Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/07/2005 R April 7, 2005 _. TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NAPLES, FLORIDA, APRIL 7, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members Present: - CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd Kenneth Abernathy Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney Brad Schiffer Robert Murray Mark Strain Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney - Don Scott, Transportation Planning Page 1 -,---.--- -.-...,.. ~---"-~"""-"--"'-""'-'^"'_."'-- AGENDA - COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 7,2005, 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 HA VE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTA nON TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. - NOTE: The public should be advised that a member of the Collier County Planning Commission (Bob Murray) is also a member of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 17, 2004, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS -MARCH 8, 2004, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: VA-2004-AR-7005, Waldemar Bokrand of Golden Gate Import Export, Inc., represented by Vincent Antrilli, Jr. of Consul-Tech Development Services, Inc., is requesting a variance to reduce the - landscape buffer requirement between uses in a PUD from 10ft to 1 ft for a distance of 101 LF total along the south property line. The subject property is located in the Don Carlos Subdivision of Kings Lake PUD, Section 7, Tovvnship 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) CONTINUED TO 4/21/05 1 _.'~_."'- ...~~~'" -.-- B. Petition: V A-2005-AR-6983, Daniel Barthel, as owner and agent, is requesting a variance to reduce the front setback from 25 feet to 3.3 feet and the side setback from 5 feet to 1.2 feet to accommodate a shade trellis over a parking area. The subject property is located at 507 Goodland Drive East, Goodland Isles, Lot 2, Block A, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Goodland, Florida. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) C. Petition: CU-2004-AR-6090, Collier County Public Utilities Engineering Department represented by Brian Nelson, ASLA, of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, Inc., requesting a conditional use pursuant to Section 2.01.13.G.l of the Land Development Code for "Essential Services", more particularly identified as a master pump station in the "E" Estates Zoning district. The property is located south of Immokalee Road, less than Yz mile west of Wilson Boulevard on Tract 84, Unit 20, Golden Gate Estates, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 1.65 acres. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) CONTINUED FROM 3/17/05 D. Petition: PUDZ-A-2003-AR-3585, Wilson Boulevard Center LLC, represented by William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., requesting a rezone from a "PUD" Planned Unit Development zoning district to a "PUD" Planned Unit Development district known as the Wilson Boulevard Center PUD. The rezoning would have the effect of amending the PUD Ordinance. A proposed change would allow the water management area to be located within a portion of the 75-foot wide buffers along the eastern and southern boundaries of the PUD. The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard within a Neighborhood Center of Golden Gate Estates, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 7.l5:l: acres. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) E. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-6258, Elias Brothers Communities at Palermo Cove, Inc., represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc. and Chuck Basinait, of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., requesting a rezone from the Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to be known as Palermo Cove PUD, consisting of 131 acres and a maximum of 524 residential dwelling units. The property is located north of Wolfe Road, west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) F. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-3608, Orangetree Associates represented by Jeff Davidson, E.!., of Davidson Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezone from a "PUD" zoning district to a "PUD" Planned Unit Development district known as the Orangetree PUD. The petitioner wants to amend the PUD document and Master Plan to reflect an increase in the number of residential dwelling units from 2,100 to 3,750 units. In addition, the petitioner is requesting to add multi-family condominiums and rental apartments as principal uses, and adding fitness centers as a permitted use in the residential districts. Other changes include amending the Commercial/Neighborhood District to add all C-l and C-3 permitted uses as provided in the Collier County Land Development Code and to increase the commercial floor area from 60,000 square feet to 319,000 square feet. The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the east side ofImmokalee Road (CR-846), north side of Randall Boulevard and approximately a % mile east of Wilson Boulevard in Sections 13, 14, 23 & 24, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County Florida. This property consists of 2752.8:l: acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) CONTINUED TO 5/19/05 G. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-6383, William Hoover, AICP of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., as applicant and agent for Catalina Plaza, LLC in requesting a rezone from the "AG" Rural Agricultural zoning district to the "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Carolina Village located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road about 1/4 mile west of Collier Boulevard. Carolina Village PUD will consist of 150,000 square feet of commercial uses and up to 64 residential units. The property is located in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East in Collier County, Florida and consists of 15.88 acres ::to (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS: A presentation and discussion by Public Utilities Department staff 2 ;""",;"c",,".,.".;:L,.:i'l""",,~,",""~i"Ii<",,",ii"Uilkl!>i;;~~ililllji;l:., 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM - 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN April 7, 2005, CCPC AgendalRBlsp .' -" 3 .. "m_._..,..__.__~___,_",__ ---,- ~, April 7, 2005 ,- CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll call this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission to Order. Please rise with me as we say the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll have our roll call. Ms. Caron? MS. CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. MR. ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Budd is here. Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney. .- MR. MIDNEY: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a full slate. Addendum to the agenda. We have several continuances. Agenda Item 8A, that is petition V A-2004-AR-7005, Waldemar Bockrand of Golden Gate Import Export requesting a variance to reduce a landscape buffer. That is being continued to April 21 st. Also item 8C, petition CU-2004-AR-6090, Collier County Public Utilities. MR. ABERNATHY: Hold it. Hold it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Pardon me? MR. ABERNATHY: They changed that, didn't they? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that back? ,_. MR. ABERNATHY: It's Delta rather than Charlie.There was a correction message. Page 2 "-- ~.~_.._.,,____~___,_'"."n.. ."...~_..~_ ........_.__ April 7, 2005 ,-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: I missed the correction. Okay. then that petition is not continued. Thank you for the clarification. Item D, which is petition. PUDZ-2003-AR-3585, Wilson Boulevard Center requesting a rezone is being continued to April 21 st. Item F, that is petition PUDZ-2004-AR-3608, Orange Tree Associates requesting a rezone from PUD zoning district to a PUD planned unit development district, that is being continued to May 19th. MR. ABERNATHY: So moved. MR. BELLOWS: Chairman Budd? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to make a clarification. On the Orange Tree, that's Item F. It's continued indefinitely. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Continued indefinitely. And we have a motion for those modifications by Mr. Abernathy. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll second. .- CHAIRMAN BUDD: A second by Mr. Adelstein. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There is none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MR. ABERNATHY: aye. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MINDY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those opposed? - (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Any planned or Page 3 - _..~-, '. ,..--.- .... .__,do.,>". .._-,~-",.,-_. -" " ~---,,-- April 7, 2005 .-. announced planning commission absences? MR. MURRAY: Yes, Chairman. Just as a reminder, April 21 I will not be able to attend here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any others? MR. ABERNATHY: I probably would have to put myself in the iffy column on the 20th. I have a medical procedure in the morning and sometimes I don't respond very well to it, so, I'll try. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any others? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Moving on to the approval of minutes. We have our February 17th regular meeting. Do we have a motion to adopt or modify? MR. MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion to adopt by Mr. Murray. Do we have a second? - MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor -- MR. ABERNATHY: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh, yes, sir. MR. ABERNATHY: In the middle of page four toward the end, Mr. Hawkins is speaking. He says, petitioner is requesting approval for a 30- foot extension from the allowed 20 for overall protrusion of 556 feet. I don't think those two figures add up very well. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. ABERNATHY: So that must be 50 or-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Fifty-five or 56, depending on the -- MR. ABERNATHY: Something like that. - CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. All right. So with that correction, the motion still stands with the correction, Mr. Murray? Page 4 -_.._..__.,--_..__..~~,-,_._".- ,---_. ---_.._--~,.._~_.._--,-,._._..."..,.._"--,- April 7, 2005 ,,- MR. MURRA Y: Agreed. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And the second, Mr. Adelstein? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. All those in favor say aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. MURRA Y: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MR. ABERNATHY: Aye. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MINDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? ,- (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Minutes are adopted. MR. SCHIFFER: And, Chairman, I have to abstain from voting. I wasn't here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And moving on, Board of County Commissioners report. MR. STRAIN: Yes. The Board heard and approved the conditional use for the Goodland Park. That was approved by a vote of five to zero. And they have adopted the maximum of 75 boat parking trailer spaces. The rezone for the Coconilla PUD was approved four to one, and that was limited to 80 dwelling units maximum. The companion conditional use was withdrawn by the applicant. The PUD amendment for Silver Lakes was approved on the summary agenda. And the variance for the Tabernacle Church was approved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. We have no - chairman's report. We'll move into our advertised public hearings. Item A, we already note it was continued. We will go to item 8B. Page 5 _._--~_.,,_., .,~ ...~,--, _..0' -----~.,----~,.._._..., ~'..- April 7, 2005 _c That is petition V A-2005-AR-6983, Daniel Barthel requesting a variance to reduce a front setback. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn In. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any disclosures by Planning commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. BARTHEL: Hi. My name is Dan Barthel. My wife, Gail. We're the owners of the property. And with any luck here, I can find a .- little Power Point. We replaced an existing carport with a new trellis. And in the process, we're confused about what the Goodland overlay really said. You talked about all of us in Goodland. We think -- thought -- that we had automatic right to replace without doing anything. It turns out, not the case. So here we are after the fact. Property is interesting. It was built in 1910 by Captain Bill Collier -- no relationship to the Collier Colliers -- on Marco Island. The schooner went ashore during a hurricane loaded with Miami Dade Pine, and Marco had its first building boom back in 1910. It then moved to Old Marco to the inn as a guest cottage sometimes in the thirties. I get this from my neighbor across the canal who grew up on Marco and came over to Goodland in 1960. We did a complete restoration of it in 2000, 2001, so we call it the might-as-well trellis, and replaced the carport in 2003. That's the original property with the original carport up front. - It was an aluminum structure, about as flimsy as you could get. You notice also the house next door has a carport there at the time. Page 6 _._...._.,~ ~.._." -~--,_..,"'. -~."'.'""'"".~,~-.. ,,-'~--~->>'--'- ."--~- April 7, 2005 - That owner has subsequently removed that for ultimate replacement later. The original carport would have required a front variance from 25 feet down to six feet. We now require one 25 down to 3.3 feet. The original carport did not require a side variance. We now do from five foot down to 1.2 feet. And before we built it, I got the explicit agreement from my neighbor, Joe Douglas, that he had no problem with it, and we went ahead and did it. That's the current trellis, also serves to provide shade for the car. It's an open structure. It's built out of Goodland beams with, what should have been, three by three Ruson cedar, but you can't afford to buy that in Florida, so what we did was, we split two-by-six PT into two-by-threes, which are leg bolted to the top of the structure. Here's an aerial. The carport is right there and it's really about the only place you can put a driveway carport on a 50-foot lot. A ,.- number of the lots on Goodland Drive West were platted at 50 feet and then they widen out to 70 feet further on down, so, we're really space constrained. We have neighborhood approval. I have letters from all my adjacent neighbors. We've been to the Goodland Community Association and to the Goodland Preservation Correlation, both of whom like what we've done. Neither of whom want to get involved in individually writing what we like for residence, and that's understandable. The general comment is we replaced an eyesore and now it gets used by the Goodland kids because our house is the bus stop. So they're out there every morning. We had no other place to put it. The other half of the yard is septic field compared to what else you can find in Goodland -- and I have a tour if you'd like -- we're well within what exists all over Goodland. In fact, because our street 0.___.. swale is so wide, we're actually further back from the street then a lot of structures I found in Goodland. And, interestingly, when -- and Lee Page 7 ~ ,.--,,'-- - ,._-.._<,._."~ ' "" . _."_.,,,--- ~"_.__,,,_,.~.'._ ',_.."._..." '.m.._ April 7, 2005 .'-' might be able to talk to this -- Harbor Court pretty much had this sort of thing written in to the overlay, and the rest of Goodland didn't. I'm not sure how that happened. So that's our request. We respectfully request your approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Any questions of the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: None at this time. Thank you. MR. BARTHEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Staff report, please. MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. My name is Heidi Williams, principal planner with Zoning & Land Development Review. Mr. Barthel covered this request fairly extensively. I'll just put a location map for your clarification. A few other points I'd like to note. This case was brought about -- it's an after-the-fact variance by a code - enforcement case. Their option was to remove the structure to become compliant, or to go through the variance process. Staff recommends approval with the limitation to the existing structure as built today. Destruction of the existing trellis would negate the variance. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions of staff? Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Want to go first? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yeah, I would like to. Page six of eight, Item D. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance? Answer, yes. Front yard setback was supposed to be 25 feet. They reduced it by 21.9 feet leaving 3.1 feet. Side yard setback, five feet. Reduced it by 3.10 inches leaving a 1.2 foot setback. Now, where are we getting this minimum variance? You know, this type of thing is what has been bothering me these last months. It's - the second time it's come up in the last six weeks. I don't understand how you can put that down. Page 8 "-'"~"'-'."'-'- -.,...-".... .='.~--,,- --- April 7, 2005 ._. MS. WILLIAMS: I simply stated that based on the existing structure. The applicant is not requesting anything additional from what is built. It is strictly limited to what is there today. MR. ADELSTEIN: And you're willing to say this is a minimum variance? MS. WILLIAMS: It's the minimum that would be required for this structure to be compliant. MR. ADELSTEIN: In other words then, it's because staffwants it to come out that way, we're calling it a minimum variance? Because it isn't by any stretch a minimum variance. MS. WILLIAMS: It's simply based on the structure that is there. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. STRAIN: Ma'am, I have read everything you supplied, I have one problem with your recommendation. Especially, and I kind of thought about this as the gentleman was making his presentation. -. He's constructed out of a wood material, basically PT. I use a lot of PT and it doesn't last forever. Your variance -- your recommendation number two, I would suggest possibly changing it to the variances limited to a shade trellis in the location of the existing structure. That way if pressure-treated lumbar has a life expectancy out in the open air like that and rains and possibly a trellis on it, if it has a problem after 10 years, it would be nice to know this gentleman didn't have to come back in here and pay the cost every few years it takes to correct itself. So, that's the only suggestion I would make to the recommendations. MS. WILLIAMS: I think that would serve the same intent. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Yes. The setbacks that are shown, are they to the roof of the trellis, or the columns of the trellis? -- MS. WILLIAMS: Those are to the surveyed columns, I believe. It's based on the survey of this structure. Mr. Barthel may be able to Page 9 ~ ~.-,--,._'- __'_"_._~4~"_' "M --- April 7, 2005 .-.., speak about the survey. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Barthel, please come to the microphone. MR. BARTHEL: On the side the setback is the same. The trellis doesn't extend to the side over the columns, other than maybe the width of the two-inch beam. On the front, the overhang is about 14 inches for the slots. Does that answer? MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah, that answers. So it does protrude further into the front setback? MR. BARTHEL: By about that much, yeah. MR. SCHIFFER: All right. And then your question, Heidi, is in E you state that this grants no special privilege. So, I mean, I'm a little confused. When I read that I get the impression that the overlay does allow this kind of thing, or does it not? MS. WILLIAMS: The accessory use is allowed. I guess that's ....., an iffy question. The variance is allowing encroachment into the setback. But the use of a shade structure, or parking carport, for lack of a better term, is not a special privilege. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, if everybody is allowed to do it, then we wouldn't be having a variance, correct? So, it is a privilege that he wouldn't have with the zoning, correct? MS. WILLIAMS: He'd be permitted to build a carport as long as it met the setbacks, and encroaching that carport into the setback, would be a special privilege. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. So you think the answer to E is no still, or -- MS. WILLIAMS: I guess it depends on how you look at it. My argument was that it's not a special privilege to grant this use, but the variance allows him to extend that use. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think what they're trying to say is the - ability to do it is not a special privilege. Where you do it, is the vanance. Page 10 . . .__.____._.__".u'_ -.----- April 7, 2005 --- MR. SCHIFFER: Right. But, I mean, the question is, does it give a special privilege to the zoning regulations. The setbacks are part of the zoning regulations. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, the zoning manager. The variance process is a form of granting a special exemption. It is a special process, but it's on a site specific basis. It doesn't set a precedent for the community in general. And I think that's where that question comes from. It is not setting a precedent for variances in Goodland in the future. Variances are site specific to the specific requirements of the project. MR. SCHIFFER: And, therefore, this would be available for other structures in the same zoning district? MR. BELLOWS: Carports are, the encroachments would not. MR. SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, we know carports are allowed. We're only here for the setback. -- MR. BELLOWS: Right. MR. SCHIFFER: I know that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHIFFER: No. I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray? MR. MURRA Y: I would just say that I can see from the various papers and from the presentations that, in my opinion, at least as much as the structure is there, it serves a useful purpose for the community as well as for the school children, I would like to make a motion that -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: We haven't closed the hearing yet. MR. MURRA Y: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Haven't closed the hearing. MR. MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of the staff? (No response.) - CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Are there any registered public speakers? Page 11 -"~_..~..., ,...---,.-..,.. ~-'- April 7, 2005 - MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? MR. MURRAY: I will continue my effort to make a motion. I would recommend that the planning commission move forward with approval of the petition V A-2005-AR-6983 to the board of zoning appeals with variance items one and two, modified number two according to Mr. Strain's recommendation. MR. STRAIN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. by Mr. Strain. Discussion? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Sir, Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: Question. Again, really nothing directly with this gentleman's problem. I'm just a little bit upset with the idea that what they are saying here is we can make a variance, minimum variance on anything if we think it's right to do. And, Joe, am I wrong? Is this proper as far as you are concerned also? MR. SCHMITT: Certainly. An applicant has every right to ask for a dimensional variance. MR. ADELSTEIN: But it would not be a minimum variance, but it would be a variance we would be willing to accept. Apart from calling these minimum variances, when, in fact, they're substantial variances, doesn't seem to make sense to me. I have no objection to what we're giving or getting -- he's going to get out of this. That's fine. It's just a conflict of language. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's certainly, what we deal with with the English language. And it says minimum variance, and it's the variance that would be minimum to make sure that the structure was within the setback. If it was something more than the minimum, you'd be going beyond the variance needed to make this nonconforming structure conforming. So-- MR. ADELSTEIN: So, that's the point is, so you're saying it, Page 12 .- . ,.....w,"" . 'd..,..."._"_"...~. ---".._.,..,.",,-._.~- .--- April 7, 2005 ,- because that's what we want to see happen, and I would want to see it happen myself. It's not that I'm opposed to it. It's just the language isn't -- it's legalese rather than doing it the way I'd hoped it would be done. MR. SCHMITT: I mean, call it the variance needed to make the nonconforming structure now -- MR. ADELSTEIN: And, in fact if that's what it said, I would have absolutely no problem. MR. SCHMITT: Conform to the requirements of the property that it's going to be defined for and it's for this singular, or for this property. No other. Patrick-- MR. WHITE: Assistant county attorney, Patrick White. I'll translate the legalese, Mr. Adelstein, to say, in my opinion, that that is exactly what we've done in this case, what the county is recommending in this case, is the minimum that's necessary. If it were -- any less, a portion of the structure would, obviously, remain nonconforming. And the whole purpose and point of having requesting the variance would seem to have been for naught. MR. ABERNATHY: This takes me back to law school where we used to spend hours on discussions like this. MR. WHITE: I'd certainly prefer to move on. MR. ABERNATHY: How many angels can stand on the head of a pin also comes to mind. MR. SCHMITT: The greatness of the English language, how the word can mean different things to different people, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that we have a motion and a second on the floor. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Call the question, all those in favor signify by saying aye. - CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. Page 13 -, .0_.___"_~_' --_._..._~ --_._- '- April 7, 2005 ,._, MR. MURRAY: Aye. MR. ABERNATHY: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MINDY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Next item is Petition CU-2004-AR-6090, Collier County Public Utilities Engineering Department requesting a conditional use. MR. SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, one quick second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MR. SCHIFFER: Could somebody, if a technician is listening, ,- my screen is dead. If they could -- MR. MURRA Y: And I cannot hear. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So if our IT Department could help Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Murray, if they're out there. MR. SCHIFFER: Otherwise I can -- we can move on. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Push that bottom button. MR. SCHIFFER: I did. Robin, can you see if Katie can provide some help? MR. MURRAY: Never mind. MR. SCHIFFER: Yours is working now? MR. MURRA Y: Yeah. It's almost there. MR. SCHIFFER: It's the button. That's the secret. MR. MURRAY: I'm not getting the sound though. MR. SCHIFFER: You're not getting sound? MR. MURRAY: I've having little log-on issues. ,- CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. With that, all those wishing to present testimony on this item please stand and raise your right hand Page 14 ...,....~,-,.."'. ~ .""._"_~"..~~_~_,,_".,...o>,,,_,.,,~_~ " -,-- .~'-- April 7, 2005 "_ to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any disclosures by planning commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There appear to be none. If we can hear from the petitioner, please. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl from Agnoli, Barber & Brundage representing Collier County Public Utilities Engineering Department. Also here with the county is Sandy Sridhar. She can answer any technical questions. I'll present the planning issues. This is a conditional use petition for a master pump --- station. The station is located on Immokalee Road about a half mile west of Wilson Boulevard. It is on a parcel of land zoned estates. You can see the outline in red of the property and, obviously, the aerial was taken before the construction on Immokalee Road. But you can see the layout of the 1.65 acre parcel. The findings for conditional use, the consistency with growth management plan in LDC, this is consistent with the conditional use subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The locational criteria in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, essential services are allowed anywhere within the GGMAMP. Consistency with the LDC will happen at the time of site development plan will have to meet all site development plan criteria. Another finding, ingress and egress, Immokalee Road is, obviously, still under construction, but a major thoroughfare. However, there's going to be minimum traffic in and out. Pedestrians --, will be accommodated with the sidewalk, although pedestrians are expected to be minimal along this stretch of Immokalee Road Page 15 --- -~..."..,.~ ..," ~.", .. .......-.... _._"-", ~-_. ,". -'- April 7, 2005 _. Third finding, noise, glare, economic and odor effects. There will be a six-foot wall with landscaping around the master pump station. Most of the equipment will be underground. This is obviously not the pump station, but it's the same design. The green structure there is a generator, and the generator will run only during startup and power outages, so that's not going to be running all the time. The white next to that is odor control, and in front of that, the green box in front of that, is the control panel. You can see most of the equipment is underground, and we put a person in front of that so you can get a perspective. A little over six feet, so the six-foot wall will cover most of that. This is in Bonita Springs where they didn't require a wall, so it has a chain link fence. Ours will have the six - foot wall. And compatibility with the residential neighborhood, the property owner to the south sold us the property knowing it was going to be a master pump station, and no one showed up at our _. neighborhood info meeting on November 18th, including the property owner to the south. I'd be happen to answer any questions for you. MR. ADELSTEIN: There actually was a meeting called, because the way I read it, it said there was no public hearing required. MR. REISCHL: We had a meeting. We stuck around for, half hour probably, at Palmetto Ridge fighting off mosquitos in November. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Only one question with regard to fragrance, or odor. I notice the scrubbers there. How effective are they? Is it hydrogen sulphate is the primary gas that we're concerned about? MR. REISCHL: I think if I can ask Sandy to answer that question. It's beyond my expertise. MR. MURRAY: I understand. Just concerned for the fragrance. - MS. SRIDHAR: Our odor controlling is very effective. It is hydrogen sulphate. But the unit itself is compensated with different Page 16 ,... -,. -".._..._._~~.- - ~- April 7, 2005 - chemicals so the odor is not bad. It is not going to affect anybody's health. MR. MURRA Y: You say not bad. I don't mean to be critical, I'm just more curious, I suspect, or I am concerned for the people. They sold the property, you've made the statement, they sold the property knowing there might be odor. In as much you have these units elsewhere, what are your number of complaints, minimal, none? MS. SRIDHAR: There is absolutely no complaint. We have pump stations all over the place. We have currently a pump station near Immokalee and 951 at Immokalee and Livingston Road. They are the biggest pump stations that's close to it, not water plants. That was built about 10 to 15 years ago. And we are currently going to replace the odor control unit. And if we go to those stations, the proj ect manager for the repairs on those stations, and if we go to those stations, we can smell, only few are closer to the station. Inside the station I can smell some odor, but because we are going to change the unit, it takes like 15 years for it to abate itself out. MR. MURRAY: I'm satisfied. Thank you. I think you've answered my question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. MR. ABERNATHY: Fred, I'm looking at your conceptual site plan, and I recognize that it is conceptual, but even in concept, it wouldn't seem you would want the front yard - front setback to bisecdt the building, would you? That seems to be what it does. MR. REISCHL: It's a wall. That's why it's a wall, not a building, because the wall - walls can go within a setback. MR. ABERNATHY: Wall can go. Okay. All right. I understand that now. .-. The people who sold the front part of lmmokalee Road, north part of their lot, I think the material said there are two houses on that Page 17 _._-,~._'. .-, ,.-..- -""-- April 7, 2005 - lot to the south? MR. DERUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Zoning Land Development Review. Yes, if I go to an aerial map here, we can see that there are two structures. MR. ABERNATHY: Are they at the southerly portion of the lot? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. MR. ABERNATHY: And they use 24th Avenue as their access? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir, that is correct. MR. ABERNATHY: In other words, they're not depending on an easement through here at all? MR. DERUNTZ: That's correct. MR. ABERNATHY: Now, Fred, here's one for you. How often do you light off that emergency generator just to make sure it's working? Once a week? -- MR. REISCHL: That's my understanding that it's during startup and any power outages. MR. ABERNATHY: Once a week? MR. REISCHL: Once a week. MR. ABERNATHY: And then how long do you run it? MS. SRIDHAR: We test it once a week for 15 minutes. MR. ABERNATHY: In the mornings, evening, whenever? MS. SRIDHAR: It depends on the availability of our crew. MR. ABERNATHY: Technician has to go there and do it? MS. SRIDHAR: That's correct. A couple of technicians who are there to do it. MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions? MR. ABERNATHY: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. -- MR. SCHIFFER: Fred, could you put a requirement -- do you see how on your exhibit C, which is the site plan, could you have it Page 18 ,-"_.~ ---.._.,~ ',- ""--.----.-- --"-- April 7, 2005 ,- that any equipment taller than the wall would have to been within the building setbacks? In other words, looking at your photo, a couple pieces of those equipment are probably 10 to 12 feet tall. MR. REISCHL: That's our understanding, yes, that structures that are non wall will have to meet the setback. The wall is the only thing that won't meet the setback. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We've heard from the petitioner. Hear from staff report, please. MR. DERUNTZ: Again, Mike DeRuntz, principal planner with the Zoning Land Development Review. As the petitioner has mentioned, this is an essential service, and it is located in the estates. Zoning district is consistent with the growth management plan. It is - compatible with the surrounding property. There is an electric transmission station just down the street on the south side of Immokalee Road. Staff is recommending some conditions for approval, particularly number four at the time of site development plan. Environmental staff is requesting that this condition be incorporated into the approval for this, if it is approved. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? MR. ADELSTEIN: Just the one. Is a public hearing required? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. MR. ADELSTEIN: Well, I thought in here it said that there was no public hearing. MR. DERUNTZ: No, we did have a public hearing. MR. ADELSTEIN: Well, okay. The document said it didn't. MR. SCHMITT: Point of clarification, this is the public hearing. The neighborhood information meeting is required to be - scheduled. It was advertised. It was required to be scheduled. That's up to the applicant to do that. The applicant scheduled it, advertised Page 19 .--.- --,~.^ ,_,... ..____._._,..._._~...'N_...,.,.,,_'..____~_.___ -.-- April 7, 2005 it, if nobody shows up -- MR. ADELSTEIN: I understood that. MR. SCHMITT: This would be just a neighborhood informational meeting. MR. ADELSTEIN: This was just a technical question. Was it really absolutely necessary and you answered yes. That's fine. MR. SCHMITT: And this is the public, first of the public hearing. Of course the public hearing will then be the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions of staff? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that we will close the public hearing. - Do we have a motion on this item? MR. STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for CU-2004-AR-6090. MR. MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Strain, a second by Mr. Murray. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MR. ABERNATHY: Aye. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye. - MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MINDY: Aye. Page 20 -"-.^'. ""-'---"",,",-.-. ..'....._,---_.._~".. "~'. ---- April 7, 2005 - MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Planning Commissioners, reminding you to fill out your findings of fact and pass them down to Mr. Adelstein. Okay. Our next agenda item today, Item D was continued. Moving on to Item E, that is Petition PUDZ-2004-AR-6258, Elias Brothers Community at Palermo Cove. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any disclosures by planning - commissioners? MR. STRAIN: Yes. Just before the meeting started Mr. Nadeau came up and asked if I had any questions, and at that time I just showed him my tabs and said maybe he's one of these. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Ifwe can hear from the petitioner, please. MR. NADEAU: Good morning. Excuse me. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for RW A representing the petitioner, Elias Brothers Community at Palermo Cove. Excuse me. This morning with me I have co-agent Charles Basinait of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt. We were hoping that our environmental and transportation consultants would be here but they ~__'o were coming from Fort Myers, and with the accidents on 75, they're not quite here yet. But they would be Ken Passarello, Ted Page 21 .-- - ..,,-...- .~".- April 7, 2005 .- Treesche of Metro. We also have representatives of the petitioner here, Mr. Clark Leeming, and their professional engineer, Gina Green. Excuse me. Commissioners, I'm very proud to stand in front of you today with this petition. It's gone through an exhaustive review by staff, by your comprehensive planning staff, and is very far along with South Florida Water Management District. Just to give you a little idea of where the project is. It's about a half mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road and is abutting to the north of Wolfe Road, where Wolfe Road intersects with Collier Boulevard. The Project size is 131 acres. You can see the project here next to Summit Place in Naples, recently approved. Also adjacent to the- also adjacent to and to the south of the GGFD Station 73 PUD for the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District, it lies north of Wolfe Creek PUD, and to the east of Island Walk. Excuse me. The existing 131-acre property is proposed to -'. be rezoned from an agriculture to our PUD to be known as Palermo Cove. It will have a diversity of both single-family attached and single- family detached product lines, both in a one-and a two-story configuration potentially. There would be no more than 524 residences within the project, that would be four dwelling units per acre. It's consistent with the surrounding development pattern. I'll get into compatibility issues in a few moments. As I said earlier, we've had significant efforts in review by the South Florida Water Management District. Weare in our third RAI, or request for additional information. That information is nominal. We expect a staff report and a board date relatively soon. One of the unique characteristics of the project is the flow way that was mandated by the Water Management District, and embraced by this conscientious developer. You can see here the subdivision plan for Summit Place here to the west, and this is where the preserve boundary is for Summit Place. There's also a shared preserved boundary to the south with Palermo Cove here, and then all of our Page 22 ---......_".,~-_..-. _.~>... 'O'~_'_"_ .-....- April 7, 2005 -. water management impoundment will run along the backs of the lots within Palermo Cove to accept drainage from the Harvey Basin, as well as from Wolfe Road east west, which we are responsible for constructing to a minor collector standard. And then the Wolfe Creek people would be constructing the second leg, the north south leg of Wolfe Road connecting to Vanderbilt Road, anticipated to be named Pristine Drive. Additionally, through the efforts of -- additionally, through the efforts of the developer with Collier County, as well as the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District, as well as the Christ Community Lutheran Church. The Christ Community Lutheran Church was down on this lower easterly leg of the project site, and at great expense to the petitioner, he purchased this land and moved the school up to what we would call the truck stop, or the truck shop, which is the Yearich property. -, Additionally, through an agreement with Collier County, a pond was designed and will be constructed as a part of the Collier Boulevard six -laning improvements. So, we worked with the county, as well as the fire district, to provide for access off of Wolfe Road for the fire station. So they will have two access points. One on Collier Boulevard and one on Wolfe Road. And I'll bring up later to you some additional signage requests by the fire station that will require some deviations and I have some handouts for you. The amenities proposed in the project are going to be those which you would typically expect, but they are much more elaborate than what you would expect. The clubhouse in Tuscany Cove is going to be very elaborate. And when I first saw the Ibis Cove clubhouse, It was amazing to me. there will also be lakes, open spaces for passive recreation. The -- as we've discussed the access. Now, compatibility with the adj oining properties is insured by --- the extensive preserve area around the project sites. At the closest point with Island Walk here, there is 272 feet from the closest lot line Page 23 ,.....'"~,.;.^.,~"-"~,.~,"....._-,, _.~-_.,~~._."....._".~..~~,-,._-_."._.,......_. ...._- April 7, 2005 ......,. to the eastern -- to the westerly boundary of the PUD project site. And measuring from the closest unit in Island Walk, which would be, approximately, right here, there's 405 feet of separation from the closest unit to the back of the potential lot petition has been reviewed by comprehensive planning for consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the growth management plan and found to be consistent. This included the consistency review for transportation impacts. There are no detrimental effects on any of our roadways. There is capacity on 951 after it's six laning. no phasing, but the project would build out approximately 2008, which would be around the time -- it would be probably six months after the completion of both the Vanderbilt extension -- the Vanderbilt improvements for six laning. The six-laning improvements for Collier Boulevard, as well as the six-laning improvements for Immokalee Road. Water and sewer will be looped from the Vanderbilt roadside to the Collier Boulevard side, via Pristine Drive and Wolfe Road east west. We have significant cooperation with our neighbors. And If I may show you on this slide, along our south boundary, we abut Wolfe Creek PUD. We have a draft agreement that's being run through. Mr. Hoover, from the Hoover planning shop to do shared buffering. There are deviations provided for in the PUD which have been deemed to be acceptable by staff and potentially could be the impetus for further land development code amendmen. Similar situation also occurs along the common property boundary with Summit Place, and also along the common boundary of the Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District. And Effectively what this means is, that we're not going to have our swales come up with a five-foot top, drop down to natural grade, and then have five feet of separation between the two, or a ten-foot no man's land in r"_ between the water management impoundments. What will occur is that the berm will be built to the property line and there will be a Page 24 _.'W .~... ,..-- April 7, 2005 10- foot flat top with the property boundary running the center line of the impoundment top, and then each side will have their own five feet of landscaping and they can irrigate from their own side. So there's no overlap of maintenance or any need for that type of an effort. Yesterday morning we received a unanimous recommendation of approval by the Environmental Advisory Council. There are a couple of items that potentially need to be identified. I have some handouts. There was one condition made by staff with their recommendation of approval, and that would be to make specific reference to a section of the land development code related to the timing of the application for clubhouse site development plans. That modification has been made to the PUD. It's not reflected in your PUD, but if I might ask -- these handouts, If Mr. Basinait might just hand those out to you, you'll be able to see the changes. Staff has - been apprised of the changes, and, apparently, has no objections. One issue before I get to the fire station signage relates to model homes. And that would be our deviation number three. In your packet -- in your packet you may have the list of deviations that was two versions prior to this version. The land development code limits the number of model homes in any development to five. And if you were doing a duplex and there was an office on one side of the duplex, that's also counted as a model itself. So given that, we asked for a little bit of latitude as far as the number of model homes that would be permitted within the subdivision. I've given a significant elaboration, as you can see on the screen, of the product types that are being offered. The deviation requests no more than 10 models. This is proposing that we have -- there are eight models that I've identified - that are certain products that the petitioner would like to market in the development, and you can see from the detail on here on your screens Page 25 -,.~--_.,,-"'.""'""' -.,,~ --...- April 7, 2005 .- that I think it's just fair and reasonable. It does not affect health, safety, welfare. I humbly request that you grant this deviation number three. And should you not want to go so far as to give us 10, we'd be happy with the eight that we've specifically identified for you. MR. ABERNATHY: We can manage with five. MR. NADEAU: Finally, the Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District requested some signage, because our land development code does not permit nonresidential off-site signage in residential zones, nor does it permit illuminated signage in residential zones, other than for the residential development. On that handout where you can see section 6.10 of the PUD document, we're providing for signage that would be incorporated into the Palermo Cove entry signs. This has been done successfully before by Elias Brothers Communities, with Cornerstone Church and Ibis Cove on Immokalee Road where they share signage. We would like - to have the opportunity to have these two deviations to permit illuminated signs for nonresidential uses in residential zones as well as to have the nonresidential signage in the residential zone. And I put specific limitations in there that -- I provided the information to the fire district verbally as well as in writing, and I've received it and it seems to be okay. Of course the chief is out of town, but the assistant chief gave me a nod and a smile. With that, Commissioners, I open myself up to questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for the petitioner? MR. SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Dwight, where is that sign going to go again? MR. NADEAU: It would be on the Wolfe Road frontage. Here, I'll show you. MR. SCHIFFER: The fire station also has access off of 951, correct? <'- MR. NADEAU: Yes, the fire station has access off of 951. Page 26 ---_.~ .,-,,~--- ---._-~ -- April 7, 2005 They'll be able to utilize the land development code to the full extent of that because it is nonresidential designated property. MR. SCHIFFER: And so why do they need illuminated signs on Wolfe Road, I wonder? MR. NADEAU: Well, during the public hearings, I was the agent for the fire station. This body said that -- there was a question whether or not there was going to be signage on Wolfe Road for the fire station. And, I'm sorry, I can't remember which commissioner it was, but they said -- it was said that there would be signage permitted for the fire station. Well, under greater scrutiny of the code, there can't be. So, this petitioner is more than welcome to provide identification for this essential emergency response facility. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. NADEAU: Illuminated or backlighted. ~. MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, the backlighted I wouldn't like, but can we limit it to just be face illuminate -- I mean, spotlight illuminated so it doesn't look like a commercial sign? MR. NADEAU: Of course, Commissioner. MR. SCHIFFER: Next question is, the properties you have actually come together at a point. The road system that looks like it's in the Wolfe Creek thing, how is that being done? MR. NADEAU: Yes. There is a separate agreement that mayor may not be in your -- MR. MURRAY: It's in the packet? MR. SCHIFFER: Is it? Never mind then. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that it, Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: You wanted to get 50 feet clear instead of 60 feet. Is that going in or out? MR. NADEAU: Oh, the 50 feet is a standard deviation for rights Page 27 -,-" _.~ ..._,~..,."- "'"...."...".....- April 7, 2005 - of way. It doesn't affect the street width. All it does is provide for utilities easements on the outside. Whereas setbacks are measured from the back of the right of way. This provides for a more compact design. More efficient. Provides for the 23 feet of sidewalk separation from the backs of the garages. MR. ADELSTEIN: You haven't brought it up until now. That's why I'm asking. I hadn't heard it. MR. NADEAU: Sure. No. We would like to, and -- and that deviation has been supported by staff. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Let's talk about model homes. Modeling is sometimes used, in fact often used I suspect to try to entice people into accepting that there are differences and good visual view. Why is it critical for you to have this deviation? It exceeds the norm, of course. What criticality is there? What would make me want to - support that? MR. NADEAU: Well, for one reason it is not a health/safety issue. You may consider it a grant for special privilege, but, the number of models that are being proposed for the diversity of homes the people may want, that's why we're requesting it. Now, we had a fairly significant issue over with our Tuscany Cove model center in that we had to limit our number of models. And there are two products that are not even built to be used as models. So for the product line that's being offered for Elias Brothers, and that would be eight different products, you know, floor plans mirrored different types of attached villas, they've requested to pursue this deviation. MR. MURRA Y: And let me understand. These are all, you said, attached villas just then I thought I heard you say? MR. NADEAU: There's both attached and detached villas. - MR. MURRAY: So, how would you create a model situation without having a second residence adjacent to it? You'd have one as Page 28 ,~-' -..-----"".--' ~-~,,~- __e.._ April 7, 2005 -- the model and then adjacent to it would be a home unit? MR. NADEAU: Oh, no. There's a physical separation. Landscape separation from the model center to the home -- for the occupied COld residential unit. And then -- I'm sorry. And then once the models are all done, they would be occupied by -- that would be the buildout. MR. MURRAY: So they would be, what would be architecturally an attached unit that would be not attached for the purposes of model? Did I understand you correctly? MR. NADEAU: Well, there are attached models, attached villas, and then there are detached single-family homes, just as you would expect, but they're smaller -- they are in smaller size as far as width. Okay? And as the width increases, this then determines the extra number of models. MR. MURRAY: I was following you on that. I guess what my -- struggle was that, why couldn't you in fact use models rather than a model home? How critical a factor is that? What can you not show? MR. NADEAU: You're speaking of scale models rather than an actual structure? MR. MURRA Y: Yeah. I want you to make me understand why the deviation is so critical for you. MR. NADEAU: Well, just because, to be quite honest with you, it will provide a greater opportunity for the public to see, physically touch it, walk through it, see the decor, see the options that would be in the model, to physically walk through the model. I never considered building a scale model. That's an interesting idea though. MR. MURRA Y: Well, if the differences are only essentially in the square footage, it would seem to me there's some plausibility to that, but that's not my option. I just needed to understand it. I just wanted to get one last thing clear in my mind, because I did -, get a little confused then. MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. Page 29 _..~""~ ~""..-,- -.-._--< -~-..-.. ..--.- April 7, 2005 -- MR. MURRA Y: I'm not certain. So if I understood you correctly, you're saying that each of these model units, true-size model units, will stand alone -- MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. MR. MURRA Y -- as model units, but they are representative of a unit that may be or not be attached at some other location? MR. NADEAU: They will be representative of all the product type marketed within the development. So, only the attached models that are intended to be attached will be attached. The larger lots will be the detached single-family homes. MR. MURRAY: So in my poor mind, what I'm seeing is, if you're showing a model, if it's an attached unit, you're going to have a model and an attached unit next to it? MR. NADEAU: That would be true if there was an attached villa, yes, sir. - MR. MURRAY: So It's more than eight units then? MR. NADEAU: We have, if I may-- MR. MURRAY: Unless I'm completely missing it, and I apologize if I am not clear. That's another thing, where do they put the entrance? MR. NADEAU: There will be -- during -- in the model center there will not be any mixing of COld residential units with the models. If there was a -- our Hibiscus unit is an attached villa, so it could be that one side will be a model and the other side would be a mirror image, or a different model type of that Hibiscus product line. MR. MURRA Y: Okay. They would then qualify as one model? MR. NADEAU: Actually they would qualify as two. MR. MURRAY: Okay. So you might have one that's 1400 squares and another one 1600 squares adjacent to it? MR. NADEAU: Potentially, yes. - MR. MURRAY: And, furthermore, they're out within -- the locations, they're not grouped? Page 30 ~'"'.'-'-'-- "-,","~ ,~"_..,--". --,- April 7, 2005 - MR. NADEAU: Oh, no, they will be grouped in the model center. That's required by code. MR. MURRAY: They will? MR. NADEAU: Yes. MR. MURRA Y: Okay. Thank you. You've answered my questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. MR. ABERNATHY: Dwight, let me get your application for public hearing. There is a question -- oh, it's a statement that says if there's a contract for purchase with an individual or individuals, corporation, trustee, or partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Now, in response to that, you've listed Elias Brothers Community at Palermo Cove, Inc, and then a bunch of folio numbers who are the -- sellers. Now, who are the owners of Elias Brothers Community at Palermo, Inc? MR. NADEAU: The legal documentation for the formation of Elias Brothers Communities is a part of your packet. And-- MR. ABERNATHY: Well, I shouldn't have to go Ferret it out. There's a question to ask of you and there's a place that you're supposed to list it. MR. NADEAU: Yes, in that documentation it was included in the package, sir. MR. ABERNATHY: We must be two people passing in the night. You fill out a form and then something else is attached, but you didn't fill out the form properly. And staff has not been very good about enforcing that. If we don't want to ask that, we ought to strike it. But I think it's helpful to know who the owners of these faceless corporations are. How about -- reading into the record who they are. MR. STRAIN: Better yet, can you show us in our packet where Page 31 ..........- ..~- ---- --- April 7, 2005 it is? MR. NADEAU: Of course. It appears under the Ibis Cove agent authorization letter. MR. STRAIN: Is that attached where in the packet; do you know? MR. NADEAU: I'm not sure how your package was prepared. I didn't receive a staff report or -- MR. STRAIN: Well, then, how do you know it's in the package? MR. NADEAU: Because I submitted it. MR. STRAIN: But you don't know that we got it? MR. NADEAU: I don't know if your staff gave it to you. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Well, then it's harder for you to say it's in the packet. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I see it in my packet that I received, and it should be the same one you have. MR. STRAIN: What's it look like, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Follows right after the agent authorization form. MR. STRAIN: Can you put it on the screen? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: That might solve all these problems. MR. BELLOWS: This is the first page. MR ABERNATHY: Now we're closing in on it. That wouldn't have been too burdensome to have listed those in the place where the form asked for them. I'm trying to think. It seems like I had another question. I take it it's your position that the average prospective purchaser can't get the idea of your product from five models? I mean, there's an infinite number of models you could be asking for. You can take any floor plan and flip it and say, well, that's --- different so we need another model for that. I mean, five seems to have some - find its home in our code, and I don't see what we're Page 32 .--.. ~~.....' ,-- --^. .......- -"- April 7, 2005 .- talking about in expanding on that. MR. NADEAU: Well, the PUD process allows for us to vary from the code, and it's your position to either grant or deny it. I'll make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. If you find it inappropriate, I didn't -- I felt it was fairly benign. MR. ABERNATHY: Well, to say things are not inimical to the health and welfare, we can say that about a million things. So, to me it's not a positive statement. MR. BASINAIT: If I may, Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles Basinait with Henderson, Franklin. Mr. Abernathy, to respond to your question, while I would agree with you that, in many cases, five model homes would be sufficient, the reason that we're asking for it here is that we're actually going to produce eight different models to put within the center -- within the site itself. And many people, myself included, are more visual in nature. .-- And if they can walk through something, if they can see it, if they can touch it, quite frankly easier choice for them. And our role, if you will, as a developer in this case is to try to make that choice as simple as we can for them. We can give them more variations in terms of colors, we can give them more variations in terms of elevations. We can give them more variations in terms of the layout of the structure itself. And while I'm not going to stand here and disagree with you necessarily that five is a good number in many cases, I'm going to respectfully suggest to you that not every case is the same. And in this particular instance, again, we're asking for eight -- we're actually asking for 10, but we would be happy with eight to the extent that that's what we have slated for this site is eight different units be put in there. And, yes, we can flip them, as you said. But quite frankly -- I live in a home, for instance, and it's a model home. ,..-.< And some of the homes that I have, have been flipped to the other side. But it's fairly easy to visualize something like that. If you Page 33 _,,,._..~~'w.._ , --,.-". - ..".,.-------..-. --- April 7, 2005 ,,- go to a totally different model, quite frankly, that's a different situation for many people. MR. ABERNATHY: Can you tell me, in your experience, what the genesis of the five-model rule is and what purpose it serves in your mind? Mr. SCHMITT: I'm going to ask Ray to - this is an issue that's come up before, especially with the developments up in this area, and this developer. Just to set the framework, a model center does constitute figuratively a commercial entity inside of a residential zoned property. It is a -- it draws people to the center. It has -- it's a separate SDP and it is functionally part of the business. And it's five, and I'm going to defer to Ray because there's a history on this, in regards to the process, because it involves a different review process. There are site development plans versus the platted lots. They have to come back later and convert the SDP to a platted subdivision. Ray, if you want to follow up on that. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. The purpose and intent of limiting the number of model homes is many fold. And it has impacts on many departments within the county. As Joe mentioned, if we did not regulate the number of units which is basically a commercial venture operation, we found it very difficult to allow for the permitting of these things through the billing department. There's also issues dealing with platting of these types of units. You're mixing detached units with attached units within a confined area, instead of having tracts designated for detached units and tracts designated for attached units they're all combined in one area. And we found that once you get even at five it's difficult for various departments, fire. Some of these units will be wet units, some will be dry, water, sewer service. It makes for a very difficult time, -, especially when they're not platted at this point. The county department of zoning has traditionally objected to Page 34 . .,~~ ---,.,-- . -- April 7, 2005 ,."'..... deviations from what's basically a process or procedural requirement. This is not a setback type of issue or a design standard. It's really a procedural process the county has adopted. And that's one reason the staff is recommending denial of this deviation. But there are many, many reasons. I can go on for a long time about how from compatibility issues, from platting issues, from water and sewer issues, different departments. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. If you find some compelling reason there ought to be eight, we'll deal with it. And certainly, those of you in the industry know and understand the process, how they would go through the permitting and review and approval. I mean, that's fine. If what the applicant wants, and he thinks from a business perspective that's what he has to have, certainly, we will comply. But as Ray said, this is not a deviation from a design standard, it's --- simply a deviation of a policy and procedural issue as established in the LDC. So, I defer to your judgment in regards to that. MR. ABERNATHY: Don't look to me for justification. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. MR. ABERNATHY: That's it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Where is the model center going to be then? And the same question, up on 941 (sic) there's an area of land. Is anything going to be built on that? MR. NADEAU: With a little assistance, Commissioners, I can tell you where the model center is going to be. It's going to be these row of units just south of the clubhouse. So there will be the clubhouse for an amenity to look at coming in. That would be where the parking would be, and then the model center would be at the south along the Wolfe Road --Wolf Creek PUD boundary. MR. SCHIFFER: And it would be my guess that the current LDC concern is if you put these along main streets - like, in other Page 35 ." -- -~"~, ..-."'.""" -- April 7, 2005 - words, if you had it on 951, it wouldn't be a very good looking thing to have all these different types of construction, different types of buildings. I think deep in the site, no one is going to see it from any roadway. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions, Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Yeah. Ray, just for the record, the previous discussion that Mr. Abernathy had about the names of the entities that own Elias Brothers, you put two documents on the screen. The first one is in my packet, the second document is not. And, therefore, I think Mr. Abernathy's question is very relevant. We should have it in the form from now on, and contrary to what the testimony you heard is, we did not receive it. At least, I did not receive it in my packet. And I'm not sure if the others have. ,- MR. BELLOWS: I was looking through the rest of my file for the second document, too, and I agree, it wasn't in there. And we'll double our efforts to remind the petitioners that -- MR. STRAIN: Just fill out the form. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. MR. ABERNATHY: I think there's another petition today that has the same deficiency. May I ask another question? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. ABERNATHY: I'm concerned about developments like this that have these bizarre, for lack of a better term -- realizing that's a big pejorative -- designs to them where you have a little neck that comes out to the major road and then you go back in there and you wind around, and you wind around. Indigo Lakes just to the north. If you look at that on the site map just inside the packet cover page. What if some emergency happens along there? People are .-' trapped in there. I mean, what do you do about that? There's no inner connectivity among any of these PUDS? Page 36 --.--..- ~".,",_.~,-,","., --- -'"-- April 7, 2005 MR. NADEAU: Well, in fact, this has got a greater connectivity than many of the PUDS around. As I stated earlier, Commissioner, there is going to be an access road off of Vanderbilt and Pristine Drive into the project site in this manner, and then there's also a primary access for the fire station, which will also be used as an entrance to the development for Palermo Cove on its easterly lay. MR. ABERNATHY: What about this big westerly portion? I don't see anything there in the way of a connection tract -- well -- MR. NADEAU: Well, as far as being able to connect, physically connect with other projects is the last project to come along the pike, and we're surrounded by preserve. And it was the request of the water management district to have these preserves to be contiguous to accept flow way waters. And so -- I'm very proud of the multiple access locations on the proj ect site as well as to be able to provide access to emergency response facilities through this residential development. MR. ABERNATHY: Well, I wouldn't take much pride in this portion that's to the north and west of this narrow neck. There's no way out of there. If there's an accident right in that neck area, and all the emergency vehicles, they don't pull off the side of the road. They generally get as close to the middle as they can. They would be just imprisoned there until it's all cleared up. MR. NADEAU: Is this the neck that you're speaking of, where the cursor is running, or is it this neck up here? MR. ABERNATHY: It's this neck between the two -- yes, that neck right there. MR. NADEAU: Okay. Well, again, as I say-- MR. ABERNATHY: Anybody to the northwest of that is stuck in there. MR. NADEAU: They will have to exit out onto Pristine Drive or this road -- MR. ABERNATHY: Where is Pristine Drive? Page 37 -- .,--.,," --,-----~_..,_.., --- April 7, 2005 --- MR. NADEAU: Pristine Drive is this road. You don't actually see -- MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, I've got -- I understand where it is now, but if you're northwest of that -- if the accident is in the neck, or the truck that empties the septic tank turns over there, even worse, people will be stuck back there until it's all cleaned up. No place to go. MR. NADEAU: There will be traffic movement that will allow residents to get out in emergency situations. The access locations are appropriate if I am to be acceptable and meet the design requirements of Collier County. MR. ABERNATHY: Well, everything is acceptable in Collier County, so -- MR. MURRA Y: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. -- MR. MURRAY: I would like to take you, Mr. Nadeau, to application for public hearing for PUD rezone -- and it doesn't have a number -- but it speaks to the acreage. And I just -- let's see if I can bring you to the right pages. Application for public hearing document. MR. NADEAU: Under three, the legal description? MR. MURRAY: No. What I'm looking at is the statement of acreage ownership. And I happen to have just gone through it, and with what is in my packet, I don't come up with 131 acres. So, either I'm missing a paper, or something is not as clear as I'd like it to be. And I wish I could direct you more clearly. Maybe I can just show you. It's this document that precedes -- it's the third page in from this document. MR. NADEAU: Understood, Commissioner Murray. What I can tell you is, that the legal descriptions that are identified by folio numbers are fractional breakdowns of a section, wherein the legal -- description within the application that would follow two pages beyond under item three of the application document does provide a metes and Page 38 --",- .~..--., --- .-...- April 7, 2005 ~~........ bounds description with a culminating acreage of 131. MR. MURRA Y: I see that. I was just curious. In fact, I went over it and that's where I picked up on it. And I was -- you're short a fair amount by this declaration on this page. I just wondered how that would work. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There may be more later. If. We Could hear the staff report, please. MR. DERUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz. Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Our neighborhood information meeting was held on November 8th. There was representatives from Island Walk that was present and asked several questions and received answers. And we also invited the petitioner to attend one of their subdivision - meetings to provide further information for them. The EAC reviewed this application as it was reported yesterday, and is recommending approval. They had an eight to zero unanimous vote for that. Comprehensive Planning has reviewed the petition and has found that this proj ect is in the urban mixed use district and is consistent with the growth management plan with the proposed ordinance per acre. As we look at the compatibility issues, the surrounding properties are residential, and we find that the proposed request is compatible. Transportation element, there is improvement going on Collier Boulevard, and transportation has found that this would be consistent with the growth management plan of policy 5.1. We have the issues of the deviations. Staff is -- originally there was four deviations. The additional deviation pertaining to the sign had been presented with you this morning. Staff is maintaining -- - recommending denial of deviation number three, on the staff report. The numbering sequence got shifted a little bit, but in reviewing the Page 39 ._~- -,,,.~,,~.. ..- .....,......." .... ,"--~.-~ -, ~ _,."'..~oM_ ,,-- April 7, 2005 -- request for the sign, the staff is recommended approval on that. That would be assisting the community in being able to access the fire district facilities. Their access from Collier Boulevard will be limited to right in, right out only. And, so, traffic going northbound on Collier Boulevard, wanting to come to the fire district, would be coming down Wolfe Road, and that sign would provide directional information for them. I'm glad that you have modified that to having limiting it to not having -- let me say that again. Limiting the sign to having just floodlighting on there, not backlighting. So it would be more residential in character. That was my understanding what the planning commission has proposed. If there's any other questions, I would be more than happy to try to address those. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? ,.-- MR. SCHIFFER: Mike, how many developer agreements should there be in this packet? I'm trying to still to find the one between Wolfe Creek. It's not in mine. MR. ABERNATHY: I can't hear you, Brad. MR. SCHIFFER: I'm sorry. How many development agreements are in this packet? MR. DERUNTZ: I believe there was four, four properties that-- agreements that was in there. I don't have my packet with me. I apologize for that. But there were several dealing with the easements with the roadway. The easement agreements with the berming. So you had the agreement with the fire district and Water Ways, the Wolfe Creek development. MR. SCHIFFER: I guess my point, when a packet is put together, be more careful, because mine certainly doesn't have the --, Wolfe Creek. MR. STRAIN: Brad, I think a solution. Because, I heard Page 40 _..- ,,~--' .-.,," --- - April 7, 2005 -. testimony earlier that in our way to be approved on somebody else's property. And This PUD is not on that property. MR. DERUNTZ: But Bob Murray does have -- MR. STRAIN: Well, just let me finish. I don't -- I haven't found it in my packet. During the break, which will probably be in about 10 minutes, could staff and the attorney county attorney, or somebody get together and produce the docks that provides that roadway that's going into the adjoining properties? I hate to be here approving a PUD that goes through someone else's property that doesn't have an agreement to do so. I think that would solve it. I don't think, with all that stuff that's in our packet, I don't think you can sit here and go through it while we're waiting. MR. SCHIFFER: I'm glad you share that problem. MR. STRAIN: Well, it was going to be my first. Question. You beat me to it. .- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of the staff? MR. STRAIN: Oh, I've got lengthy questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Michael, something you just said. It wasn't a question I was going to ask, but now that you brought it up. You said that there would be only a right in and right out on Collier Boulevard off of Wolfe Road; is that correct? MR. DERUNTZ: For the fire station entrance. Not on this property. Wolfe Road will have -- transportation would bring further information to that, but I believe that's going to be signalized. MR. STRAIN: Well, I just want to make sure. We've got a fire department going there that Wolfe Road is not going to be right in, right out only, it's going to be -- MR. DERUNTZ: No, that's full access. MR. STRAIN: -- full-access road? MR. DERUNTZ: Right. I was talking about the fire station off of Collier Boulevard. Page 41 -..-",., --- April 7, 2005 MR. STRAIN: I will have a lot of questions for transportation in a little bit, so I'm glad to see they're here. In your staff report you talked about traffic analysis. And in your __ it's on page four. You said the only exception is Immokalee Road to the west of Collier Boulevard. A level of service there apparently is going to be impacted to a greater extent than the level of service anticipated on phase one and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Could you explain the only exception comment, or is that something transportation should explain? MR. DERUNTZ: I'd prefer transportation. MR. STRAIN: If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it then. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. MR. EL-URFALI: Good morning. Alan El-Urfali, Project Manager, Transportation. The Immokalee Road west of951, of course, is programmed. The six laning will add additional capacity. When I saw this, I was uncomfortable with the language in the packet that I have, but it is consistent with the GMP. However, it would be subject to concurrency also. The level of service on that roadway would be adequate for the five-year window. MR. STRAIN: When does 846 -- well, let's put it this way. Let's start with Vanderbilt Beach Road, when will be the construction completion of six laning Vanderbilt Road? MR. EL-URFALI: Vanderbilt Beach Road? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Completion is what I meant. MR. EL-URFALI: Completion? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. EL-URFALI: Probably the end of2006, beginning of2007. CHAIRMAN BUDD: When is the completion of Collier Boulevard north from Golden Gate Parkway, or Golden Gate Boulevard up to 846? MR. EL-URFALI: That's a hard one. I would say beginning of Page 42 .,.,- ^~""-._- ,--- ,.-,-'- ..,- April 7, 2005 -- construction would be the second quarter of 2006. MR. STRAIN: Completion? MR. EL-URFALI: Eighteen months. MR. STRAIN: So the end of 2007? And what about the completion of the six laning of 846 west of 951 ? MR. EL-URFALI: West of951? That's in a design build. MR. STRAIN: That's the road that, according to staff report is more significantly impacted. MR. EL-URFALI: Right. I don't have the figures on the design build. That's - we anticipate probably at the same time, about the end of 2007. MR. STRAIN: To be completed, constructed? MR. EL-URF ALl: To be completed. MR. STRAIN: You haven't got a design - your design isn't done yet? ,- MR. EL-URF ALl: It's a design-built project. Is. MR. STRAIN: Is The permitting in place? MR. EL-URFALI: Not all of it, no. MR. STRAIN: But you believe by the end of'07 you'll have the road open for six lanes? Okay. That's the stuff I needed on that point. MR. EL-URFALI: I'd just like to clarify a couple of things. In the package I have under the transportation analysis -- MR. STRAIN: I was probably going to get there with some questions myself. I'll try to find it. Okay. MR. EL-URF ALl: It states over here that until such time, east west is designated - or classified by the county as a collector. We already did. It's classified as a future collector, so that condition is in there. MR. STRAIN: At 6.5. What's the reference? Oh, you're talking about staff transportation now? MR. EL-URFALI: Yes. -, MR. STRAIN: Okay. Page 43 -~--~..,..., ~..".- ''''._'.'-,,,-,",,''',~ .~~..._.~,_xo,_,., ~,,""-~, ~,.'~. --,.- April 7, 2005 MR. ABERNATHY: In the middle of page five. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. EL-URFALI: And also the language here where it says all additional costs associated with the upgrade from a local road to a collector will be impact fee credible. That's not consistent with the code. Because Wolfe Road is not in our five-year work program. MR. STRAIN: Do you know if that language is mimicked in the PUD? MR. EL-URFALI: That's what I was worried about. MR. STRAIN: Yes, it is. It's Item M in the PUD under PI-4, under the transportation 6.5M. So, M needs to be changed consistent with the language you're just telling us now? MR. EL-URF ALl: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: That first one you talked about where Wolfe Road is a collector, if part of the completion of the construction of - Wolfe Road east, west local street, the county classifies this road as a collector arterial with developer shell, you're saying it's already classified as a collector; is that correct? MR. EL-URF ALl: Classified as a future collector, yes, with our recent reclassification of all roadways. MR. STRAIN: So, basically, is that second sentence also struck then? Would that make it the easiest to read? MR. EL-URFALI: The second sentence? MR. STRAIN: The one that says, if prior to the completion of the construction of Wolfe Road. Do you need that in there? MR. EL-URFALI: Yes. It's already classified. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I'll have some more, but I have them in order, so -- MR. EL-URFALI: No problem. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. Shall I go on? CHAIRMAN BUDD: You're on. MR. STRAIN: Staff report rezone findings page one of six item Page 44 ---.-- - ~..-. '"^~'''. . --,...--,.-.." - April 7, 2005 .- four -- and this is more of a grammatical thing. And since we started on some of these issues earlier today, this one puzzled me. The question is whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. It says the numerical boundaries are logically drawn. I was just wondering, is there any proj ect that would be illogically drawn? MR. DERUNTZ: I don't think so. If it was -- that is, if the boundaries reflect the actual property that is being proposed. If the boundary goes off the property of ownership of the application, then it would be illogically drawn. MR. STRAIN: But it does. If you come back to us after break without an easement, that's kind of where I was going. Okay? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. MR. STRAIN: So, hopefully you'll have that. On the next page, - page three of that same document, item 15, whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitted such use. I don't mind your answer, but your answer seems to lend to the credibility, why are we even asking the question, because it says, this is not the determining factor when evaluating appropriateness of a rezoning decision. Then, why are we asking the question? MR. DERUNTZ: This is one of the basic questions in the findings. MR. STRAIN: But see-- MS. STUDENT: Mr. Strain -- MR. ABERNATHY: We've been asking and answering those questions that way ever since Ron Nino was here. MR. STRAIN: Well, I know and I think maybe sometime we need to ask the question as to why this clutter is still in our documents. '.-- MS. STUDENT: May I, please? These are the criteria for the rezone situation that have been established in our code, probably Page 45 ._-,~ .~,- --'-','-" ....,,- "--~- April 7, 2005 ,,-, going back even in 1976. And you have PUD findings, and these are general rezone findings. But it's been the policy of the county since, at least since 1988 when I was here, to utilize both sets of criteria in a PUD rezone. I will say this, I think some of the things that you alluded to may fit better with the straight rezone type situation so you don't create spot zoning, or some of the illogical drawing of a line and so forth relates to spot or reverse spot zoning, and issues likes that. And you could possibly have that in a PUD situation. But I believe that that's what they relate to. These terms come, more than likely, out of the state Standard Zoning Enabling Act that was put together in the 1920s when zoning was beginning, and had it -- and it has been modified over time. So I just wanted to give you a little historical perspective on this and how it is that staff utilizes these criteria even in the PUD situation, - as that has been the policy of the county led these many years. MR. STRAIN: Well, I guess, Margie, the only point in bringing it up is maybe we need to review the policy and update it to modern times. MS. STUDENT: And it may be in a situation where it's not applicable, then rather than remove it, because we may need it at some point, that staff would just say not applicable. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I got a few questions yet, Michael. Some of you already answered so I'm going to try to blow by them. In the PUD document, it's item 2.14. It talks about native retention requirements. And it says that the preserve tract will fully satisfy the native vegetation of Collier County. The next paragraph down says, viable, naturally functioning native vegetation areas do not include those areas of vegetation, but have of 75 percent or greater canopy coverage -"^ of exotic species. How many - what is the percentage of exotic species in the Page 46 .--.- _...~...w._>.",.,.._. -- -- April 7, 2005 preserve area they now are claiming is a native vegetation requirement area? MR. DERUNTZ: It's very extensive. They're going to be -- MR. STRAIN: It's a contradiction then. I mean, if you're saying that that tract is going to satisfy the native vegetation requirements, but then you're saying that you can't have native vegetation areas that have 75 percent or greater exotics. MR. DERUNTZ: Well, they're going to be replanting with native vegetation in those areas. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So all that's going to be bulldozed down and replanted with exotics? MR. DERUNTZ: They're going to have an extensive program -- Dwight, do you have environmental presentation? MR. NADEAU: Oh, yes. MR. DERUNTZ: This was a point that was discussed in some -. detail at the EAC meeting yesterday. And if I can have some clarification on that. MR. PASSARELLA: For the record, Ken Passarella with Passarella & Associates. And I was not -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Passarella, I think you arrived late because of traffic. MR. PASSARELLA: Correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And you were not sworn in. Okay. For yourself or any others that arrived late, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you. (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. PASSARELLA: With respect to the native vegetation requirements and what's being set aside on the site, there is Page 47 --,", -" __M.... ----.- .~~- April 7, 2005 - requirement of a minimum of 14.2 acres of native vegetation to be preserved on the site. We are proposing to preserve 14.9 acres of native vegetation within the preserve areas. There's an additional 20.1 acres in the preserve that's the exotic infested areas that you were speaking of. So, we're meeting our native vegetation preservation requirements, and then we have additional preserve areas that don't meet the native vegetation definition. Those areas will be mechanically cleared of exotics and replanted and re-vegetated. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So, the natural vegetative buffers that we see on this area in front of us here against the, say Island Walk community, Indigo Lakes and the others, may not necessarily be as dense as they appear on this aerial; is that right? MR. PASSARELLA: Correct. What you see on this aerial -- a lot of what you see is melaleuca. -- MR. STRAIN: In your informational meeting did any members of the public express any interest in the buffers? I'm just wondering what the perception was in regards to what reality is going to be when you go in there with dozers and mechanically clear all that exotics out and it's wide open again. But that's just a statement. I'll move on. Under your development standards, Mike, on table two, on footnote six it talks about there's going to be a minimum separation between structures on different lots shall be 12 feet. Are there any conditions where they'd have principal structure or accessory structures with the principal structure on the same lot where this should apply? MR. DERUNTZ: On the same lot? MR. STRAIN: Yeah. I mean is it SDP or is it all going to be fee simple, or how is it going to be set up? MR. DERUNTZ: Platted. MR. STRAIN: Every lot is going to be platted? ",-" MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. Page 48 --' ~...-.~- ^ - -_....- April 7, 2005 0_ CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. There's no SDP's going in? MR. SCHMITT: Well, except, there will be an SDP required for -- what do you call it? MR. DERUNTZ: Clubhouse. MR. SCHMITT: Model center. MR. DERUNTZ: Model center. MR. STRAIN: Well, then that would be an SDP on one lot. MR. SCHMITT: Which will eventually convert to fee simple or platted -- I assume will be platted once those models are ready for sale. MR. STRAIN: My point is, if someone in staff could check to make sure then that we're protected so that you get the minimum separation, even those would come in on the same lot, maybe six won't apply equally to them, so -- MR. SCHMITT: They would have to meet the same development standards -- MR. STRAIN: For future subdivision. MR. SCHMITT -- for future subdivision, yes. MR. STRAIN: Mike, on Item 6.3, our PUD master plan development, Item 4, which is in page BI-2, that paragraph reads incomplete. I think you're missing some language. Approval by the administrator of a minor change or refinement may occur independently from, and prior to any application for subdivision or SDP approval. However, the administrator's - and it's administrators as possessive -- shall not constitute an authorization for development. I think you are missing some words there. MR. DERUNTZ: This is 6.3 C4? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. DERUNTZ: Could you explain again what part? -, MR. STRAIN: The third line. However, the administrator's, comma. Administrator's what? Shall not constitute an authorization Page 49 -----'- . ^'-,~. ,~,," --- April 7, 2005 -- for development. MR. DERUNTZ: The coma after -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: The administrators what? I'm just saying, you need to complete the paragraph so we know what it is you're referring to. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I'd just recommend that we work with the county attorney's office, and Mike -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't care how you do it -- MR. BELLOWS: Just fix the language. Yeah, something doesn't seem right there. MR. DERUNTZ: The petitioner is saying it's the administrator's approval. MR. STRAIN: Well, then, insert the word, if that's what the county staff agrees is the right word, but something needs to be completed in that paragraph, in order to be a readable paragraph. .~"~ You go on a couple pages, 6.8J on page BI-6. I Guess that's 66. All principal structures shall have a minimum setback of 25 feet from the boundary of any preserve. Accessory structures shall be 10 feet. 6.8C, buffers shall be provided around wetlands extending at least 16 feet. In this case are the preserves the wetlands, or is that something that's going to come out during SDP preview? I just want to make sure we don't have a 10 foot where we need a 15 foot. MR. NADEAU: Commissioner, we are dealing with two different types of regulations, Volume IV from the South Florida Water Management District, their design criteria. They have a standard that there be a 15- foot minimum, 25- foot average around wetland preserves. Now, Volume IV also allows for structural buffers, which would allow you to go all the way up to the edge of the preserve. Collier County has adopted their own standards, where that all land ,,- encroachments must be ten foot off the back of any preserve. MR. STRAIN: But that can only happen if you use a structural Page 50 ^'",- . ,..,," ._,~'''~ --- April 7, 2005 - buffer because of the restrictions put on you by South Florida; is that correct? MR. NADEAU: That's very probable, yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: Then in J we need to add a 10 foot setback provided a structural buffer is provided pursuant to South Florida Water Management District regulations. Mike, Item H, just above item J. All approved agency permits -- and it says, shall be submitted prior to final site plan, construction plan approval. Don't we require them to be issued, or is the submission, they can go ahead without just as long as they submit it and they still get county approval? MR. DERUNTZ: They do have to be approved. MR. STRAIN: Well, then, wouldn't we want to -- instead of the word submitted be issued? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. ,,- MS. STUDENT: Well, excuse me, sir. MR. ABERNATHY: It says approved. MS. STUDENT: I think it means the agency issues the permit, then once the applicant has the issued permit in his hand, he submits that issued approved permit to the county as evidence that he has it before the SDP occurs. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So that reads well enough as it is? MS. STUDENT: I understand what it means, yes. MR. STRAIN: You don't or you do? MS. STUDENT: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. That's fine. traffic generation problem. Issue, question. Trip generation, they used the land use code 210, single-family detached housing. But in their development table, they're using some attached single-family housing. Is there any different rate of trip generation based on the - difference in those housing units, or housing types between the detached and attached single-family? And is it more impact or less Page 51 _._-~._',.-- .._--,,_...._~.~.__..~-'- .,-,"',,- ,-"--"'" --_._-~ ~.-.._.'._.,. --- April 7, 2005 -- impact? MR. EL-URF ALl: IT has, for condos -- condominiums, two types. One is the regular condominium and one is the high-end condominium. The trips for high-end condominium, which is multi family, is less than the regular condominium. MR. STRAIN: Is it less than land use code 210 Single-family detached? MR. EL-URFALI: Yes. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So, in any case, the 210 is the worst scenario? MR. EL-URFALI: Yes. MR. STRAIN: Okay. One of the agreements that's attached to the document is between ARM Development Corp of Southwest Florida and Collier County. Item 21 in the agreement talks about the transportation five-year work program, and additional right of way being purchased for Wolfe Road. That right of way will be provided by the purchaser within 90 days of written requests from Collier County. Has that been enacted, or are we still looking at that, or are there going to be any changes to the site plan because of additional right of way at Wolfe Road? MR. EL- URF ALl: That's not completed yet. Of course there is one of the proposed PUDS that was coming to the south that did not go through. We have -- we don't have all the right of way. We don't have the corner piece at the west end yet. So, that's all the southern corner pIece. MR. STRAIN: Okay. If you don't have that and the Wolfe Road as currently shown protrudes over that southern boundary of this PUD, how are you going to complete Wolfe Road? MR. EL-URFALI: Like I said, it was planned to be a elect road to connect to -- MR. STRAIN: But that's the road that-- MR. EL-URFALI: Pristine Road. Page 52 .w.... ..^......___._..._.,_""._.o~_._,.. _._.-- " ~_.,-,".",-".. .........'-- WM'~' ~"'- April 7, 2005 -, MR. STRAIN: -- this project uses. MR. EL-URFALI: I understand. MR. STRAIN: I mean, that kind of lends to where this agreement is that we've been asking for that. MR. EL-URFALI: That's correct, yes. And that's what it is. We don't have that agreement yet. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Well, maybe we'll save a lot of people's time during the break looking for something that we don't have. Marjorie, this is your project. I was just wondering, if we don't have . agreements with adjoining property owners to put a road on their property for access through the development, is that any concern in approval of a PUD? MS. STUDENT: I think it is of concern. And You can make your recommendation contingent upon having that approval in hand. MR. BASINAIT: Mr. Chairman, if I may address that very - briefly? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. BASINAIT: Charles Basinait, for the record. Mr. Strain, we have that document that's in its-- virtually in its final form. We anticipate being able to have it executed very shortly, and certainly would not mind a contingency on any recommendation that you all put forward today that we can't proceed forward to the Board of County Commissioners until that agreement has been executed. MR. STRAIN: Do you know why the earlier testimony indicated that agreement was in our packet? MR. BASINAIT: I do not. I don't know. I think there was an assumption there that because we turned it in as part of the overall zoning request, that very same set of documents was transferred to you all. Mr. STRAIN: Is that signed, the one you turned in? - MR. BASINAIT: No, it is not. MR. STRAIN: Well, even if you gave it to us, it's irrelevant. Page 53 -r.....-_"--"~....< --- --_..- April 7, 2005 - MR. BASINAIT: Well, to the extent that you can see it and get comfortable with the terms of that document, we provided that. You're right though, to the extent that it's not final at this point, it's true. It has not been executed. But, again, we're in a position of having to -- for being able to say to you that we anticipate execution of that document very shortly. And certainly before any appearance before the Board of County Commissioners who have to have that document signed. MR. STRAIN: Well, it's interesting that it had to be ferreted out this way. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm going to ask county attorney to clarify because I'm puzzled at her comment. The property can be zoned, it just can't go any further beyond zoning. They would never be able to get any kind of platting approved without verifying that they could actually encroach or develop on a piece of property. "'- And certainly as Marjorie said, it could be contingent upon the approval, but it would never be developed until they demonstrate to the county that they have appropriate agreements to construct the road over property or an easement, or some other form of legal instrument, that would allow them to do that through somebody else's property. MS. STUDENT: I think it's, just from a practical matter, based upon what Mr. Basinait has said, that the signature, the document is imminent to try to tie up any loose ends before it goes to the board just to allay any situation such as we have here. MR. STRAIN: I've got a couple of other things, but I think the chairman wants to take a break. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're going to take a 10 minute break. It's 10:15. We'll reconvene at 10:25. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll call the Planning Commission back to order. And as soon as everybody takes their seats, Mr. Strain will ,"-,~ resume his questions. Mr. Strain, I think you were questioning the staff report. Page 54 --~.- "'. ..,-.,--- ~ ".- ,.- ....-- .-...".' --,~ ,,,-,'-' '""- April 7, 2005 - MR. STRAIN: I have one questioning left that I need to discuss with the applicant and - or the applicant's representative. That is, we've had testimony today from the transportation department that basically the road system that's going to be impacted by your facility is going to be construction completed -- all three major roads, by the end of 2007. Do you have any objection to holding off on construction of your project until October of2007? MR. NADEAU: Absolutely we do, yes. We met the test for consistency by the growth management plan, and based on that, we received recommendations of approval from your staff based on the rules that they review by, and concurrency would be addressed at the time of final local development order. Mr. Strain, if I could make one other correction to your request for language related to page 66, that would have been 6.8J, discussion with Ken Passarella of Passarella & Associates. You had requested J_" where a structural buffer is provided. Associated with that Item J, I would just like to insert the word, where a structural buffer is provided, associated with wetlands. MR. STRAIN: As far as your earlier comments about staffs analysis, we're here to review that as well. We may have our own finding on that analysis before this meeting is over, so -- MR. NADEAU: Thank you. MR. STRAIN: That's all I've got. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none at this time. We've heard from the petitioner, heard from the staff. Are there registered speakers on this item? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that we will close the public hearing. ._- Do we have a motion on this item? Mr. Strain? MR. STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we Page 55 --~_. ^.--....-" -. ~",... ...,~._- April 7, 2005 - recommend approval ofPUDZ-2004-AR-6258 with the following stipulations: Number one, that the agreements and easements needed to address the off-site road conditions for this proj ect are executed and approved by the county attorney's office prior to the BCC hearing. We'll strike section 2.10.13 of the PUD, which is the deviation that staff is recommending denial on. We will modify section 6.8J as discussed with the issue defining that it's around wetlands. And then also recommend that the proj ect will, as part of the motion, the project will not commence construction until October 1, 2007. MR. ABERNATHY: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Strain, a second by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion. MS. CARON: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Ms. Caron. MS. CARON: What about the EAC's recommendation? - CHAIRMAN BUDD: If there is EAC recommendations -- MS. CARON: There were apparently and we never heard them detailed. MR. DERUNTZ: They just recommended approval, they didn't have stipulations. MS. CARON: They had no stipulations? Oh, I thought Mr. Nadeau indicated that there were stipulations. Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. BASINAIT: If I may address the -- I guess I need to ask first -- the name is Charles Basinait, for the record. Were there any other stipulations, Mr. Strain, that you were going to suggest as part of this motion? MR. STRAIN: Well, we're agreeing with staffs recommendations on the deviations, meaning they recommended some and denied one. That was my recommendation to go along with _. staff. The addition of the approval of the agreements needed for the off-road area, and the modification of section 6.8J. And, Ray, is there Page 56 .__.~... --_._>'~ -~.~._..,---. .,... -. .- .- April 7, 2005 any other issues that you can think of that were brought up during discussion that I missed? MR. DERUNTZ: 6.3.C.4 that there is some clarification in that sentence. MR. STRAIN: Yes. Well, I just assumed you guys would making something like that, but I -- I mean -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that's not a thing we want to have a stipulation on. MS. CARON: What about the lighting? CHAIRMAN BUDD: It was the issue on the illumination, not backlighting, of the fire district sign. MR. STRAIN: I don't recall the comment, so if someone wants to add a stipulation. MS. CARON: Mr. Schiffer. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, would that be an accurate description, that we're looking for illumination and not backlighting of the fire district sign on Wolfe Road? MR. SCHIFFER: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And, Mr. Strain, you'll accept that in your motion? MR. STRAIN: Yes. And then my last-- MR. ADELSTEIN: And I will accept it as a second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein accepts it as the second. Then the last item was that the construction would not commence until October 1 st of 2007. MR. SCHMITT: What was the last one? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Construction would not commence until October 1, 2007. MR. SCHIFFER: Can we discuss these? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure. We're on discussion. MR. SCHMITT: Construction would not commence you're talking issuing a building permit, or are you talking about site plan Page 57 --- --- --- '" - April 7, 2005 - type construction in regard to infrastructure, road network? CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm more concerned with building permits because that will lead to occupied housing and that would generate the traffic I'd be most concerned about. MR. SCHIFFER: Mark-- MS. SCHMITT: Just to narrow that down. For specificity, would you allow the construction of the model center, or the sales center to still allow for sales and model, or just no building permits at all? MR. STRAIN: I don't think we need any building permits on the road at this point, Joe. I mean, I can see going through the process with the county that's going to take a year to a year-and-a-half alone, then to go in and try to do the infrastructure road, lay underground piping, the roadways, the lakes and everything else, you're going to burn up that time anyway just getting that done. So, it's not -- MR. SCHMITT: So for clarification then, no building permits until October 2007? MR. STRAIN: That's correct. That would be my Recommendation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, in that motion You're tying that October 1 st date into the completion of those three related road segments? MR. STRAIN: I'm tying it into the testimony provided today that those segments would be completed. I can't -- it would be hard to say until -- no building permits until a certain completion date, if they don't hold that date. I have no way of controlling that. So, at least now we know we've got almost a two-year, or I8-month period that things can get done, and transportation has testified today they're going to try to do it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, would you be agreeable in that logic - that they can pull a building permit but that it couldn't CO, because there's -- depending on the structure, three to six months of Page 58 ._-'~ --_...._---~. ,,_____-""J.,..~ --- April 7, 2005 - construction for residents in there, and they're not going to have that road impact, which, I understand where you're going on that. It wouldn't have that impact until it's completed. MR. STRAIN: I don't see how the building development is going to be able to regulate that. That would be my concern. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Without issuing a CO? MR. STRAIN: Right. How do you issue a building permit and then tell someone that they can't have a CO once the building permit has been issued? I'm worried about the premise set by that. MR. SCHMITT: It would be very easy. MR. SCHIFFER: I think it would be very easy. MR. SCHMITT: I'd flag the record and do not issue a CO until specified date. Very simple. MR. STRAIN: Well, I mean, my concern is having occupied housing there generating -- - MR. BASINAIT: if I may, for a moment. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. BASINAIT: Charles Basinait. I understand that concern. I will tell you, or suggest to you respectfully, that we do meet the Collier County requirements with respect to the concurrency and the construction of housing units. And we're consistent with your comprehensive plan. However, again, I understand the comments that are being made. We do have a compromise we'd like to put forward to you. MR. STRAIN: Before you go forward, sir, let me correct your first statement. I don't believe you're consistent with the land development code, the GMP, or Florida statutes. The parts of the code that I'm going to cite, you can look up at your leisure. LDC Section 4.07.02B2. LDC Section 4.07.02C. LDC Section 4.07.02D3, A, B, C, D, F and G. GMP, Transportation Section 5.1 and 5.2. Future land use element 5.4, and Florida Statute Section 163.3180, paren, 6. Now those are the elements that I don't believe Page 59 ...---- -- "" ~.~.~.. ~-_.- ---- April 7, 2005 --, you're consistent with. So now that's on the record. MR. BASINAIT: I think we'll agree to disagree on that point today, but having said that, the compromise that we would like to discuss with you is being allowed to do the infrastructure within the entire project, and being allowed to build half the units prior to the October 2007 date, with the remaining half of the units not being able to come on line and getting building permits for until after October 2007. MR. STRAIN: We're back to the issue of CO. Are you expecting COs before the end of October 2007? MR. BASINAIT: On the one half of the unit counts that we're looking to build, yes, we would. MR. STRAIN: I cannot agree with that. And if this motion doesn't pass, I would make a motion to recommend denial then based on what I just told you is inconsistencies with the various codes. - CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further discussion on the motion? MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, on that point, I think it's better to be working on the timing, like Mark is trying to do, than be cutting the units, which we've done in the past. And I think that -- I think Joe agreed that you really could regulate this by CO. CO is when the people hit the streets. And, Mark, could you change your motion to Reflect that no CO prior to the October date? MR. STRAIN: Yes, that was my intent. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And, Mr. Adelstein, just to Confirm, you agree as the second? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. SCHIFFER: And what that allows is, all the site work and the model center and the amenities could be built prior to that date, correct? ,- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Model centers could be built But they wouldn't have a certificate of occupancy. They wouldn't be Page 60 --- -,"-",,.. '--," -...".-- -,_.,.,'^--',,_- April 7, 2005 -- functioning. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. The model center would be built. In order to be utilized, they would be -- I would CO the model center, but it would not be -- it would be CO'd as a model -- MR. SCHIFFER: As a model center not as a residence. MR. SCHMITT: Not as a house for -- because it still has to come back and be replatted eventually -- MR. SCHIFFER: And there would be sales traffic going in and out then? Then the other question is, let's talk about the model center a little bit. I think probably what the code responded is trying to prevent an unsightly scene along a major road where some developer would have a whole bunch of models in a row. And I think the reaction to five is probably to that. In this case where it's really deep into the site, nobody would ever see the model centers unless they drove to the model centers. So I see no real reason ~-, to limit their ability to build them way back like that off the road, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, for clarification, what was your intent in your motion regarding the models? MR. STRAIN: Support staffs position that the model center be limited to five just like every other development in Collier County. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And, Mr. Schiffer, you're suggesting that that should be relaxed to the eight that the petitioner is requesting? MR. SCHIFFER: Yes, I am. MR. SCHMITT: And just for clarification, for the record, that's eight models, not eight buildings? If it's a duplex, then that's two models. MR. SCHIFFER: Correct. But my thought is these model centers are out in the middle of the woods. No one is going to be seeing them. No one is going to be -- I don't see why that matters. I - certainly wouldn't support that if it was along 951 or something. MR. VIGLIOTTI: I agree with you, Brad, on that issue. And the Page 61 _.,~,.- .~.~. ---~~"_.,_.,. '__'_~__"""""M_ ~_.- April 7, 2005 - eight models would not cause a major problem inside. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And I know it's the code for five, but I think that, in my mind, having eight models strikes me as no harm, no foul, particularly in contrast to those other projects in Collier County that you get one model on both sides of the road all the way down. God forbid somebody has a glass of beer because you'll never be able to tell your house from the next house. And that mind-numbing consistency is certainly not where we want to go. And diversity in architectural design, I think would be a good thing, and I would like to have that flexibility afforded to the petitioner. MR. STRAIN: Ray, the platting process. If they were to plat each one of these subdivisions, how many models could they put on each one? MR. BELLOWS: You're asking within this PUD if they platted -"., different -- different home developers? MR. STRAIN: No, no. They're suggesting doing a model center under an SDP. But if you plat because you are fee simple, your automatically have a right once you do your platting to do a certain amount of models right from the get-go within each platted area. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: The difference is, you've got to pay for impact fees when you go in and plat like that. So to avoid that, you try to create a model center and you do it as an SDP and get away from the impact fee issue, which I don't think is the right way to go on this, so. MR. SCHMITT: Well, they still have to pay impact fees, but not for the platted area. They're only paying it for that area, but they pay it for the building permit. MR. STRAIN: Right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. -- MR. MIDNEY: I have a question, I guess of county staff. The prohibition on more than five model homes, is that to avoid an eyesore Page 62 --~. ---<'-~"'. .'_. --- April 7, 2005 - for people outside, or does it also pertain to the people inside the development? MR. SCHMITT: It was inside as well. Frankly, it was nothing more than a limit that was established because, like I said, the model center is functionally a commercial entity inside of a residential area. And it was somehow to limit that life in regards to the model center because eventually it's going to became a residential community. MR. MIDNEY: So even though-- MR. SCHMITT: I mean, we're not going to fall dead if it's five or eight. I just -- five is the criteria, or the criteria that we have, and it's been five, and there's a lot of reasons for it. If this board feels that eight is acceptable in this circumstance, we'll deal with it. MR. MIDNEY: So even though it's on the interior, as you were saying, back in the woods, it would still be a detriment to the people within the development, wouldn't you say? ~-- MR. SCHIFFER: But these are people that bought off of that sales center. They certainly know that it's going to be a sales center until it's sold out. MR. SCHMITT: And there would have to be appropriate parking and all the other requirements associated with the temporary use as a model center. That all would be in the SDP. I also need to make and ask for clarification, if one of these models are going to serve as the real estate office or some other. The model is a model is a model. It's not a real estate center, it's not a design center. It's not another functioning type of entity, other than a model. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Midney? MR. MIDNEY: No. MR. SCHMITT: I'd just like to clarify that with the applicant. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Nadeau? MR. NADEAU: Oh, yes. For the record again, Dwight Nadeau. _. There will be the potential to have one of the structures to be the model center, which would be the distribution point to get out to the Page 63 -~--"...~ ~ ,,_.~ --~.,~-- - April 7, 2005 - models. MR. STRAIN: Such as a welcome center? MR. SCHMITT: Does that constitute being the sales center and sales office? MR. BASINAIT: It would serve a dual role. It would be a sales office as well as model home, if you will. MR. NADEAU: One half of the duplex. MR. STRAIN: This document is talking about a model center, now we're talking about something more extensive than that. So are we going to go back and beat this whole -- MR. BASINAIT: No, no we're not really talking about something more extensive. We're talking about having a real estate office that is set up to serve only for the purpose of that subdivision. It is going to be included in one of the model homes. It's not going to be a large area of the house. Certainly it's like any other model home that's set up that has, in one of its room, an office area with a computer where we can handle the sales and take care of the business of the subdivision only, not for other subdivisions. MR. STRAIN: Ray, is that consistent with the request in the PUD of a model center? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that would be consistent. A sales center doesn't necessarily have to be a trailer. It can be a model unit. I just want to make it clear, that that counts towards the eight. MR. STRAIN: Yes. MR. BASINAIT: Yes, and we understand that. And I would also remind the commission that the build out of this proj ect is scheduled for 2008, so it's not that we're asking to put model home on a site where they're going to exist for a large number of years. This is going to be a fairly quick absorption, we believe, and as a consequence, you're not going to have model homes that just sit there year after year, if you will. MR. SCHMITT: I would ask then that we add to that that the Page 64 _.".~ ..~~_.~,--_.,.,_. - April 7, 2005 - model -- if the model is serving as the sales office, that at build out, that model does not remain the sales office. MR. BASINAIT: That's not a problem, certainly. MR. STRAIN: Okay. I will accept Mr. Schmitt's stipulation and I'll modify my motion to indicate that eight models would be allowed as long as the start -- the CO date for the proj ect is set and still fixed at October 2007. I don't want this going to the Board of County Commissioners and having them change the date for some reason and then feel that we recommended eight models based on a different date. I'm saying, I'll go along with the eight models if the date stays the same. It's back to the CO time of those units. MR. SCHMITT: Basically, clarification again that there be no occupancy, no certificate of occupancy issued for residential occupation prior to October 2000 -- October 1, 2007. -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And Mr. Strain modified his motion to eight model units. Mr. Adelstein -- MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll accept that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- accepts that as the second. Any further discussion on the motion? MR. NADEAU: MR. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir. MR. NADEAU: If I may. There has been extensive time and effort put into this petition, as you well -- as you are well aware. There is monetary backed expectations delaying the opportunities for this housing to move forward until the roadways are complete. I'd like to offer up a reduction in the number of units. And I'd drop to 480 units. It's substantially less from four dwelling units per acre that we were originally requesting. And we would like to have one half of those units now and the balance of them as of the October 2007 date. - CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, do you wish to entertain that Page 65 -_.- ._-- --~._...._...~,.-.. --.,"- April 7, 2005 -- modification in your motion? MR. STRAIN: No. This has been done a thousand times and I'm not going to fall for it again. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any further discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll call the question, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MR. ABERNATHY: Aye. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye. _. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MINDY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. With that we will move to our next agenda item. Reminding everybody that Agenda Item F, the Orange Tree Associates item has been continued indefinitely. We're moving to 8G, that is petition PUDZ-2004-AR-6383 Catalina Plaza requesting a rezone. MR. ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir. MR. ABERNATHY: At the outset I'd like to note that, at least in my packet, we weren't - I wasn't provided a copy of the application for hearing. MR. STRAIN: Neither was I, sir. MR. ABERNATHY: I assume that's a staff oversight of some Page 66 --.. -.-.-. -.r.. _.. --.- April 7, 2005 ._. sort? CHAIRMAN BUDD: 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 the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Do we have any disclosures by planning commissioners? MR. STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I spoke with Richard Y ovanovich prior to this meeting about the timing of his project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please. . ,-~ MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. Also with me to answer any questions you may have are Bill Hoover with Hoover Planning, and Dean Smith with Grady Minor. The property is approximately 15.88 acres. It's located about a quarter mile west of951 on Vanderbilt Beach Road. It's next to Mission Hills, which I think you are all familiar with. And to the north and to the west of us is Wolfe Creek, which is a residential project. We recently came through and established the Vanderbilt Beach Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict, which would make these 15.88 acres eligible for commercial -- actually, a mixed use project, which we're requesting. We're requesting 150,000 square feet of retail and office uses, and up to 64 dwelling units as a mixed used project. The retail buildings are limited to one story, or one story with a - maximum height of 35 feet. Office buildings are limited to a maximum of three stories with a maximum height of 42 feet. Page 67 '-~~' ^-" .-"- April 7, 2005 .-- And if we do a mixed building that includes residential, it's limited to a maximum of three stories with a maximum 45 feet in height. The residential must be located within a building that has either office or retail, so we cannot have stand-alone residential buildings. We have -- I handed out to you the list of who currently owns the property and the contract purchasers. Staff failed to hand -- give you the application. If you want the entire application, I can give you that, but I thought you were more concerned with making sure there were no conflicts of interest, so I just handed out that portion of the application. Weare -- we are willing to time our proj ect to where we also would not get COs until October 1, '07. While we would like to have the ability to do, obviously, to do our infrastructure, because if you look at our master plan, you'll see that there is a road that connects _. Pristine Drive and -- is it Buckstone Drive -- Buckstone Drive, and that actually would benefit the residential uses that are allowed to go forward now, and get them over to the loop road that goes around Mission Hills. So if we could build that infrastructure, it will actually help keep some traffic off of Vanderbilt Beach Road. So, we'd like to be able to go forward with our infrastructure. And if we do have any kind of sales center, that we'd like to be able to at least do that and have no COso I also would like to have sun setting not apply, that the time frame doesn't start - the three-year clock doesn't start until October 1, '07, or if the roads are done sooner, obviously we can go forward sooner, but we would - we get COs no sooner than the two roads being in place, 951 or Vanderbilt Beach Road on October 1, 2007. But we would also don't want to be penalized by having - two-and-a-half years of our sunsetting clock ticking away when we don't have the ability to actually meet the requirements of sunsetting Page 68 --."" --.-.." --,", '- --- April 7, 2005 . . - provIsIons. With that, your staff report is very detailed. If you have any particular questions about the proj ect, I'll be happy to answer them. MR. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. MR. MURRA Y: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are you ready for questions or do you have some more comments? Mr. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I wanted to clarify, if I will. You know, when I said COs, I was -- what I meant was, is that those portions of Vanderbilt Beach Road were open in front of our proj ect as well as 951 by our project, not necessarily the entire project for Vanderbilt Beach Road. If that's acceptable. MR. STRAIN: Vanderbilt Beach Road is six laned? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Six laned. -- MR. STRAIN: And when 951 north of Golden Gate Boulevard is six laned -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And that would be a timetable of'07, transportation staff has said. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. MR. STRAIN: So, my thought would be similar to the last project, that October 1 st of '07 you would be able to get COs if the rest of this panel agrees when we make a motion. Prior to that time, I don't think anybody is concerned about infrastructure because that's not the generator that the CO is by. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree. I agree. I'm talking about -- Mr. Strain, are you talking about the entire length of Vanderbilt Beach Road, or you talking about the segment that's in front of our project? MR. STRAIN: The segment that's in front of your project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because that may occur sooner is what I'm saying. Page 69 "-_.-- ",,~ '. ._..~y_...._,,--,-_..~ .- - April 7, 2005 - MR. STRAIN: Well, but the way- MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're doing the project. MR. STRAIN: If you have CO -- the road would have to be completed, not just on Vanderbilt but also 951. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that, but Vanderbilt Beach is a longer project, and I think it's just one project, that's not three separate projects. I just want to make sure we understood the segment. MR. STRAIN: Right now the mess you created with Mission Hills on Vanderbilt Beach Road is not good, and I would want to make sure we don't contribute to that, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I wish I could take personal responsibility for that, but -- MR. STRAIN: Well, you did. You came here and asked for it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And at that time, if we remember, you ......'. were supposed to go to four lanes on 951, not go right to six. So, if the four lanes were built when staff originally talked about it, we would have been okay. MR. STRAIN: And at that time, if you remember, I was equally concerned about the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know you were. MR. STRAIN: -- all those roads and it didn't happen, just like I had thought. Well, now I've got better assurances, and I think the design is better and I think it's going to happen, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we have a time frame that will work. MR. STRAIN: Work is actually started this time instead of guesstimating on the future. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Moving on to the questions. Mr. Murray. -- MR. MURRA Y: Yes, sir. I notice you have no rendering, nothing I can visualize, and that's okay, but in my efforts to try to Page 70 ~_..._. ._.' _ _ .m..... _ p'W,_~'__~' . ....~,..,..<" - --- -. -_. ...~- April 7, 2005 - understand the project, could I liken it to what the Buckley PUD was intended to represent? Will it e an enclosure with the mixed use to the lot lines essentially? Will it be interior, the activity? It's a mixed use unit, right? Sixty-four units of residential? MR. YOV ANOVICH: A maximum of 64 units can be constructed within. MR. MURRA Y: What I'm trying to ascertain, I guess, is whether or not this is what market we're appealing to. Is there any work force housing? And then, when we pass that one, the other question would be inner connectivity, which I'm always concerned with making provisions for inner connectivity to the adjacent, especially with that much, 150,000 squares, I think I saw. Making available, at least pedestrian-wise, opportunities for adjacent PUDS. Now, they may not be open to it at this time, but as I indicated, to try - to set in place something that you would be open to so that at a later time something is possible. Yeah, I remember seeing this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I can, let me address the inner connectivity question for you. Weare providing for inner connectivity where Carolina Way will connect Buckstone which is -- are you helping me there? Buckstone right here. Those are two roads that will serve all the Residential developments off of 9 -- off of Vanderbilt Beach Road. So we are providing a mechanism for all of the residential users to come through our project, to get to our project, and not only our project, but to get to the loop road that serves Mission Hills and -- and the whole community out there. Wolfe Creek and Carolina Village and Mission Hills have all been designed so that nobody will have to get out onto 951. MR. MURRA Y: Yeah, that's the one. .-. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or Vanderbilt Beach Road to get to either our project or Mission Hills. Page 71 -~---. .,_.,- -.,'- -,,,,."".;.'-"~""'-" ._,..,,- ,~-;_." --- April 7, 2005 ,.- MR. MURRAY: Okay. So that's good. And of course the other question I asked had to do with workforce housing. What market are you appealing to? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Murray, we're not sure on the residential right now what market we'll be appealing to, if there will even be a market for the residential. We can anticipate that maybe some of the business owners that ultimately build there may want to live there. Maybe some of their workers will want to live there. Maybe just general public will want to life there because they'll be close to those services that are there. We haven't finalized who we'll sell this to ultimately as the market. MR. MURRAY: So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that while you're going in as a mixed use, you could have as few as two units of residents? -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We could have as few as two, we could have as few as zero, we can have as many as 64. MR. MURRAY: I don't see how it qualifies for mixed use then if it's zero. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it's not required to be mixed use. The -- we're eligible to ask for up to 16 units per acre. MR. MURRA Y: I guess maybe that was my error. I thought that you were applying as a mixed use. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Weare. And we're asking for the ability to build up to 64 units. We're not saying we're absolutely going to deliver 64 units, we're saying, if there's a market for the residential to coexist with the retail and office, we would like the ability to have 64 units. MR. MURRAY: Okay. MR. ABERNATHY: I have questions for the petitioner. - CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. MR. ABERNATHY: Are there any mixed used developments Page 72 ~N"'__""'_""__e"__ ...__'.___k ""-"~,,,--_._,-"'-~"" m._ April 7, 2005 - currently operating in the county? MR. YOV ANOVICH: In Collier County? MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. I know there are in the city. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I know they're in the city, and I'm trying to think of any that are in Collier County. MR. ABERNATHY: And you've got a certain critical mass in the downtown area. MR. VIGLIOTTI: I thought Buckley was the beginning. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Buckley hasn't been built yet, but yes, Buckley is the one that, most recently approved one in Collier County. MR. ABERNATHY: I'm only talking about operating. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think there are any operating in Collier County yet. MR. ABERNATHY: SO you really don't have a basis for ,- judging what your market might be? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're going to have to -- we don't have any previous examples that tell us that there's absolutely a desire for this, but, you know, we'll do marketing studies, and if there is desire for the units, we would like to build them. MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. Sounds right to me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: Just a curiosity point, what is the statement Morning Glory's, Inc? MR. YOV ANOVICH: What is that? MR. ADELSTEIN: Morning Glory's, Inc. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is a corporation. And if you look down at the bottom, there's -- MR. ADELSTEIN: I'm looking at it. What is it? A corporation of what? - MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's just a corporation comprised of Pete Fierney and Michael Moore. Page 73 .,~"~..._--~,. . ~--- April 7, 2005 They formed a business entity in which they bought their ownership interest in the LLC. MR. STRAIN: That's not the movie producer, is it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think so. MR. ADELSTEIN: That's Mick Moore, isn't it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's that? MR. ADELSTEIN: Mick Moore. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Mick is the son. Mike is the dad. MR. ADELSTEIN: My question though, what is it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: What is it? It's just a corporation that they formed to take -- to own their ownership interest in the land -- in the LLC, the limited liability company. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Instead of owning it personally, they formed a corporation. -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Richard, are you prepared to address the issue on the development standards table I mentioned to you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, and I want to -- MR. STRAIN: The setback. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And I wanted to point out, north of us is the Wolfe Creek PUD. On the Wolfe Creek PUD master plan there is an approximately 200- foot-wide preserve area that abuts our project. So we felt that the development, the 10 foot for accessories __ accessory structures -- was not going to be a problem since there was already a preserve 200 feet wide, 200 north. MR. STRAIN: And does that preserve go the full length of Wolfe Creek? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Were there provisions in the Wolfe Creek PUD that allowed that preserve to be modified without having to amend the PUD? I don't want to -- see, I want to make sure there's not Page 74 -- "--"..",., ~- -._~ -~"", April 7, 2005 ~- going to be any housing 10 feet off your property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll put the -- MR. STRAIN: You did represent Wolfe Creek, or you still do? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I did and I still do. That is the master plan for Wolfe Creek. And as you'll see, it shows the preserve area and as you know, if you want to change a master plan, the PUD master plan, I'm going to have to come back to, at least, the planning commission, to do a master plan change. MR. STRAIN: Plus, there was language in the PUD that gives some leeway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's nothing in the PUD that says I can go and make that preserve disappear. MR. STRAIN: All these statements you make on the record are -- we can count on these? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You can count on what I say. ,,-- MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. ABERNATHY: Mr. Ego. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's that? MR. ABERNATHY: I didn't say that. MR. STRAIN: I know you didn't. Actually, I went through this, and I don't have -- MR. ABERNATHY: That's the precedents. MR. STRAIN: I have no other questions of you, Rich. I will of staff when we get to that point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the petitioner? MR. WHITE: I just have a concern - assistant county attorney, Patrick White. I understand that Mr. Y ovonivich has sought to have his sunset period altered. The rules that we're talking about are ones that are in the LDC - and they set forth those time frames. And not looking to make it impossible to achieve the desired outcome, I think the only lawful way Page 75 --- .._...~-,,-_......_.. April 7, 2005 .- to do so may be to specifically consider a condition that says that the sunset period does not begin until a certain point in time, or event that is certain to occur in time, and that's when the applicable provision of the LDC as to the time, the five years, et cetera, et cetera, would begin. And what I'm concerned about is not creating a procedural variance in a PUD document. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I suggested tying it to the condition that we have. We can't get any COs -- I can build buildings, but I can't get any COs until either Vanderbilt Beach Road is six laned and open in front of my proj ect, and 951 is six laned and open. I can't get any CO. MR. WHITE: Or October 1st-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or October 1st. I was going to say that. Or October 1 st. MR. WHITE: Whichever is -- -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: whatever is the first to occur. And that would be the trigger for when my sunsetting clock would start, is what I'm suggesting, which only seems fair. MR. WHITE: I think you've stated in that fashion, it wouldn't act as kind of a procedural deviation from the LDC, and it would in effect just be a further refinement specific to this development. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. WHITE: There's just one other concern. I'm not sure transportation staff wants to comment on this or not. It has to do with the idea of those two roads being, quote, open. I think there are certain types of significant tests for their impact that are part of the concurrency process, and so I'm not sure that we have the correct degree of detail in the condition simply saying that the road is open. There may be additional impacts beyond this link that would have to meet significant tests. And if I am off the mark here -- -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe, Mr. white, we are consistent Page 76 ---.--. _..~- --- April 7, 2005 - with the comprehensive plan and concurrency management system as is currently written, however, we're agreeing to an additional condition that would basically say we'll wait. We'll wait. MR. STRAIN: Well, I think the issue - and Patrick, maybe this will help -- the argument was the six laning of Vanderbilt Beach Road and the six laning of 951 from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road, will be completed. Not opened but completed. Completed means all the prudences that go with the completion of a road, including sidewalks, sodding and issues like that. MR. WHITE: Well, I'm not looking to go down that street. Bad pun intended. But, I think the point was to effectively know what it was -- what was meant by open. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me see if I understand it, Mr. Strain, so you and I are on the same page. I think we are. If you go on Goodlette Frank Road right now, north of Pine Ridge Road, it's .- six lanes per portion, four lane per portion. The traveling public is using it. They don't have the landscaping in place yet that will ultimately be on that project. So I don't want to be tied to landscaping and things like that and have that mean -- I didn't think you meant that by the term of completed. MR. STRAIN: Functionally complete is where -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where people are driving -- MR. STRAIN: I don't know if there's a definition of that in Don Scott's world or the other gentleman's -- MR. SCOTT: Substantially complete. MR. STRAIN: Substantially complete. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think you mean the cars are using it, I think is what you mean. - CHAIRMAN BUDD: Substantially complete. I like that. That will work. I think we also need to clarify what road segments. Mr. Page 77 ---... "'-"~".,"-" '-,'... April 7, 2005 -- Strain, you were specific about that segment of 951 running north and south, but on Vanderbilt you weren't specific about it being the easternmost segment of that three-segment design process. Did you intend the entire on Vanderbilt or just -- MR. STRAIN: Just the first main intersection going west from Vanderbilt, which I think is Oaks. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. Oaks to 951 is the easternmost segment. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Logan would be the first one. MR. STRAIN: Logan. He's right. Correct. That's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any further questions of the petitioner? Mr. Schiffer. Mr. Y ovonivich, you're on. MR. SCHIFFER: I have a question. On deviation number one, can we put some restrictions on the type of sign? -,- MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the type of sign? MR. SCHIFFER: Because you're going to have multiple developments on this side. It can wind up looking like a shopping center sign if we're not careful here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I mean, if you've got some suggestions. Obviously, we're not interested in an ugly sign. MR. SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, I think if it's externally lit, essentially spot lit. That would look better than internally. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. MR. SCHIFFER: There is some nice box letters that could work there, but, I mean, most of these signs, I think are flood lit anyway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions of the petitioner. If we could hear from the staff, please. MR. MYER: Good morning. For the record, Robin Myer, - principal planner with Zoning & Land Development Review. As stated by the applicant, this project is consistent with the future land Page 78 "-".- -",.".,.., -'''''-".,' .. """"'--".,~.- '.- -- '-'---.- April 7, 2005 use element that was made via change the end of last year that was just approved. We have found it to be consistent with the surrounding uses through buffers and other matters. The transportation, it sounds like that has been taken care of beyond what we said in the staff report. And we will concur with that, obviously. There was one deviation to allow signage for off-site residential developments behind this project. And, as you can see, we've agreed with that development, or that request. And the language in here is, we worked with them to come to that conclusion. There was a neighborhood information meeting. We had six people show up. No objections. Staffhas received no objections from anybody in the public to this project. And with that, I will be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Robin, I have a question. In your staff review on ~~.~ zoning review -- it's on page six of eight, fifth line down -- actually, the fourth line down, the end of it says, the propsed uses as limited in the staffs PUD document are consistent with the GNP as previously noted. Now, many times in the past we've received multiple PUD documents, one written by the applicant and one written by staff. In my book I only had one. Did staff write something different than what the applicant submitted, or is the staffs PUD document actually the applicant's as well? MR. MYER: I was taking credit for their PUD document. MR. STRAIN: Oh, okay. As long as it's the same one. MR. MYER: Yeah, it is. It's the same. It's exactly the same. And the limitations have been spelled out with regards to fast food restaurants and things of that nature that were not permitted within this PUD. MR. STRAIN: Since you've taken the responsibility for this poor PUD document, it goes back to -- Page 79 '--. -,.-......,...- -- . - -_... -- April 7, 2005 - MR. MYER: Could be a double-edged sword, can't it? MR. STRAIN: Right. I just wanted to make an issue that I brought up before and I just wanted to remind Ray that there was commitment to clean it up. This document still contains a lot of redundant references that are mimicking the LDC language, and I want to make an assurance -- MR. SCHMITT: I'm beating him now because he still owes me that. MR. STRAIN: We're going to get this cleaned up some day, right? MR. SCHMITT: Some day I'm going to get the standard PUD document, for the record. MR. BELLOWS: The Problem is we keep having staff leave us, and Robin is the latest to leave county employment, and he'll be -- last day is April. MR. STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry to hear that, Robin, you've been very good to work with. MR. MYER: Well, I've enjoyed working with Collier County. I'm going to be planning manager for Vanasse, Daylor. MR. STRAIN: Well, congratulations. MR. MYER: Thank you. MR. STRAIN: Good for you. Wow. Ray, you're not thinking of leaving? MR. SCHMITT: We get them trained and then the industry steals them. MR. BELLOWS: And as you can understand, his petition workload will now have to be spread out to others mincluding myself, and that's what creates these little delays. MR. STRAIN: Okay. That's all the questions I have at this time. - CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions of staff? (N 0 response.) Page 80 ~-'-'--.-'-"^''''...'----~ ..",'.n^> -.,... . 1 ~- April 7, 2005 - CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Ray, do we have any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one is registered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Were there any summary comments by the petitioner? Mr. Y ovonivich, any final comments? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I figured I've done enough damage. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll close the public hearing. Do we have amotion? I'll make a motion. MR. STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion. That we recommend approval of Petition PUDZ-2004-AR-6383 with the stipulation as recommended by staff, with any stipulations recommended by the EAC, with a further stipulation that COs will not occur until 10/1/07, or the earlier of the six laning of Vanderbilt Beach Road from 951 to Logan, and the six laning of951, which is Collier -- Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road. And the SunSetting provision will start at the time period that either one of those conditions are met for CO. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion from Mr. Strain and a second by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion on the motion? MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah. Mark, can you add to that the externally lit sign? MR. STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, yes, I'll amend my motion to add the issue concerning the externally lit sign. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein-- MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll accept that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- is in agreement. Further discussion? Richard, you look puzzled. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think you meant the earlier of -- the ,- earlier of October 1 or the completion -- MR. STRAIN: Two-road completion. Page 81 ---... --"---~->"...,"." -I .-.~- April 7, 2005 -_. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. MR. STRAIN: That's the way I understood it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none - further clarification? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought it was 951 north of Vanderbilt Beach Road? Did I misunderstand that? MR. STRAIN: No. From Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road. It's all going to be done at the same time. Both are impacted substantially. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We're all clear on the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MR. ABERNATHY: Aye. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MINDY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Thank you. There is no old business, that I'm aware of. Is there any? There's none. Under new business we have a presentation and discussion by Public Utilities Department staff, who appear not to be in the room, so we thank you them for that very concise presentation. MR. BELLOWS: I had one other question about finding out your summer schedule for summer hearings when the board is off. Last year I believe you met through the entire summer. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think we had LDC and other entertaining Page 82 _.-~ - ---_....,.._,---_.~ "...,-'-~,"--~~,>-,-- -" I --- April 7, 2005 ..- activities that kept us busy. If you've got agenda items, I think we need to meet and hear them. If there is a dry spot that occurs because of the board's vacation schedule, then we appreciate the time off, too. MR. SCHMITT: I see no letup in the number of petitions. In fact, during the meeting here we were just negotiating a separate board date so the board can here the GNP amendments in June, probably June 7th, which will be in between two scheduled board meetings because the agenda items for the board to deal with are so -- just keep on coming in. So-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: If there's no let up in the schedule -- I don't know what the other planning commissioners are thinking, but my attitude would be, I'd rather not take time off, receive the petitions in a reasonable volume so that we then don't develop an overwhelming backlog and have to have a marathon two-day meeting and just wear ourselves out. MR. MURRA Y: We certainly concur with that. MR. ADELSTEIN: I think that goes for all of Us. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, because we may be looking at a two-day board meeting for the board for their meeting -- what is that? Late in July, yeah, so -- I think that's better if we just do it -- we know there's a down week and we'll so advise, but right now it looks as though you're going to see agenda items as indicated like today, the five or six. And we just seem to have this habitual request to continue items. They are scheduled, they're staffed and then at the list minute they're continued. MR. SCHIFFER: Joe, what's causing that? Is there, a problem comes up, or for convenience or what's happening? MR. SCHMITT: I don't know. Ray? MR. ABERNATHY: Advertising sometimes. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, there are many _. issues. The one for Orangetree was a result of the petitioner making some modifications to the plans that required another neighborhood Page 83 ...'_ ____. _,"._,__.~._.,_...>o._~ ,. -~._._~ -','...,,',. ----I -.-- April 7, 2005 ,,- information meeting. There has been several within the last few months that it did have advertising problems where the petitioner failed to put the sign up on their site in the required time frame which, because of the I5-day requirement, they did not meet the advertising requirement, so they had to start from scratch. But most of the time it's an issue dealing with that large signs that has to be placed. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. If there is no further business -- MR. SCHIFFER: One more thing. I just want to congratulate you on your presentation to the commission. You did an excellent job on the presentation, fought for us to get continuing -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: And got our salaries doubled. MR. SCHIFFER: And got our salaries doubled. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Twice nothing. MR. SCHMITT: If I could follow up on that since you brought that up, Commissioner Schiffer. Weare going to work an ordinance that basically will codify the process, or, at least from the Board of County Commissioners perspective so that you can attend training and be reimbursed for travel, per diem and training costs, and I will budget that in the upcoming budget year. Also, the board did, based on Chairman Budd's recommendation, direct staff to put together a certification program. And as Mr. Budd recommended, it would be certainly preferable to have them come down here, and we're already looking at a date to do that. It would be a two-day training session. It would be on site here, and we would open it to other municipalities and counties to send their local planning authorities to as well in regards to any certification training. So we're working on that. We're putting a program together. I owe the board both the ordinance to at least formally approve the process for you to apply for -- reimbursement to attend training activities. We will come back to you and define what those will -- define the budget limits, in that regard, Page 84 " _.""'~"-'-~" '----.'" "-".." ... .~'_"""'." _..-.- 1 "~'- April 7, 2005 "- yes, we doubled your salary, at lease in regards to training and travel. MR. SCHIFFER: And, Joe, one other quick thing. There is a system where we acknowledge the advisory board members for their service. Remember we nominated Mark? MR. SCHIFFER: Yes. Can we nominate people? I'd like to nominate Russell today for that program. Is that something we can do? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, we can certainly do that and -- MR. MURRA Y: Second. MR. SCHIFFER: And Russell as a nominee as well if that Board so chooses. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. Then let's consider that as seconded. Russell, you have to get us to vote on it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We have a motion and a second. - Any discussion on that? MR. STRAIN: I need clarification at this point. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. MURRA Y: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MR. ABERNATHY: Aye. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MINDY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed. (No response.) ,..-- Page 85 " .,__,_,__,._~_,w"~__~__.___.._.. ....n __'_'__'_""w,.,_.,__. <._-~ -1 .-.-- April 7, 2005 ,,_.~ ***** CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being no further business, we're adjourned. (Whereupon, meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 a.m.) COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman -- Page 86 ~.-... ....,..-. ..-.._.~~> .. -,--,."".,_._.~ . . '. ---.~ ''1.''-'''-''---'----