this item? MR. BELLOWS: Just one registered. I believe he's part of the applicant, Ted Lithwynne. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Nino is that part of your owner's application team? MR. NINO: Yes, he is. MR. NAUMAN: I had given you a paper, registered. Ken Nauman. MR. NINO: He's not the owner, but he's with the diocese and oversees the church. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Does that gentleman wish to speak? MR. NAUMAN: Good morning. I'm Ken Nauman. I serve as conference minister of the Southeast Manini conference of churches based in Sarasota. I serve as an overseer for Pastor Brutus and I've been with him through these years since he has purchased this building. I'm just here to affirm you in taking care of the details so that this congregation in the Haitian community in Immokalee can meet in this building very soon. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. No other speakers, Ray; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Page 56 February 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any summary comments by the petitioner? MR. NINO: Only that we would appreciate it if you would delete these conditions that are in effect redundant because they're code requirements, and extend the time limit to that which is provided by the LDC for conditional uses, namely three years. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. With that we'll close the public hearing. Keep in mind, Planning Commission, we have two different agenda items. Let's first seek a motion on Petition V A-2003-AR-4327, do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's the variance. You want conditional uses? What is it, Margie? Does the conditional use have to go before the variance? MS. STUDENT: It would seem logical -- I was just noting that. It would seem logical that the conditional use would go first because the variance is tied to this particular plan of development. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good point. I was following the agenda order, but this is more appropriate. So let's look for a motion on CU-2003-AR-4326. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to move that we forward CU-2003-AR-4326 to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation of approval, subject to staff stipulations, but omitting five, and on eight, changing it from six months to three years. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Vigliotti. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Discussion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have discussion. Paul, you omitted five, but wouldn't we want to admit six and seven? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would, but they say that those are necessary. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I think what we got out of Page 57 February 3, 2005 seven was, utilities put it on, but it's included in the LDC anyway, so it's redundant and it isn't needed. And number six, there's not any vegetation that's worth saving in downtown Immokalee in that regard in this picture, so why even put the applicant through that kind of cost. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If it's possible to do that, I would like to omit five, six, seven and eight and change it to three years. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think eight, if we leave in, the petitioner must seek development approval through the SDP or SIP process, period. And the rest falls back to the LDC and it's done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On eight, why don't we just use the last sentence, says they can't use the building until they get a development order. Wouldn't that cover everything? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, a development approval could be a renovation of the inside of the building, like a building permit. Margie, how far -- what is the development -- isn't a development order any permit issued by local government? MS. STUDENT: The development order has a very broad connotation. I'm trying to flip back to the condition section here. Bear with me a second. MR. BELLOWS: I think if you just stated that the SDP or SIP be applied for and approved prior to the commencement of the conditional use. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Does Mr. Bellows' suggestion make sense? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't see a problem with that. I have one other issue to talk about. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, let's keep track of our motion. So, Mr. Midney, are you comfortable with that recommendation? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. So omission of five, six, and Page 58 February 3, 2005 seven. Number eight being modified language as Mr. Bellows just stated. Mr. Vigliotti, are you comfortable with that second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's one issue. We talked about the parking. The applicant had no problems, that basically the lake looks like it's not there. As long as that isn't there, that they're going to put in the additional parking spaces that they can along that other side of that roadway as a gravel parking area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one comment. Actually, they have stabilized grass, not gravel. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Whatever they've got. MS. DESELEM: If I can clarify. That's more the variance than the conditional use. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Same site plan was attached to both, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We'll pick that up in the next item. Any other discussion on the motion? MR. ABERNATHY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me. You made that motion, but the motion maker didn't accept it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: No. Mr. Strain made a suggestion and staff clarified, it was more appropriately in the variance, not the conditional use, so, we're ignoring it for now. We'll pick that up in a minute. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm a little concerned. I don't really object to where we're going with this, but I'm a little concerned that the petitioner may take elimination of these items as having relieved them of the responsibility for doing them. If staff wants appropriate documentation from the South Florida Water Management District, then the fact that we omitted it from this action that we're taking today, is not going to sway them one way or the Page 59 February 3, 2005 other. They're still going to require the South Florida Water Management District -- assuming that the County Commission -- even if the County Commission goes with it, they're going to say, well, we've got our regulations and our requirements. The fact that it isn't in the conditional use documentation, wouldn't relieve them of that. Would it, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: No, because it would be a state regulation, and they would have to follow that anyway. MR. ABERNATHY: So, as long as nobody is going to come back later and say, but, heck, the Planning Commission relieved us of those responsibilities. In other words, I think what we're doing here is much to do about nothing, because the requirements, if they exist in the law, are still going to apply. MR. SCHIFFER: Then why is it here to begin with? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why it's in there to begin with is because they have never come with an SDP or an SIP, which they normally would have provided these things. So, as Kay said, we didn't want this thing to get too far along without them recognizing they still have these responsibilities because we're taking the CU out of the normal order of things. That's why they're in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So wouldn't the SDP follow the approval anyway? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think the clarification needs to be made that the conditional use process, we're going to require that information to be submitted so they can make the recommendation during the conditional use process. However, the applicant has petitioned the county -- the community development administrator and worked with environmental staff and come to an agreement to stipulate those conditions that would have been required at the conditional use stage to be delayed at the time of the SDP stage. I think the environmental concern is, this particular area here is a wetland area that encroaches out into the subj ect lot. And as you look Page 60 February 3, 2005 on the survey, that shows it is a wetland or lake area. And that's the reason they wanted those environmental conditions placed in the conditional use document. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Mr. Abernathy brings up the point that whatever our action state law and other county ordinances still exist, and there's no further action, we can take in that regard. We have a motion by Mr. Midney, a second by Mr. Vigliotti. Further discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: If there is none, 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: Those opposed? MR. ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries eight to one. Remind the Planning Commission to fill out your findings of fact that are in this conditional use packet. Sign them and pass them to Mr. Adelstein. And we'll move onto the related item, which is the variance V A-2003-AR-4327. Do we have a motion, please? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I move that we also accept V A-2003-AR-4327, and I don't see anything to object to on the variance conditions that are listed. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Midney. Do we have a Page 61 February 3, 2005 second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion? Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd like to add that parking spaces will be added to the opposite side of the driveway, comparable to the parking spaces that are currently on the one side of the driveway, assuming that the condition of the lake that is shown on the site plan doesn't exist. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you clarify that? I don't see the driveway on the picture. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's not on this picture. It's on the site plan. MR. NINO: Along here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, where Mr. Nino just indicated, is that what you had in mind? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that clear, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do you wish to modify your motion with that suggestion made by Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, I'll accept that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And the second? Mr. Adelstein, are you comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein, you were the second on the motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: You're in agreement. Okay. We have that in agreement. Any further discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There is none. We'll call the question. Page 62 February 3,2005 All those in favor of the motion 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: All those opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries nine to zero. We'll move on to our next agenda item and that will be petition V A-2004-AR-6793, Leobardo and Maritza Gutierrez requesting a 65-foot after-the-fact front yard setback variance from the required 75 feet. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do we have everyone? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wait a minute. Are you on -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm on item B. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, item B has been continued. CHAIRMAN BUDD: My mistake. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've been looking for the paperwork. You had me worried there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm on a roll. MR. ABERNATHY: That will be the day. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Then I called it out and nobody said boo. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just did. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Good for you, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Clarify agenda item E. That is petition PUDZA-2004-AR-5998. Board of County Commissioners regarding the emergency service complex PUD. All those wishing to present Page 63 February 3, 2005 testimony on this item, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn In. Do you swear 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 very much. Disclosures by the Planning Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Vince Cautero from Coastal Engineering. I represent the Board of County Commissioners, specifically the Department of Facilities Management who's the official applicant for the petition. There are numerous individuals that are here today that will be able to answer your questions if they come up during the hearing, and rather than introduce them by name, I would just like to tell you that we have representatives from various consulting firms dealing with the disciplines of architecture, landscape architecture, civil engineering, and planning, as well as representatives from various county departments and constitutional officers. A representative from the sheriff s office is here to answer questions. It is intended that if the application is approved, that the sheriffs office will occupy a portion of the building. Also, representatives from the Bureau of Emergency Management, the Department of Emergency Medical Services, and the Department of Facilities Management are here as well. As I said, rather than introduce those people at the beginning, I would ask that if we have questions, those individuals come up and try to do their best to answer questions the Planning Commission may have. The petition before you is a request to rezone property from Page 64 February 3, 2005 planning area development to a community facilities planning area development. On a piece of property that is just under 40 acres, 39.59. The Board of County Commissioners previously approved this property for a residential planning unit development to be called Bembridge. And that development was proposed to have 239 residential units with either a nursing home or a church to serve as an accessory use or an ancillary use to that residential development. However, after the Board of County Commissioners approved this rezone, the property was purchased in increments by the District School Board of Collier County, and then Collier County Government. On the site, Calusa Park Elementary exists, which was constructed and opened several years ago. That particular site for the school was developed pursuant to an interlocal agreement with Collier County . When Collier County purchased the property and hired their consultant team, after the decision was made to develop the site, potentially develop this site into an emergency operations complex, the consulting team approached county government, and the development was to commence in two major phases. The first phase would be an emergency medical services building not to exceed the square footage of 6,000 square feet. And it was intended that that particular building would be approved through the conditional use process. During our discussions with staff, when staff learned that a subsequent petition would come forward for an emergency operation center of 120,000 square feet, it became apparent that a full scale amendment to the PUD was going to be needed. Thus, the conditional use application for the EMS building located to the south was withdrawn and it was handled through a site development plan process. That site development plan was approved in May of 2004 with the provision that the planning area development application Page 65 February 3, 2005 would be a total rewrite of the Bembridge residential PUD. And that the EMS building, the larger emergency operations center building and the school, would all be covered in one application. That is the application that is before you today that we're talking about. So I just wanted to present a little groundwork there and talk about that for the Planning Commission's benefit. You'll notice on the documentation that you have, and I notice on the visualizer -- the project location is up now -- that there are three major tracts to the development. Tract A is what we are calling the emergency operation facilities. And this is broken into two structures. The larger emergency operations center and the EMS building that we talked about a moment ago located to the south. Tract B is an existing lake and a future area for lake expansion. And we have a civil engineer here who can address questions regarding that. And tract C is Calusa Park Elementary School, which exists today. MR. ABERNATHY: Vince. MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let's go back to your background information. The School Board bought the property that the school is on first? MR. CAUTERO: My understanding is that they bought it first, and then the county bought the remaining acreage, but I don't believe the county bought it in one sale. I believe it was in multiple sales. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does the School Board still own -- MR. CAUTERO: Yes. And the School Board represents -- I apologize, Mr. Abernathy. A School Board representative has been working very closely with us and is here today to answer any questions you may have. MR. ABERNATHY: What is this we keep hearing about the unified ownership of a PUD? You don't -- you've got two different Page 66 February 3, 2005 owners. MS. STUDENT: It's unified control. MR. ABERNATHY: Unified control? So the county is going to be in control? MR. CAUTERO: My understanding is that they're not in control of the portion owned by the School Board, and that we addressed that during the PUD discussions with staff that there would be criteria in the PUD document that governed tract C as well as A and B. But as far as how the county is handling the unified control aspect, I would have to defer to legal counsel on that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Was the school in Bembridge to start with? MR. CAUTERO: They were not in the original PUD when the PUD was approved for the 239 residential units. They subsequently bought that property and developed it through an interlocal agreement that exist with Collier County Government for a creation of school sites. MR. ABERNATHY: Independent of the Bembridge PUD? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. MR. ABERNATHY: What is the rational for bringing the school into this County PUD? They're sitting back there by themselves, and they were there before the County ever got into it. MR. CAUTERO: That's a good question. I believe I can answer it. Earlier in the discussions that question came up. And if we had a PUD that actually had only the emergency operations center and the EMS building, you would have a PUD zoning for a residential development on a school site, and it would make no sense. Because the underlying PUD would be Bembridge, and it made no sense. So, in talking with Ms. Student and Mr. Bellows, and several members of the staff, it became apparent that the logical thing to do, from a planning standpoint, was to rezone the entire property for community facilities PUD. The uses fit that definition of community facilities. Page 67 February 3, 2005 The underlying PUD would have been for residential, and either a church or a nursing home, but with a school site on it. That doesn't make sense from a land use standpoint. MR. ABERNATHY: But the school wasn't on the site. MR. CAUTERO: Yes, it was. It was built. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: With the communications tower being in the center, you have to have that tower separated from parcel lines. If you were to separate out the school and they were separate parcel lines, you couldn't even put it there based on the tower setback requirements. MR. CAUTERO: We never even got to that discussion, Mr. Strain, because we talked about having it under one -- MR. ABERNATHY: Maybe the rezone. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I'm thinking. That makes it work. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Okay. MR. CAUTERO: In addition, as I mentioned a moment ago, the site development plan for the EMS facility was previously approved, but the standards and conditions and general criteria are being carried over into this planning area development. It is our understanding that the commercial development approved to the south, which is better known as the Shops of Santa Barbara, recently had their site development plan approved as well. If approved, this development will have to go through a site development plan for the Emergency Operations Center. The main building for the development site would be the operation center approximately 120,000 square feet, and the maximum building height of the principal structures we're proposing in the planning area development document to be 100 feet or five stories. Excuse me. Maximum five stories, but the communication tower would be a maximum of 200 feet. Some of the specialists on staff from the architectural firms can Page 68 February 3, 2005 answer more of those questions -- answer questions about that in more detail. I'd like to talk for a moment, if I may, about the deviations that we are requesting in the planning area development document. MR. ABERNATHY: Just before you go to that, why do you need 100 feet for a four or five-story building? MR. CAUTERO: That would be a good time for our architect to come up. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, maybe we'll put him off, if you can't answer it. Go ahead and do your thing then -- MR. CAUTERO: I won't be long and then we'll be able to answer questions. I'm sure you have questions.. First deviation is the section 4.1 that is located -- all of them are located in 4.13 of the planning area development document. And the first one is Deviation A. The deviation is for an eight-foot fence along the boundary line of the entire site. And the main reason for that request is due to security. Mr. Dan Summers from emergency management may be able to expand upon this issue in more detail. But, as it is explained to me, security is basically a progression. And the security for this facility will actually come in three steps, or three types of barriers. The first one will be a berm; the second will be gating or fencing, which is what we're talking about here; and the third is the design of the structure. And one of the things that the architects have addressed, and we hope adequately addressed, is the type of structure for the tower. A monopole facility. Deviation B -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, can I go back? Do you mind if we ask you questions? MR. CAUTERO: Sure, if you want to do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're prohibiting the use of barbed wire -- barbed wire? Page 69 February 3,2005 MR. CAUTERO: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does that mean you're going to put a chain link fence around this thing? MR. CAUTERO: I'll have to defer to our emergency management staff on that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: A chain link is a fence that is barbed wire. I'm wondering why, since it wants to be compatible. I'm not sure how anything like this could be compatible residential, but since there's an attempt to say it is, then maybe a solid structure like a concrete wall or block wall or something of that nature would be more appropriate. But those, as to zoning deviations, you seem to be a logical person to bring that up. MR. ABERNATHY: Is emergency services -- where is it located now? On this campus? MR. CAUTERO: Emergency Medical Services facility -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Not medical. MR. CAUTERO: Emergency Services Bureau is located in this building. MR. ABERNATHY: And no fence around this. MR. CAUTERO: If you'd like, we can address those issues one at a time and maybe that would be more appropriate. It's up to you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Probably would be a good idea. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Where is Dan? MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good morning. Dan Summers, Director for the Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management Director of record. And, yes, essentially, I am the anchor tenant at that location, and I understand you had several questions. So, if you want to restate those questions, I'll be glad to address those individually, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My question was concerning the use -- the fencing material. If this is approved, I would certainly like Page 70 _..".~.~----,-_.~.._--,"_._^-~,-_._..~-~.--~"-".__. February 3, 2005 for you to consider using a structural fence of a solid material, not chain link. And certainly, of course, you said no barbed wire, but a concrete block wall, something of that nature. Is that -- MR. SUMMERS: Sir, well, let me give you the best information I have at this point. And I do think it's important to bring the architectural folks up here for additional clarification. One of the issues that we're dealing with in all of these situations is we're now under these new umbrellas and new concerns with the Department of Homeland Security. I do suspect that the fencing material there would be in harmony with the community, but still allow us the fencing parameters that we need. And also the ability to scan the property for security purposes. So, my understanding is that we were looking at something more of an ornamental type. Maybe aluminum or ornamental type iron, but by no stretch of the imagination did we not want the fence to be appropriate. But barbed wire and chain link may only be appropriate where there are in fact retractable gates. And that's a cost benefit issue. And I know the other way of addressing that is actually having the fence vinyl coated with a green or a black or something like that. But, part of that, again, part of the fencing, the chain link may, in fact, be some of the moveable gates that we need for security purposes. Some of the perimeter fencing would be architecturally pleasing. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Do you propose to have a gatehouse there? MR. SUMMERS: There is a securities operation center there. We have the ability to -- if we have an increase in homeland security threat levels, if we can say, for example, we're currently in a yellow and we go to an orange or red, we have a facility there where we can, in fact, staff it, but right now we plan on using automation to deal with that, such as a key pad entry or a telephone intercom where we can retract the gate if someone is coming in that's not staff, that's not passed to do that. Passed, when I mean, badged or credentialed to Page 71 February 3, 2005 come forward. MR. ABERNATHY: Speaking in terms of a perimeter fence. Which perimeter are you talking about? Just tract A. Which is the one you're housed in, or does it include tract B, with the l'ake, or does it include tract C with the school? MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, good question. Let me ask our architectural staff to clarify. MR. ABERNATHY: I hope it's not the school. MR. ROSE: My name is Blayne Rose. I'm with Harvard Jolly Architects. The first question was about chain link fence, and you mentioned a masonry or solid wall. What we propose is ornamental tube aluminum rail, rail fence. Eight foot high is mentioned instead of four. Same with rolling gates would be the ornamental aluminum tube fencing. The only place that we would see any chain link would be possibly in the back separating the existing retention pond. Right now the school does have their retention area enclosed with chain link fence, and we'd like to just keep that as it is. Just make sure children aren't getting into that retention area. That would be the only place we would even propose a chain link fence at all. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Since this is a single PUD application, the perimeter property line, that I believe the deviation is referring to, is the property line perimeter around the PUD. So what you put between the school and you, I mean, that's not an issue I was concerned about as much as I was what's going to be facing the residential neighborhood. Which, by the way, don't show up on your master plan as existing. They show them vacant. But I know by the area, there is residential neighborhoods around. And tubular aluminum doesn't seem to be an aesthetically pleasing facade, and I'm wondering -- especially it's see through and it's noisy. It certainly doesn't help with noise. Why don't you put a solid -- I mean, it's probably cheaper than aluminum. MR. ROSE: We've also got a landscaped berm. Page 72 ""- February 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you use the hand mike and Mr. Bellows can point out with the mouse where you can identify it on the site. That will work great. MR. ROSE: This section here. It's shown blank right now. But it jogs out about 50 feet. That entire area, we're planning to landscape with a berm similar to the gated community, which comes up in one of the other deviations. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That one I understand. It's the other three sides that are adjacent to other communities that I'm concerned about. MR. ROSE: The north section at the road going to the school? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: See where that dotted line is north of that? MR. ROSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All the way back to wherever -- then wherever you're referring to in the PUD and back to the other side along the south. So, the entire property. MR. ROSE: Right, but we're not fencing back around the school. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. ROSE: We're just securing our EOC site. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you're not going to secure the school site, but you're going to secure between you and the school site? MR. ROSE: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So your intent is not the perimeter property line -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The Perimeter fence-- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think they need to spell out what tracts -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Hold on. On behalf of the court reporter, if we go one at a time. The question is, where is this perimeter Page 73 February 3, 2005 fencing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think I understand where it is now. The only thing I'd be requesting is that the north and south sides be a decorative architectural fence of a structural nature. What you do in the middle between the school, is something you can fight out with the School Board, unless they come up today. And I know Amy is here and has some objection to it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Is the question clarified? Other questions as we're moving forward? Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. If this thing is going to need that type of protection, and that type of risk with all this situation going on, are you sure you want to build it on the same site with the school? MR. SUMMERS: You have to understand, there are two fault processes here, Commissioner. And I think you bring up a valid point. The thing that is going on here with the elementary school is, this site is chosen for this because, although we don't consider this -- there is not high target value in terms of how you address this with national or regional security concerns. Mission critical to having this school next door to us is that this school becomes part of our expanded operations during hurricanes to provide shelter location for staffing. This building, with it's wind reinforced during the peak period, is not conducive, at least cost per square footage, to be able to shelter staff there for an extended period of time. So part of our entire design effort here is our partnership with the school. Now, having said those security concerns, one of the things that we have, as we're part of that. We have for accreditation and FEMA requirements, all those other things -- what they call reasonable and customary design practices, as you address facilities. One of the things that this block will be, will be probably one of the safest blocks in Collier County because of our presence with law Page 74 February 3, 2005 enforcement and emergency medical, emergency management. Our additional security perimeters there are also our partnership with the schools. So, our design here is that this is ideal. Because our number one concern here is the hurricane operations, and the fact that we need that as a partner to make this proj ect successful. And we have a good working relationship with them and we have discussed it with the principal. We have discussed it and presented with staff over the last couple of months at that level, and they are pleased to have us as a neighbor. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Summers. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right here. If that -- I understand you correctly, that Calusa School will now house the staff for sleeping and what have you? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How many staff are we contemplating in this entire structure? MR. SUMMERS: Well, our numbers really vary depending on the number of -- the intensity of the storm event. Obviously, your tenant load there on a day-to-day routine is very -- I'm not sure exactly what the numbers, but the agencies that are there, such as the sheriffs 911 center, the emergency management staff, the emergency medical services headquarters staff, not all of those folks contribute to the peak load of the census during the building when the emergency operation center is activated. So, part of the -- part of the thought process here is, that we have a reinforced, well designed continuity of government situation here with our emergency operations center and our 911 center. During the peak part of the storm period, depending on the storm's intensity, that building has enough space where folks sort of hunker down, or take a tornadic posture in it. But pre-event -- and, Page 75 February 3, 2005 again, I'm talking Category four or five hurricane event. Pre-event, they're doing their regular operation there, and they can shelter at Calusa Park. Just before landfall, or any of those type of circumstances where the wind loads escalate, they can take actually take a tornado type cover or posture within the building, but then once that threat passes, we go back and can use Calusa Park for sheltering and bunking and those types of things in order to maintain that 24 by seven posture that we need in a disaster event. So, having the school there as our partner, we think is a win, win scenario for us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the numbers, which you're not able to really tell me about, this also -- you would be bringing in volunteers to that area as well? MR. SUMMERS: There is some volunteer and some mutual aid that would only be there for a short period during the peak part of the storm. Or, I'm sorry, immediately following the storm. Ifwe need a brief out of county fire EMS personnel to come in -- and it's not their apparatus, it's their leadership that is there and is briefed and trained and deployed. So, this is not a volunteer conversion location, if you will. But this is where the brains, the planning, the management is done, and from there those conduits of information go out to the vanous groups. So it really and truly -- if you want to think battle center -- it's just the battle center for the leadership. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you would have a lot of equipment there as well, I assume as well? MR. SUMMERS: Not staged normally. I mean, obviously post-hurricane event while some apparatus is coming in and being checked in, that would come in and go back out. There might be some temporary staging that would be done there. But, again, that's one of these situations that is just absolutely emergency critical. It's not anything that is a routine matter of fact. Page 76 February 3, 2005 In fact, most of our heavy equipment staging in a disaster plan response is either done at the airport or at the Immokalee fairground. So you would not see 300 FP&L trucks there or anything like that. You'd see a couple of their cars that's involved in the planning, but it is not in terms of what you may have visualized from Charley or hurricane Charlotte -- I'm sorry. Hurricane Charley at Charlotte Airport. That's not the lay down area that would be used. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I might get an answer another way. How many parking spots have been allocated? MR. SUMMERS: Blaine? MR. ROSE: Three hundred and five. MR. SUMMERS: Three hundred five parking places are provided. Now, one of the things you have to understand about that parking is that, we have access in that parking for media. And if there were some satellite trucks that showed up as a result of land falling hurricane, that's not just one parking space. They take up about six. So we have made some provision there for short term to manage the media. Do the media management from that location. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Where I'm going with this is, I looked at it. It's about 115,000 for the building, and even at 500 square feet per person, that would be 230 people housed in that building. And that, of course, was my way of trying to capture what the information was. Three hundred five parking spaces you've indicated? MR. ROSE: Well, there's actually a number of people, I believe, during shift change for every department, which is when you have the most overlap of parking, I believe is right under 200. I'd have to go back and check. We provided additional parking just for when the actual category four or category five hurricane comes in. If they can come in and bring FEMA people, or whoever they need to, and have parking spaces. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can understand why you want Page 77 February 3, 2005 the berm in the wall then, because with that kind of hurricane wind, those vehicles are going to be subj ect to being thrown about, and it's an oddly configured structure for that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. MR. ABERNATHY: Mr. Summers, do you anticipate having berthing there for the County Commissioners? MR. SUMMERS: We could do that. We could make provIsIons. MR. ABERNATHY: I mean, you're talking about leadership and whatever. MR. SUMMERS: We could make -- we could -- we have some. We can make that provision if it becomes necessary for our operations, yes, sir. We have just a small amount of flexibility to do that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They probably would appreciate that rather than go over in the school in the rain. MR. SUMMERS: Well, and part of what we're able to do under our state of emergency ordinance, sir, too, is that they do sort of shift out that leadership and policy guidance to the emergency operation center. But we have some provision for that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is this gentleman the architect? Okay. Because someone had asked a question that I had on my list. How does five stories equal 100 feet? MR. ROSE: Basically, as you can tell in the rendering, the ground floor is probably 50 percent enclosed covered parking. It's set up for a mobile command vehicle, which is basically an RV. So we've got a 22-foot floor-to-floor on the first floor for clearance. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's no RV made that's 22 feet high. You couldn't get it through the bridges. MR. ROSE: Right. But the building is designed to withstand a category five hurricane, so we've got a minimum structural depth of Page 78 February 3, 2005 three feet. And in some cases it's deeper. Also, the technology -- well, the next floor, the ground floor is 22 feet. The next floors are all 18 foot, floor to floor. That has to do with the structural depth, also we've got a huge amount of technology and some raised access floors, which is taking footage out of the space. Most of the ceilings are only actually nine feet high, so -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What wind loads are you designing to? MR. ROSE: 175. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that tower designed to do the same? MR. ROSE: Yes. And the tower is -- originally we had a three-legged tripod tower, and we have revised it to just a single monopole. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Cautero, we interrupted your flow to handle specific items. Can you pick up where you were? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir. Before I do that, just to pick up on what Mr. Summers said. If you look at Section 3.3 in the community facilities plan of the planning area development document, the departments that he was talking about that will occupy space in the building are listed. There are administrative services offices slated for the building, as well as offices for the clerk -- clerk management information system -- in addition to the Emergency Services Department and bureaus that he mentioned. The second deviation is one in which the consultant team is asking for a 10 percent window area for facades that face the collector arterial road, in this case Santa Barbara. And the reasoning relates to some of the issues that you heard Mr. Rose talk about a few minutes ago in dealing with the nature of the building, and the fact that it will have to withstand category five hurricanes, or is constructed for that. The building is going to need to be fully operational in the event Page 79 February 3, 2005 of a hurricane, or other natural disaster, and large amounts of glass do not lend itself to that. And that is the reason for that kind of request. The railing features that you see on the bottom floor, if you will, that Mr. Rose recently talked about, have been a topic of discussion in terms of having that feature count as part of the 10 percent. I know Mr. Rose has been in contact with staff in Collier County -- the architectural review staff -- in order to allow that. He may be able to amplify that answer a little bit more. But the 30 percent provision presented difficulty for the architects in trying to meet the standards that were given to them in the criteria by emergency management. So, therefore, the requested 10 percent of the facade facing Santa Barbara is requested rather than 30. If you have any questions, we can attempt to answer those. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Wouldn't the windows be shuttered or protected anyway? I mean, the percentage of them -- I mean, is the illusion here that a 10 percent building would be safer than a 30 percent? But a 30 percent building should be safe. MR. CAUTERO: One of the other architects on the team is Marvin Sharfe, and he can answer that question. MR. SHARPE: One of the issues relating to the height is also relating to the percentage. Our Florida floor heights are very high because of structure. Because of all of the various cable raceways and technology we have going throughout this building. If this building were a five-story building of normal floor-to-floor height, what you see in those -- in that elevation, is probably going to be about 20 percent. But because we have the ceilings at standard height, and the floor-to-floor is higher than normal, that's why, you know, the percentage is dropping. These are going to be protected in the sense that they are not going to be shuttered, but they are going to be impact glass. We didn't want to create something where we would shutter down. We want to be able to see out. One of the issues of emergency Page 80 February 3, 2005 management is to be able to see what's going on outside. And so we do want to be able to see out at all times so we're not protecting this. We have no shutters going on these windows. The code -- building code, doesn't allow shutters above the second floor, unless they are automatic. So, that's why we have this kind of facade. The other issue is, in terms of the functioning of the elements within the building, we have, right behind some of these walls. Very heavy technological areas. We also have, obviously, restrooms that are on the perimeter of the building. So the issue is, you don't put glass where you don't need it. And, so, what we have are -- for instance, on the left side of that rendering, we have a 911 call center. They're working 24 hours, 24/7. So we have some glazing into their space so that they can be able to see whether it's day or night. But in many of the areas, we have high technology and high security type of operations. Computer rooms and mechanical equipment that we don't want windows. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern is, everybody in the private industry is dealing with the same issues. I mean, we obviously put mechanical rooms behind windowless areas. Have you tried to work it out where you can have the 30 percent, or meet the architectural standards is really the question? MR. SHARPE: It was really impossible to do. We have windows even on the back of the building. We do have areas of glazing, and the sides. But it was impossible in terms of the specific nature of the function of this facility to provide that much. And as I mentioned, the height of the building, you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another odd thing, too, is for a building of this function, why would you to go a tall building? I mean, the National Hurricane Center in Andrew got blown out of a tall building. Wouldn't you tend to build lower structures? MR. SHARPE: Ifwe had a lot more land, we probably could have done that. But we are limited in the amount of land that we have Page 81 ....--- February 3, 2005 to build on, the setbacks, the nature of the operation that it was impossible to consider a building that would be lower. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is the only location in the county it can be built? MR. SHARPE: I believe so. I was the architect of the Broward County Emergency Operation Center in Plantation, Florida, a few years ago, and that's a four-story building also. It doesn't have any windows in it. MR. SCHIFFER: That I know. MR. SHARPE: And it's considered one of the best emergency operation centers in the state. And it's a strong facility, and that's what is required for the type of operation we're housing here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, in fact, sir, that has been going through my mind. The truth is, if you were on a ship at sea and you're in a storm, you can seal off a compartment. And if you breach, you still have containment, then you can survive perhaps. If you blow out any of those windows, all that high technological equipment, is subj ect to all the winds stresses and the loads, and I wonder about that premise. So I'm just going to go to the opposite way and wonder -- I know it's nice to have windows when you're working, but are you saying that these windows are going to be so effective that they will not blowout in a category five? MR. SHARPE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wow. I'm impressed. MR. SHARPE: We kept them small. Obviously they have to be manageable. We don't have any, as you can say, major glazing in this building. We don't have curtain wall. What we have are small panes of glass that are controllable and will be able to withstand 175 and more. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if 10 percent would be workable, why wouldn't 30 percent be workable? MR. SHARPE: A lot more cost, for one. But the other issue is Page 82 e"_'~~"____·"·_ February 3, 2005 that, frankly, we think we have a very nice looking building here. We really do think that it's an enhancement to the community. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But we do have a code. Why should you vary it if you don't have to? MR. SHARPE: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we also have a situation, this is a County building. Why should a County building be able to do something that the private industry can't? MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, if I may. Dan Summers. A couple of things that really make this challenging for you and for us. You don't -- this community, or any other local government, doesn't build emergency operation centers with any frequency. These are very unique structures by design. The technology continues to change. The recommendation from FEMA and those type of things. Remember, that those of us in this Hurricane Operation Center are basically in this dungeon for about four to five days continuously. Along with our 911 center dispatchers who are there on shift typically, but may have to go 24-hour periods. The stress and the strain that's in these emergency operation centers, without the ability to see just a little bit of daylight, to be able to do some reasonable weather observations to check and balance what you're seeing on radar and those other things, if you haven't been through this -- been in one of our operations in that level of fatigue, please understand that just this little convenience of a window is very important. To address your comment about the National Hurricane Center, remember before the National Hurricane Center left, that was a general GSA commercial retail building and was not a reinforced structure before they moved. And now they have gone to a reinforced structure. So they kind of learned that lesson the hard way. Actually, it's a lot of those lessons learned is what is going into this building as well, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there a structure rectangular in Page 83 February 3, 2005 nature? MR. SUMMERS: The current National Hurricane Center? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The one you just alluded to? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where would the offices be? Where would the operations center be? MR. SUMMERS: There are multiple levels to this building. I'm not sure if we have an elevation for you for the breakouts. But the first level allows for -- the parking area there, does allow for the egress, as what was referred to, as the mobile command vehicle, which is an RV-type chassis vehicle, as well as other routine business that goes in and out of there. The central layer there on that level also provides for emergency medical services to have their central stores. Again, that central stores -- I don't want to get into too many details, but again that's part of our disaster planning for the community in terms of having readily accessible mass medical supplies. The next level, again, we go up with offices, sheriffs substation is located on the next floor. Then you can go up to basically a two-story -- I'm sorry, a two-level mezzanine level where the 911 center is on one side. The emergency operation center has similar designs so that the 911 center and EOC, which do work well together now are finally in close proximity of each other to help manage crises emergency information as well as emergency dispatch and coordination with the EOC. Followed by that, with offices at the top floor. So, it is broken down and programmed in such a way that is absolutely critical for -- and we know this because we know of our successes and weaknesses from the 2004 hurricane season, but to have us here in partnership, and to literally be across the hall from each other, really speaks loudly for the partnership, but it speaks well for our ability to work efficiently in emergency situations for this community. Page 84 February 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's nice, but what we asked was -- the question that was asked was, if you can use 10 percent, why can't you use 30 percent as far as glass? The quality is there, the ability to make it secure is there. That's what the county code calls for. You're part of the county. I would assume you would try to do at least as much as possible in that area. MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I think it's one of those things, we can go back and take a look, but when you're matching these reinforced precast concrete panels, the wind loads of the building -- we may even have to go in and significantly redesign wall panels just to accommodate small variances and glazing. So, I need to defer that to the architects and engineers that are here. But the change at this point, due to the wind loads and the engineering stresses on this building, just 10 percent or some deviation will have an impact for us on exterior construction and subsequently wind load. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Last question on this area I have is, you're talking about four stories, sometimes you're talking five stories. If this was four stories, we'd end up with a building approximately 76 feet high; is that correct? MR. SUMMERS: I can't answer that. But I know that we can't do four stories because of our antenna requirements. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Wait a minute. You started out telling us, it either could either be four or five. You already made up your mind it's going to be five. MR. SUMMERS: I'm sorry. We have floors that are split-level. So, Blayne, if you would. If you'd like to give a better description of how we're breaking the interior floor. So, they're not distinct stories because some of the stories -- some of the levels actually have higher ceilings than others, so I may not be giving you a good verbal illustration of the breakup within the inside of the building. But I think your concern is gross height, correct? Page 85 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Correct. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. Let's ask Blayne to address that. MR. ROSE: If you look at the rendering, the center area is an elevator and stair tower. The top of that is at 98 feet. And then behind that there's a mechanical penthouse on the roof. The roof shown, pretty much around the perimeter, which is above the fourth floor, is at 76 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what I had, 76 feet. MR. ROSE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And that is as high as it's going to get, except for the elevators. MR. ROSE: The elevators go up for the provision to allow for a possible future fifth floor. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. I understand. Thank you. MR. ROSE: And let me address that issue. Back to, again, to the 30 percent glass. As we've mentioned, floor to floor heights are 18, and in most cases, the ceiling height is at nine feet above the floor. So, we're already losing 50 percent of the entire facade to be able to put glass in because it's basically in the plenum space. Then if you take 30 percent of the 50 percent, you basically end up with -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: A glass building. MR. ROSE: -- you know, pretty much glass ribbon all the way around, except you'd have a three foot wainscot, or whatever. So, obviously, for the structural purposes, we don't want a glass ribbon all the way around. We want most of it to be concrete. That's -- from there we worked out, actual, the smaller windows with the actual function inside. Offices have windows and everything else doesn't. MR. ADELSTEIN: One last point, this building is going to be built at four stories. There may be an addition afterwards to add on, but right now it would be four stories plus the elevator shaft? MR. ROSE: Correct. Page 86 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question. Why do you need such a large interstitial space? You have like an eight-foot plenum space above it. That goes back to the old designs of hospitals. Why is that so great? MR. ROSE: Like I said, the structural depth is a minimum of three feet. I don't know how to describe all this technology. MR. SUMMERS: Let me try. We have at least a three-foot structural depth. Eighteen feet, it goes down to 15 feet. Then we have smoke evack, we have full sprinkler system. We have cable trays throughout the building that are carrying all the interconnectivity of all of our communications. And if we try to squeeze that into something smaller, five years from now when changes get made, any new cable needs to be pulled, we wouldn't be doing Collier County justice in having them in such a tight space that they can't maneuver anything additional. So, we've given them enough room to be able to live in this building for 20 or 30 years and not have a difficulty. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what would make this different than a private project? I mean, we do banking centers, and a law firm has tons of technology. Why would this be any different? MR. SHARPE: It's quite a bit different because we have, not only systems within the building, we have systems that must be maintained separate from others. For instance, we have a computer room here where a lot of interconnectivity is not allowed between it, and this is the computer room for the sheriff. Because of security issues, they have a completely separate maintained computer system and infrastructure because of the 911 Call Center and the sheriffs substation than the emergency operations people and the emergency medical people. So, there's a lot of that kind of layering that has to go on within the facility in order to give them enough room to work in, and because of the smoke evict and fire sprinklers and air conditioning systems, we needed a little bit more height. Page 87 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But those are things that every building has. I mean, ever high-rise building is going to have those elements. MR. SHARPE: To a point, but I don't believe a high-rise building, or any bank building that I ever designed, or any governmental building that I have been working on, has this kind of technology. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, sir. I know it's in the deviation that you're justifying the use of 10 percent glass because it's an industrial -- because industrial buildings in Collier County are allowed to have that kind of a similar standard. I want to compliment you on the architecture. I think that having to deal with a strong-proof building, you've done a good job. I have no problem with the height of the building. I've got no problem with your floor-to-floor. In fact, I got no problem with the expansion of the height of the building. Overall, I think we need this. I'm glad to see that the county is moving forward to do it. I've lived in this town over 26 years. I've watched Santa Barbara grow. It starts with residential, goes through some commercial at the intersections, and goes back to residential. I don't find an industrial use anywhere along Santa Barbara. I think this is a good project, but it's in the wrong place. My issue with that is, where else have you looked to place this kind of a building in Collier County? My first thought comes to mind is 175 and 951. There's a huge lot of land there. A lot of industrial land there. We have areas that this wouldn't even stand out at all. It's not residential. Has anybody looked at places like that, rather than in the middle of a primarily residential corridor? MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner. Thank you. That was just an excellent comment. Let me follow up with you a little bit. Couple other things that are limiting factors for us in other industrial areas. Page 88 ---"--- February 3, 2005 One of the things that we have difficulty with everyday in Collier County, particularly relates to our 911 Center in the connectivity on the Sprint network. And the fiber optic necessary that we need to tie in this campus as well as this Santa Barbara site. Another issue is just simply what we'll call Radio frequency. And I don't want to get into too many details, but let me just tell you, part of this location is also suited because of how we need to bounce radio signals to our other tower sites, our connectivity with the state, and part of that overall disaster operation. So, although I've only been here 16 months, and I know there was three years involved in siting this particular location and planning before I got here. One of our paramount issues is being able to tie into infrastructure. And that's what makes this site so critical is that we are able to tie into the necessary infrastructure that we need for that continuity of operations that every local government is required to do now under FEMA and department of homeland security. That gives me the redundancy, the resiliency without having to spend probably another $5 million or $10 million, $15 million more, just to be able to come up with some wire type connectivity. So, even to the extent that our utility connections meet this requirement because we have got, in some cases, some redundancy that actually flows to this site from a north, south perspective, and our other connectivity. As to the other history of the siting and the research locations that were done, that is before Dan and before 2004. Maybe Ron might have a little bit of background on that, but I will tell you that there's so many factors in EOCs and the resiliency and redundancy that goes into place. We've done our homework here and we really think this is the best site. And I don't have all the understanding that you have on the industrial scenario there, but I think it's also -- I just see us as being pretty real good neighbors here. And I think it will be a good anchor point for that area. Page 89 February 3, 2005 Ron, do you have any additional history, either one of you? Okay. They don't have anything to add on the site selection, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The location on Santa Barbara isn't near any access point to 175. Your nearest one will probably be Golden Gate parkway when it's completed, or possibly over on Davis, or at the end of Davis 951. I know that you need the infrastructure for the fiber optic and the rest of it, but I'm wondering if you're sacrificing road access, main road access like 175, which your emergency federal government, and everybody else would use to get down here, for fiber optic access. Which one is more easily moveable? Probably fiber optic to get it out to 175, instead of moving 175 to this, or quick access to this. There's where my problem still lies with this. MR. SUMMERS: Understand, and I think that our -- and you're right, it's all about location. But for us, this is the best location. Our Interstate issues, our proximity in the community, our proximity to the airports, all of those other things, for us and this emergency response discussion, we feel strongly that this is our best spot. Your point is very well taken, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? Mr. Cautero, you resume your presentation. MR. CAUTERO: The next deviation request, C, is to request an average seven-foot wide buffer, type B, as in boy, along the north boundary of the property instead of 10 feet required by the land development code. Reasoning there is, the spacing between the edge of the pavement and the property boundary. We're proposing to have a single row of shade trees and double staggered row of shrubs. The buffer would be an average on that boundary line of seven feet rather than 10. Any questions, we'd be happy to answer. Page 90 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, looking at your site plan, you have plenty of room to the south. You couldn't shift this whole thing three feet? And what is the boundary line anyway? I thought the boundary was the PUD boundary. What you're talking about, I assume, is the boundary between the access road and the school. MR. CAUTERO: The northern boundary of the site, not the eastern boundary where the school is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's the northern boundary of tract A? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, of the tract. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Couldn't that development slide three feet? MR. CAUTERO: That's a question, I would think, for our engineer, or members of the landscape architecture team. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To go through this for three feet, I don't know. I mean, Dan, if the EMS is the southern tip of this, there's a good probably 80 feet there. Somewhere I think you can slide the whole thing. MR. JOHNSON: Dan Johnson, TKW, consulting engineers, civil engineer. I think the 80 feet that you're looking at is at the south end of the building? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. JOHNSON: That one is already a permitted facility. That was permitted back earlier in the year. The access road is permitted there. We'd have to be revising that full permit in order to slide that down in order to accommodate the three feet, I guess, that we're requesting here for the deviation from ten foot to seven feet. Now, the access road was already permitted with that site, which kind of fixes where we can go with land out in the parking lot and how it all lays in there. That's where we end up with three-feet deviation as Page 91 February 3, 2005 being requested. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does the government charge itself for permitting? MR. JOHNSON: Yup. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I can't believe through this whole parking system, you couldn't grab three feet. Or, I can't see the benefit. I'm getting the impression this thing is totally designed already. Is that right? Well, we have a problem where we have PUDs because they're vague, but this one is, if you're down to finite issues like to three feet -- MR. JOHNSON: Well, when you're trying to squeeze everything into a particular site and wedge it in there, yeah, you've laid it out pretty much in detail. And part of the constraints that come in is that the EMS is already an existing permitted facility, and you're trying to use that as a constraint. You have the Water Management off on the east side over there, and you have the existing road to the north, and it's being maximized. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Cautero. MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, the next deviation is similar to the one we had talked about a moment ago. We're asking for a 10- foot-wide type E buffer along the eastern boundary, again, a single row hedge in this area. From the 10- foot -- excuse me -- to allow a three-foot-wide buffer, lake easement requirements have caused some difficulty in meeting the buffering requirements. So, to meet one requirement, we're not able to meet another requirement. And, again, and Dan Summers and the architectural team designing the building and the site, we requested the deviation for that. And, if I may, I just want to address Mr. Schiffer's comment, if I could go off on a little tangent. You bring up a very good point. It's something that's troubled me in the almost ten years I have been in Page 92 February 3, 2005 Collier County. And when we deal with the planning area development, we're actually doing site planning. And I don't believe that's the purpose of the planning area development process, or should be. I encourage you, as you look at LDC amendments of future years, that you find ways to avoid doing the type of site planning at the level of detail that we're doing today. And I just felt appropriate as a professional planner to state that on the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the reason you're doing that is, you're requesting a deviation -- MR. CAUTERO: Because we have to because the codes make it that way. You have to get to the level of detail on these planning area development documents, and you're actually creating a detailed site plan. And I find that a little bit troubling, and it's a double-edged sword. You bring up a very good point. I think that there's ways to tackle that without getting to the level of detail in the first place. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: See, if we had the detail, we wouldn't be having Targets and Wal-Mart's being built along intersections that are jammed up. MR. CAUTERO: That's a good point. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean, that's a detail we missed in the old days, and that's why we're asking for it today, Vince. I was here then, too. I was here before you. MR. CAUTERO: I think it's overkill. I just had to get that on the record. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything further in your -- in the petitioner's presentation? MR. CAUTERO: There are a few more deviations. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Bring them on. MR. CAUTERO: Deviation E, a 20-foot wide type B buffer requirement along the west boundary, we're asking for 10- foot wide at the southwest entrance. This is to make an allowance on the existing Page 93 .--- "~~,.",-..".",..._--_..~".,_._".- February 3, 2005 easement there. And we're getting into the area and the tract where the emergency medical services building is. There just isn't enough room. Again, it would be a single row of shade trees and a double stagger row hedge. Trees and shrubs will be provided, or a berm between parallel swales in that area. And the last one deals with the school tract. Customarily you'll see in Collier County some schools have two signs. One, an identification sign usually in concrete, and one a marquee sign. And the school does not have that. And we're asking if that same type of sign display can be allowed in this planning area development. Sometimes you'll see signs that are donated by sponsors. Naples Community Hospital, for example. Sometimes banks. And they'll call them a marquee sign and will actually have a board underneath where announcements can be made for different types of events coming up. We're asking that that be allowed for the school tract only, and the staff has recommended approval of that for that particular tract only. One final deviation, Mr. Chairman, deals with the architectural massing requirements. Buildings over 40,000 square feet, as you may be aware, in the county are required to have a 10-foot projection and recess depth. The code was amended in November. You may recall, plans were well under way for this building prior to November 10th of 2004 when that requirement was placed. And we're asking for the deviation to that particular standard. And one final item, there's an item in the back of the staff report that deals with commitments made at the neighborhood information meeting. And there was some confusion, and I would like to clarify that on the record. It deals with statements stating no outside training. The departments that will occupy the building, the emergency management department, if you will, and sheriffs office, may conduct some training exercises outside on the premises, but no outside agencies would be brought in. Mr. Summers can give a more detailed Page 94 February 3, 2005 explanation of those types of training facilities. We wanted to make sure it was clear, we weren't talking about any training, we were talking about no outside agencies, for example. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Vince, your letter that you wrote in response to that information meeting was the clarification says, no training will be conducted outside during normal business hours? MR. CAUTERO: It would be after hours. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Abnormal hours? MR. CAUTERO: After hours. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, when people are sleeping, you'll be conducting training? MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, let me clarify that for you. This was not a site where we'll be keeping fire trucks and pumping water. This is not a site where we'll be breaking open automobiles. This is not a site where we'll be doing anything that you would consider loud fire, but we do have classroom opportunities for our paramedics within the classroom, or any of our other emergency responders. F or them to be successful and to maintain their current standards, we might wish to go under the underground parking lot, and we might wish to do lifting, moving, stretcher practice, ropes. Those types of things that I would call quiet related. I'm not there to light up the sky after midnight. I'm not there to disturb anybody at oh, dark, 30 or Saturday morning. I just want you to know that I want the opportunity within that parking lot, within that area, and, again, having been -- this is something that is not that you would consider no loud fire, no apparatus, no groaning fire trucks. I just want to be able to do some skills, hands-on type things, that are quiet and well within the building. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you're saying there will be no training outside the building at any time? MR. SUMMERS: Well, let me just tell you that I would like for Page 95 February 3, 2005 our folks to maintain their proficiency. If on Saturday morning they want to use the side of the building to do some rope practice or some rope rescue, but that's not heavy equipment. Those are one-on-one personal skills. We don't make racket coming down the side practicing with ropes and skills on the side of the building. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I have let fire departments use buildings that I have been involved with to do just that. And it's quiet, except for the bullhorn they use to yell at the guys on how to go up and down the side of the building. And I don't know if that's the appropriate use in a neighborhood that's primarily residential. MR. ADELSTEIN: There's a statement I'd like to make before we get into this thing. It says in here that none of this will be done during business hours. Your business hours are 24 hours a day. So, therefore, you're not going to do it outside anyhow. I mean, that's what you've stated and that's what it says. MR. SUMMERS: I think that's what we're here to clarify today. And if you would like to place restrictions on that. Please understand, I didn't want to give you the impression of heavy equipment or heavy activity. I can assure you that a bullhorn would not be used if we wanted to do some rope work. Other than that, it would be within the confines of the building just to maintain our skills proficiency. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Will you be doing things like the fire departments do in the mornings, they test their sirens? MR. SUMMERS: No. There's no vehicle checkout within the Emergency Operations Center building. That's not the purpose. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or within this property? MR. SUMMERS: Emergency medical services. Jeff, if you want to comment on their vehicle checkout. But their operations get tested and run every day. So, we're very sensitive to those noise issues, and I don't see that being a factor. We'll make sure that those things are kept to an absolute minimum. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. Page 96 -_.._- ----,-"'"""-,',,,,,.,-...,,,.,'- February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You mentioned underground parking. Is there underground parking? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir, there is. There is some small parking. There is some number of parking spaces under there. One of the issues for us was some of our staff-type emergency vehicles, is that we have to get -- those units have some sophisticated equipment, and we do want that to be part -- we do want those vehicles in the shade to avoid any heat issues with the equipment. MR. ROSE: It's not underground parking? It's under building parking? MR. SUMMERS: I'm sorry. I misstated. I did say underground. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other confusion I have is, EMS doesn't provide fire service or anything resembling that, does it? MR. SUMMERS: No, not from these locations, that's correct. And generally not. They do cross-train with fire personnel. They do do some cross-training for leadership and other -- because they do work the scene together, but there are not fire operations coming out of this center, no, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And a quick one for Vince. To clean up the deviations. You show deviation E to be on the northern part of Santa Barbara. I think that's a mistake; isn't it? Can we remove that? I understand the deviation at the entrance, but -- MR. CAUTERO: E is on the western side. If I said north, I misspoke, and I apologize. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but it's the northwestern side of Santa Barbara. See where it says Type C landscape buffer E. Is that correct? I know you're asking for it at the entrance, which this seems to be a jog in the property line. MR. CAUTERO: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're not asking for any place else, right? MR. CAUTERO: That's my understanding. Page 97 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this drawing shows it in other places. MR. CAUTERO: We can correct that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question having to do with generating equipment, I assume multiple generators. Will they be housed under the building or will they be outside of the building? MR. ROSE: The generators are enclosed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're enclosed? MR. ROSE: Yes, it's all walled. I believe it's a 22-foot height wall with a roof. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it under the structure, sir? MR. ROSE: No, it's adjacent to the parking. In it's own sound enclosure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And vented to the air? MR. ROSE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's one question. Having to do with the heights, it's 200 feet for the antenna? MR. ROSE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I assume that in the construction of the antenna, they make it so if it falls, if it were to fall, it would fall in a given direction. Two hundred feet will clear, we'll have no problem with the buildings. Now my question is more so, what happens if it does fall? What's your secondary antenna system? Because you're relying heavily upon Sprint and all the other factors. That's a critical factor, I think; isn't it? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, it is. I have a number of very, very small -- I have several redundant systems. But the way those redundant systems are designed, I can tell you that I can do it by -- my primary activity would be to radio frequencies that would emit from the tower. Page 98 ~"~"- February 3, 2005 The second opportunity is some low profile antennas that are actually below the elevator -- below the elevator penthouse, if you will, that do some of that. And, actually, they're just a few feet above the roof in order to allow me -- and to be quite candid with you, that with something about the size of a kitchen bowl, I have one system left to talk directly with FEMA via satellite. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: So, that's what I have. But those are certain levels of fail-safe that I have to have in place. They exist here today. We've gone to great pains to change the format here to be symmetrical and also to be hidden wherever possible. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Vince, I have a question. I don't know if you addressed it before, but in neighborhood meeting, you had said that the EMS building is going to be 5,000 square feet. MR. CAUTERO: The planning -- excuse me. My understanding is that that is square footage pursuant to the site development plan that was approved in May of last year. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But you're asking for 6,000 here on the description of property? MR. CAUTERO: I believe it says not to exceed. That can be corrected to make them the same because the square footage of the building is what it is. The site development plan has already been approved. My understanding is, it does not exceed 5,000 square feet, and it was approved in May of last year. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Vince, I thought we'd get through the PUD questions. I only have a few. MR. CAUTERO: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Section one of the PUD, page six, item 1.4Dl says the property has received the following approvals. And it's an SDP approval for the EMS center. How did that get Page 99 .~--~-----_.. ._-- February 3, 2005 approved, if it wasn't allowed in the PUD? MR. CAUTERO: It was approved under the interpretation in which the old PUD, the Bembridge PUD, stated that ancillary uses could be allowed and it was determined that was. When we came in with the large building, then we were quickly informed that we'd have to come in for an amendment to the entire PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: An ancillary use wasn't interpreted as a compatible use with the residential PUD? MR. CAUTERO: That planning year development was very vague. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got it right here in front of me. It says permitted accessory uses in structures, and it goes into pretty much detail. Actually, more pages than what we're approving today. So, it may be vague, but I can't find EMS in there. I'm wondering how they got the SDP approved really. I guess it's a moot point, so I don't want to belabor it, but I thought it was interesting it was included in the PUD language currently. So, we'll just go on. On page 10 under general description, you have -- the PUD provides for a maximum of 117,000 to 126,000 square feet of building area for permitted and accessory emergency operations uses, as well as the existing Calusa Park. So you're saying Calusa Park Elementary School is included in that amount? MR. CAUTERO: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that means you got 126,000 basically, plus the Calusa Park -- Calusa School? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's going to come up in your traffic report in a minute. The next page, item 3.3A4 -- or, AB4. It says communication towers up to 200 feet above the ground. It's pluralized the word towers. Is that intentional? MR. CAUTERO: I don't believe it was intentional. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that will be non-towers. It also Page 100 ~- February 3, 2005 says you're going to have incinerators. I mean, that's -- a long time ago an incinerator come up as part of Collier County and it was fought pretty heavily by the public. Are you going to put incinerators in there? MR. CAUTERO: That I can't answer. I don't believe they are. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you're asking for it, so that means you don't need it, right? We can take out incinerators? Okay. Under the engineering and rates, more of a question -- usually engineering produces a whole bunch of redundant statements. Now they produced one massive redundant statement. It says, except as noted in this PUD document, all proj ect development shall be consistent with chapters four and ten of the LDC. What about the rest of the chapters? I mean, if we're going to go that far -- MR. BELLOWS: We can eliminate the redundant condition, and so confusion won't -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On 4.8 environmental. A, a minimum of 30 percent open space with the gross area of the site as described in LDC will be provided. Your site plan, if you look at the site plan you've got in front of us, and look at your calculations, it will say 29.9 percent. So you're going to change that? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So it will be 30 percent? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Traffic report, is that something I can ask you about? MR. CAUTERO: Sure. I may not answer you though. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Government office building and the land uses. A traffic report used 99,279 square feet. As we just discussed, it's going to be 125,000. How much of a discrepancy is that going to contribute to the road system? MR. CAUTERO: I can't answer. We'll have to get an answer. I Page 101 -~-Q'- February 3, 2005 don't have that right now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And the last thing -- I have an interlocal -- well, it says train of facts to you from Amy Taylor. Top of it says interlocal agreement. But Amy's concern is, that they want to be able to have amendments to the Calusa School in the back. Ray, is anything that's been presented in this PUD, going to prevent the Calusa School from coming in and seeking expansions in the future, that you know of? MR. BELLOWS: Based on my understanding of when I read over the PUD document, I don't see anything in here that would prohibit the School Board from coming in. There is a separate interlocal agreement with the School Board. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They wouldn't have to amend the PUD though, is what I'm getting at. I don't find a cap on the square footage for the school, so I'm assuming there is no amendment needed and they can go forward with any plans they need to go as far as the school? MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. That's why it was written the way it was written. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. That's the last of my question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Vince. On page 11 of the PUD. In the development standards, it seems like this wouldn't be a problem, but can you change the setbacks to be that, that would resemble C4, which is the only other zoning that would allow a building over 50 feet? Which would be any height over 50 feet would be set back one to two. I don't know why you have that because you're building is set much further back. But, just in case you guys go away and somebody else shows up. MR. CAUTERO: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then on page 13 3.7, Page 102 '^-"''''''-''"-'''-''''-~''''''~-'-- February 3, 2005 would that paragraph in any way exclude this from meeting the setback requirements, or the architectural standards? And maybe Ray can answer that. MR. CAUTERO: Three point seven. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could that be interpreted so it does not have to meet the architectural standards? MS. STUDENT: Maybe I can -- I think it's just a statement that's out of the land code that talks about the reasons for doing a PUD. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. That does not preclude it from meeting the requirements, except from where there is a list of deviations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more question for Vincent. Vince, another -- it's a deviation you didn't request, but in practice -- and it's actually been a deal breaker in some jobs. There's a requirement for 20- feet perimeter landscaping at the base of the building that this proj ect doesn't meet. Is that something that you want to deviate, or is that something you're -- it's a pretty tough requirement that came in about a year-and-a-half ago. MR. CAUTERO: You can talk to Blayne Rose about that because the site plan work is already under way. MR. ROSE: That's a 40-foot buffer around the entire building? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. This building is a tall building. You want 100 feet. In the county, we can't build 100- foot buildings anymore. We're all at 75. And it's a problem. At 100 feet it would be a 20- foot landscape buffer required around the perimeter of the building. That means all the parking. I guess you can have a drive. MR. ROSE: Right. We've got an entry drive straight through underneath. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Like the north. I mean, there's a lot of areas you'd have -- and it's a problem, a big problem we have Page 103 February 3, 2005 in the private practice, but is it addressed here or not? MR. ROSE: It's not, but we would need to request a deviation for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We all need it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One final thing for Mr. Cautero. It had been stated earlier, and I think it may have been Mr. Summers who stated it. That this project has been in the works for several years -- and so the county, with forethought, again -- this very process for this very building several years ago? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good thinking on their part. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Vince, your application date is May of '04. MR. CAUTERO: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you didn't really put it into public request until May of '04? MR. CAUTERO: Oh, that's correct. The site planning process and the work that would need to be done prior to PUD application started at that time, but the County didn't start letting contracts out for the architectural work in the planning and engineer work until about a year, year-and-a-half ago. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You wouldn't happen to know how many parcels were evaluated and then find -- because I remember reading in here very clearly, this is the only place in Collier County that it's going to work. And that fascinated me. MR. CAUTERO: I was not part of that process, so I cannot answer your question, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else in your presentation, Mr. Page 104 February 3, 2005 Cautero? MR. CAUTERO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that we'll go to staff presentation, please. MS. DESELEM: Hello. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I'm a principal planner with the zoning section. And you have before you the staff report which was prepared by staff. And in lieu of the fact that the applicant's agent has gone over in detail the deviations that have been sought -- I'll keep my presentation quite brief -- only to state that the summary of the staff report provides the requested action, the geographical location, the purpose and description of what's being requested, a synopsis of the surrounding land uses shows an aerial photograph and an excerpt from the PUD map to show you what's approved or pending nearby, and a growth management plan consistency analysis is provided on page three, followed by the zoning analysis, that includes an environmental transportation and utility review as well. And the zoning review does include the relationship discussion about the proposed uses and future uses and how this particular use would interact with that. And we have provided a deviation discussing -- a discussion that addresses staffs recommendation on all the deviations, and we have provided you with findings of facts both for the rezoning and the PUD in support of the petition and stafr s recommendation, which is for approval of the PUD with the stipulation for the deviations as shown in the staff report. Other than that, I'm available to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Kay, I know you're very detailed and I like that, so I generally don't have much concern with what you present because I know it's been well thought out, but I certainly am surprised that the way the compatibility and consistency on this project was put forth in the staff report, because, to me this isn't Page 105 February 3, 2005 compatible or consistent with the neighborhood. MS. DESELEM: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And that's just a simple fact that I see. I would rather staff had acknowledged that and then proceeded to try to fix that, or apply terms and conditions to that that would have worked for the neighborhood, if that was possible. But by saying it was compatible from the get go, I just don't see how an industrial complex with a 200- foot-high tower is compatible with what's primarily residential, a school and commercial. It's more of an industrial operation. And that -- when I read your rezone findings, and it constantly said that this is consistent and will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or nearby districts, well, I don't know any other one in the area like this one. Number four has an obvious typo error because it refers to a different project than this. Number five, it talks about essential services -- well, it talks about the amendment is not necessary, but it does seem appropriate. I just don't feel that's consistent with what we've always looked at, as far as compatibility goes. I know you do because you wrote it that way, but that's kind of -- I was just disappointed to see it written that way. I'd rather we took it straight up and said, you know, this is a difficult project. It doesn't mean standards of compatibility, but here's why we need it, so -- anyway, I just wanted to make that statement. MS. DESELEM: If I can respond to that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sure. MS. DESELEM: Bearing in mind from the point that we started with the petitioner, I believe they initially were talking about a 700-plus-foot-tall tower. And like they mentioned, it was going to be a different design. And this was during the time when another petition was before you that had a tower involved with the community facilities PUD. And that tower was designed as a monopole, flag-type pole. And I suggested to the petitioner that they might want to Page 106 February 3, 2005 incorporate that same thing into this thing, so that this particular project would be more similar to what seemed to be palatable at that time for that project. And they responded by doing that. So, we went from a 700- foot plus tower that would not have been a monopole, to a 200- foot tower that is a monopole. And the actual site of that pole, as it's shown, would be in tract A. If I may, I'm going to point to roughly where this flagpole would be. That's where the tower would be on the site. And I think the design of this particular project has tried to be considerate. Using this site they have oriented that behind their building. It's not along the road frontage. It's not going to be the most visible thing the neighbors will see. The nearest thing to it is a water retention pond and a school. And as far as compatibility with the school, you have to understand the school is part of this PUD. It's not an adjacent neighbor. It's part of the PUD. And that particular school, in some respects, can actually be looked upon as a buffer from the residential area that's behind it. There's a multifamily project that you can see in this area photograph that's adjacent to the school. To the south of the site that's noted as the subject property, is Shops at Santa Barbara right along Santa Barbara, which is a commercial enterprise. And the other side of that is what was approved as a Neapolitan Park PUD, but is now a part of a church facility. Looking across the street, bearing in mind, the street is going to be a six-lane major roadway which, in staffs mind, creates somewhat of an area of separation that should be considered as far as compatibility . Then you have a golf course community. There's a large row of tall trees along Santa Barbara on the Berkshire side, where Countryside is. Then you have golf course holes, so there's a considerable distance between the golf course holes, the lakes, the roadway, before you get to any actual multifamily residential uses. Page 107 February 3, 2005 So, I think this particular site, although there's no easy site, to put a place like this, I think this site is sensitive to that, and I think it is appropriate, given the separation distances. To the north there is a multifamily project proposed that is -- right now it's zoned for conventional zoning. Residential multifamily. It's part of PUD that's being proposed. So, they're aware -- I mean, this one is here first. It was already zoned PUD. This is just an amendment. It's not like raw land that nobody knew that was zoned for a PUD. It could have had assisted living facility, which would have been a large facility as well. But knowing that this particular site is surrounded by commercial and a large roadway, and the existing use of the school actually acts somewhat as a buffer from the other residential uses around it, staff believes that this particular site, as designed by the petitioner, is sensitive and will be compatible. Note in the deviation that we have recommended for approval, we've noted that the deviations are only appropriate if this site is developed as an emergency service complex. Otherwise, they have to comply with the requirements. So we're noting the particular design that they've provided to us to review, and we've determined that we believe that particular design on this site is appropriate and compatible, and, therefore, consistent with the comp plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I certainly appreciate your perspective, Kay. Thank you. The only question about the deviation, is they are actually deviations to less than standards. Which, this is a more intense use. So, if we were to go to a lesser use, we'd have to have more stringent standards, is what that kind of says. Otherwise, because the deviations don't apply. I'm not sure how that fits in, but I do appreciate your time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the staff presentation? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, one concern I have, and, Page 108 February 3, 2005 again, it is special privilege. There is no office buildings allowed in the county to be taller than 75 feet now, correct? We changed C4 down to 75? MS. DESELEM: Anybody can seek PUD rezoning to seek a higher density -- or a higher height, if that's appropriate for the particular situation. Just like these guys did. They came in t amend their PUD to seek this height. Anybody else can seek that same height, unless there's some kind of an overlay in some areas that would preclude that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you don't see this as granting a special privilege allowing them 100 feet? MS. DESELEM: I don't see it as special privilege. They're going through the public hearing process to seek what it is they want, and we evaluated it as such. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions from the staff presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none at this time. Thank you. Ray, how many public speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: About nine. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Allowing the five minutes for every individual, questions, discussion, we've got 45 minutes summary presentation, motion, discussions on the motion, some more testimony, some more discussions, we aren't going to be done with this for another hour or so and it's noon. What the inclination of the Planning Commission? Is this a point to take a break? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We'll take a one-hour lunch break. Be back here at 1 :00 sharp with public presentations. (Whereupon, a one-hour recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. We'll call Collier County Planning Commission Meeting back to order. Resume the Bembridge Page 109 ~.,..~.-~- 'T February 3,2005 Emergency Service Complex discussion. We've heard from the petitioner and the staff. Just getting ready to start with public comment. Ray, do you have the registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: The first registered speaker is Richard Kudelski and then followed by Amy Taylor. MR. KUDELSKI: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I came with some prepared notes, but sitting here for the last couple hours, I'm actually overwhelmed and stunned at the progress they've made on this project. For a little background. My name is Rich Kudelski. I'm the president of Countryside Golf and Country Club. In our community, there's 1,133 residences comprised of single-family homes, condos, verandas, slash coach homes. Approximately 2,500 residents, and about 40 percent of us live there year-round. In the area adjacent to this proposed project, there's probably another five buildings with 30 residences in each building, 150 residences, with approximately 300 hundred people in it. I went to the meeting back in August, the first time it came to light. At that point, I was kind of stunned. This gentleman over here said that he wanted to be a good neighbor. I don't think he's been over to our community whatsoever to see what our feelings are. This project coupled with the widening of Santa Barbara is having a huge impact on my community. Nobody seems to want to address the issues. New interchange on 75, that's going to put more people on Santa Barbara. Livingston Road is almost complete. It dead-ends at Radio. If you're going to -- eventually Santa Barbara is going to be a major north/south corridor bringing you to 41. A lot of people to get to 41 are going to come by our complex. A noise study was done several years ago to measure the impact on my community. We fell short in the noise study, but the County has allocated two walls. One at the northern end of our property, 564 feet, and one at the southern end of our property, about 650 feet. But Page 110 February 3, 2005 with this new project here, I mean, it's absolutely overwhelming. I just can't believe this has been in the planning stage for three years. And it seems to me that some of you are astounded at the planning that has gone into it. I would be very uncomfortable sitting in your seats right now, that they haven't answered the questions what were the alternative sites. The alternate sites. They've haven't answered that. The membership in my community, we recognize the need for an emergency service complex. We welcome that 6,000 square foot building that would dispatch ambulances. It's a reassuring feeling to realize that the response time will be cut dramatically for my community. We're not a retirement community, but we certainly do have a lot of elderly people. So we're very supportive of that. What's good for my community is that for property to stay zoned residential. This project is needed in Collier County, but not there. It has too much of an impact on our community. It seems to me that they've done an awful lot of work, spent an awful lot of money to make sure this building fits that property. It's caught some of you by surprise. Some of the variances they're asking for. If it's a done deal, and they're going to put it there, what are they going to do for Countryside? The lady from the county planners said that there's vegetation down Santa Barbara. We've had numerous meetings with the transportation department. All that vegetation is coming out during the widening. That chain link fence that's going down adjacent to our property, to define our property line, that's all coming out. That's all water retention area. That has to be all filled with fill. We're hoping that the county will bring the fill in to raise the elevation so we can put that fence back and plant vegetation. If they won't do it, then we're going to have to do something there. You know, the fence -- that road is going to come 30 feet closer to our property line. If you've ever been in our property, that's dangerously close to that fence. And the top of that chain link fence is even with Page III February 3, 2005 the crown of the road. We need relief. We have a situation now, buildings right across from that complex, people can't even sit on their lanais. Those people sitting on their lanais now are going to be looking at a 100- foot building. And if I understand the proposal, there's a possibility of expansion, adding another floor. N ow I understand that even the school could be expanded. A 200- foot tower that they're going to be looking at. You think they would have come to our community and try to garner some support, and explain to us what they're going to do. They never had done that. I am so disappointed that you fellows couldn't find the time to send one representative over and try to explain to my community and garner support for this project. I had numerous questions, and most of them have been answered, or partially answered, and a lot of questions were asked by you individuals, why this site? Why does the building have to be so tall? Well, now I understand, they're trying to make it fit the space. How many employees? They're very vague on that. But now we know they have 305 parking spaces. What else are we going to see there? I guess one tower, 200 feet high. But are there any other apparatuses? We talked about radar. Are we going to have satellite dishes? We talked about generators. That's what I used to do in my previous life. I installed these generators. Are these mufflers to be on top of this out building? The exhaust makes an enormous amount of noise. Are they going to be testing these generators on a weekly basis? I mean, we are going to be subject to more noise pollution, and nobody has seemed to take that into consideration at all. I just think that this is trying to be pushed down our throats, and it seems to be trying to run it around by this planning commission to get it to the county so they can move forward. I'm just very disappointed. Thank you. Page 112 February 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Amy Taylor followed by Don Peterson. MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. Amy Taylor, for the record. I'm with -- I'm a long-range planner with the Collier County Public Schools. We're in support of this application and have worked closely with the applicant and their representatives. The principal has also worked closely with the applicant, and we see this as an opportunity for -- that will benefit both parties. Generally, we have no real dog in this fight. We are just in general in support. The other issues related to this, in terms of where it would affect the school district, have already been taken care of in the PU document rewrite. And that would be that our development criteria are spelled out in, specifically in an interlocal agreement with the county. And is also incorporated into the land development code a separate review process, and if we do decide to have an addition on the school -- there are no plans to have an addition on this school. It's in our five-year work program, but yet, we did not want to go through a PUD amendment process in order to do that. There is an outlined process with the County already. The other aspect is in regard to signs. And I recognize there was no real issue with that. It has been the common practice of schools, when they are newly constructed, to put a monument sign. And at the point in which the principal can raise funds, or obtain a sponsor they put in an informational signs. We call them marquee signs. This is a common practice. We're trying to iron out the rules with the county now in terms of the sign code in order so we can continue this practice. But we want to formalize this in the PUD document for this school, in particular, because they had come forward with that request at the very same time that this PUD amendment was being reviewed. Thank you very much and I'm available for questions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Amy, did the sign variance that Page 113 February 3, 2005 you need, or did the sign criteria, is it in this PUD? MS. TAYLOR: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know you tried to get it in. It got in? MS. TAYLOR: It is one of the deviations. I think it's deviation E, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Amy, where do you anticipate that sign to go on your property? MS. T A YLO R: We own up to the road where -- it would be -- let me see if I can point that out. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right at Santa Barbara and the beginning of your road? MS. TAYLOR: Santa Barbara and the beginning of the road. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There are six so-called existing buildings. Are those portables, or what do we have there? MS. TAYLOR: No, that's part of the school facility. MR. ABERNATHY: That's part of what? MS. TAYLOR: Those are permanent buildings that you see. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Permanent buildings? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Your aerial shows four. The plan that Ken is looking at has six separate buildings out there, generally laid out like that. MS. TAYLOR: I have to look at the same one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The one that's on the visualize. Yeah. That has six -- there we go. Amy. MS. TAYLOR: Okay. Well, it probably would help if I can look at it a little closer because I don't have my glasses. Those are permanent facilities. There is a place for portables on every school site to accommodate any growth in the area prior to a school opening. Page 114 February 3, 2005 I'm not sure exactly where those portables are. The area down below is basketball and athletic courts and so on. But there should be a pad somewhere where there are portables as well. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Doug Peterson followed by Richard Y ovanovich. MR. PETERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Doug Peterson, fire chief for Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. I've got to share with you that the original intention of coming down was, a few months ago we were before you with a similar type of facility. It's like replay on the videotape. We encountered a lot of the very same issues. The windows in the building, buffer issues, towers, concerns of the neighbors, training hours, and as recently, we've just got rejected yesterday because we didn't have something for the signs, as you're discussing today. Part of what we were attempting to monitor was what we can do for emergency services in general, and were the same standards being applied to us as before. And I have to commend you, that a lot of the items that you shared with us have been duplicated here. The other side of that is that I'm also here to let you know that we support the facility. The facility is very much needed as a potential user, and having been in the one downstairs for the four hurricanes that had come through, a lot of the space that's needed, whether it's 75 feet or 100 feet, is desperately needed for the facility. But it is an essential service, and somehow we need to be able to get emergency service facilities in a category by themselves because we just cannot meet the commercial standards. The windows issue is a very good point. We tried to get no windows, or little windows. Same type of thing, aesthetically, it doesn't match the commercial facilities. So you've pretty much made all the questions and other things that originally came up before. But, I do want to share that the facility is needed. I realize the neighbors Page 115 .. ...,..---- .-...---.--......-..-.. February 3, 2005 are there. And the other example, I think where Government isn't able to move quite as fast as the developers around us, which we ran into the same type of thing. It has been on the planning stage out there for a while, too, at this particular area. So I know it wasn't just the last couple of years that it came up. So, we are here in support of the facility and hope you're able to move it along. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Chief, I would ask you this. And I appreciate you stating that you know that it's been in the planning stage. Did you have any sense, or did they have any sense of the dimensions at the time? Is this -- I realize that what we see is what we have now, but I mean, three years ago I don't know -- or four years ago, I'm not sure anybody knew that what the effect of two or three hurricanes coming in sequence was going to do. So, are you familiar with -- you say you are, three years ago -- MR. PETERSON: As far as I know, it's always been a multistory building. There was some question whether it was going to be a fifth floor. The only reason I know about that is because I asked about a fifth floor. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's been consistent? MR. PETERSON: As far as I know, the EMS station was in there. They knew that was going to go in there. One of the things I didn't mention that have also been out there from the planning side of that state level is the direction that all the Government agencies are supposed to work together. We're trying to do that with the school on another project in the Estates currently. But it's a Government-owned property. Whether it's the school that originally owned it, or the county owned it, it was one block of county property for some type of Governmental type of use there. But it's always been a multistory. We tried to get a fifth floor on it, and they only had funding to do four. And so that's been out there a while. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, chief. MR. PETERSON: You're welcome. Thank you. Page 116 February 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next speaker. MS. DESELEM: Next speaker is Rich Yovanovich to be followed by Dom Festal. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich representing New Hope Ministries. Up on the visualizer those are the two parcels owned by New Hope Ministries. New Hope Ministries has for many, many months been attempting to work with the county on the design of this site. We're not here opposing the concept of what they're doing, but we've been working with -- we're trying to work with the county to address access issues on Santa Barbara. Our proposed access was a shared access with the commercial property -- the shops of Santa Barbara to our east -- I'm sorry, our west. There's a little notch out on your PUD Master Plan. Well, that's the area that is a shared easement between the property that the county owns, the shops at Santa Barbara, and ultimately would connect up to our parcel. When the site development plan came in for the county's ambulance service, emergency services, we attempted to work with them on a proper site design to allow for interconnectivity for, you know, the shops at Santa Barbara, and for New Hope Ministries. We basically have been, you know, put off, and put off, and put off in an attempt to get a meeting. We have had a couple of meetings with transportation staff, and they agree that we need to address that access issue on Santa Barbara and provide for some interconnectivity for those projects to properly function. What has happened is, the county has gone on with their site development plan process, gone on with their zoning process, and have never really met with us, but for transportation staff. We've asked for meetings to explain to us why the site planning can't be done that would work into everybody's best interest. A few weeks ago we were to have a meeting with the planner on the project. The planner wasn't available and sent someone else, who, admittedly, didn't know Page 11 7 . "0_ ,.".___"'__. .T^ February 3, 2005 the details of the project. We were assured that we would have a meeting prior today's meeting to, at least, explain to us why there can't be changes in the site plan to address the transportation-related issues. That meeting didn't occur, thus, I'm here to have to address the issue before the Planning Commission. Weare -- the church itself has -- its future improvements, will be designed as a hurricane shelter. So we've worked with the County to provide services to the county residents, beyond just the people who attend our church. We're very concerned with community involvement. We're looking at interconnectivity from the church's perspective. We're only asking -- we really only need interconnectivity on Sundays. We're not talking about a big problem with a bunch of traffic. Sunday mornings for interconnectivity. I mean, we just have not gotten, I think, appropriate explanation from County staff as to how we've gotten so far down the road. I'm a little surprised that the site development plan went through under the existing residential zoning. I did the original residential zoning, so, I know it was residential. I know how the school got there because there was a period of time where schools didn't have to follow county zoning, so I understand how the school got there. But I wasn't aware that the county didn't have to follow the appropriate zone. Maybe the SDP has approved contingent upon that. But we interjected ourself during the site development plan process. We didn't wait until we got to this stage. We would hope that there can be some modifications made to address the transportation issues on Santa Barbara. And with that, that's our only comments regarding the proj ect. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Before you leave, Rich, can you put the site plan on instead of the aerial. That little notch in the bottom shows up on the Master Plan that I'm looking at as a roadway easement. Is that the easement you're referring to? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We always anticipated that that would Page 118 February 3,2005 be the shared access between the shops at Santa Barbara, our proj ect, and possibly -- that was going to be our access to get out onto Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, why isn't it? I don't understand. It shows up on the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, because now, from a spacing standpoint, we always thought there was going to be an opportunity for there to be a median opening that would allow people to go south. Now where the county has put -- well, the school came in and established their full median opening. The county is now coming in at a distance that's not under the normal spacing criteria to establish, it's not a full median opening, but all turning movements can be made, and now we're basically going to be relegated to a right in, right out, which doesn't serve the needs of people who are trying to go back to the east on 951. It's going to require U-turn movements. It's going -- if you really want to go east-- if you leave the church now, you're going to take a right and go west on Davis. The church buses can't make a U-turn at the Davis, Santa Barbara intersection. Normal people in their cars can do that, and they will do that. N ow the buses are now going to have to go north on Santa Barbara until they get to Radio Road, go -- whatever direction that is -- east on Radio Road back to Davis, and, you know, go around their elbow to get to their knee to get access out. When we anticipated that we could do something at the planned access point, that would accommodate everybody's needs. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the point you're making is one that I hadn't noticed, but why would this proj ect not use the side street coming out of the school for access to Santa Barbara just as everybody argued that the Triad Development that started our meeting today had to use that residential street for access to Radio Road, when Radio Road was a major collector. It's now not a major collector, but in this case, Santa Barbara. Page 119 February 3,2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. What street are you talking about? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you could pick up the other site plan. The one that's black and white. This one is useless. It was up there. There it is. If you go over to the -- see where they have the arrow coming out of there of the new emergency services complex onto Santa Barbara, why they don't come out to the north, tie into the existing road there, and go onto Santa Barbara that way, that way you have the right amount of distance and spacing so you can get a median opening to the south. Otherwise, EMS goes over there, and that way your opening to the south can be a full median cut. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or there could be modifications. We offered to work with county transportation and the county about accommodating some drainage for Santa Barbara on our property. So we were early in on the process, how can we work this out so the new lake may have been able to be re-configured to allow both of us to use that entrance. We didn't get very far in those discussions. It's okay. I mean, you know, we were just asking for an explanation as to why we couldn't work all that out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think we can dive into it further before the meeting is over. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MS. DESELEM: Next speaker is Dom Testa or Festa. Sorry if I mispronounced it -- and to be followed by Carl Hicks. MR. FESTA: Yes, Dom Festa, F-E-S-T-A. Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. I represent, as a director of Countryside, as a representative of Countryside condos, as a retired educator for 34 years, a fireman and EMS person up in West Chester County in N ew York, I come here with a request. And my request is, you have a present PUD there. It Page 120 " -- " February 3, 2005 was approved. You have a Master Plan, it was approved for residential development, a nursing home, possibly a church. These are all good purposes, and there must have been a reason and a rationale when this was done by the wisdom of you folks, or the county, and all of a sudden, we're preempting that with another good. Now, as an EMS person and as a fireman, I have great sensitivity for that, but is this the place for it? Is this the place for it? Now, as an educator, I go against the principal and so forth. I was an administrator up there. You never want this type of facility near a school. The perception is not good for parents. And it could be a target for terrorists. We've got to be honest about it. I mean, I'm not a terrorist, but that's a good target to look at. And I'm very sensitive to that. Now, as far as compatibility and consistency, it's not consistent being near a school. Compatible. The five-story building is not consistent and compatible in this area. How tall is this building? Anybody know on this commission? How tall is this building? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ninety-eight feet. MR. FESTA: Ninety-eight feet. How many buildings do we see that are five stories throughout this area? It's not consistent and compatible if you look at the criteria for this building, and what they're trying to serve. Is this in the center location? Is it in the best location to meet the needs of the purpose of this building? We can go out there right now, all of us, nine and one-ten of us go out right now and find a better site for this building, and not impact on the peace and quiet of decent people, tax payers, Countrysiders that are being impacted time and time again. This is not consistent and compatible with traffic. More traffic. It's not consistent and compatible with the noise that we're supposed to tolerate. And I'm only one person making a request to you against the Government here. The Commissioners are requesting it. It's kind of a tough fight for me. But I think common sense and rational. You're Page 121 . '.<-_..._-,.__..._...,."~ ..-.....-.. _ _'_"-<_ ._.,.,,~_.__o., February 3, 2005 the last group that we can talk to. I would not change the PUD, because this building could be built on a larger piece of land, and common sense tells me, why take a chance with 175 mile winds. They could blow this building over. We don't know that. We don't want to find out after. I would build a lower building someplace. Find more land. That makes more sense to me. It should makes sense to you folks. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker please. MS. DESELEM: Next speaker is Carl Hicks to be followed by Bob Elickson. MR. HICKS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Carl Hicks. I'm president of Building two at Country Haven and Countryside. Right across the street from the entrance of the Calusa Park School and the newly planned Emergency Management Operation Center. My committee and I represent 30 families facing this new project with a total of 150 families residing at Country Haven. We oppose any new zoning changes that will bring more traffic noise to our area. We are not opposed to the emergency management building, per se. We have been working on the same very noise problem for almost two years. There are over 450 cars, trucks and buses going into and out of the Calusa Park school area, twice a day. Now you have 305 new parking spaces, and around 230 people, much more traffic and much more noise. Most of the students are driven to school by a parent. We have met with the Environmental Science Associates, Collier County Engineers, and Commissioner Henning several times on this matter. Noise measurements for Santa Barbara widening project would take an off-season for the main traffic. The Calusa Park School was open at the time and the day of the noise study. But the Environmental Science Associates avoided the noisiest part of the day, when the traffic was going in and out of the school area. Their answer was, if you don't like our test results, have Page 122 February 3, 2005 your own test results done. I tried to be very brief and to the point. We have several letters and test measurements made in the past two years of further details that are needed. Commissioner Henning met with the master Board of Directors at Countryside recently to resolve this noise problem. No decisions have been made met. The Master Board of Directors has agreed with us that there is a serious noise problem in this area. The Citizens of Country Haven oppose any rezoning at this time until the existing and predicted noise situations have been resolved to our satisfaction. A sound barrier wall may be the only solution to the problem. And the other thing I would say, when I came here I was shocked to see that monstrosity. It's within 500 feet of my lanai, and I'll be looking at that every day. And I think, as the other fellows have said here, that doesn't belong in a residential area so close to a school. I want to thank you for this opportunity to share my opinion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MS. DESELEM: The last speaker is Bob Elickson. CHAIRMAN BUDD: He's going to pass on his presentation. There are no other speakers? Come on in. Yes, sir. Step forward. State your name. Were you sworn in? MR. QUIETO: I was sworn in. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's fine. Just state your name for the record. MR. QUIETO: Good afternoon. Chairperson and Chairlady. I'm new at this, but I can't do any worse than that convicted felon I guess this morning. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good point. MR. QUIETO: My name is Andrew Quieto. I live in Countryside. I am the president of Building Three, which has 30 Page 123 -"-,-~,-,>,_._,,,,~,.. - February 3, 2005 units. People came to me and asked me if I was coming to this meeting and I was going to come here to find out what's going on. By being here -- yes, it is a beautiful building. No, I don't think it should be there. Okay? What I heard this morning, okay, when someone was speaking about something else, they said, you don't move next to an airport and then complain about the noise. People in this whole area -- and I don't even mean just Countryside, the whole area we discussed, is residential, which means homes, condos -- to me this is not something that should be brought into a residential area. And then they say, well, we're going to complain that we already got it in there, we're going to get it approved. I don't believe it should be in that area. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. QUIETO: If there's any questions, ask me. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How about telling that young lady how to spell your name. MR. QUIETO: Q-U-I-E-T-O. Quiet with an 0 on the end of it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. MR. QUIETO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Okay. Any summary comments by the petitioner? Mr. Summers. MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, Dan Summers Emergency Services Bureau. Thank you for your services. I know that you've had a very full plate this morning, and I appreciate your efforts accordingly. Again, I want to express to you that we have -- we're sensitive to those concerns. We have worked vigilantly to be good neighbors. We have worked vigilantly to plan for having Collier County as a disaster resistant sustainable community. It is my job to make sure that I can do everything in my power to protect Collier County during times of emergency, especially Page 124 --"-"~"'.'-- _..........-._. .~...,.._- February 3, 2005 hurricanes, and to have the resources and the ability to respond so I can help put this community. And, again, it's a huge team effort, but this is the number one piece in our tool box for me to help Collier County in any type of hurricane event. And this is what I need to be operational. And I just share that sensitivity with you that we have brought the best team available. We've done the most amount of research that we know how to do. We've brought expertise from all over the country. We've used FEMA guidelines. We've used everything-- every tool that I have available to me after 22 years of emergency management. And I'm telling you, that we're bringing to you our very best. And I, again, I don't discount any of the other sensitivities. We've done our best with this, and we're committed to being good neighbors across the board. EOCs are entirely different animals from anything, most likely, any of you have done in terms of facility planning or your zoning uses and that kind of thing. I hope that that facility has a very nice routine to it. The time that the routine is different, is when the hurricane flags begin to fly, and all of our routines are different. And I'm sensitive to that. I do need to make one point very clear to you that I think was not clear this morning, in all honesty. I want to go back to this tower. We have, again, gone to great pains to reduce the height. We have actually gone to great pains for wind resistance. This tower, this communication capability is our lifeline. It has gone from a four-sided to a three-sided tower with multiple antennas to a monopole design, that if anything were to happen, heaven forbid, because it's designed to the same standard as the building, it would fold, not break. Not break loose. But there are some arms off of this monopole that will have four to eight antennas on them of variant height. But we have had to design that with spectrum Radio frequency spectrum in mind, and to Page 125 February 3, 2005 make it look uniform and to address it. So, it is -- it will look like a cellular monopole design, but it will have some stansions on the side. I can't tell you the length. We have not been able to engineer that at this point. It will be minimal. But I wanted to let you know right up front that there are some brackets on the side of this in order for us to have our communication capabilities. So I didn't want you to feel mislead that this was an enclosed unit. It is a solid unit, but there are a few stand off arms on there. The other thing is, we are sensitive to the noise issues. We also see the retail shops at Santa Barbara. We know we have guardian storage over on the other corner, and we have CVS coming across the street. Those kind of things. So we see both sides of this situation within between residential and the blooming, if you will, retail that may be coming there. So, again, I just want to share that sensitivity with you. All of those issues associated with the side streets and the schools, we have intended to minimize any impact on that school traffic inbound and outbound, but there is a gate there that can be used for security. There is also a gate there that if, for some reason, the school was closed and we needed another egress, then we have addressed that on the north side of the building. So just a few minor points, to be one 100 percent with you and up front on these items the best we can. That's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I know Mr. Strain has some questions regarding transportation, but just because you're unfortunate enough to be the person standing up there, I've got some comments for you. I recognize the county is not a developer and is not necessarily sophisticated and practiced in the art and science of developing property, but as a developer we would be -- I personally would be very un-sympathetic to a developer that would bring forth a project in the manner that this one has. F or example, not having apparently anyone here to address the Page 126 February 3, 2005 land search that went on for two or three years, so that our questions just simply go unanswered and that's the answer, there is no answer. And it is inconceivable to me that Collier County, the largest land mass county east of the Mississippi River, this is the one and only location in the entire county. It's inconceivable and I just don't believe it. And the answer is, we don't bring anybody to address it. That was -- that's just as offensive to me as when county staff, in a previous petition, didn't bring anybody to address the environmental issues relative to the church in Immokalee. So, we disagree on the environmental issues, so we bring a new environmental specialist. So the question floats out in mid air. Similarly, I think that the efforts to work with the neighbors have been, at best, clumsy. And in contrast to that, I would offer the efforts that were exhibited this morning with the Palm Springs LLC and the Triad PUD. They came to the meeting with a detailed description, ten items that they discussed with the neighbors, figured out what the issues were and made accommodations. And when residents of Countryside come in here -- and I know in the minutes that there was the absolute required public meeting, fine and dandy -- but a sophisticated developer knows that you've got to go beyond the absolute minimum public meetings, figure out what the issues are and address them, and I see no accommodation on that part. And I would -- as further evidence, I don't know how the petition will pass, but in a little bit we'll hear from Kyte Development and Target in north Naples, and I know in their presentation, they're going to have a letter of eight, ten, twelve points that they specifically address community issues. That's all absent, and that's irritating. It's irritating to me that there's no scale line of site studies. Very commonly when developers bring in a project, particularly something that's 100 feet tall, when there's nothing nearly that tall in the neighborhood, we'll see scaled line of site evaluations and you can Page 127 February 3,2005 look and see what it is, what it looks like, what it truly means so these residents 500 feet away are saying that this is an impact to us. Well, it's hard for me to ascertain the impact of a 200-foot tower in a rendering that ignores the tower. And I know from the plan that the tower is behind that building. And it's just omitted from the elevation as if it doesn't exist. And, in fact, we know it does exist. And there's no consideration or evaluation, and that's bothersome. And then we've got a number of setback and landscape issues that we're looking for variances on, all because of a constrained site directly related to the site development plan issued on the emergency medical EMS proj ect to the south. But guess who owns the EMS? That's the county. So because of the county's prior action, they boxed themselves into a corner. I know from having served too many years on the Planning Commission, that if another private developer came in and said, effectively, we've boxed ourselves into too small of a place, and we're trying to squeeze 10 pounds into a five pound area, we'd say, tough. Go back and undo what you boxed yourself in for. Unfortunately, this is one of those situations that, as Pogo said, I've met the enemy, and he is us. Your County Government, so if we delay the construction of -- I agree, this very needed facility -- in the event of a hurricane, we suffer. If we put excessive requirements on for redesign, and this is going well long into site evaluation and engineering, we suffer. And the more we even think about beating you collectively -- not you personally, Mr. Summers -- beating you up, we, in affect, are beating ourselves up. So we find ourself in just this really rotten position of the county tax dollars with County consultants and County staff from every conceivable department. Where, if this presentation was made by a private developer, their chances of passing through here would be slim to none. But with that, I know that Mr. Strain has some transportation questions for you. Page 128 ..-.-.. February 3, 2005 MR. SUMMERS: May I respond? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: One more question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: He wants to pile on. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. Good job. This idea of not getting in touch with the church, just to get an entrance, I mean, if you're trying to be a good neighbor, they tried to be there and they've tried to communicate, and, obviously, they haven't gotten anywhere. That type of attitude also tells me that if you feel you can do it, and don't need that type of help, you need all your neighbors. That's something I learned a long time ago. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And I didn't mean to prevent you from making an appropriate response, so, please do so. MR. SUMMERS: Let me address both of those with a couple of generalizations. And this is not a scenario where this is us versus them. Let me just share -- I'm new enough to share the observations, not the sides. But my observation is that, if contact was made to our facilities or emergency management department in any fashion directly related to the linkages with the church or the connectivities, I can personally assure you that we would have addressed that. They may have been addressed. I have no written knowledge or any formal requests. I know I gave my card to Mr. Y ovanovich, but I'm not aware of any direct correlation. That may be out of my league. That could be with another department, and that's fine. I'm only a tenant. But I say I'm only a tenant, but I'm also helping to make sure that we get this Emergency Services Center. The other thing is, I think that as we look, you know, for us and our balance in this thing is, what are we doing -- if this is a church-related issue and a time, or is this a better support to the shops at Santa Barbara. Either one of those scenarios puts us kind of in a no win scenario. Nor has anybody said that the right out at Davis Road, that that median couldn't be adjusted to do right out. I'm sorry. Left Page 129 February 3, 2005 in and left out as opposed to right out on Davis. And that's an FDOT question, I believe, not a county road question. So we didn't discount that as to close the door, we just thought that maybe there were some other options there. I think the other -- I'm sorry. I lost my thought to the other response. But I will tell you in closing that you have hit the nail on the head. We're without a doubt between a rock and a hard place. The investment that's been placed here, what is happening with changes in FEMA and State Emergency Management Office and Collier County's need to be more disaster resistant, and this, without a doubt, is our anchor point. So we just want you to know that, how mission critical we look at this as from our perspective as a component of Collier County and it's future success in disaster resistance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Strain, you had some questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are with you him? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It doesn't matter. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine is just on the height of the thing. Could you live with a building -- if you look at this thing, your four-story portion of it, why couldn't you have the whole building that whole height? In other words, maybe the footprint would go greater, maybe we grow to the south a little bit, maybe cover more parking, which is an asset. Remember the higher you go, the greater the wind pressures. So you put yourself in a stronger position, you would think something low that would cover a lot of parking so Commissioners and public can come and go during storms and stuff. MR. SUMMERS: There are pros and cons both ways. Without a doubt, you hit a concern there with wind load and wind engineering. The other issue is just the overall space constraints within Collier County for expansion and growth. And we wanted to make sure, you know, the goal here is well beyond my career -- 20, 30 year building Page 130 ,._-~.,---,-".,. -,- -"'-'-- February 3, 2005 something that's got at least that kind of life to it. And that was the only thing that, certainly after I'm retired and gone for a good while, that the options are there. And that's the reason that you have the penthouse design and you have that other potential. But, again, that has to be -- that's going to be very, very far down the road. I can't tell you a date that that mayor may not occur. It's just trying to put some wisdom into some planning for expansion and growth. As you see right now, with the number of tenants that are there in, the only thing really left, 10 years from now, might be the possibility -- might be the possibility of that other floor. And I think that's the best we can come up with in this scenario. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Thank you. MR. SUMMERS: I mean, anything is possible at this point, but that's been the mindset. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You continuously say that this is the best site and the only site, but yet you're also saying it's too small for your needs now and you're looking for growth. This can't give you any more growth, so how can this be the best site for you, instead of finding something larger and bigger that you can grow into? MR. SUMMERS: Well, the growth project is two comments. Number one is, it may be some re-shifting of the tenants that are there. That is one option that we always have, and probably the option we use the most in county Government, and the fifth floor, of which, again way down the road. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But this site still offers you no other growth, except into that building. MR. SUMMERS: The growth issue would be if we wanted to relocate the administrative offices of EMS, or for some reason, if the sheriff wanted to relocate his substation to another facility, that is our -- that's the buffer that we have for vacancy. Page 131 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Fine by me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got three questions. Hopefully, they'll be short. Don Peterson. I couldn't figure out why he was here. I don't recall when his last episode before us to get a smoke training tower on his fire station was denied, and he was suggested that he look at it, County-wide location, so all the departments can work together at one location. You wouldn't think of doing that in this site, would you? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. No, sir. That's not the process here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The wind loads on this building, someone said 175 miles an hour when I asked the question earlier. I'm looking at your tower, that's the mile per hour for the burst. The wind load, is that -- is the measurement -- when you build to something, you build to a sustained and continuous wind force, and then a burst of wind force. Which is the wind load? MR. SUMMERS: Come on up front. As you know, those computations have changed in the last few years between the elevation of which that burst is measured, and the duration, and I'll let Marv address that. MR. SHARPE: I'm just the architect, not the structural engineer. But 175 miles an hour is the sustained load, and it is a greater load for the gusts. I don't know what that is. I can't tell you that offhand. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What brought the question up is, when you mentioned the tower, a few minutes ago, it was the same as the building, and it's not. Because the tower is built for a continuous 150, with 170 mile an hour burst. That's what I was trying to get to. Maybe the tower is different than the building. I just wanted to find out what the building was. MR. SHARPE: 175 sustained. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sustained. With bursts at a higher level? Page 132 February 3, 2005 MR. SHARPE: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So then the tower is not consistent with the building? MR. SHARPE: I can't respond to that. I'm not really sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm just reading the documents provided with the tower description package that was given to us, so -- MR. SUMMERS: May I just -- a point of clarification. I think you bring up a good point. Part of the reason for the -- first of all, there is not a monopole tower made anywhere in the world that currently meets the standard that we have requested. I mean, above the standard that we have deviated. It's not available as a monopole where it's galvanized, et cetera. It's just physically not available primarily because of the section, the large sections involved in the galvanized material, number one. Secondly, although we don't put that in the computations, we gain some advantage with it being next to the building with wind deterrent and change and that type of thing. So, there is some issue there. But we've got -- we have all that the market can provide to us with wind load engineering, plus the fact that the antennas loading this particular tower are far less loading on this tower than what is quoted with -- what you're seeing is a loaded tower wind constraints. Weare well below the loading of that tower. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know if a tower is considered a public safety facility. If that mono tower is considered a public safety facility, then minimum wind load you can build it to is 160 mile per hour, according to our Growth Management Plan, section 12.1.9. MR. SUMMERS: Right. We look at facilities as things that are occupied. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And my last question is, if someone from transportation could address the intersections on Santa Page 133 February 3, 2005 Barbara that Richard Y ovanovich brought up. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. I assume you're talking about this spacing between the left out and where Santa Barbara shops would come out? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCOTT: The issue is not the distance between their left out and the Santa Barbara shops. It's back towards Davis Boulevard. At least through the 60 percent design plans for Santa Barbara, those left turn lanes go all the way up to about where that left turn is. Besides the spacing criteria, the left turn lanes are so long they come back that far. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if the Emergency Services Complex additional opening was further north, would that have any positive impact then on the full median opening for the -- MR. SCOTT: No. I'm talking about Davis, back down at Davis. The left turn lanes came all the way back up to that location. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'm still not -- the full median opening you want in the north, is there any way possible to get that, regardless of what the Emergency Service Center does? MR. SCOTT: At the location that we're talking about, no. Because of conditions south of that location, not necessarily north, though that's a problem, too. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The only reason, if Richard has a valid argument here, I'd sure like to get it flushed out so we know where it stands. MR. SCOTT: And I've had conversations with Rich. I have talked to FDOT. I have not been able to lay it all out for them about Davis Boulevard and trying to address maybe the possibility of, it wouldn't be just the church but interconnecting the facilities in that area. You know, I'm not sure. The spacing is not that great, but we are investigating that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Don. Page 134 February 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? With that, we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion to focus our discussion? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a comment that I'd like to make. First I'd like to thank you for your comments. There is probably nobody on this panel whom recognizes why we need the emergency office facility more than I. During the hurricanes I had my husband living here for a couple of days, and they were not pleasant conditions. However, that being said, it's my absolute feeling that the county should be held to the highest standards, not the lowest standards. And I think that's what we've been presented with here. We have a Mercedes of a building on a Volkswagen piece of property. And it's just not working. And we do not have answers, as you've said, to other alternatives in this County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sounds like a motion. COMMISSIONER CARON: I will make a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me add to your comment real quickly. We also don't have other options that are available on this site. We're shown one design, and there's multiple designs. COMMISSIONER CARON: Precisely. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Your motion, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: So I would make a motion that we deny PUDZA-2004-AR-59989. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Recommended for denial, right? MS. STUDENT: Yes, it's recommended for denial. And would you state a reason or reasons that are listed in the staff report? They are the criteria that we utilize to determine whether or not to approve a rezone. Page 135 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. First of all, you can say conformity with the PUD regulations since community facilities have a maximum height of 30 feet and towers of 40 feet. I believe that it is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. I mean, I can continue, but I think those two will certainly suffice. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So we have a motion by Ms. Caron, a second Mr. Adelstein. Discussion on the motion? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the other option would be is that we could let this pass, but put our own limitations on it, like we normally do with a PUD, too. So I'm not sure shutting the gate is the best answer. I would rather see, pending how this motion goes, that we actually go for approval with certain criteria. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, there's a motion. There's a motion on the floor. Take a vote on it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My comment would be, that I don't believe it's consistent with policy 5.4 of the Growth Management Plan, which is the strongest policy we have to go by, and that is compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. I also don't think it meets the intent of land development code, section 4.07.02 item D3, elements D, which it should not be in conflict, or with the intent of provisions of the GMP, and G is otherwise being appropriate, and F, its incompatible and inconsistent with surrounding neighborhoods and areas. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion recommending denial, signify by saYIng aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. Page 136 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Motion carries eight to one. We'll move onto the next agenda item. That is Brentwood Land Partners seeking a PUD known as Malibu Lakes. This is also otherwise known as the Target property. Petition PUDZ-A-2003-AR-5168. All those wishing to present testimony in this item, please stand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in the matter now in hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you. (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Disclosures by Planning Commissioners. This property is in the Oakes Estates area. There will probably be representation made by the Oakes Estates neighborhood association, of which I am a member. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I have met with the applicants, representatives, Mr. Wayne Arnold, and Mr. Y ovanovich. I've met with -- I don't know how many people with the specific group in the area, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron. Let's start at the end. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I also spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and the developer and I have also met with community leaders. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have spoken with Mr. Y ovanovich one time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Moving on down to Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've met with no one, but I've Page 137 February 3, 2005 read their information sent to me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. With that we can hear from the petitioner, please? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are Eric Strickland from Kyte Development, Wayne Arnold with Grady, Minor & Associates, and Reed Jarvey from Vanasse Daylor. I'm just going to -- I'm sure I put that on the visualizer wrong. I do it wrong every time. The property is located in the southwest quadrant of 175 and Immokalee Road. It currently consists -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Wait a minute. Southeast, isn't it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Southeast. Remember, I'm directionally challenged. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Y ovonvich, he's famous for his sense of direction. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's why my wife drives. Remember we talked about that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Not that west, the other west. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The other west, right. I always tell my daughter I have two left hands. It's at the southeast quadrant of 175 and Immokalee Road. It currently has -- is comprised of three separate PUDs, which we are combining into one planned unit development, which will be the Malibu Lakes PUD. The Malibu Lakes PUD has commercial as well as residential, as you can see from the aerial, the residential is completed. Weare only here today to amend the commercial standards within the Malibu Lakes PUD documents. We are combining the Crestwood, Malibu Lakes and Brentwood PUDs, which were commercial projects, for the simple purpose of being able to develop a unified commercial proj ect versus having to Page 138 February 3, 2005 develop three separate commercial proj ects on Brentwood, Malibu, and then on Crestwood. We believe we can do a much better job of planning the commercial development up in that area, if we do a unified development. Weare actually requesting a reduction in overall intensity for the project. We're asking for 330,000 square feet of retail development on the property. Currently, we would be permitted to construct up to 400 -- a little over 460,000 square feet of retail and other uses on that property, if we were to develop them separately. The primary user, as I think everybody knows at this time is Target. It would be a Super Target. We have spent a lot of time -- and I appreciate the Chairman's comments in the last petition about working with our neighbors. We had many, many meetings with not only -- with all of our neighbors. With the Oakes Boulevard people, with Tarpon Lakes, Tarpon Bay, and as far east as Old Cypress. They had some concerns. We've involved them in the ultimate design and uses on our project. We've involved them in architecture, and they wanted some input on how the building would look. We've involved them in that. They had concerns about potential uses on the property. We've assured them that those uses would not occur on the property. They had concerns about landscaping, and we've agreed to address their landscaping concerns. They had concerns about maintenance of Tarpon Bay Boulevard, and we addressed those concerns. And I believe you probably have received a letter from them and our responses to their concerns. So, the things we had control over, we took care of. The things that we don't have control over, we obviously have agreed to cooperate with them. The primary concern has been traffic on Immokalee Road. Mr. Jarvey will get into greater details to how we're addressing the traffic issues, but we have committed through our PUD, an area -- we've reserved an area to address the Immokalee Road issues, mainly Page 139 1·...4.. ..~""'''" February 3, 2005 providing an on-ramp going north on Immokalee Road on our property which would free up the two northbound lanes that you turn on now to go north on Immokalee Road. That will free up some travel lanes underneath the bridge, and we've committed to reserving space so that can happen on our property. And we've committed, at our own expense, if we put some parking facilities, we'll take those out -- and we're not asking the county to reimburse us for that, but we will make that space available for the county and FDOT, or whatever Governmental entity needs to be involved in that, we're committed to working through that to make sure that we help with the traffic situation. Your staff report is very detailed. I'll ask Reed to come up and talk about the transportation issues, because I think that's the primary concern. If you have any questions of me, Wayne, or Reed, or Mr. Strickland after Reed's done, we'll be happy to answer any questions. MR. JARVEY: My name is Reed Jarvey. For the record, I'm a professional engineer for Venasse Daylor, and I am suffering from a cold, as you can hear. So if I have to cough quite often, please excuse me. Just to reiterate what Rich said, we noted in this process probably about six months ago once we got through the actual traffic concerns from a level of service standpoint with the county, we noticed that there is a way that we could help the situation out. Immokalee Road is about to go under construction from 41 to 75 to go from four lanes to six lanes. I'm sure you know that. And it is . scheduled later this year, or next year to go under construction from 75 to Collier Boulevard from four lanes to six lanes. So soon we'll have six lanes from US 41 out well past Oil Well Road and Orange Tree in the next couple years. The biggest problem there is that, under the 175 Bridge, there's only seven lanes of traffic available right now. That's between the bridge piers. There's really no way to lengthen the 175 Bridge, so, basically we're constrained Page 140 February 3, 2005 with seven lanes. Currently that's four through lanes, two in each direction, two eastbound left turn lanes to get on northbound 175, and one westbound left turn lane. Noting that problem working with staff, and actually at staffs suggestion, we did look at and analyze the possibility of doing a quarter cloverleaf, as Rich noted. And I'll put this on maybe. You'll notice we did a preliminary or conceptual design for a potential cloverleaf at Immokalee Road and 175. We based it on a design that's currently under construction at the Golden Gate Parkway and 175 to see what the impacts would be to the proj ect. And this is what we came up with as a conceptual design. We've worked very closely with the county staff on this and have worked a little bit with FDOT on this. I know county staff has worked a little more with FDOT on this, and FDOT is actually moving quite quickly on this concept. I think we are basically helping solve the problem and we've done that. We reserving land that, if and when this interchange reconfiguration comes on board, that we will not be impacting it by putting any buildings in the area. We're keeping the buildings out of the area. Might be some parking, as Rich mentioned, but we are responsible for fixing the parking, if that's an issue from our standpoint. So, this situation will allow 75 -- excuse me -- Immokalee Road to actually reach it's six-lane capacity from US41, as I mentioned, all the way east past -- excuse me -- past the Orange Tree development. So I think this will greatly help solve the problem in north Collier County. Other things just to note, soon in the next -- I understand it's a little behind right now for some environmental issues, but Logan Boulevard will be expanded northward from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road. There has been lots of discussion about the traffic on Oakes when Logan Boulevard comes in on line, which is expected in the next year or so. There should be -- there is expected to Page 141 February 3, 2005 be a great shift of traffic from Logan Boulevard -- excuse me -- from Oakes Boulevard to Logan Boulevard for the through movements. Those people coming from Pine Ridge Road and southward would not then turn left on Vanderbilt Beach Road and go up Oaks, then continue north on Logan. So, Oakes Boulevard should be better off in the next year or so. Along that recent counts with the opening of Livingston Road to the west of 75, very recent counts as of about two weeks ago, show about a 25 percent or so decrease in traffic on Oakes Boulevard with -- just with the opening of Livingston Road. Very preliminary -- I mean, one count, one time, so it's not conclusive yet, but at least it appears that it's going in the right direction from the Oakes Boulevard standpoint. I think that's the end of my presentation. If you have specific questions, I'll attempt to address them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions? Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Reed, maybe I don't understand your methodology of your diagram. Northbound 175 exiting with a view towards going west on Immokalee Road. MR. JARVEY: No. Well, that would be roughly the same. What we've done is the eastbound Immokalee Road going northbound on 175. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Wait a minute. I'm not talking about the cloverleaf, I'm talking about the road right next to it, which a person exiting 175 northbound who comes up to Immokalee Road and wants to go west towards 41, is that an overpass there or just a -- MR. JARVEY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- traffic light? MR. JARVEY: It's very similar to what's there now. In the last year or so they went from a single lane coming off 175 northbound and they've gone to four lanes. And we've just replicated that. It moves it a little bit east more because of the loop. Page 142 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That little black mark across there is a stoplight? MR. JARVEY: It's a stop bar. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Stop bar. MR. JARVEY: To signify a signal. So, the movement you're talking about is essentially the same as what it is now. The big thing is, we take the two lanes off of -- the two left turn lanes are able to be taken out of the situation. We can convert those through lanes to get six lanes, plus we relieve -- or we remove one movement of the signal. One green that has to be there, so it's one less movement. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's a significant improvement, I think. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Logan Boulevard, from Vanderbilt to Immokalee, will be completed next year? MR. JARVEY: My understanding, and last I heard, it was supposed to go under construction this year. I'm not positive what the latest schedule is. I'm sure Don can address it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You said it would be completed next year. I just wanted some clarification. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. It's supposed to be completed, or at least start construction by the end of this year. Weare having some permitting problems, and some right of way acquisition. We'll have one parcel in there, but we're having right of way acquisition problems that is delaying the project, so it won't be until next year. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It will be completed next year then? MR. SCOTT: It's a yearlong project. It was support to started by December of this year, so-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, it can't be completed next year. Page 143 February 3, 2005 MR. SCOTT: No. It probably will be started into the year, yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, don't walk away. Now that you're up here. MR. SCOTT: I wanted the applicant to finish the presentation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's traffic and I figured I'd get just as much of an answer from you, as I could from Reed. What radius would we needed for this cloverleaf? MR. SCOTT: We actually had a meeting with FDOT the other day. And I want to -- so I can -- so you understand how we got to where we are at right now. This came up about three months ago. We said, it would be great if we could get rid of the two left turn lanes. And the thought behind it was to get the six lanes underneath the bridges. Obviously, there's benefits from removing a signal, too. So, we just kind of drew it out and did some work with them. And I said, okay, we're going to reserve the property. Well, in conversations with FDOT, they went crazy and they found essentially two-and-a-halfmillion dollars to pay for the project, and we could start by the end of the year to start this project. So we just had a meeting the other day with them. We're talking about, I think, it was 205 feet. MR. JARVEY: 225 feet. MR. SCOTT: 225 feet radius. It's not perfect by their standpoint. One of the things they're looking at is that, we can't get on the bridge. You know Alico and 175 where you come on before the bridge, what we'll have to do is do a flier off Immokalee and come up further on, essentially to get more acceleration distance, and that's what we're working with them right now is to look at, what essentially FHW A and FDOT approve. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So your maximum radii that you need, in order to get this through to DOT, is not, under any Page 144 February 3, 2005 circumstances, won't be greater than 225? MR. SCOTT: From our conversations with them. Now one of the things that -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the developer is limited to do 275. That's a deal breaker if you're telling me -- I mean, that's an issue that -- MR. SCOTT: There are a couple of issues in there, storm water. They're doing some calculations to see if we can take the storm water and put it essentially what's in the middle of the loop in there. Weare going to get this in one way or the other. Because, obviously, we can't cut more of the parking out. That's a deal breaker. That's right, if we cut more of the parking out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you feel that the 225 limitation will not cause a concern, at least with the cloverleaf issue? MR. SCOTT: And there's a couple of things I think we can do to try to make some of this better. One of the things is, they're showing that loop that goes over Immokalee as a separate bridge, which requires some spacing. We might talk about building. They have to rebuild the bridge for the six lane. Rebuild the bridge over as a six lane anyway while we're doing it, to try to get around the height. It's very complicated in the sense that it would have been nice, you know, six months ago. It's been great that this moved along so fast. It's been great that FDOT went out and found money for us. We're trying to resolve all the issues involved. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My understanding though is the money they found is not nearly adequate for doing this job. MR. SCOTT: It's two-and-a-half-million dollars. The estimate right now is three-and-a-half-million dollars. Of course they're paying impact fees of roughly 2.2. We're assuming we're going to use that money towards it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does that include cost to modify the bridge? Page 145 February 3, 2005 MR. SCOTT: We're still doing some cost. We looked at doing the bridge over. That was the bridge over and the transition back, but any little change, of course, changes some of the cost. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know I spoke to you about this slightly yesterday, but the DOT -- not the DOT. The PUD is riddled with commitments by the DOT. The DOT is not signing the PUD. And the DOT certainly is not any agency that ever agrees with any local government. So, how are we going to resolve the issue that the PUD is committing a whole pile of things for the DOT to do that DOT MR. SCOTT: We had a discussion with our counsel about that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: Oh, yes. Thank you. Marjorie Student, for the record. I've discussed this with transportation and our planning staff. And, unfortunately, yesterday we had tried to meet with Mr. Y ovanovich to take care of some of this, but were unable to effectuate that meeting. So what I planned to do is have a rewrite of that because we cannot -- you know, the DOT is a state agency and we're the county . First of all, they are not the developer that we're attempting to impose some development restrictions on. So I feel that these provisions can be rewritten to make it clear what development restrictions are placed upon the developer and what the developer must do, you know, to assist in effectuating this set aside area. And the other point, there's reference in one of the paragraphs about non-conformities that are created by this. Since this is a PUD document, I feel that the regulation needs to be written in such a way where this isn't going to create a nonconformity . We just write the regulation to deal with the area, the set aside area for the cloverleaf. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Marjorie, my concern in reading these two-and-a-half pages that referenced what the DOT was going to do, certainly the DOT is not going to be bound by? Page 146 ._.>---~---' --,^ February 3, 2005 MS. STUDENT: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if you're going to rewrite these two-and-a-half pages, and they're extremely critical to this project and the outcome of the traffic on Immokalee Road and you don't have that today, I'm wondering what it's going to look like. MS. STUDENT: No, I don't because I need to go over it with the applicant. And we tried to effectuate a meeting yesterday to do it, and with the scheduling aside, it just didn't happen. I might add it wasn't until last week that I got a revised PUD document, and my schedule is chock full of meetings, so we did the best we could. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm just trying to figure out who we would stipulate the outcome of the rewrite. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain. I think the concept is that we're supposed to reserve an area for a period of time for the county to decide whether or not they're going to use the area. That's the concept we're comfortable with. We're comfortable with the area that's got to be reserved. So, if you want to stipulate that we raise the PUD to where those issues are addressed, without binding FDOT, that's fine. I think that's your concern. We're fine with those requirements. We attempted to do that in the PUD document. We're committed to working this out, and I think we can craft appropriate language based upon the direction from the Planning Commission between now and the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, there are some elements of the paragraph in those two-and-a-half pages that, if you're going to recraft that, maybe you can recraft those out. MS. STUDENT: That's what's -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you know what I'm going to bring up at least. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll, let's try to get the framework of the concept. If we get the concept agreed to, I know -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's not going to come back to us, Page 147 February 3, 2005 Richard. It's going to go on to the BCC, so. How do I know you're addressing issues I'm concerned about if I don't tell them to you? MR. YO V ANOVICH: I'm not waiting for you to tell them to me. I'm saying, after you explain them, we'll go ahead and get the concepts and then you'll have to trust your staff -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, let's start off with paragraph A. Why are you limiting the donation of that land to seven years? MR. YO V ANOVICH: At some time, the County's got to decide to fish or cut bait. And we would like to be able to use our own land at some point. We've been told seven years is more than enough time for the county and the Federal Government to figure out whether or not they want to go forward with this concept. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But, first of all, it's not only the county it's the DOT. And I know from firsthand experience how bad they are to deal with. Second of all, as far as it's not your land. Actually, I thought that in consideration of the approval of this development, that land was being provided. Now you're saying it's really not. It's a time frame, and if the time frame doesn't work, you get the land back and then you have development on top of it. So I'm not sure that's all equitable and fair. MR. SCOTT: Just in reflection of the time frame, that was when we were just reserving it and didn't know we were actually getting money to do it and moved ahead with it. So that time frame was really at that time that it was discussed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And that's fine, but I don't understand why it has to be limited to a time frame. Especially if you feel confident it's going to happen, then why should anybody be concerned at this point? Then the second thing is under D, you're going to build out your project like shown on the PUD, and then the DOT can come in and basically bulldoze it under. That's fine, but I don't want you seeking Page 148 February 3, 2005 reimbursement for any costs for any of those modifications as a result of DOT's taking to have to be paid. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And I tried to cover that with my opening remarks. If we build a parking lot, we're basically building a throwaway parking lot in that area at our expense. Now, DOT is still going to be responsible for some mitigation related to the impact on our water management areas, native vegetation. They're going to be responsible for that. But as far as we're not going to ask you to reimburse us for the money we spent building the parking. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's where I'm going. Under G, you talk about open space impacted by the construction no later than five years after the approval. I'm not sure where you are going with that. Is that another limitation on the use of this property? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the number should have been seven years. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you recommending no limitations though? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear your recommendation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because it is inconsistent internally in your own document then. The last one -- no, that's the last one. You've already answered the others. Now in the rewrite of this, depending on how this meeting comes up today, these issues may be addressed as well as the clarification. MS. STUDENT: The other thing that I'm not going to sign, a document with a stated impact fee in it, I'm not sure that the calculations are correct, and there may be some changes in how this is calculated between now and then, and I don't think it's appropriate to put that in this type of document. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got more, but -- Page 149 February 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's all for now? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think we interrupted your team presentation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We only had the one deviation that staff is not agreeing to regarding the signage on the building. Mr. Strictland would like to address that, and then I guess we really are open for questions. MR. STRICTLAND: My name is Eric Strickland with Brentwood Land Partners. Address is 30 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. I'm a civil engineer with a developer. And what we have on the screen here is specific to the signed deviations requested in the PUD specific to deviation number three in the staff report. What I'm going to do is explain to you in answering questions about this deviation. What we are wanting to do is remove signage from the 175 frontage -- which would be the west frontage of the building that's highlighted in the pink area that's displayed here -- place it on the front of the building and we have requested some additional signage also. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You had it right. COMMISSIONER CARON: You were right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: North is at the top, isn't it? CHAIRMAN BUDD: North'is towards the future development. MR. BELLOWS: You want north at the top? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, put north up, please. MR. STRICTLAND: Some of our basis of justification is in the staff report. We have a very large building with two distinct entry points that we were looking to sign consistent with the super center concept. We win commit to no signage on the Target building, or any of the other retail buildings that is going to face a residential district. And this is our only wall sign deviation that we're requesting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Questions. Marjorie. Page 150 -'-'-'"-"-- February 3, 2005 MS. STUDENT: Thank you. There is another point that has to do with the conveyance or donation of a well field area. And there was some conflicting language. It wasn't expressly mentioned in the PUD, so that needs to be addressed also. And is it a donation or a conveyance, and what the valuation -- if it's at cost. That would be, is that at cost to the county, and, if so, what the valuation -- when the valuation would take place. And the area, a description of the area and so forth that is set-aside for that. And that is not in the PUD document. I understand it's on some of the attachments, but its text is not in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, your utilities staff is not that far along in the process to know exactly the area they need. We've agreed to reserve it, and if we need to clarify it, it's a free conveyance, we can do that. MS. STUDENT: At no cost to the county? MR. YOV ANOVICH: At no cost to the county we've agreed for the well field size, but I don't think they're ready yet to say they don't have a legal description. If they had one, we would attach it, but I don't think it's our obligation to come up with that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. That concludes the petitioner's presentation. Can we hear from staff, please? MR. DERUNTZ: Good afternoon. Mike DeRuntz, principal planner with the Zoning and Land Development Review Department. As mentioned earlier, that this is a rezoning of three PUDs into one. We have the Malibu Lake PUD, the Brentwood, and the Crestwood PUD. Currently there is 178 acres, approximately, for this site, and that doesn't include three acres of agricultural zone land. That's not in those three PUDs. There is approximately 141 acres of residential, and there will be 37 acres, approximately of commercial, if this rezoning is a provided. The DEAC has reviewed this request on January 5th and Page 151 February 3, 2005 recommended it's approval. This was mentioned earlier that because, with the three existing PUDs, there was approximately 456,000 square feet of commercial developed retail space that could be developed along these sites, on these three individuals sites. And let me get out of this here real quick. Let me see if we can. This shows how the property -- this is boundary survey and it shows that the three PUDs here. Malibu is in the center, and it would include the remaining portion of this residential area. In this rezoning, the residential area component will not be disturbed at all. The language will remain the same. But we're consolidating the commercial criteria of those three PUDs into this one zoning document. Again, this is, as it exists here, showing the PUDs. They're here. This is a -- let's flip this around so it will be on one. Sorry. North is to the left here. This is showing what they're going to be doing. This area here is where the Super Target area is proposed to be. There's some intentional out parcels here. The goal is that they're going to have two owners on this property, and there will be a consolidated agreement for ownership and for maintenance for this commercial portion of the property. The Target will own a tract of land, and the balance will be owned by the Brentwood Lakes Partnership. There was some discussion with the last speaker who was talking about signed deviations. I'm going to try to get a little closer here. We were talking about so many well sites. The one well site is in this area, this corner spot here that they had identified. But, there is a proposed sign located here on Immokalee Road, a proposed sign in this area here on Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is this flipped backwards or something? You lost me. I can't tell where you are. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: North is to the left. MR. DERUNTZ: This is north here. I can flip it for you if Page 152 February 3, 2005 you'd like. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, no. Can you scroll down. I'm trying to -- MR. DERUNTZ: This is the interchange. In our signed regulations in the LDC it says that if you don't have an entrance, or allowed entrance on the roadway, that you're not allowed to have a ground sign. And they're asking for a deviation here. They're showing two signs on Immokalee Road. We're recommending that a deviation be approved only for one sign. Now, there is -- initially in their justification they were saying that they would not use this area along Immokalee Road here where it was zoned -- it was a donation from the PUDs, existing PUDs, to the county. That this area has a potential of being donated back to the development, and that that area would be used for landscaping and buffering and other things. Their most recent submittal and commitment in their letter that was attached in the staff report was talking about that the neighbors here would like to see a right in and right out only in this area here. You can see this opening between these out parcels. And they had that couched in the stipulation if it was approved by the county and the state. And that went along with the justification that I had placed in the staff report about allowing a ground sign in that area, if there was a potential for an opening in that area. And there still may be the opportunity that there could be this right in, right out at this location. The other condition about the number of -- being allowed to have a ground sign, you have to have exceeding five or more tenants at the development site of the commercial site. We're recommending that that deviation be approved. We have ample square footage. It could be broken down into more than five, but they're only identifying five tenants at this time. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Which of the two signs are you recommending approval of? Page 153 February 3, 2005 MR. DERUNTZ: Well, they're showing two signs here on Immokalee Road. We're recommending only one sign. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Which one? MR. DERUNTZ: Well, I would recommend it to be located in this area where the potential entrance would be. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY : You're giving the choice to them? MR. DERUNTZ: Well, I think -- there are -- code is not specific. There is some separation that you have to have if you're going to have two signs on the same street, but they could locate it anywhere along here. But it would be my recommendation to be closer to the entrance. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is that where they want their principle entrance, or their principle entrance around the corner? MR. DERUNTZ: The principal entrance is off of Tarpon Bay. And their entrance would be -- there would be an entrance here they could come in. You see this curve cut. There will be another entrance over in this area here, where they're going to, as far as deliveries, and they'll also have an entrance here that exists now on Brentwood Boulevard where's there's an existing First Third Bank, I believe it is, or AMSouth -- thank you -- that's located on this corner. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If you put a sign between those two out parcels, aren't you inviting people to come in there when you don't really want them to? I mean, Target customers. MR. DERUNTZ: If they were going westbound on Immokalee Road -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Eastbound. MR. DERUNTZ: Or eastbound on Immokalee Road, yes, sir -- that, you know, that would facilitate, you know, better turning movement and less congestion at this intersection. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike, not to interfere, but I could have sworn I read in there that there's no entrance to be made Page 154 February 3, 2005 off of Immokalee Road. MR. DERUNTZ: That's correct. And that's what they stated earlier as part of their justification for their deviation. They had multiple meetings with neighbors out there, and I can attest to that because I went to all of them that I was invited to, and that was five. But one of the things they talked about just recently is that the neighbors would encourage a right in, right out on Immokalee Road. And this is what they're proposing on doing. But if they couch it with the stipulation that it would be up for approval of the county and the state to allow that to happen. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood that in there. But by placing a sign there, it almost begs the issue, doesn't it? I mean, I realize it's a desirable thing for marketing, but I'm just wondering -- and I wouldn't have commented except that you've indicated that that seems a good entry point. So, I'm confused. I thought we had the most latest documents here. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: This whole thing strikes me as being -- if you're going to have two lanes exiting 175, and you're going to have people coming east on Immokalee Road, and to cut across those lanes in order to line themselves up to come in there, you're making a mixing bowl right there at an exit. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: If I might. Wayne Arnold, for the record. I'll try to address, just very briefly, the condition. We have two locations for deviation on there, simply because we weren't certain exactly where the best location for a sign would be, because at the time we were creating this document, the 175 reservation was moving around. We didn't know whether or not we would have an access point or not. We're still not sure whether we will have an access point on Immokalee Road. The deviation really is required for us, because even though we don't technically have an access point on Immokalee Road, we feel Page 155 February 3, 2005 like with that frontage and that exposure, it makes all the sense in the world to at least have signage there that says Target and the other tenants. And I think staff agrees with that, but only the one sign. Just to clarify, that's all we want. We showed two deviation locations. We understand we can only get one sign. But we didn't want it to be so specific that they said, oh, you put it there, but it happened to end up having to be in the middle of the turn lane we got. Because, frankly, if we get a turn lane on Immokalee Road, then we qualify for the sign and deviation and it's a moot point. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. That works. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. The out parcels, what other kind of signs could they have? MR. DERUNTZ: On the out parcels, they have their own wall sign. They can have a ground sign themselves, just their name on there. And there's limitation on the size. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is the access only going to be from the south side, or is also going to be from the north? MR. DERUNTZ: Basically, it would be coming from the south, unless that entrance is approved by the County and Florida Department of Transportation, for that right in, right out. Right in only. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else on your staff presentation? MR. DERUNTZ: I did want to point out, and it was stated in the staff report, this is in the interchange activity center number four, and a mixed use is recommended over there. By the consolidation of these, I think we have a better plan for that area and a more uniform look to the architectural and landscaping scheme for this. Any other questions, I'd be glad to address those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would, if I may. Mike, looking at page 2-2 of the Malibu Lakes PUD, that may be the petitioner's document, but in any event, in the item beginning with 2.3 Page 156 February 3,2005 on that page, 2-2. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have you got it? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a question here. There are references, and they continue throughout that entire document as though they were talking about the future. Such as a maximum of 708 dwelling units shall be constructed in the residential areas of the project. I thought I read that they were already constructed? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. They're just carrying the language over from the existing Malibu. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All of it is boilerplates, is what you're saying? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I may have a question later. Do some of these things seem to suggest to me that the boilerplate may get us in trouble. I'll pass for now. CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that we'll move to our registered public speakers. Ray, who do we have registered for this? MR. BELLOWS: We have two speakers. First one is Carl Fry, and the second is Clifford Meehan. MR. FRY: Mr. Chairman, and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Carl Fry. I am the outgoing president of the Oakes Estates Advisory. However, I spearheaded our activities in dealing with the developer and other communities. So I'm here to speak today representing our neighborhood, which is made up of approximately 520, mostly two-and-a-half acre, mostly two-and-a-half acre size lots that range on either side of Oakes Boulevard for the extent of Oakes Boulevard, which is a two-mile long road. Our concern here is certainly one of proximity to this shopping center. I have to tell you up front, that we've had numerous meetings with the developers, primarily Eric Strictland and his Target Page 157 February 3,2005 Corporation counterpart, John Danon, and we have gone through -- what I would consider -- a negotiation process with them. We, Oakes Estates advisory have teamed up with the Tarpon Bay Homeowners Association. The next speaker you'll hear is Cliff Meehan, their president. And we came up with a conditional support for this shopping center. So we created a position statement. It has 15 points within it. I e-mailed it a couple of days ago to all the members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Midney, I apologize, your e-mail was sent back to me. The e-mail was invalid. But I'm here primarily to clarify what you're looking at and just explain a couple of deviations from where we might still differ with the developers on this proj ect. The very first item -- I don't think we can -- do you have this in front of you? Are you relying on the visualizer? Okay. If you all have it. This is a very key point to us. Right now, as of today, we suffer gridlock trying to get in and out of our neighborhood. In the morning it is particularly bad trying to get to go west on Immokalee from Oakes Boulevard. And I guess our concern would be that this worsens that problem. It's not, you know, it's not rocket science, but that is our major concern. We have polled our residents several times. We had about 50 residents at our neighborhood annual meeting on Tuesday night. We polled them. I'll say this, the developers response to item number one, which is our request that Immokalee be six-lined from 175 all the way to 951. I believe their response is fair, considering their position. They are saying we cannot hold off our development forever waiting on something we can't control, namely the county's time line to develop this road. However, I have to tell you, I posed the question to our residents, and they were quite clear. Eighty percent said we believe it's traffic suicide to allow this project to open and add traffic to Immokalee Road before you effectively six lane the road so it can Page 158 February 3, 2005 handle the capacity. So, if I have discomfort -- if our residents have discomfort here today, it isn't with Target. It isn't with what they have planned here. We think there are a lot of positive elements. We welcome a lot of the services in our neighborhood. It keeps us from having to cross 175 to get groceries and other goods. But our discomfort would be this, there is a complete lack of any established dates that we can rely on for when the road might actually support the traffic that we already have, not even included the traffic that the Super Target Shopping Center would add. So, on item number one, I just need to provide the feedback that our residents felt very clear, they would rather risk Target moving on, selling their property, and going with three individual PUDs than have this thing open before Immokalee is six-laned. I don't know -- I lay that out for you. I know your job is difficult here, but we're hoping the county can step up. I guess I would unite with Target in this respect and my neighbors. We favor the shopping center, however, we'd like the county to step up and expedite the time frames for six -laning. And also item number two, which is to build the partial cloverleaf in order to free up the lanes that are underneath the bridge to allow the traffic to flow. In addition to that, number three, I'd like to shed a little bit of additional light on the right in only from Immokalee Road. As they correctly alluded to, we do strongly support that, for the reason that it takes traffic off of that intersection. People don't need to go around the light at Tarpon Bay, easing the traffic flow there. Currently, their off ramp from 175 is a no turn -- or no right turn on red. Okay. So you're concerned about an issue where traffic is trying to mix and mingle, but I think what we'll have is either traffic coming from, traveling east on Immokalee that's flowing through lights under the bridge, in which case they can get in the right lane and make a right-hand turn, or it will be the right turn, people from the off ramp onto the road. So we don't really see the mixing problem would be a Page 159 -- February 3, 2005 great issue. We think the benefit far outweighs the risk of that. We were told that this might be too close to the off ramp to be permissible by the FDOT to allow a right in at any turn off of the road. But we are strongly in favor of that right in off the road. I do want to just clarify a couple of points where we deviate with the developers. One request I have, and I want to ask if this is realistic. We would like -- since they have responded, we have officially provided this to them, we would like, if not this document, but at least their responses, the commitments that they have made in this document to be written into the PUD or into the application to the extent possible. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm writing them down as you speak. MR. FRY: You are. Okay. So you have -- I don't want to take your time. I know I don't have the time to go through all these. I'm only going to clarify the ones where we differ, otherwise, we do believe their responses are reasonable for any items that I'm not touching on. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you know, I'm only writing down the ones that you're asking about for confirmation after you get down from them as to where they're going to go, and then those are what I was going to suggest for stipulations when we get to that point. So, I haven't -- the ones you're silent on, I certainly haven't written down. MR. FRY: Do I need -- you give me direction. What would you like me to do? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Marjorie, I don't know how much of these the applicants are agreeing to, and while the residents do, I guess we're going to have to really talk about each one in order to get a stipulation to clarify the PUD. Is that -- MR. BELLOWS: Ray Bellows. Maybe it's better to have the applicant respond to the letter. If they agree to all the conditions, then Page 160 February 3, 2005 why go through them all. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, I was going to say, where there's difference, if the applicant -- the gentleman can explain where the differences are, and if the applicant agrees to that, that will shortcut it somewhat. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's not lose sight of the fact it's the applicant's letter, and he can simply say, everything we wrote on our letterhead, we agree to. MR. FRY: Very good. I did receive -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me. With the exceptions where the residents say, okay, now we disagree on these points, and those areas, if you will please clarify. MR. FRY: Yes, sir. Number six, the hours of operation. We requested additional clarification on what the hours of operations would be. We received an e-mail from Mr. Strictland saying that -- and we would like them to adhere to these hours and have this recorded properly in the PUD. Normal hours for the Super Target are 8:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. That's a somewhat tighter window than what they have written in their response. And 8:00 o'clock a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. The Super Target will not be a 24-hour operation. I would like that stipulated. Next they have omitted, and I believe possibly they are not at liberty to offer this. Our request was that there would be no truck routes of any vendor serving that shopping center that would travel up Tarpon Bay or Oakes Boulevard. They've stipulated to Tarpon Bay Boulevard and Spanish Oakes in their document that we would like that traffic access restricted from Oakes Boulevard. We would like them to use either Livingston or Logan or 175. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir. That's me. MR. FRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I too was interested in item six, Page 161 February 3, 2005 and you skipped over about the all other tenants. There's apparently work 24 hours a day. They can operate 24 hours a day. They didn't respond to you with regard to that. MR. FRY: I think, what I just said, I really would apply to all tenants. I don't know what's realistic for them to, you know, stand up to. But our desire, what we were requesting -- and we would like to clarify we do request this, that those hours of operation be restricted, and those truck routes apply to all the tenants in the shopping center. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'll ask a question. This is unified control. Is Target the developer in this case? Is Target the developer in this case? I'm looking for the unified control question to be answered. MR. YO V ANOVICH: The Target and Brentwood Land Partners are the owners. Kyte Development will be doing the actual development. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. The ones that have the responsibility in perpetuity theoretically. The ones that -- I'm concerned about the time. That's the issue. You were probably preoccupied. And for the out parcels, there's only one that I saw. One building. And then the boxes adjacent. Now, there's no hours stipulated. They can work 24 hours a day, lights glaring, noise, and all the rest of it. Is there no -- I don't see in here that there's a response by the responsible party that that time would be reduced or qualified. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I'll answer this now. I don't know if this is the appropriate time. But the in line tenants, if you will, we have no objection to the hours of operation that Carl is talking about. Now, I do believe he agreed on seasonal events -- seasonal activities -- we can have expanded hours, around Christmastime, school opening, we can go beyond those hours. For seasonal events, not all the time. Now, as far as the out lots go, we did respond. We do not agree to the same hours of operation. We don't think it's the same issues. Page 162 February 3, 2005 People are fronting Immokalee Road. They're being shielded from -- you know, they're going to have the big Super Target building shielding the residential from anything that's happening right fronting on Immokalee Road. So we would like to have the out parcels not have restrictions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me just go for one more qualification. The statement is all other tenants, out lots, and small shop tenants shall have no restrictions. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just the out lots. That's what we wanted to clarify. It's the out lots we didn't want restrictions. We are in agreement for the inline tenants. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This sentence does tend to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're right. I agree with you. I agree. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then, you're agreeing -- will that satisfy you, sir? Will that make you happy? MR. FRY: Let me ask a question of you, Rich, on that note. You have an OEA, operating an easement agreement -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. FRY: That all of your tenants must sign. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. FRY: In that agreement you restrict the type of tenants that might be present. You have other restrictions on their use of property. Christmas tree sales prohibited in the parking lot, that type of thing. Will that document be part of the recorded PUD? Will that go on the public record. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not recorded as part of the PUD, but it is recorded as part of the deed restriction in the property. All those restrictions will run with the land. MR. FRY: Would it not be possible to put in that agreement some restriction on the hours of the out lots? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the only thing we're disagreeing. We don't want to have limitations on the hours of the out lots. Page 163 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Carl, what's your concern with this, because this is an interchange. You know, this is an exit on 75. MR. FRY: This is not -- that is not a primary issue for us. I think in general, we are satisfied with the restriction on hours that they are placing. Our concern with the out lots would more be the type -- the nature of the out lots. Is it car repair places? Things that they've told us they will restrict from leasing or selling those out lots too. So I think we can live with the out lots having hours, as long as the nature of those out lots follows what they have written in their operating and easement agreement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRY: Number eight. In the response -- we had requested that instead of, for example, eight-foot trees on the buffer yards on the perimeter of the development, that they put in 15- or 16-foot trees. And in their response they came back with 20 percent larger, which would be a nine-and-a-half foot tree instead of an eight feet tree. So, I've spoken verbally with Mr. Strictland on that -- he might want to confirm this -- he's giving us assurance that they will put in 16-foot trees instead of eight foot trees in the buffer yards. Well, we said 15 in our, but you mentioned 16 today, Eric, so, you can clarify that. MR. STRICTLAND: We have agreed before they may need to do the range of planning between 14 and 16 feet in the buffer yards along Immokalee and Tarpon Bay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I would take this moment to ask this question, if I may. Going back to that boilerplate that we talked about earlier, and qualified that it was this boilerplate. On 3-5 -- I'll just read it to you. It has to do with number three; of natural habitat preserve area is shown along the northern boundary if this is pertinent now. It ends with, the buffer shall not be required in this area, if there is a preserve area. Now, if this is part of that, is this Page 164 February 3, 2005 boilerplate going to sustain, or are we going to have a buffer and a preserve? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Murray, Wayne Arnold again. That reference is specific to the residential component. There is a buffer, a native vegetation buffer that's been recorded on that northern portion that is part of the Malibu Lakes apartments. And there is a contiguous buffer on what's known as Brentwood presently and we have another contiguous buffer and preservation area extending across the entire southern portion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wasn't sure geographically where that was. Thank you. MR. FRY: We have no issue at the remainder of their responses to this. I guess in closing, we ask for your assistance, because we are conditionally supportive of this development, however, we have a larger vision in mind, a plan for a neighborhood. And the overriding reasons for the existence of our organization is that Oakes Boulevard is a two-mile long road that doesn't really go anywhere to the south. It goes into Vineyards Elementary School. And on the north, it just curls by Huntington Lakes and then joins up with Northbrook Lane, or Avenue. So it's not -- it is not a through road. We would like to see that road reclassified as a residential road with reduced speed limit. Now, you are looking at approving this proj ect based on traffic counts. And the traffic counts we've heard show our traffic dropping in more than half to less than 50 percent of levels prior to Livingston Road going through, even with the additional traffic from Target. So, I guess we ask, that if you use that criteria to approve this project, that you stand behind that criteria, and support us in the future as we attempt to reclassify this road as residential, and to implement traffic calming through our neighborhood. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was something in there Page 165 February 3,2005 about from 20th Avenue, if that is used, and then there's going to be a canal. Am I right on that or have I got another thing in my head? MR. FRY: I'm not sure specifically. We had a request that no additional bridges would be built across the canal. And they stipulated to that. They would not request that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm comfortable with that. MR. FRY: They've stipulated also to support a stop sign at the entrance to Malibu Lakes, which would, in effect, provide traffic calming on Tarpon Bay. We would also like to do traffic calm on Oakes Boulevard. The idea of a roundabout. I don't know that this is germane to your approval today. I'd just ask you to support what we're trying to do in the neighborhood, and keep the big picture in mind with your approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All I can tell you, Carl, is we like you and look forward to seeing you again, but it's not relevant to this petition. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Carl, I've got one question. I'm trying to understand the summary of everything you've been saying. On this 15 items, you've disagree with number six, but now they've agreed with you. You disagree with number eight, but now they've agreed with you. So the only standing disagreement is number one; is that right? Is that a summary? MR. FRY: That is a summary. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just want to get to the point. MR. FRY: What we're concerned about, Mark, is the dates that the road can accommodate the traffic that we already have, not to mention what they'll be adding. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Before this is over, Richard is going to provide us with some positive dates, I'm hoping. MR. FRY: We look forward to that. Thank you very much for Page 166 February 3, 2005 your time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're going to take this opportunity to take a ten minute break, so the court reporter can change her paper. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We call the Planning meeting back to order. Okay. With that, our next registered public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Clifford Meehan. MR. MEEHAN: Good morning. I'm Clifford Meehan. I'm the president of the Tarpon Bay Homeowners Association. In the future whenever I go someplace with Carl Fry, I'm going to have to remember to ask to speak first. Carl used almost all of our A material, so I'm just here pretty much to reiterate what we've talked about. About six months ago Tarpon Bay and Oakes Estates starting meeting with Kite about the development that they're about to put in. And as time went on, we've learned to trust Eric Strictland and Kite because they've been so helpful in trying to help us design what's going in on the corner. The one thing that we were surprised by, was our residents primarily -- was that no one objected to Target. No one objected to a shopping center. We knew when we bought in there that that was a commercial area and eventually that something would be built, we just didn't know what. The problem that we have, and the only problem that we're left with is number one on our list, the traffic. And we know that we can't rely on Kite or Target to try to fix that traffic problem for us. We have to rely on Collier County to help us with the traffic problem. And that's basically why Carl and I were both here today, was to talk about the traffic, rather than what Kite is or is not going to do. Because they've agreed, I think almost entirely with the things that we've asked for, other than what they can't control. And that's the traffic. So, what we're asking for you to do is to take traffic into consideration before you give the go ahead for the shopping center. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Thank you, sir. Page 167 February 3, 2005 MR. MEEHAN: Any questions. (No response.) MR. MEEHAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Not yet. CHAIRMAN BUDD: No other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there questions? Are we looking for summary comments by the petitioner? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got a question for transportation. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Ms. Caron. Go ahead with your question, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question -- and Rich, you probably know what it is -- but in your PUD you've taken out open space and said that it is being incorporated into the residential area of the PUD, but in reading through the residential area of the PUD, nowhere in there does it say that they've accepted your 30 percent open space commitment. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. I'll address that. For the mixed-use project the County requirement is a 30 percent overall open space number. And what has happened, when you look at the residential component, it mandates that 60 percent of the residential area should be open space. So what we have is 60 percent of the overall residential site is open space, and, in fact, it exceeds that when you add in some of the acreage of the lakes that are there. And not to imply that we don't have anything shown on this particular site, the way the language is written is that beyond our required buffers and native preservation areas, and our own landscaping that we're required to provide for commercial, we don't have an additional commitment for open space, other than that on our site. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well you did in your original Page 168 February 3, 2005 PUD? You're taking it out. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, but that original commercial component was much less than 37 acres that we have today. It was a little over eight acres, I believe. They were going to be developed very distinctively different. COMMISSIONER CARON: I get that. I don't think that answers my question, but. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, you had some questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I would like to get a quick briefing from Mr. Scott on the concurrency application to this project for the Immokalee Road area. Irregardless of the timing of the cloverleaf -- let's just talk about what it is today -- what they could do today if they came in tomorrow requesting to build this building. MR. SCOTT: The project -- the widening of Immokalee between 175 and 951 is programmed within two years, so that capacity is assumed. One thing I didn't mention when we were talking about the cloverleaf when I came up, was that we're doing a design build on that. It's fairly simple. We have the right of way. We're widening to the median. The package is going out within the next month or two. I have been told that we can start widening by the end of the year. Now, I'm not putting that set in stone because it's the first design build that we've done for a project, you know, that's beyond a bridge essentially. Obviously, some portions are a little more complicated. Some bridge issues at Tarpon on the other side at Broken Back, and also the ramp is definitely a bigger issue that will probably take some more time. But that's kind of the time frame at this point. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right now that intersection isn't functioning well. I'm not going to say it's failed, because you'll disagree with me. There isn't a failed road in Collier County, from what I hear, and that checkbook concurrency is working great, from what I hear. But if you have to drive around Collier County, it doesn't seem to be that way. Page 169 February 3, 2005 And the practical sense of what the people are trying to say is, there's a problem on that road. And what time frame do you see -- I'm not implying it all the way down to 951, but what time frame do you see any improvements that will happen to make that intersection function better? MR. SCOTT: Are you talking about Tarpon, specifically? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The intersection around 175 and that congested mess that we have there. Whether it is Tarpon Oakes Boulevard. Just that -- I'm not worried about east on Immokalee Road. I'm worried about getting from Oakes to say 951 -- Oakes to 175 and westward. What improvements in that area are going to be timed in, or are they timed in, other than what you just told us for two years? MR. SCOTT: I assume, from what we're talking about, we're talking about starting construction by the end of this year, beginning of next year. So those are when you'll start seeing improvements. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the improvement that you're saying is going to make it is the six -laning of Immokalee Road? MR. SCOTT: Right. Understand, Mark, that when you -- one of the comments you made, there are failing intersections where links -- an intersection might fail, but the link doesn't. And, obviously, there are some developments right now that are being held back that can't go, so -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, is this a failed intersection? MR. SCOTT: Is this a failed right now? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCOTT: Assume by the way everybody talks about it and being backed up all the time, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Can they get a permit to open up another big traffic generator at that intersection? MR. SCOTT: Within two years the improvements programs, Page 170 February 3, 2005 we're going forward, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's not the answer I wanted to hear, but it's an answer that your -- okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You've talked about a cloverleaf, or partial cloverleaf. Do you have any drawings of that? MR. SCOTT: No. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because it's hard for me to imagine -- there it is. That's just the one arm of it. That's only -- that's it. It's a one-arm clover. CHAIRMAN BUDD: It's a quarter clover. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's a one-armed bandit. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Can you rotate that 90 degrees to get north facing up? CHAIRMAN BUDD: The other north. There we go. MR. YOV ANOVICH: See, it's not only me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, you had a question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, you had said that a roadway link was how you look at the road improvements or the failure. What's a roadway segment? MR. SCOTT: Segment is the same as a link. Let's just take, you know, from 951 to 175, that's a segment. You can break it down even smaller if you want to go between signals. The AUIR essentially talked about what links are analyzed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you familiar with your transportation policy 5.1? It says, county commission will review all rezone requests, SRA designations, applications, conditional use petitions and proposed amendments to the flow affecting the overall county-wide density or intensity or permissible development, with consideration of their impacts on the overall system and shall not approve any such request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating, and! or proj ected to operate, at an Page 171 "._,._------,_.._....--.~~..."~"..~- February 3, 2005 unacceptable level of service within the five-year planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are approved. And the reason I'm bringing it up is the segment. And you said that the intersection would be considered failed. If it is, is that segment then enough to trigger possibly 5.1 of the GMP transportation? MR. SCOTT: No, because the last part of that, the mitigating portion of that, is that there's widening programmed within the two years' time frame. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm trying to find out. MR. SCOTT: Even if you want to look at the five-year side of it, there's improvements within the five years. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Why does that say five years? I mean, this is right out of the most recent version I was issued. MR. SCOTT: This is a big conversation we've had recently between what is concurrency versus what is consistency. Concurrency we apply as part of, you know, a final local development order. And consistency is where we look out over the five years. And the GMP is within a five-year period what is happening and what's going to work in that area. Concurrency is what we assume, is it something within the two years and is there actual capacity right now. You can have capacity right now, but not have it four years out, is the other side of it. If the projections tell you that's going to happen. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sounds like something a lot of attorneys had come up with. MR. SCOTT: Sounds like a conversation we'll have at our workshops is what it sounds like. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, that would be nice. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions before our summary comments by the petitioner? Page 1 72 February 3, 2005 (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Y ovanovich, you're on. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, looks like we are in agreement with the Oakes people, and the Tarpon Bay people on all except for one point. And that's one point we just can't give on. We've been in the process since December '03. We own the land. Target owns the land. Target is going forward and we're going forward one way or the other. If it has to be under the old zoning, we'll go forward under the old zoning, because we own the land and we can, as Don Scott has told you, under concurrency. We'll come in and do a site plan. Not the preferable one. Not one we want to do, and I don't think it's the one the residents want us to do. But, you know, Mr. Fry was talking about they'll take the risk that Target will leave. Target is not leaving. Target is staying. They're going to develop on the Brentwood piece and go forward with their regular size Target store. And Kite will go forward with developing on the Malibu site, and we'll go forward. We think we've gone above and beyond. I mean, we've really worked with these people. And I think that he said very complimentary things about Mr. Strictland, and that's a reflection of the company. They're committed to working with the neighborhood. When the county came to us and said, you know, what about this cloverleaf, you know, a lot of developers would have just said, you know, we're out of the game. Let us go back. You're taking two acres of our land. We're not interested in this. We'll just go build what we've got to build. But, now we committed to giving up two acres of land reserving it for -- because it makes sense. It's going to help us, it's going to help them. We're still committed to resolving that process, but it's -- but if we can't offer that up and wait for when the county may get done with the road. I mean, we already own the land. We need to get moving with our plans. We've been in the process over a year. We've been working with the county. We've been Page 173 February 3, 2005 working with the residents. We think that the project is a worthy project, and we ask that you recommend approval. And the only disagreement was on the signage on the building, we would prefer our deviation versus staff recommendation. If you have any further questions of us, we're happy to answer it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let me ask some questions to clarify in my own mind. So the choice is not we give you the concessions and improve it or stop the project? To rephrase, we'll either make the concessions, modify the project, go forward under as conceived here, or if we reject this, you'll just redesign full permit for slightly different, but still a Target. It won't be a Super Target with the grocery, but you'll still have a functioning enterprise that's going to move forward? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Target is moving forward. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. If Target moves forward as is full permit today. Can the county still have the land for the cloverleaf? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't see why -- no. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So essentially what you're trying to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, why would we --? CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's fine. It was just a question. I appreciate your answer. So then what we're really trying to decide is, are we going to suffer through some time frame, a year or two, because this -- if you get your rezone, get your construction permits, go under construction, I think it's March of '06 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: March of '06. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- that it's going to open up. And then when would the road improvements be done? I know they're in the current programming, the two years road improvements. Would they be another two years out for completion? Would that be right, '08 that Page 174 February 3, 2005 it will be done? Nine, ten? MR. SCOTT: At least if you're talking about the widening to six lanes, it won't be that long. It will probably be about a year. You just go into the median for that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. For the widening. MR. SCOTT: The bridge, you know, some of the other issues might be a little bit longer than that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So a year, we'll say -- would that be by '07 -- by '07 it will be done. By '08, you think everything, the bridge, the whole nine yards with icing on top? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So what we're getting for, suffering through two more years and moving in the right direction, and approving this, we won't have to suffer for the next 100 years with no one-arm cloverleaf, and we're going to have a constriction underneath that 175 overpass that's going to play, I guess, forever and ever. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We believe this is a win/win for everybody. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm just trying to break it down so even I can understand it. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're a smart guy. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does anybody have an idea of how long it's going to take him or her to get approval after today's meeting to build -- to start building his or her building? MR. BELLOWS: They have to submit a site development plan. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Site development plan is already in. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's already in without this PUD being approved? MR. BELLOWS : We have a policy of accepting site development plans when they've scheduled for public hearing, or Page 175 February 3, 2005 about ready to schedule for public hearing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In their review -- I notice in their PUD, they have a neat little paragraph, paragraph F on page 57. County will provide for an expedited review of site development plan, plat, building permits and Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed commercial development. Now, knowing how sensitive the time frames we have here, the last thing we need is to expedite the development. Why are we agreeing to do that? I know because Richard wrote it in the PUD, that isn't good enough. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. Administrator, Community Development, Environmental services. That was written in based primarily on the agreement that they reached with the county in regards to the land they're donating for the improvements to the roadway. That's pretty much what led to that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The improvements that were donated to help salvage the problem with the traffic, in return we expedite the development that's going to cause further degradation to the traffic just to get the land that isn't going to have the traffic cure on it for several years down the road. It doesn't make sense. I'm just wondering if there's -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's several years sooner than the cure would come along if we didn't all work together to make this happen. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if they wanted that property, they would take it whenever they wanted it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you know and I know how long the Eminent Domain can take. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Not for taking. You can take the property, the process starts afterwards. I just got done being a witness in a trial for that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not tomorrow. We all know that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But the fight goes on after the Page 176 "" -~"'--.,. February 3, 2005 property expires -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand, but it still takes -- before you get to the fighting stage, it takes a while. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm just surprised you got the expedited review. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And one other observation I've got on this is that, even though it's not a consideration on the part of this developer to stop the proj ect, greater increases on the road flow is due to all the currently vested and permitted property east, and because it is just a flood coming in from the estates every morning trying to go to work, and it's a flood going out every afternoon trying to go home, and that flood is not stopping, with or without this proj ect. And that current gridlock is going to get worse before it gets better. Other questions of the petitioner? Comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifnot, we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'll make a motion that we forward with a recommendation of approval of this project with the concessions agreed to in writing by Kite and modified on item -- get my numbers right -- items number six and eight, with the intent that a couple years of suffering will put us in a much better position over the long hall. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry. What was your question, Rich? I'll try to clarify. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What about our question for our signed deviation? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, approval of the signed deviation is intended. Is that in approval on the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Budd, second by Adelstein. Page 1 77 February 3, 2005 MS. STUDENT: Does that include the inclusion of the well field -- donation of the well field area and also the rewrite of the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have half a dozen stipulations that might clarify your problem. MS. STUDENT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Bring them on. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The first one is there's going to be a complete rewrite of section 5.9 involving the DOTs actions in regard to this PUD. The second is that, during that rewrite, there will be no limit on when the use of that reservation area will be needed to be used. There's a seven-year limit now. That will be taken out. There will be no reference to the impact fee total. That calculation will be what it is at the time it is. Item F, which is the expedited permit review is to be deleted. The approval -- and we go into another section -- I think you already covered this -- the approval will include deviation number three. They'll agree to supply a well field easement, and a well field easement site at no cost to Collier County. And if possible, there will be a right turn in off of 846. That's the half a dozen stipulations that I can recall. MR. DERUNTZ: Mr. Budd? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. DERUNTZ: The deviation on the signs, staff was recommending denial on the deviation for the wall signs. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. I was thinking of that site sign out in front on Immokalee Road where they had two locations suggested. That's what I was thinking of approving. MR. DERUNTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Rich, if you can provide some clarification on that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the wall signs? Page 178 February 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Pardon me? MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the wall signs? Requesting for deviation on the wall signs? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, Mr. Strain, your clarification? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My clarification was that we leave both the deviations in and override the staff recommendation and remove number three. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm agreeable with that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It seemed to make sense in regards to moving it from one street to another, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, we, you know, we have to have the expediting of the permits. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So does everybody in Collier County. I don't know why yours is more important. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just saying, it was part of the deal on making this work out. I'm just telling you that we can't -- it's one of the stipulations and one of the provisions that we find to be very, very important. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But it's only part of the deal if it's part of the stipulation, Richard. And it may not be -- of course, the BCC gets the final say. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. I'm just responding to the additional stipulations. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We had a motion by Budd, second by Adelstein. Several recommendations, as Mr. Strain, I can accept and modify the motion for everything except Mr. Strain's suggestion of eliminating the expedited permit review. I think that's appropriate given the zero dollar donation by the petitioner. And I think it would be appropriate if we didn't give them the review, we give them a check, because that's real property that we're exchanging out there. Is the second in agreement with that? Page 1 79 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So we have a motion and a second. Is that clear to everyone? Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a question. Is everybody comfortable with the fact that they're giving up the 30 percent open space? I'd like to have that added back in. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The reason why I didn't bring it up is because that's generally on a PUD wide basis and they're going to have landscaping buffers as required and everything else. COMMISSIONER CARON: The residential part of their PUD is already developed, so there's no place for that to have gone. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But I think it's already there. It's already in the PUD. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it's not. That was my whole point. If you read through that part of the PUD, they were required to have 60 percent and that's what they built to. The commercial area was required to have 30 percent, and now they just want to take it out. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Because it merged with the three made into one. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think that's the way it works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What they've done is they're counting the open space that's in the residential towards their requirement. COMMISSIONER CARON: So suddenly we've gone from a total of 90 percent down to 60 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what it is -- COMMISSIONER CARON: If you all are comfortable with that, by all means, go ahead. But I don't think we should be giving up open space when that's a requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what they're kind of doing Page 180 February 3, 2005 here is giving up open space for a cloverleaf. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that didn't have anything to do with the cloverleaf. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not really, other than they can say no cloverleaf and we use that for open space. COMMISSIONER CARON: They can say no cloverleaf to everything. But, I mine, that really wasn't it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: First of all, you have to remember that 30 percent number you're referring to only applied to nine acres. Okay. Only applied to nine acres of the existing Malibu PUD. Did not apply to Brentwood, Crestwood, and the additional two acres. There's only 15 percent requirement for commercial. You know, we can't give you everything you've wanted and give you the open space you're asking for on that nine acres, because that's the only place it appeared was on the nine acres. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me ask -- where are we now on the expedited review. I understand it's in -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: No. Mr. Strain asked to modify the motion and remove that condition. As the motion maker, I did not accept that and the second agreed. So we have all of Mr. Strain's recommendations, except for the elimination of the expedited review. The expedited review is still in, which is contrary to Mr. Strain's request. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. That's where I was hoping we were. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just, Don, the landscape requirements of the code in terms of the parking lot, building perimeters and all that is still in there. COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what we're really missing is some large chunk of land somewhere and it's up against the Page 181 February 3, 2005 expressway. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So with that we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Just raise your hands if you're in opposition. The vote is seven two. Motion carries. All right. Moving on to our next agenda item. That is petition PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5879, Champion Lakes Development. Provisions to the PUD document to abandon the previously authorized recreational vehicle use. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand and raise your hands, and is sworn in. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give on the matter now in hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any disclosure by Planning Commissioners? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, this property is contiguous to a piece of property that I am working on with my employer. Therefore, I will be refraining from participation in voting in this matter. I'll file the appropriate papers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Any other disclosures? Page 182 February 3, 2005 (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Ifwe can hear from the petitioner, please. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, representing the petitioner. With me today is Tony Percecelli with Colonial Homes, the petitioner, Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor, and Reed Jarvey with Vanessa and Taylor. This is basically an amendment to an existing PUD. The PUD currently allows 300 RV units. The property is located on 951 south of US 41 and east of951. And to our west are two RV parks, Silver Lakes and Pelican Lakes. And to our south and around us is Fiddler's Creek. Our access will be from Championship Drive. Your staff reports are real detailed. I'm just going to hit the highlights. We've had several meetings with the residents in the area. We believe they are happy with our project. I think most people believe that increasing -- or decreasing the number of R V spaces -- or units out there in return for residential is a good trade off. Reed, I believe, or Wayne is going to address some traffic stipulations that have been revised with your transportation staff recently. They're not substantial, but there are minor modifications that have been requested to be made to the PUD document. After Wayne addresses those, we'll be happy to answer any questions. And with that, I'll turn it over to Wayne. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Again, for the record, Wayne Arnold. If I could, I'll just put the aerial and explain a couple of -- thank you. As Mr. Y ovanovich indicated, we're, I think in agreement with staff. And I think, having discussed this with our neighbors at Pelican Lake R V resort, I've spoken with a couple of folks at Silver Lakes R V Page 183 February 3, 2005 resort. We've had our neighborhood informational meeting, and we had a follow-up meeting with Pelican Lakes homeowners because there were some easement agreements that we had with them for some landscape maintenance. And the overriding thought here is this is a good idea. As this evolved and the staff report was being written, there were a couple of things that came about. One, our access point is from Championship Drive, which is where the driving range location is right now on 951, if you're familiar with that. There was a road that was extended from Championship Drive, that Championship Drive terminates down into Fiddler's Creek at this location. The extension of that road is a road called Casa Delago Boulevard. And I think -- we had requested a couple of deviations that we're relating to that segment of Casa Delago Boulevard. It was constructed. It doesn't meet the current road cross-section because it's got a rural cross section. It's not an urban cross section. Staff was okay with that, but as it moved through the different review processes for signature, the question came up, well, wait a second, the way it's written, we think that implies that you never ever would have to participate in any improvements to this road, or Championship Drive as it extends out to the 951 intersection. So staff offered to discuss this with us. And I think the language that we've come up with-- Mike, I know you had copies of it. I have copies of it, too, the language that we've all, I think, come to agree on. But, essentially in both cases, it says that we're going to be cost sharing participants in the event that the county decides that there are improvements necessary at Championship Drive intersection, or if the county decides to go back and retrofit the entire road section with sidewalks, we're there to cost share with that. And I think we're fine with that. I won't speak for staff, but I'm certain they're going to stand up and tell you that that's the case. Page 184 February 3, 2005 The other thing that came about, that's a color copy of our plans. Staff has asked us to provide for a potential interconnect out to Roost Road. Roost Road is a partially improved road that terminates just north of our project boundary. They asked us over the last couple weeks if we would agree to at least put in the potential for an interconnect to that road in the event that it ever became desired by residents of this community, or the County encouraged that and actually made improvements to Roost Road, and we said, yes, we'd be happy to provide that as a potential interconnect location. So in the future should it occur, it's now known on our conceptual plan where that might be. That happens to be shown in the FP &L easement. We believe that the current j oint use agreement we have with Florida Power & Light will allow us to have this about 120- foot segment of potential roadway in it. Those were the three things that have evolved over the last couple of weeks since you received the staff report. And I see that you've got the language there from Mike. The other thing I would mention -- and this one evolved fairly recently -- staff approached us with the idea that we would put in a permanent traffic counting station on Championship Drive. And in lieu of having to do annual traffic counts ourselves as part of our PUD monitoring report, they said, well, wouldn't it be just as prudent to pay a one-time fee of about $8,000 that it costs to put in a count station, and then you don't have to do these annual traffic counts. The county just collects the data, and we already have that real time data. We said, yes, we can agree to that. So that would be an additional condition we would add to our PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wayne, how permanent is permanent in this case? MR. ARNOLD: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How permanent is permanent? MR. ARNOLD: The permanent count station? Page 185 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: I guess I would refer to transportation staff on that. I know Nick and I have been discussing that, as has Reed Jarvey. MR. CASTALETTO: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Nick Castaletto, Transportation Planning. The count station is a microwave unit that's mounted on a pole, and it's year round. It provides data 24 hours a day, 365 days a year as long as we want it there. We plan on keeping it there as long as the developer is continuing to build at that site, and maybe even longer. But the funds that they would be exchanging for annual traffic counts, would pay for that unit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the county would own the unit? MR. CASTELETTO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the permanent -- it's installation, if it were to be removed, would that be destructive of the device? MR. CASTELETTO: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As well as the value? MR. CASTELETTO: Yes, sir. We can take it from power pole to self-installed pole. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the county gets another piece of equipment for inventory? MR. CASTELETTO: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. MR. CASTELETTO: And I think you'll see more of this as you go down the road. You'll have an idea where it's coming from. MR. ARNOLD: Again with that, I think these are the principal changes that we had to the document. I hope that didn't cause too much confusion. I know that we don't like to offer changes here from the floor, but this has kind of been a little bit of finesse with staff over the last couple of weeks to address these couple of confusing points. Page 186 February 3, 2005 I'll take credit for the confusion because I wrote the initial deviation language. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Wayne, I have a question. On the existing Master Plan you had two roads in and out. What is it; 6.82 acres preserve was a road on the existing? MR. ARNOLD: Thank you for pointing that out. One of the conditions when this was originally approved as an R V park, the comprehensive plan says that R V parks have to have, not only frontage, but access needs to be, to an arterial road. Championship Drive is not technically an arterial road, yet we had frontage on 951. After a lot of debate with the County Commission, everybody agreed, including our Pelican Lake neighbors and the Silver Lake neighbors, that that little narrow 70- foot wide strip passes through that we would reserve it for a future road in the event the county said, you know what, your RVs have created a problem, we need this roadway to be built so it's not a problem on Championship Drive. As part of this amendment, we, I think, have made our neighbors happy in the sense that we have said now this will be our preservation area. So you get 6.8 acres, plus or minus of preserve between these two projects, and there will not be a road through there. We did offer that we would -- when we discussed with county staff, looked towards having a pervious pathway system to go through and meander through this preservation area to go to 951, but no road would be built there, and our neighbors are very pleased with that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is it a two-lane road? MR. ARNOLD: It would probably be only a two-lane road going through that 70- foot wide preservation strip. But -- since we're asking for that to be taken out and made a preserve. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm talking about Casa Delago. Page 187 February 3, 2005 MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. Yes, it is a two-lane road. That is a 60- feet wide public roadway easement that terminates just east of our project boundary. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It seems to me sort of distressing that you're going to have 300 units back in there and no sidewalk for people to traverse out to 951. MR. ARNOLD: Well, there are two things that we did. Staff acknowledges that, too. The road had been built since the last approval of the RV park that also had 300 units. There's no sidewalk that exists presently on Championship Drive, so what staff has said, with this revised deviation language is, that when we come back and if we make improvements to Championship Drive, everybody who connects to Championship Drive will be cost sharing. We want you to pony up and pay for your proportionate share of that sidewalk, if we can find a way to put one in. But in lieu of that, we did two things. One, we agreed to provide a sidewalk in Roost Road out our back potential entrance; and, secondly, to look toward a pervious pathway in our preservation area to go back towards 951. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How sanguine are you that this sidewalk will ever come to pass? MR. ARNOLD: The one within the 75-foot wide preserve strip? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: On Casa Delago Boulevard. MR. ARNOLD: That I don't know. It is a very wide cross section. I'll tell you why, because it shares a common boundary with Fiddler's Creek on the south, and there's an existing wall with landscaping that's been built. The Pelican Lake RV resort that's been built along the majority of that roadway section -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're pretty well boxed in? MR. ARNOLD: We're boxed in. And the road cross-section that's built there with some open draining, some closed drainage to put Page 188 February 3, 2005 enough road there that works, it worked. We have our own recreational facilities on site. And then with the other commitments that we've made towards pathways, we think that we're not going to have a problem, nor exacerbate a problem. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Will this be a gated community? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir, we intend for it to be a gated community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the concern is, one of the deviations you want is to extend, or eliminate, maximal lanes for a cul-de-sac? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because a fire vehicle coming off of Collier Boulevard, where would they ever turn around in there? MR. ARNOLD: There would be provisions made in our recreation tract -- where the red, orange tract is shown there -- where they could, in fact, turn around. Additionally, that plan only shows one cul-de-sac, so that particular deviation isn't relevant, if we develop exactly like that. But in the event we did, the appropriate radiuses for fire apparatus turn around must be provided in our cul-de-sac radius. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you make a commitment to put one at the entrance? Because that whole street, going down that whole lane, there's no place for a truck to turn around. MR. ARNOLD: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason for that requirement is that if they make a wrong turn, you don't want a fire vehicle going that far in before they can do anything. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. I think that's an easy commitment to make. I know that the recreation tract, as it was previously designed for the R V units, they have the same turning radius that fire apparatus Page 189 FebJ¡Uary 3, 2005 have. So, there was an appropriate turn around made that circulated around part of the parking area. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just had a question. That's located in a coastal high hazard area. And I'm just wondering about the elevation there and whether or not that's been subject to flooding, that location? MR. ARNOLD: I don't have any personal knowledge of its susceptibility to flooding. We have neighbors that are also in coastal hazard near us. We do have a minimum flood elevation, I think of nine, is our finish floor elevation there, that all the house pads would be built to that. County Road standard requires you to have a minimum five-and-a-half foot road. I think our roads will be a little over six, if I am not mistaken. But we don't anticipate any flooding problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, on the table one, the development chart, 3-6. For multifamily dwellings you have no side yard requirement. At least you say it's not applicable. Wouldn't, you know, wouldn't we need a side yard between -- I know there's a distance between buildings, but there could be a property line that you're looking at there. So would not a -- MR. ARNOLD: I think in the context of our property lines, those are going to be platted as tract lines. I think we have a front and we have a rear, but I don't think there's a situation where we have a side yard setback from a property line that would be applicable, because it abuts our FP&L easément. If there is one, I guess, that's something I need to sit down and look at -- those primarily are coach home projects that Colonial Home built. It's a four-unit, or six-unit type building. I would need to look at that and see how we can deal with that and see if it's even an issue. But, it's not something we . Page 190 February 3, 2005 contemplated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there has to be a side yard somewhere. Obviously, the units could be up against each other. But the building itself -- and remember, this is not the town home. This is not the family units. MR. ARNOLD: Right. But those would be multifamily condominiums in either a four plex or six-plex type structure, and we have building separation requirements that would separate the two buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the lot size is only 9,000, so there could be two separate lots with two buildings on it? MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. I see what you're saying. Could you give me one moment just to confer with Colonial Homes to see if that's something we need to address here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you make it greater than 15 feet, you don't have to fire raid the opening. Fifteen feet, for one, would save some money. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I think talking to Tony Percicelli, the president of Colonial Homes, the only place they envision that being an issue where we probably would have anything other than a single tract line will be adjacent to the FP&L easement. Probably holding a ten-foot setback there addresses any concern we would have for that. So we could add a side yard setback of 10 feet, for instance, as long as it was from a tract line and not implied that it's in lieu of the separation between structures. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And also not from a condominium line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would only be from a property line. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not from a condominium line. Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Does that conclude the petitioner's team presentation? Page 191 February 3, 2005 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifwe can hear from staff, please. MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, Commission members. As it's getting late in the afternoon, and my staff report addresses the compatibility issues, I believe, and adequately -- hopefully adequately, and with the revisions to the deviations that were requested originally within the staff report, there were two deviations that staff was not supporting based upon the last minute negotiations, those deviations, you know, have been agreed upon to support. With that, I will say it's been reviewed by all reviewing departments found consistent with the growth management plan in the land development code in supporting the deviations. And I would open myself to any questions the commission may have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't want to belabor it, Mike, but on page five, third sentence, Copper Cove Preserve, PUD amendment is proposing to eliminate the 300 R V units in lieu of traditional single-family and multifamily units. Well, in lieu of means instead of. And the thrust of that sentence is precisely opposite of what we're trying to do here. So, somebody over in Horseshoe doesn't share the definition of in lieu of that I've have been working under for the last 40 years. MR. BOSI: That would be myself. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Would it be you? MR. BOSI: Obviously, I must have been absent at that day of school. I apologize. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Kay Deselem is of the same VIew, so -- MR. BOSI: She's right across the hall from me, Commissioner. I will obviously take that and duly note it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. BOSI: Thank you. Page 192 February 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions from staff presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Ray, do we have any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: None registered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any summary comment by the petitioner. MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry. We have a speaker here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir, you want to speak on this item? MR. BUSH: I just have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: You have a sign up slip, sir? Come on up. Sir, were you sworn in when we went through that? MR. BUSH: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm 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. BUSH: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please state your name for the court reporter. MR. BUSH: Donald Bush, and I'm part of the Silver Lakes. The question is when. We talked about this meandering walkway. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Address your questions to us. MR. BUSH: Oh, I'm sorry. There's a section between Pelican Lake and Silver Lakes. And he mentioned that they had meetings with both Silver Lakes and Pelican. And this is the first I've heard of it so-- , CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll see if either of them can shed any light on this item. Any other comments? MR. BUSH: Yes. The area between there was just recently -- it killed all the trees that aren't required, or not supposed to have. And it's just a bunch of dead trees in between. So, we're looking straight Page 193 ~a--.,,_"""'_"· February 3, 2005 across 70 foot from Silver Lakes to Pelican, so it's just a wide open dead area. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Wayne or Rich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Our intent is not to provide any kind of a sidewalks through there. We know that the residents of Silver Lakes and Pelican Lakes really don't want us in their backyard essentially. So we're working with transportation staff to eliminate the requirement for doing that in that area. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Obviously, it's a preserve area, and, obviously, you have been in there taking out exotics? MR. YO V ANOVICH: Yeah, we're going to remove exotics, that's clear. We're doing that. As far as building a sidewalk, and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But are you replanting in there so these people aren't staring at one another? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we replanting in the area where we removed the exotics? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I mean, what was a preserve is now essentially a scorched earth. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We actually had not planned on replanting in that area. I mean, we were going to remove the exotics, and leave it native. And leave it in it's native state. That's the -- the county's code is to remove exotics, and sometimes it's the exotics that are actually the buffer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We'll you're calling your project Copper Cove preserve, which is reaching, reaching, reaching. This precious little preserve and now you're not going to have what you have. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We're doing what you have to do in a preserve area, which is to remove exotics. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But the 6.8-acre road -- Page 194 February 3, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's no road in that 6.8 acres. That has been totally eliminated. That was something that was probably never going to get built when it was an R V park. We need to make that clear. And I think the people of Silver Lake and Pelican Lake understand, there's not going to be a road there. We have removed exotics. We don't even plan on putting a pathway. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The average person looking at a development and sees the word preserve, he doesn't think it's a big barren softball field. COMMISSIONER CARON: You should see a little green. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there's -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Rich, would you consider putting some plants back in there where you took the exotics out? Let's get to the bottom. COMMISSIONER CARON: Native vegetation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. We obviously want to do a first class project. We're not going to go in there and probably replant it to where it's totally opaque. We are going to come in there and do some replanting and we'll work with our neighbors to make it look attractive. This is not cheap housing. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So that's a yes, then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, we are going to do some replanting. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Where the exotics came out? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any other registered speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: You can discuss things later with the applicant. We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion on this item? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-5879 before Page 195 February 3, 2005 the Board of County Commissioners for the recommendation of approval. That's for staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Schiffer. Does that include the changes? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Including the changes of the petitioner and accepted by staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Commissioner, I'd like to make sure that one change was that there's a fire department turn around prior to the gate, and then the other one is that there's a 10- foot side setback for multifamily building. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the replanting. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And the replanting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And the replanting of the -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: To make a real preserve area. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those identified items are acceptable to the motion and second? Clarification, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We thought you talked about the turn around would be after our gate. We don't have enough room before our gate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the fire department will get through the gate? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They'll get through the gate, they'll turn around and go right back out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think Mr. Schaffer's intent was that they didn't have to go all the way around to the back of the project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we understood. We just want to make sure it was clear. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other suggestions or discussions on the motion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. With that, all those in Page 196 February 3, 2005 favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. It is seven zero. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I assume that included the preserve plantings. I didn't hear that part. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, we put them in. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We'll move on to our last agenda item for today. This is Petition PUDZ-2004-AR-5611 Seacrest Country Day School requesting a PUD rezone. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sir. Sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: On the next agenda item, all those wishing to present tèstimony please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn In. Do you swear 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? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: In the matter of disclosures, I need to excuse myself from voting on this item. My employer is the negotiated construction manager for the construction of the high school which will be enabled anticipating a positive approval of this petition. I will continue to chair the meeting and enter in discussion, Page 197 February 3, 2005 but I will not vote on the action. Any other disclosures? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MR. WHITE: Assistant county attorney, Patrick White. I'djust ask that you fill out the form as to the conflict of interest that you've just enumerated. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, I have that form for you. With that, if we can hear -- are there any other disclosures. (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. We'll hear from petitioner, please. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. Rich Y ovanovich again for the record representing the petitioner. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Too many times today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm glad I'm able to keep them straight. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're not. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The petition before yöu is a PUD for the Seacrest upper and lower school. With me today from Seacrest is Helen Reese -- and not from Seacrest but assisting Seacrest -- Bob Pearson, Margaret Perry from Wilson Miller is a planner on the project, Jeff Perry from Wilson Miller is the transportation planner on the project, and Adolpho Gonzales from Wilson Miller is the engineer on the proj ect. I'll go through this real briefly. The property is located on your visualizer. It's currently is located on Davis Boulevard. And there's an additional area, which is area right there that will be added to the school. The area that's already improved is done pursuant to a conditional use. We're manage for PUD rezoning to construct both -- well, to allow the other and upper school for a private school. The lower school right now currently has 450 students. We anticipate at ultimate build out, the high school will add 450 students. The total site is 39.4 acres. Page 198 February 3, 2005 There will now be two access points, one off of Davis and the other off of County Barn, which we believe will help with the traffic situation out there and give students and parents more flexibility to get to where they're going and not have to use just Davis Boulevard. We're requesting, you know, as I said, the upper school and accessory uses to that, which would include baseball fields, soccer fields and amenities related to the that, tennis and the like. That's just a brief overview of what we're requesting. If you need more detailed information, we're happy to provide it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just curious, Rich, if your first eight grades have 450 students, how do they fill up 450 slots in the top four grades? I mean, you've got -- you see what I'm saying? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. I'm assuming we'll probably have students transfer in when it gets to the high school level. It's a private school, some people may prefer to have high school students in a private school versus in the public schools system. And we would expect -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's just a guess or an estimate at this point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the maximum we would accommodate. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Max. All right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of the petitioner at this . ? M S . tIme. r. taln. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My questions are of staff. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anyone else on your presentation team? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not unless you have specific questions. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why would you plan a school with no bike lanes. Page 199 February 3, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: No bike lanes? COMMISSIONER CARON: Bike lanes for kids. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually, we don't allow the students to ride their bicycles or walk to school. They're required to be driven there. For safety reasons, we don't want our students arriving by bicycle or walking. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's upper and lower. MR. YOV ANOVICH: All of them. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So the upper, some of them may be driving themselves. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If they're old enough, yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. We'll hear from staff, please. MR. BOSI: For the record, Mike Bosi, Zoning Land Development Review. I'll try to keep this brief as well, and then open it up for the anticipated questions that we may have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Why did he look at you, Mark? MR. BOSI: No intending glance to say whatsoever. I will say, one of the things that we looked at in terms of, you know, the proposed projects and institution such as this, expanding a primary school with 450 students to a high school with additional potential for 450 additional more students, with the impact around the surrounding area. One of the things we were most pleased about really was discovered at the neighborhood information meeting was Falling Waters, which sits to the immediate east of this project. The residents there had nothing but complimentary things to say about the current administration of the Seacrest schools, and how, in the past, seven to eight years, they felt they've been nothing but good neighbors and conscientious of the residential component to the east. Page 200 ,....._~.->.._-~,."'., February 3, 2005 One of the things that will further ensure compatibility with this Davis Boulevard, County Boulevard -- or County Barn Road intersection is, and I alluded to it within the staff report. In January of this year you were presented with a proposal from the Growth Management Plan team to designate the County Barn Davis Boulevard intersection as a limited neighborhood commercial sub district with limited commercial opportunities and a designation for a higher density associated with whatever residential component would be associated with that. You can see where that, on page five of the staff report, you can see where that proposed -- that proposed intersection will have the effect. There's currently a zoning application in progress for Davis reserved. Currently as it exists, it's a residential project, but it has future area designated to allocate for the commercial if the amendment to the growth management plan does come in. With the connections on Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road, the anticipated expansion of County Barn Road within the, I believe, the 2005 work schedule for construction to begin upon that. We felt that the impacts of the increased -- or the request from the petitioner, could be accommodated by the infrastructure, but it also can be accommodated for the anticipated future development in the existing development, meaning the makeup of institutionals such as churches that seem to abut the adjoining property. And with that, I would open up to any questions that the commission may have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for staff. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, you've been quick on your feet today so I've got one small question for you. On page nine of your report, in two different sections you reference a deviation from the code of laws and ordinances. And I like to read things that I'm recommending, or whatever, dealing with. I don't have of copy of the codes and laws and ordinances. Now I know a long time ago a certain Collier County attorney was telling us he was going to provide us with Page 201 _'~"""'_'~_""O February 3, 2005 those. I haven't seem them yet. MR. WHITE: I informed Commissioner Strain, as well as the rest of the Board, and all the county staff that may be listening, that the code of laws is availability by clicking on the municipal code corporation folder found on your desktop in front of you. And one of the items there is a digital version of that code of laws, and if you have the opportunity today, or some subsequent time to peruse that, I think you'll find that the folio bound views of those documents, along with the help buttons, will take you to places that you've never been able to go before. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I realize that's available, and I realize -- and it was nice that it went on the municode, but when I read these things, I don't have the available to click on the internet. And everything else comes in printed matter, bound books, like our land development code that's sitting right here, like the GMP that's below it. Like the documents we got today. So, is it unreasonable to request that if we're asked to be doing deviations -- which I'm surprised we can do deviations to the codes of laws and ordinances. I didn't know that was a position this Board could opine on. But if we can, I request that a bound booklet of a copy of those be provided to the Planning Commission, otherwise, I'm not sure how we can-- I can, at least, hear on it. And maybe when Davis is done. MR. BOSI: Well, Commissioner Strain, I will pass that information along to the Zoning Development Review Staff and we will all pull our resources to do whatever we need to do to provide you with a copy of it, because some of these subdivision regulations that PUDs will traditionally maybe seek a deviation from, have been moved that were one time housed within the land development code, have been moved to those new homes, so to speak. I would have to defer it to Assistant County Attorney Patrick White as to whether we can still apply for deviation from those areas. I would have to assume that we could, but my expertise in that area is shallow. Page 202 February 3, 2005 MR. WHITE: I believe that what Mr. Bosi is referring to are both the code of laws and the administrative code. And indeed it seems logical by extension that any regulations that pertains to a petition that sets forth standard. And there is a process to deviate from. So long as it was properly stated as to the body of the regulation, and the section by site, that is being deviated from, as well as what the specific standard is that is being deviated from, and to what new standard it is going to be required to apply, that that would be legally sufficient. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you saying that this Board does have the right to approve, or do whatever they want to do in regards to approve or denial to the deviation of the codes and laws and ordinances? MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Now, with that MR. WHITE: In terms of a recommendation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Pursuant to a previous commitment that I believe you said that we'll be provided with at least a disc of those codes and laws and ordinances. Could I get a copy of that disc, please? MR. WHITE: I'm sure the staff will be happy to accommodate that request at their earliest possible convenience. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. We've got that far-- MR. BELLOWS: I vote for one, too. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the Internet is not always available to everybody all the time, a and it's not convenient to expect that this may be read at a location and time that, you know, you don't have that stuff with you. MR. BOSI: Well, I would suggest that maybe I will speak with IT, and if we only have it on disc, we'll find a computer that has a writable CD drive and download it to a disc to be able to provide it to you. Page 203 _"W~____.._.· ,._ February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Loan it to me, I'll make all the copies you want. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the staff presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: None at this time. Are there any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: None registered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any summary comments by the petitioner? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. We'll close the public hearing. Mr. Adelstein, you had a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-5611 before the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subj ect to staff s second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And a second by Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to make one statement, if I could. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Honestly, I don't think anything could please me more than to see a school being built in this community. I think it's needed. I think this PUD can go a long way to doing some good. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Motion in second. Any discussion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mike Bosi on his performance today. I don't know whether he's drinking just the right amount of coffee or what it is. But you've really been on a role all day. MR. BOSI: I appreciate it, Commissioner. Page 204 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We appreciate it more than . . you can imagine. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion on the motion? Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one question. Is there an interconnect between that new Davis preserve? Will there be an interconnect? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We -- from a security standpoint, we really don't want to have any interconnection between the school and the commercial development. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries six zero -- or, excuse me, seven zero with Midney absent and Budd abstaining. Thank you. Last agenda item under old business Mr. Strain asked to discuss an update to the AUIR. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Joe, it's that same old thing that's been dogging us for a while now, since December 17th. Do you have an update on when I might get answers to those questions? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I reviewed a draft from my staff. It went back to my staff. I'll be blunt in saying it was a brief executive overview of the comments but not much meat on the bone. What we're going to do is attach the input from the various staff. There's a Page 205 February 3, 2005 rather detailed report from utilities, and I'm looking for the same kind of detailed response from parks and rec in regards to the questions you had asked. That will take care of those issue. The only one I cannot take care of, which is beyond staffs capability of doing it right now is the issue in regards to the level of service that was discussed for the jail. That is a political issue that will take probably evolve over this year, and will be resolved by next year's AUIR. So, and it's going to be part of the budget process as well. That is something that will be between the sheriff and the Board of County Commissioners. The other piece, we do have to schedule, and I'll ask the question, how would you prefer to do that? We do have to schedule a presentation by transportation staff in regards to the 10 versus 12-hour count in regards to the concurrency -- well, 10 versus twelve month -- excuse me -- count in regards to concurrency. And given our schedules in regards to the Planning Commission, would you .want to do that as part of the regular scheduled item here, or do you want to do a workshop, and try to schedule a separate workshop? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is this on the checkbook concurrency? MR. SCHMITT: Checkbook concurrency, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How long of a presentation? MR. SCHMITT: I don't know. We really need to go over -- I'm guessing at least an hour. We need to go over some of the background. We need to go over, just as Don talked about, checkbook concurrency. This issue where checkbook concurrency is not working, it's working very well, it's just that the roads are plugged up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, no. MR. SCHMITT: Most don't understand, of course, that the issue is in regards to the issue of local development order. That's the only time we can stop a development is, right now in accordance with our concurrency is local development order. And -- but, also, just to kind Page 206 February 3, 2005 of clarify, we got a checkbook already half spent. I mean, there are vested units out there certainly enough -- and we need to cover that with you. We need to cover some of the vesting issues. We need to cover how we got to where we are concurrently. Consistency with 5.2 of the GMP and provide some of that overview. And then Don can run through the numbers in regards to the difference between the 10 versus 12-month measures. And I'm guessing, probable an hour. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'll be interested in doing it as an agenda item on a regularly scheduled meeting rather than drive everybody down here for this. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If we're talking about just an hour, hour-and-a-half. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just the discussions from one of us is going to take more than an hour to answer, number one. Number two, this is a rather formal setting. If we had an informal meeting at your conference room over in developmental services with your staff readily available, we might get more out of the meeting than we would trying to squeeze it in after a full day at this meeting when we're all tired after a full day at this meeting, but on a workshop basis. MR. SCHMITT: I would think so. I think if we did it in a workshop environment, it would probably be a bit more beneficial in regards to having the ability to interchange with the staff. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Your feeling, Mr. Strain, is it would be more than an hour once we get discussion and dialogue, that it might be two hours or more? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think we can debate with Don for two hours just on -- MR. SCOTT: I would believe questions might take quite a while. That's my guess. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, two hour plus. MR. SCHMITT: Well, let me offer this. We've been directed to bring this back to the Board March 25th. And not that we're using you Page 207 February 3, 2005 as to rehearse, but we're going to use you to rehearse. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's our function. MR. SCHMITT: Anyways, we want to certainly provide you the information, but we also owe your input back to the Board. And I think -- well, I would recommend that we get your input prior to the 25th of March so we can bring your recommendations back to the Board as part of that concurrency workshop. So, we'll look at a date. I'll get something probably early March, if that will work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think one thing too, the public should be -- the public is asking more questions about this, I'm sure, than we are. So they should really be able to watch that session. MR. SCHMITT: That's a good point. Well, they're -- it will be available with the Board of County Commissioners as well. If you want it here to be televised, or we would do it in a workshop environment and just film it, which would be later be televised. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What if we did it with the County Commissioners in March? MR. SCHMITT: I would recommend not a joint conference in regards to that. Because it's a policy issue. We're going to be getting policy direction from the Board, and I don't think you want to get yourself involved into that issue in regards to policy. We want to present it to you as a basis of understanding in your decision making process. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a question about us with the BCC, but you've answered it. Two separate ones. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I would recommend it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We're looking for a separately scheduled workshop probably on Horseshoe Drive, and you'll shoot some dates to us to see if we can schedule something? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. It will be appropriately advertised. Public will be invited to attend and participate, and certainly we'll Page 208 February 3, 2005 make arrangements to have it taped for follow up viewing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just have one comment to follow up to your comments on the answers to the questions about AUIR. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The biggest question I had was that there was a $285 million dollar asset shown in 2003 that was not shown in 2004 and nobody can explain what happened to it. That's the one the dealing with Parks and Recs. So, I know you may have answers to the others. Those are somewhat explainable, and understandable, but I would like to know the answer to that other question. And that's probably the most important one. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And the answer to that was, categorically, it was just a compilation of what -- because last year, as you well know, there was a discussion of separate impact fees for beach and boat access. And what we did, to present that to the Board, we accessed what we thought it would cost to the various sites that they were asking us to look at for beach and boat access. So that was nothing more than an estimate. But I need to break that down for you and give you the details and the response. And that's what I've asked my staff to go back and ask Marla for that specificity in regards to the answer. The other one I know you had asked about was EMS. EMS once, again, was assets, but I think that was just basically how they were calculated, or added by or counted by the budget office. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else? Any other questions? New business? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would like us to discuss possibility of us opening in prayer like the BCC. If anyone has any input. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Fine with me. It needs to be by somebody else other than me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would do it. Page 209 February 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't have a problem doing it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Opening prayer. Like the County Commission does an opening prayer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to hear it before I approve it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I can arrange that. I'll bring it up for discussion next meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That would be great. Very good. Any other business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:35 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY DANIELLE AHREN. Page 210 FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS ~ST N~E_FIRST\NAME-MIDDLE NAME ('¡ \ \ ...)í (l ~, ,J (\ 1 A a. ,'- \'"' {).:Iy¿, ~ C. :AIUNG ADDRESS , ,\ . \ ~~GI<; ~rv~ I'V.\U 'ITY v\j Q .lR.-o ATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED 2 - ?7- os-' COUNTY C<.:::> I "C\J---- PUf)2.~ft -2(X')'-\- .rT¿M. G ,I- i2..- -; gr¡9 ~. E OF BOARD. ~UNC1L. COM~SI0N, AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE L-v t \'€-.r (c."'l" 1"..\ V I ð... ~.hV \ 'vv (L)/Y" 0'11 . S S leA-. THE BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AlTTHORITY R COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: o CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL. SUBDIVISION: Colkc.r (OVo--.J ~ MY POSITION IS: o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY o ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 Thisforrnis for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or ejected board, council, commission. authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending In whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before .:ompleting the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or· . :0 the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 01 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form-with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations descn'bed above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the connict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minlltF.~ of the meetinq, who will incorporate the form in_the mioutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) :·.ì ,1· . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote Occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting. who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, f, \\t{~ (l k:- V S, R (\. ~ì J , hereby disclose that on ./' ? ,J .190Ç: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative. inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or . ('()~IJ l-~ r.e./lc.e, v'<:cJ '\ u ? '\ L inured to the'speciaJ gain or loss of c; ,', 1-\ \J ''-') ¡)'¿.A) ~'t?·fì.~Ý I'~ is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: . by . which '? \:' y{ *- I v*' J C U'v \, 0- \ ç: *: ¿ v .J2. -b 0\, \.':::' ,) .10 _ \ ~ C'-t\ u::-- c.\ ~ ' &\,."- C{ d.:/' c «./\"......+ ~ ò ( \ r ('...:0 j P (\- 0 \.,,-.\ u:> <..0 L-:J\..¡J r¡', '---'J '<2 ('0 '--.1) \ u,,-;y r ,:-; '...;J I/~f l.iC,/ I ('Áv~ f v/\lz~ "- _ Signature Date Fìled .. . 2"> . c.) S' NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - REV. 1/98 ,f - PAGE 2 FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY I DATE ON WHICH I a MY POSITION IS: o ELECTIVE ¡¡('APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FORCOMPLlANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on 3 mea- I sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the soecial private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officers father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying .on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations descnbed above, yóu otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, R.ÙSS8IL A, ßüt>Þ , hereby disclose that on_FEB12.UAR'< 2J - ,20 05 : (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) L inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , by , wnld, PJDl- 2.004 - AR - 5GII I AN THe- CD rJSllãXXIOrV M\f\JA(]{)"R. FO£.. ì1{6 P~Oi'Œ:i:J"D BUlL ï ) DÐ'~PINCJ VPO~ n-+e A'PfYR-O\JAC Ifl\:1H Set-tOOL I W/fIC1-l Of TH IS 12E20N6 w It-L e£ RE"QUBT 2 /3/05 ¡¿J A ¿wid Date Filed Signature NOT1CE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTiON, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 . EFF 1/2000 PAGE 2