CCPC Minutes 05/19/2005 R
May 19,2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida,
May 19,2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd
Kenneth Abernathy
Lindy Adelstein
Donna Reed Caron
Paul Midney
Robert Murray
Brad Schiffer
Mark Strain
Robert Vigliotti (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review;
Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services; Marjorie
Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney; David Weeks,
Comprehensive Planning; Don Scott, Transportation Planning; Kay
Deselem, Zoning & Land Dev. Review; Mike Bosi, Zoning & Land
Dev. Review
Page 1
-....-.,-,--
AGENDA
Revised
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 19,2005, IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRA TION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN 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 PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
NOTE: The public should be advised that a member of the Collier County Planning
Commission (Bob Murray) is also a member of the Community Character/Smart Growth
Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning
Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory
Committee from time to time.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -APRIL 7, 2005, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - APRIL 26,2005, REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: DRI-2004-AR-6293, New Town Development, LLP, represented by George L. Varnadoe, Esquire, of
Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, requesting a Development of Regional Impact for "The Town of Ave
Maria". The Town will encompass 5,027 acres and will consist of residential neighborhoods, a mixed-use town
center, a Community Facilities District (including civic, institutional, governmental and essential services), Wetland
Preserve Areas, and Parklands.
The Town will include the following land uses:
11,000 residential dwelling units
1
690,000 square feet ofretaiVservice
510,000 square feet of office
400 hotel rooms
6,000-student university
In addition to the DRI threshold uses described above, the Town may include up to 450 units of assisted living
facilities, 148,500 square feet of civic, community and miscellaneous facilities, 35,000 square feet of medical
facilities, public and private schools, uses such as golf courses, lakes, open space, and community support facilities,
and those uses customarily associated with a university such as student and administration housing, recreation and
sports areas, and support facilities. The property is located on the north side of Oil Well Road, the east side of
Camp Keais Road, and approximately 6,000 feet south of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846). (Companion to SRA-2004-
AR-6896) (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
B. Petition: SRA-2004-AR-6896, A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
designating 5,027 acres within the Rural Land Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship
Receiving Area, approving the preliminary Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement for The Town Of Ave
Maria, and establishing the number of stewardship credits being utilized by the designation of the Ave Maria
Stewardship Receiving Area, pennitting the development of the Town of Ave Maria with the land uses and intensity
described in the companion Development of Regional Impact (Companion to DRI-2004-AR-6293) application.
(Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
C. Amendments Continued Separatelv Advertised Meetin!! From April 27 (last CCPC LDC Amendment
Hearin!!) An ordinance of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance number 04-41,
as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Chapter I - General Provisions, Including Section
1.08.02 Defmitions; Chapter 2 - Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts,
Section 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts and Section 2.05.02 Density Blending; and Chapter 10 including
Section 10.03.05 Notice Requirements For Public Hearings Before the BCC, the Planning Commission, the Board
of Zoning Appeals, the EAC and the Historic Preservation Board.
D. 2004 Cvcle GMP Adoption Petition Titles
~ CP-2004-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element to modifY the Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict to allow the Affordable Housing Density Bonus on 196 of the 235 acres in the San Marino PUD, located
on the east side of Collier Boulevard, 1.25 miles south of Davis Blvd., in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26
East, Royal Fakapalm Planning Community. [Coordinator: Jean Jourdan)
~ CP-2004-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the countywide Future Land Use Map to change 79 acres from the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Neutral Lands to the RFMUD Sending Lands and to change 153 acres
from the RFMUD Neutral Lands to the RFMUD Receiving Lands, for property located one mile south of Immokalee
Road and 2.75 miles east of Collier Boulevard, in Sections 31 and 32, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Rural
Estates Planning Community. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca)
~ CP-2004-3, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to create a
new "Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict" to allow for C-I through C-3 commercial uses,
other comparable and/or compatible commercial uses not found specifically in the C-I through C-3 zoning districts,
mixed use development, and indoor self-storage, on two parcels, one located at the northeast comer of Vanderbilt
Beach Road and Livingston Road (9.18 acres), and one parcel farther east on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road
(8 acres, zoned Vanderbilt Trust PUD), in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Urban Estates Planning
Community. [Coordinator: John David Moss)
~ CP-2004-4, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element to change the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District Sending Lands to add three Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) bonus provisions, each for one TDR
credit, for: 1) environmental restoration and maintenance; 2) fee simple conveyance to a government agency, by gift;
3) early entry into the TDR program; and, to amend Rural Village development standards.
[Coordinator: Michele Mosca)
2
~ CP-2004-5, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to create a
new "Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict" to allow mixed residential and
commercial development similar to the Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict, for 22.8 acres located at the
southeast comer of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, South
Naples Planning Community. [Coordinator: David Weeks)
~ CPSP-2004-7, Petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map
Series, Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element text and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, Capital Improvement
Element, and the Potable Water and SanitarY Sewer Sub-Elements of the Public Facilities Element.
[Coordinator: David Weeks]
1. Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub-Elements:
a. Delete the figure depicting the Mirasol PUD service area, and all references to it in the appropriate
policies.
2. Capital Improvement Element:
a. Correct and modifY applicable policy references to figures depicting the water and sewer service areas.
3. Golden Gate Area Master Plan:
a. ModifY the applicable maps depicting the Santa Barbara Commercial
and Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial
Subdistricts;
b. Make minor corrections and "clean-up" changes to the Golden Gate
Parkway Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict;
c. Lessen the wetland preserve area in the Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use
Subdistrict by ±0.09 acres; and increase total Subdistrict acreage from 15.74 to 16.2 acres; and
d. Add the legal description for all properties within the Randall
Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict.
4. Future Land Use Element:
a. ModifY Policies 1.IB. and 1.5 to add omitted references;
b. Change a map reference in the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict; and,
c. In the Conservation Designation, clarifY the allowable density for pre-existing private in-holdings in the
Big Cypress National Preserve.
5. Future Land Use Map (FLUM):
a. Change the designation from Urban Residential to Conservation for a 99.3-acre County-owned mitigation
site located on the west side of Collier Boulevard and adjacent to the north of Naples Lakes Country
Club PUD;
b. Change the designation from Urban Industrial to Conservation for a 77.3-acre Conservation Collier site
located east of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad Right-of-way and adjacent to the north of the future
Livingston Road East-West;
c. Change the designation from Industrial to Urban for the Immokalee Airport area as the area is more
particularly designated in the Immokalee Area Master Plan;
d. Add the name of the South Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection Area (NRP A) Overlay and
add the name and pattern to the Clam Bay NRP A;
e. Correct the location of Wiggins Pass Road and the US-41/CR-887 (old US-41) intersection;
f. Change the reference note pertaining to addition of certain features in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay; and,
g. In the map legend, spell out the NRP A abbreviation.
6. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Series:
a. On the Activity Center Index Map, correct the configuration of various activity centers;
b. Delete Activity Center # 19 Map - it is a repeat of Activity Center #20;
c. On the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map, add the expansion area and
distinguish between the original and expanded areas;
d. Create a new map to depict the existing Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict; and,
Establish two new maps, depicting two County-owned sites, to correlate with the changes to the
countywide FLUM to designate these sites as Conservation.
3
9. OLD BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
5/1 9/05/CCPC AgendaIRB/sp/mk
4
May 19, 2005
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we'll call this meeting of the
Collier County Planning Commission to order.
If you would, please join me and rise for the pledge of
allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning. Our roll call.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti is absent.
Mr. Abernathy?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Budd is here.
Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney is absent.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any addenda to the agenda?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
recommend that we move the Item C after Item D, since that was the
original intent in the first place. The LDC amendments were to follow
the GMP amendments.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Very good. Any further
discussion?
(No response.)
Page 2
May 19,2005
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have that amendment.
Also, I wanted to add into the agenda, under new business, three
items for discussion and action: One being an evening date for the
Copeland area rezone; second being a suggestion that on June 16th we
hear a presentation by the chairman of the smart growth committee;
and number three, we have some discussion on -- about a two-day
Planning Commission commissioner training. If we could add those
items under new business.
Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
Page 3
~.._____'"., ~...._...__..,.~ .,_', M' _~_w___
May 19,2005
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: The agenda is modified.
Y .?
es, SIr.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, while we're
talking about agendas, would it be appropriate for us to bring up the
matter of our agenda on the 2nd of June?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I understand from Mr. Schmitt that it's his
intention to start the day out with Ave Maria, just as it was proposed
for today before that item was continued.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think that's good. The
suggestion I was going to make is that in fairness to the people that are
on the ordinary agenda, as it were, that we say that those items will
not be heard before, say, noon or 1 :00 so that all of those people who
have items on the agenda know they don't have to come in here in the
mornIng.
MR. SCHMITT: You anticipate that that will-- that Ave Maria
will take that long?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if we said noon, it
won't be heard before noon, you back that up till -- and have lunch
from 11 :00 to 12:00, I'm sure it's going to take from 8:30 till 11 :00, so
MR. SCHMITT: All right. And I believe --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, I'd say it's going to take
every bit of that.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain thinks probably
it'll take till 12:00.
MR. SCHMITT: He has 100 or so tabs already on his book.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Three hundred.
MR. SCHMITT: Three hundred.
There are, I believe, if I recall, five other petitions scheduled for
Page 4
.._--"~_." ~.,"....._~.~_._,-~,.._,--
May 19,2005
that day, so it will be a fairly busy day.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if that notation could
be either made in the agenda or if your planners could notify those
five people of how this is going to work, I think it would be helpful for
everybody. We don't want them sitting around here all morning if
they're taking time off from work or whatever.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And just as further clarification, I
believe county staff has polled the planning commission members and
determined that if necessary, a quorum is available for June 3rd,
should the June 2nd business not be concluded by the end of the day
and we roll over to the next day.
(At which time, Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, no further addenda to the agenda.
Any anticipated planning commission absences?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I won't
be here on the 16th of June. Or there, I should say. It's at Horseshoe,
I think, that day.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And if on the June 2nd meeting it
does roll over to June 3rd, I will be here for the 2nd, I'm not available
for the 3rd, although a quorum has been determined, should that date
be necessary.
Any other absences?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I won't be available on the 3rd
also.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.
Approval of minutes, April 7th, 2005 regular meeting.
Everybody reviewed those? Do we have a motion to adopt or
modify?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Adelstein, a
Page 5
May 19,2005
second by Mr. Murray to approve as submitted. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
The minutes are adopted.
Board of County Commission report. Mr. Schmitt, is there
anything to report?
MR. SCHMITT: No, I don't have anything to report. I'djust
only from the fact you do know that the Cocohatchee Bald Eagle
Management Plan Amendment was denied by the board. That's
probably the most significant issue.
But I didn't -- I don't have anything else prepared to report.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Moving on. There is no
chairman's report. We'll move into our advertised public hearings.
Ave Maria, for those that aren't already aware, has been
continued to June 2nd.
MR. SCHMITT: That would be Items A and B.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: 8-A and B. I appreciate that clarification.
And we will move on to Item D, the 2004 GMP cycle adoption.
And Mr. Weeks is going to make some introductory comments.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record
David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department.
Some very brief introductory comments, as I typically make for
Growth Management Plan Amendments. First to stress that this is the
adoption hearing. All of you, at least that were in attendance at the
Page 6
May 19,2005
transmittal hearings, have seen these petitions before.
Today you're making recommendations on the final action to be
taken by the board. That is, you're going to recommend to adopt or
not to adopt the respective amendments that are being presented today.
And of course to stress that these are plan amendments. These
are not the rezones and conditional uses that you typically see at each
of your meetings. But these, at least in the context of the private
initiated petitions, they will establish the parameters and guidelines
that will be applicable for a subsequently submitted rezone petition.
This is a legislative action, not a quasi judicial action, so there is
no requirement to swear in participants or to offer notice of ex parte
communications.
As is required by state statute, staff has provided a legal size set
of papers out on the table in the hallway. This is to be sent to the
Department of Community Affairs.
What this is is an opportunity for any interested citizen to sign
up their name and address so that they can be notified by that state
agency of what their notice of intent will be; that is, whether the state
agency is going to find one or more of these amendments in
compliance with state statutes or not in compliance with state statutes
after they have reviewed the petitions upon their adoption by the
board.
And finally, as always, we would appreciate, for those of you
that do not wish to keep your binders, that you keep them behind. We
will pick those up and reuse them. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: David?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That statement you just made is
interesting, because I noticed this time that since I'm the only one on
the panel that keeps his binders, and I keep them forever, I had the
binders from the prior meeting. Yet on this particular distribution, I
noticed there was a memo from you indicating to the applicants not to
Page 7
May 19,2005
provide the same amount of information that they had provided
before. And that means the rest of the board members could not have
had access to the information that I used to review for today's meeting.
I wanted just to correct a statement in your memo and that is I
would like always to receive the information. In this case I had it
because I kept it. And I can't speak for the rest of the members here,
but I've never expressed -- as your memo stated, I've never expressed
a concern about receiving too much information. I've expressed
concern about not receiving enough, and I will continue to do that. So
I just wanted to let you know for the record that I would prefer to have
all the information.
MR. WEEKS: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I would like to say that I agree
100 percent. I did, this being my first time, turn in my book, as was
requested, and have lived to regret it ever since, because I've had
questions all along, so --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I also want to put my vote in
that same way. I don't want it to happen again.
MR. WEEKS: Any others? I hope you'll appreciate that our--
as we stated in that memo, our intent was just to save you from having
to lug so much around.
I'll say some of you, unless I am mistaken, have made the
comment before about the volume of these. I know some of the
County Commissioners have. They've been, I'm not sure what the
right word, displeased at the volume of submittal packages that they've
had to review.
And because these have already been reviewed at transmittal,
typically, not always, but typically your review at adoption stage, as
well as the Board's, tends to be more abbreviated because it's your
second time at seeing the petition.
We will gladly provide -- and if there's any other commissioners,
either now or at a later date, if you wish to advise me, we'll be glad to
Page 8
May 19,2005
provide you with the full packet at the adoption hearing as well.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. We'll move on to GMP
Item CP-2004-1. That is the San Marino modification of urban
residential fringe subdistrict to allow an affordable housing density
bonus increase.
And J ean Jordan, I believe, is making the presentation. Or is the
petitioner, Mr. Y ovanovich representing the petitioner, going to start?
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, it's your protocol that the
petitioner goes first.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Petitioner goes first. Okay, very good.
Mr. Y ovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
If you will recall, this is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for
a parcel of property located on the east side of 951, south of Davis
Boulevard, and north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
With me today on behalf of the petitioner are Dr. Sam Durso,
and Mr. Richard Davenport is enroute from the east coast. And I have
Randy Spradling to answer any questions you may have regarding
transportation issues.
The purpose of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to allow
the existing San Marino PUD to be eligible for a density bonus
relating to providing affordable housing.
It's not the entire PUD that's eligible, it's roughly 196 acres that
would be eligible for the affordable housing density bonus.
We went through the process the first time. You all
recommended 5-3 to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit
to the Department of Community Affairs. The Board of County
Commissioners recommended 3-2 to transmit to the Department of
Community Affairs.
Page 9
_.._....,.,.._..-_...~~...._-_._-._.._.- ."-~.._"-
May 19,2005
We have, since that, since the transmittal hearings, had a
neighborhood information meeting with residents in the area. That
occurred earlier this week, at which we explained in detail our project,
what we hoped to do on the project, and provided a site plan for the
improvements. Keeping in mind the site plan really is not addressed
until much later, but we wanted people to understand, you know, how
development would occur and how it would relate to our surrounding
neighbors.
We are requesting an additional 589 units under the amendment.
That would bring a total of 941 units for the project. There's an
existing 350 units, okay? We need to all be clear that there's an
existing apartment complex.
The existing PUD would allow for a golf course on the vacant
land, as I explained the last time. Since 9/11, there's been a dramatic
decrease in the need for -- or demand for golf courses in general, and
so there's a -- there's a glut of memberships available throughout
Collier County, if you want to buy a golf membership.
I will put on the visualizer, since Mr. Davenport's not here, the
site plan we showed. I did get it right.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: First time for everything.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. Blind squirrel.
As you can see, the project is facing north. Just to the south of
the entrance of our project is the existing apartment complex. We will
have a separate entrance onto 951. The market rate housing, if you
will, is on the southern portion of the project, and the affordable
housing will be on the northern portion -- the northwest quadrant, if
you can see on that piece of property.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rich, how about refreshing
my memory.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Of the 589 new units, how
many are affordable housing?
Page 10
May 19,2005
MR. YOV ANOVICH: 178.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 178.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thirty percent of the units will be
affordable housing.
And to remind everybody, this is a j oint venture between
Waterways joint venture and Habitat for Humanities. It's the San
Marino joint venture. The property's been purchased by the joint
venture. Habitat for Humanities will be constructing the 1 78 units.
And Dr. Durso will get into a little bit greater detail on who will be
served by those units. But those units will include garages, which has
been the standard now for Habitat for Humanity in Collier County.
To our north is Glen Eagle, I believe is the -- Forest Glen. You
know, everybody else keeps saying Glen Eagle. I knew I was going to
repeat the wrong information.
Forest Glen is to our north. You will see our preserve. Our
preserve basically lines up with the preserve for Forest Glen, as well
to our east to the conservation area for the existing earth mining
operation.
The project that Habitat will be building is approximately 100
feet from our border, and in that area is also golf course for Forest
Glen. So we're not abutting any existing residential development with
this project.
We also, if you'll see the big white area to our east, that's a
40-acre parcel that we're told is owned by the Catholic -- the Diocese
of Venice. At some point there will probably be a Catholic church
there. So the reality is you won't be able to see the project from 951.
We -- as we stated before, there's a tremendous need for
affordable housing in Collier County . We believe this is a unique
application. It's a joint venture between a market rate developer and
Habitat for Humanities to come forward and do something innovative
to provide affordable housing. We request that you recommend to the
Board of County Commissioners that they adopt this amendment.
Page 11
May 19,2005
I think it's fair to say, at the neighborhood information meeting
the concern was over traffic. I didn't hear anybody say they opposed
the concept of the project. The concern was with the traffic generated
by the proj ect. Your transportation staff has reviewed the proj ect, has
found it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
We have a concurrency management system in place that
addresses transportation issues. And if there's any question of whether
or not that concurrency management system works, ask the three
developments that are being held up south of 951 -- on 951, south of
U.S. 41. They've got existing zoning, they've got their SDP's in. And
during the process, it was determined that the road exceeded capacity.
So we're having to fix that problem ourselves, but we're held up and
not able to go forward until we fix the transportation issue.
So I did my best to assure the people that those transportation
issues would have to be dealt with before the impacts of our project.
They were looking for answers from county transportation staff, and
they're here to answer those questions for you, if you have them.
Dr. Durso is going to make some brief statements and then we'll
open it up to any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
MR. DURSO: Good morning. For the record, my name is Sam
Durso. I'm the president of Habitat in Collier County.
As you all know, we have an affordable housing crisis here in
Collier County. It wasn't caused by this Planning Board or this
present County Commissioners. But over the last 25, 30 years lots of
building has been done here without affordable housing. You've got
Marco Island with no affordable housing. You've got 15,000 units
permitted to be built along the 951 corridor and almost none of that is
affordable housing. So the problem has been created by other folks,
but we've been dealt with that problem.
Habitat for Humanity right now owns only three pieces of land
in the urban area, or near the urban area. One of them is the Regal
Page 12
May 19,2005
Acres PUD, which you're going to hear in a couple of weeks, and we
were already zoned there for 110 units. We now find we don't need
concurrency in 41, and those units probably won't get built for 10
years, or until 41 east gets widened.
The second piece of land we have is called Trail Ridge, which is
the corner of 41 and 951. And right now Wal-Mart is out in front of it
and they're being told they can't build until they improve the road. We
think we have concurrency on that section of 41. We may be able to
build. We're not sure. We still don't have our FDOT permit there.
We finished building houses in Naples two months ago. We
have no product in Naples anymore. We have 50 homeowners already
approved. We have 40 homeowners a month coming into our office
for homes. We have no place to have these people go.
Yes, we are building homes in Immokalee. We can't build
enough homes in Immokalee for those folks either.
This San Marino PUD will meet concurrency . We would like to
get it approved. We know we probably won't get to build there for
five years, but at least the product will be there when it's needed.
Nobody does affordable housing in this county better than us.
Maybe nobody does it except us.
As you read in the paper yesterday, the median home price is
now $460,000 in this county. So the affordable housing crisis gets
worse and worse.
As of last year, there was a need for 30,000 units of affordable
housing. 83 percent of the jobs in this county are very low paying
jobs in the service industry. That's probably never going to change as
long as this is a retirement mecca.
We say that building homes closer to jobs helps traffic. And
that's never considered in all the traffic computations. But where is all
the traffic coming from? It's coming on 75 because people have to
live in Lee County; it's coming on Immokalee Road because people
have to live in Immokalee.
Page 13
-...-."'-.........."..,."'-...-..;----..-.,....--.-
May 19, 2005
In the last five years, Habitat has pulled together, the business
community and donor and volunteers, and we've spent $10 million a
year building affordable housing in this county. We're building over
100 homes a year.
We're the best Habitat in the world. Nobody does it better than
us. We're a model for other Habitats.
Perhaps what you folks want is for us to go someplace else. I
mean, maybe we'll have to go to Hendry County. But anyways, but
the main part of any solution to affordable housing crisis is Habitat for
Humanity.
We've been smart enough to go out and buy land. We have
enough land for 1,500 homes. We've got volunteers, we've got donors.
We can build 200 homes a year.
What we don't have is the zoning. Without density bonus, there
will be no affordable housing. And we don't ask for eight units an
acre. In this PUD we're only asking for three units an acre.
We will meet traffic concurrency. You were told at your traffic
workshop that we have the strictest concurrency in the state.
The San Marino parcel is one of the last parcels available for
affordable housing in the urban boundary. As a planning board, you
must consider some solution to the affordable housing crisis. That
solution is density bonus.
Yes, traffic is a problem. The county is addressing this problem.
The county has not done enough for affordable housing. And we're
not asking for money, we're just asking for density bonus. But
without density bonus, there will be no affordable housing in Collier
County. The rest is up to you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Dr. Durso? If I may, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right here. Having to do with
that, you said you wouldn't even probably get started for five years.
MR. DURSO: We're going to meet traffic concurrency,
Page 14
May 19,2005
whatever that is. And so --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if it was seven or 10 years,
would that be a significant issue?
MR. DURSO: I worry about that in one respect. Let's assume
optimistically that the Trail Ridge PUD, which is on the corner of 41,
951, that we are able to build there in the next couple of months, and
I'm not sure. If we can, we've been building 80 to 100 homes a year
here in coastal Collier County. We will probably have to cut back and
only build 40 a year there so we'll have something to do over the next
five years.
Now, that's going to be really difficult on our homeowners. If
we do that, that gives us five years. So hopefully this will be next.
Because the Regal Acres PUD, which you're going to hear very soon,
is in an area out on 41 where there's no plans to widen the road. So
that proj ect -- I think you have to put these proj ects together and
decide which one falls where.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, ideally it will be
sequential, sure.
MR. DURSO: So I think that this probably would be ahead of
the Regal Acres one, hopefully, because the road is going to get
improved here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then, I would ask a
question of Mr. Y ovanovich having to do with Mr. Davenport's part of
it. When does his critical moment come?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would anticipate that we would --
we would anticipate a phasing schedule as follows: From July 1, '08,
to the end of that calendar year, we would need 80 homes. From the
calendar year '09, we would need about 180 homes. And calendar
year 2110, we'd like, you know, no limitations on the number of units.
That should coincide, as we talked about, Mr. Murray, with the actual
improvement of951. And you can ask Mr. Scott as to when they
anticipate 951 being completed.
Page 15
May 19,2005
The improvement's there, including through the intersection of
Davis. So that should coincide fine for us if we had that kind of a
phasing schedule.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. We will be talking to
Mr. Scott regarding that. Because the issue is not only 951 but
obviously the Davis Boulevard interchange.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I'll pass for the
moment, thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you.
Any other presentations by your team?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think so. Other than we're
available to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And of course we'd like to respond to
any public comment.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Most of my questions will be of
staff, but I do have one of the petitioner.
Have you been in through a concurrency review at this time?
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Have we gone through a concurrency
review at this time?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I don't believe that doesn't occur
until we get to the SDP and platting.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just wanted you to acknowledge
that on the record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Could we hear from staff, please?
MS. JOURDAN: Good morning. For the record, Jean Jourdan,
Comprehensive Planning.
Just to give you a little bit of background information, this was
approved to transmit by the Collier County Planning Commission at
5-3. The BCC also approved to transmit with the density bonus
Page 16
May 19,2005
reduced from -- originally they were asking for six units an acre to
three units an acre by a vote of 3-2.
Staff is recommending that the Collier County Planning
Commission forward the petition to the BCC with a recommendation
to adopt as transmitted. However, there was some minor text change,
which is in your packet there. And that was just more for clarity
purposes to define -- because there is another unit within this one, so
you could know which ones was which.
I attended the neighborhood informational meeting. There was
approximately 35 to 40 residents there. Most of their concerns were
traffic concerns.
In addition, as a result of the advertisement for the neighborhood
informational meeting, I received four e-mails and one telephone call,
which was also opposed, regarding traffic concerns.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any questions?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've forgotten my question. I
pass for the moment.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The proposed amendment sheet
that was put together by staff says that the only part of this PUD that's
being changed is the 196.
MS. JOURDAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can PUD's be split apart and
changed by pieces? Have we done that before? I don't recall seeing
that. Usually it's the whole PUD comes in and they change the overall
project. But now we're changing just a piece of a PUD?
MS. JOURDAN: Yeah, I'm going to let David answer that
question.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, what -- and Commissioners, what
Page 1 7
May 19,2005
they'll have to do is file an amendment for rezone to the entire PUD.
What they would propose is not to -- I believe this would be correct --
is not proposing any changes to the existing 40 acres that have already
been developed, and which is actually under separate ownership. But
the entire PUD would have to come through the rezone hearing.
Process.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting
at. Because the petition that was attached to the documents that we
received didn't include the legal description just for the 196 acres. It
included the legal description for the entire existing PUD. So--
MR. WEEKS: To go further, the specific reason they have to
include the entire site is because the existing 350 unit -- well,
approved 352 units is based on the density of one and a half units per
acre over the entire PUD acreage.
So what is being requested here is a density bonus and it is only
the bonus that will be allowed to development. Because the base one
and a half units per acre have already been already approved and
almost all of which have been built.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Now, this particular application is
to remove a golf course that's there and replace it with housing.
How many existing public golf courses are there in Collier
County?
MR. WEEKS: Public, as in open to the public, I cannot answer.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Isn't this one designed to be open
to the public as it currently stands? I think it's termed a public golf
course.
MR. WEEKS: I'll have to defer to the petitioner.
Total courses in the county are probably in the neighborhood of
70 or more.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I realize that. I'm curious as
to how many public golf courses there are in the community. Does
anybody know?
Page 18
May 19, 2005
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know an exact number, Mr.
Strain, but I will tell you there are several that if you're willing to pay
the necessary greens fees, you know, that are associated with hotels,
Hibiscus Golf Club is open to the public. I don't know if -- Valencia
is open to the public. There are several that are open to the public.
Tiburon, you can pay and get on and play. The Marriott course.
There are several that are -- that are generally public, that are open to
the public.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, your earlier
statement said there was a glut on the market of golf courses. But if
there's several, it isn't sound like that's too much of a glut for public
golf courses.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commission -- Mr. Strain, I can assure
you that we've studied the issue on whether we can make a go with a
golf course on this piece of property, and it's not going to make a go.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I can assure you that there's
not a glut on the market of golf courses, based on the way golf course
communities are selling right now. Especially this last sales season.
MR. DURSO: In addition to being president of Habitat for
Humanity, I'm a member of the Island County Club on Marco Island
for 20 years, and I was president there, and I'm very familiar with the
golf course industry in Collier County.
There are lots of public golf courses. They're obviously very,
very expensive. But Habitat for Humanity, there are no Habitat for
Humanity golf courses. We don't plan to have one. You know, there's
one site that would be available, I suppose. There are other sites --
there's the Ironwood Golf Course, maybe we should make that into a
public golf course, I don't know.
But I think the county needs affordable housing more than it
needs public golf courses. That would be the argument that I would
make.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, what I was correcting is a
Page 19
May 19,2005
statement that there's a glut on the market on golf courses. There's not
a glut on the market of public golf courses, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we can disagree on that point.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The rest of my questions --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do remember my question
now, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's more procedural, I think,
than anything else.
The Compo Plan Amendment still goes forward with six units
per acre, even though the commissioners recommended or voted on, I
believe, three. Is that normal to retain that in the -- does the Compo
Plan Amendment remain as was written, or --
MS. JOURDAN: No, you'll see that the actual language is
changed site specific to this certain property.
In the staff report -- in the executive summary that we provided
for you, it actually says three additional dwelling units.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer?
MR. WEEKS: Let me respond further, if I may, to try to clarify.
There's an existing exception right not in the urban residential fringe
for affordable housing. And the density bonus there is six units per
acre.
This petition requested six, but the board only transmitted for
three. So we now have -- if this is approved, we will have two
exceptions: The existing one for six units per acre bonus and this one
for a three-unit per acre bonus.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that clarification it, thank
you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on the wording of the
ordinance. It's Exhibit A. It says that it's eligible for an additional six
Page 20
May 19,2005
dwelling units. Is that right or is six the maximum dwelling units
we're going to have?
MS. JOURDAN: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the ordinance itself,
Exhibit A, the second to last paragraph on the bottom.
MS. JOURDAN: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says it's eligible for six
additional dwelling units per acre. Isn't six the maximum, or--
MS. JOURDAN : Well, as David was referring to, this is
actually the -- yeah, if you read there, it will say, the property listed
under number two below is eligible for an affordable housing density
bonus home ownership of up to three additional. There's two separate
ones there. One is for the one that David referred to earlier for the six,
and then this one would be number two, which is only eligible for up
to three.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What site is number one and
what site is number two?
MS. JOURDAN: Number one is the one that went through as
the Newtown Square PUD. It was a growth management plan
amendment. I believe -- was that back in 2002, David?
MR. WEEKS: Three.
MS. JOURDAN: 2003.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it on the --
MS. JOURDAN: No, no, you can't see it from there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now I'm more confused.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Schiffer, perhaps this will answer your
question. The bonus is in addition to what base density has allowed,
which is one and a half units per acre. So all the properties in the
urban residential fringe are allowed a base density of one and a half
units per acre, and then this affordable housing bonus will be above
that. So that's why I'm stating additional units.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the maximum density would
Page 21
.._-~.. ~~."'-.'~-~._.-
May 19,2005
be seven and a half?
MR. WEEKS: For the --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Site one.
MR. WEEKS: Not for the subject --
MS. JOURDAN: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: For site one.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Site two would be four and a
half.
MR. WEEKS: That is correct. And again, the one and a half
units have already been allocated within the San Marino PUD. So if
this is approved, the only new development is going to be the three
units per acre bonus.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On site two.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is site one? Is that the
parcel that's previously developed on the site, or --
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. That is also on the east side of951, it is
south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Less than a mile south. It's
defined in the --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why are we --
MR. WEEKS: -- by legal description. There's no site -- there's
no designation on the map to distinguish it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why are we dealing with that
at all in this ordinance?
MR. WEEKS: Well, because it's the existing provision -- the
existing subdistrict, urban residential fringe, is what this petition is
requesting to amend.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: So I don't believe we're making any changes to
that six other than the necessary changes to clarify that there are now
two different exceptions, site one and site two.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think I got it, okay.
Page 22
May 19,2005
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Strain, you had other
questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. Cormac Giblin, ifhe's
available.
Hi, Cormac. How many affordable housing units do we have
available in the county right now?
MR. GIBLIN: Let's see. There are approximately 8,600
affordable housing units approved in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a survey done--
MR. SCHMITT: Can I just ask Cormac to clarify? For the
record, those are affordable housing units that have some kind of a
density bonus agreement or other agreement that's been approved and
codified by the Board of County Commissioners. Just so we can
understand what we're talking about when we talk affordable housing.
MR. GIBLIN: To further clarify--
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You probably ought to
clarify his name for the record, too.
MR. GIBLIN: Sure. For the record, my name's Cormac Giblin.
I'm the Housing Development Manager.
To clarify the 8,600 number, those units are both affordable to a
certain income level for a certain period of time, as enforced by the
county .
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, then I guess I should reask
my questions. How many affordable housing units do we have in
Collier County?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Does that include trailers in
Immokalee?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm getting at -- that's where I'm
going. How many affordable housing units do we have in Collier
County?
MR. GIBLIN: I think that number would be virtually impossible
to -- what's affordable today could certainly, we've seen that over the
Page 23
---
May 19,2005
years, is -- what would cost 150,000 last year is now 250,000 this
year. So they are no longer affordable units.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If someone -- well, only if you
sell it is it no longer affordable. If someone bought it at an affordable
price and they're living in it today at a price that's affordable, is that
not an affordable unit?
MR. GIBLIN: It is to that individual, yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So how many individuals
are living in affordable units in Collier County today?
MR. GIBLIN: We don't have that number. The number we do
have is the number of individuals who are living unaffordably in
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So we don't know how
many affordable units we have in Collier County.
MR. GIBLIN: No.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Because just in East
Naples alone, there was a private survey done and it shows over
17,000 in that section alone in Collier County. It doesn't include
Immokalee, it doesn't include all the trailer parks, it doesn't include
Golden Gate City, it doesn't include a lot of places.
And I know there's a shortage, I'm not saying there isn't, but I'm
just wondering what the real shortage is and how the time frame of
that need fits in, so --
MR. SCHMITT: Can I ask -- I know that survey, and that
survey -- that number is certainly, I would think, skewed in regards to
what is defined affordable. Those units may have been defined
affordable when they were purchased.
But a recent survey -- and if I were to ask Cormac, since we're
going down this road, the recent survey of how many homes that have
been on the market today for under 150,000 and under 200,000 --
MR. GIBLIN: Sure, if you want to know--
MR. SCHMITT: -- we can lay this all out in the public record
Page 24
May 19,2005
then.
MR. GIBLIN: Right now -- as of yesterday, as a matter of fact,
zero homes on the market less than $100,000, which is the market that
Habitat for Humanity happens to serve. Three homes for sale on the
market less than $150,000; two of them are trailers in 55 and over
communities, one happens to be a home in Immokalee. Two homes
for sale between 150 and $200,000; both of them happen to be in
Naples Manor. And only 20 homes for sale between 200 and
$250,000. So that's what your current market conditions have
produced.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But I was just curious as to
how many people are living in a home that would considered
affordable in regards to when they -- at the price range they're living
in right now. Not reselling it. I understand what you're saying about
resales.
MR. GIBLIN: And I think that we can get at that number if we
take the total number of occupied units in Collier County, which is,
David, about 100,000 units? And if we subtract from that number the
number of units that are occupied unaffordably, we end up with
70,000 people or households in Collier County, about, are living
affordably.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But then you'd also have to add
in all the units where people are doubled and tripled up in one unit of
housing.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think that number would be
helpful to try to understand, because we're getting a lot of numbers
supplied to us, but they're not providing a real perspective of where it's
at. I think you're looking at new sales, and that's not the existing
condition. You have a lot of people living in homes that they bought
that are affordable, and they're staying there and they're secured by
our homestead tax and other things that make it affordable for them,
but they're not in any of your surveys or any of your counts, and I
Page 25
May 19,2005
think that number would be critical to understand for Collier County.
MR. GIBLIN: At the Board of County Commissioners' work--
the Board of County Commissioners held a workshop on this about
two weeks ago.
THE COURT REPORTER: Would you please slow down.
MR. GIBLIN: Sure.
Two weeks ago we held a workshop on affordable housing and
we did put together quite a bit of data. And what we found is we went
back and researched every home sold in Collier County for the past
three years. We researched how many of those are owner occupied
and continue to be owner occupied over the past three years.
So I think now we're getting at the number that Mr. Strain is
looking for, how many people bought a home that they could afford
and it continues to be affordable housing for them.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you're going three years is all
you're going back.
MR. GIBLIN: Well, that's the data that we've been able to put
together thus far.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you still haven't finished
looking.
MR. GIBLIN: What we can see is the trend. In 2002,458
people bought a home affordably and continue to live there. In 2003,
214. And in 2004, 84.
So I think that we appreciate the survey, the private survey that's
been done, but I'll have to agree with Mr. Schmitt, it was a pretty
unscientific way determining the amount of affordable housing in a
certain location basically by adding up all the units in certain
developments that are deemed to be affordable.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Cormac, again, I'm not denying
there's a lack of affordable housing. What I want to know is the real
numbers. And I don't want the numbers skewed by today's sales, I
want the numbers based on whose and what homes that are living
Page 26
May 19,2005
affordably there. That's the real number that this county needs to
understand.
MR. GIBLIN: And that's -- the University of Florida, Shimberg
Center, puts out that approximately 30,000 households in Collier
County currently live here unaffordably.
And the reason we go back to that number is that's the number
that the DCA holds us to in our housing element of the comprehensive
plan, it's the number that the state holds us to in terms of are we
meeting the county's affordable housing needs.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do any surveys survey -- like my
next door neighbor, it's a trailer, there's three families living in that
house. Are any of the surveys getting at those families? Because if
you're going to do a comprehensive type of survey, you also have to
try to gather that data as well, which I know is extensive.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further questions, Mr. Strain?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Not of Cormac, but of Don Scott.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some questions.
Cormac, we have a goal of 500 units per year. How are we
doing on that?
MR. GIBLIN: We have, in our -- the goal you reference is in
our -- the housing element of our comprehensive plan that -- we have
a goal that we've issued to the state that we will produce at least 500
new units of affordable housing each year.
I can tell you, we've continued to meet the goal. It's become
increasingly more difficult and more difficult. In fact, last year I
believe we were just over the threshold.
When I first started working here, we produced 1,000, maybe
1,200, 1,800 a year, and that number has continually been diminished.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in your planning, do you
have projections, ways to see how many units you're going to have? I
mean, is this -- in your opinion, is this site necessary to achieve that
goal?
Page 27
May 19,2005
MR. GIBLIN: In my opinion it is. It is. Especially when we
deal with homeownership housing needs.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further questions?
Mr. Strain, you had questions of other staff?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just Don Scott.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, the roads are the issue on
this one.
MR. SCOTT: Sounds like it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 951 is a mess on that -- north of
that project, and with what's going on south is probably going to be a
problem. Davis Boulevard's a mess going west. 1-75 is a disaster.
And we've got hurricane evacuation issues to consider.
So could you tell me what transportation's thoughts are on how
to accomplish all these things, with more density going on the road in
that area?
MR. SCOTT: Well, obviously it's based on our consistency
finding within the five years, based on the improvements that are
programmed on Collier Boulevard for six-laning which win start in
2006 and completed in 2008.
Beyond that, Davis is programmed by FDOT in 2009, should be
completed by 2111.
Rattlesnake is programmed to start in October, about another
two-year project, so that would be 2007 completion.
Santa Barbara extension should start in 2007, completed in 2009.
Which actually, from looking at some of the model volumes, will take
a lot off of 951, particularly north of Rattlesnake.
The roadways, four-lane roadways within Lely, they just got
their permits and they should start connecting those up over the next
year, essentially.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the Davis Boulevard
Page 28
May 19,2005
intersection is off until the DOT does some work on Davis Boulevard?
MR. SCOTT: Well, we'll six-lane through Davis through north
of 1-75. That's my plan at this point. That will help some getting
more through lanes through the intersection. Helping in the opposite
direction is when we six-lane Davis, or FDOT six-lanes Davis.
There's also beyond that a design project that's underway this
year, a $9 million design, that tells you how big the project is, looking
at, you know, the ultimate where -- coming down Beck, if you were
going down Davis, you would get off at Beck Boulevard which is --
you know, to the east there, that goes out to FHP. And then it would
separate the Davis and 951 movements.
Essentially the existing interchange would take the 951
movement. The new interchange or new ramps on Beck would take
the Davis traffic.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did you see today's paper
concerning the funding of 1- 7 5?
MR. SCOTT: That's one earmarked project, but that's not going
to affect the actual start date, from my understanding.
Now, one of the things that's come up with the new growth
management bill is the possibility of advance funding. And FDOT is
actually looking at a design/build to start 1-75 next year. I don't know
if that's going to happen or not, but right now we're programmed in
'08.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that 1-75 in the vicinity of951
MR. SCOTT: It's from Golden Gate Parkway to Daniels, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that's Golden Gate Parkway
north, which isn't anywhere near --
MR. SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- the issues that we're talking
here about today.
Page 29
May 19,2005
MR. SCOTT: But the interstate section from Golden Gate
Parkway to 951 is about 25,000 vehicles. You know, it has like a
50,000 capacity. That widening right there is not the issue. The
intersection, I can agree with, that's the problem. The widening of the
interstate at that location isn't the problem.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What's the interstate's level of
service at that location; do you know?
MR. SCOTT: That's a -- I think it's a B.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The interstate's our
hurricane evacuation route?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is the interstate rated above F as
you go north --
MR. SCOTT: As you go north --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- as a hurricane evacuation
route?
MR. SCOTT: As you get -- particularly north of Immokalee,
yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The interstate is.
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I-75's not failed level of service
north of Immokalee Road?
MR. SCOTT: No, it as, that's what I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I'm saying.
MR. SCOTT: Particularly as you get north, yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's -- I think that's all the
questions I've got, Don, thank you.
MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just, if I may.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just really need a clarification.
If I heard you correctly, you were going to -- at the intersection
Page 30
May 19,2005
of Davis and 951, that will be in your scope, that will go to six lanes
and people will be able to traverse underneath the interstate in six
lanes; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that will begin in 2009, I
believe?
MR. SCOTT: It's actually '06. We have the project for 951 to
the south. We're including that with that to the north.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So now that's going to go be
inclusive?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. I have a coordination meeting with FDOT
next week, because we have -- obviously we have a lot of projects
going on. We have Santa Barbara, north of Davis; Santa Barbara
extension south of Davis; Davis widening itself; and then our 951
south of Davis in trying to go north through the interstate. All those
designers are on board now, as of last month, with FDOT's Davis one,
trying to get everybody in the same room to say this is what we'll
build, what are you building, and not so half the things get rebuilt
three times.
So that's the intent is to build the through -- Collier Boulevard
through the interstate, six lanes as part of our project to the south in
2006.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, how sure of you are the
dates of all this (sic)? In 951 being six-laned down to 41 all the way
up to 1-75, Davis Boulevard getting funded by the DOT, getting
widened, how sure of you (sic) of all this happening within the time
frames you're talking about?
MR. SCOTT: Obviously there's times when it slips based on
permitting problems. You know, you take the Lely Road, that's taken
a while for them to even get permits for that. We have stormwater
issues on the 951 section. I don't presume that it's going to delay the
Page 31
May 19,2005
project that long, if it is delayed at all. I believe what we will get done
with the -- we're trying to -- with the 951, we're trying to do a lot of
work within the right-of-ways. Ifwe have some drainage issues with
ponds and we have to buy some more right-of-way, that could delay it
a little bit. But at the moment, all those are scheduled and ready to go.
Can I promise that certain things won't happen from a permitting
aspect? No, I can't make that promise.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I go back to thinking about the
Mission Hills Shopping Center that was approved because your
department told us that 951 would be completed and everything would
be fine, and that is an absolute disaster there right now.
MR. SCOTT: It's funny, we were just talking about that because
of the date on that. I not only stood here and say that, but Norman
stood here and said that, you know, it would start January of this year,
originally. And now we're looking at probably the end of the year or
later than that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I was afraid of.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I have one other further
question for you, Don.
With regard to -- there's a rumor out there or there's an
understanding out there that when the six-laning is done on 951, that
at some point very soon thereafter it will have been deemed failed.
Can we dispel that rumor if it's a rumor, or can we qualify that?
MR. SCOTT: Well, what we did is for the purposes of looking
at this consistency, we look out five years, we put in the vested trips
per year. And I'm not talking about what was actually being built, and
that's what we're trying to go back to, but the one-seventh. So we did
five-sevenths of that. We did not only the growth that's happening on
951. And we project that out. And essentially we're looking at about
a 2013 back below level of service.
Now, the unfair part of that calculation is I didn't look at the
Page 32
May 19,2005
model doing that, I just looked at trends. The model with Santa
Barbara, some of the other roads, take those trips off, take quite a bit
of trips off of 951 north of Rattlesnake, so that has a big effect on that.
Now, what we're trying to -- sometimes -- I mean, we look at it
different ways. We want to look at worst case scenario that can
happen. Now, one of the things I didn't talk about beyond that is, you
know, obviously with the Wal-Mart to the south that raised some
concerns of, you know, how long is that really going to last, too, if
you six-lane south of State Road 951, south of 41.
The PD&E study, u.s. 41 out to the east, which was mentioned
earlier, is looking at six lanes, but it also will be looking at that
intersection, and there will be also a possible grade separation there.
But I don't have that program. We aren't really talking about program
projects.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Flyover is what you just said,
right?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Overpass.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, flyover, or it could be an overpass
north! south.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Boy, if we didn't hear that word
before.
MR. SCOTT: Okay . Well, don't like that one, how about this
one, a north-south road east of 951, connecting up probably at least to
Rattlesnake, maybe further to the north.
We're looking at as part of the model but also some of the
developments in the areas, like 6L's and some of those areas there.
So, you know, depending on timing, some of those things could
be done, and then you could preclude doing some of those other things
for at least a while.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bet you we're going to see a lot
more of those other things.
Thank you, Don.
Page 33
May 19,2005
MR. SCOTT: I don't know about a lot. We can't afford them.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, one more situation on
this.
I thought you said before that five years out, barring anything
that might be able to be done, this is going to become a failed road.
MR. SCOTT: Well, the projection was 2013. And I looked last
night, I started looking at the model side of it, because what we were
doing is strictly based on projections, trends, with also the vested trips
on top of it.
Looking at the model with Santa Barbara, if you look actually
out to 2025, the model lowers the traffic to about 8,000 higher than it
is now. With six lanes, you'd be all right at that level.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Ifwe have six lanes in five
years, which we will not, because you'll be starting approximately at
that time.
MR. SCOTT: You'll have six lanes in five years now.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: From now?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That will be done?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In that area?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And it will fail in 2013?
MR. SCOTT: That was based on the projections.
Now, the thing with the projection side of it is that I also put the
vested trips on for, you know, five-sevenths. Now, the reality is
Fiddler's Creek, Lely haven't grown at that rate, you know,
one-seventh per year.
Now, my caveat to that is this area is getting hotter. I mean, it
can --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Your population estimates are
Page 34
May 19,2005
notoriously low anyway. So they're apt to be exceeded. So probably
that fudge is --
MR. SCOTT: Well, they have been going faster than what's
exceeded. Now, my population estimates, you're talking deeper
numbers, you know, from that aspect of it. Even previous boards that
didn't want to put higher population estimates because they didn't want
to believe we were going to grow at that level.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further questions of staff? Yes, sir, Mr.
Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don, by locating this where it
is, could this not even actually relieve pressure on some of the roads to
the north, because this would provide workers closer to their
destination of work?
MR. SCOTT: There's been a lot of discussions with that.
Obviously the hospital's been a discussion, would you have workers
there near the hospital.
It's very hard to prove. I mean, we've looked at certain -- one of
the things that we go back and look at is Lee County did a study about
affordable housing and the cost of having, you know, their affordable
housing way out in Lehigh versus where people were really working.
And yeah, you can save money from even an infrastructure
improvement. You do cut down the length of trips. You can
sometimes cut down the number of trips, depending on, you know,
how close the access is. It's just very hard to prove specifically what
that is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the potential's there.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. And one of the things we're trying to look
at as part of our impact fee update is, you know, are we hurting certain
development in certain areas in trying to look at that closer. I don't
know how far we're going to get with some of that, but obviously, you
know, a lack of commercial out in the Estates is one thing that causes
trips to be longer. And one of the things the impact fees are based on
Page 35
May 19,2005
is certain length trips. But if you look at people that live on like say
the back side of the Estates, our trip lengths are way off in that sense,
so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also, where this is located,
wouldn't they be traveling opposite the major traffic flow?
MR. SCOTT: Depending on where they go to work, yeah. I
mean --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they would tend to.
There's not much in the direction of the --
MR. SCOTT: If you look at like -- at one of the conversations I
think at the previous board was the amount of trips that come in from
Lee County every day. And the census is about 1 7 percent. And one
of the questions is do you think that is high or low. You know, I'm not
saying the census is incorrect.
The problem is, when you look at census data, you might have a
lot of like service type industry that has an address in Lee County but
come down here from Lehigh every single day to do air conditioning,
you know, whatever type of work they're doing here. So the census
doesn't pick that up. If you look at the directional factors, what got off
at the ramps, where they started from, it's a much higher percentage.
So yes, if you take off those trips, like if those people that are,
you know, coming from Lehigh, coming from those areas, put them in
that area, and even if they're still going to Marco, your traffic goes
down substantially because they're not on those areas around -- or can
go down substantially, because you're not in those other areas
counting all over the network, essentially.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further questions? Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not for Don. Is there anybody
here from the water management department?
MR. WEEKS: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, for a great number of these
Page 36
May 19,2005
growth management amendments, South Florida Water Management
District has serious concerns. I don't see those addressed in the staff
report at all, and I certainly don't think that we should be voting on
things when that issue has not been resolved.
MR. WEEKS: Basically the staff response is that the number of
dwelling units that are being increased by these plan amendments, two
of them, this one and Petition No.2, the next one in particular, is not
significant.
The county's long-range planning for potable water supplies of
course is in the millions of gallons. And the additional consumption
that would result from these amendments is just literally a drop in the
bucket.
Now, I think it's -- having said that, I think it's only fair to
consider what about the cumulative impact. Because if we have a
whole bunch of these little amendments, do they add up.
COMMISSIONER CARON: My point precisely, David.
Because we always look in the minutia and we don't look at the big
picture.
MR. WEEKS: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I would argue that point. We do. We do
it every year through the AUIR process.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And if you look at what
came out of the AUIR, we have the potential to fail in 2013. So we're
talking about a road failure in 2013, and a potential of a water failure
in 2013. And that's according to the memo we got back in January.
MR. WEEKS: My other response is that what we typically see
for Comprehensive Plan Amendments is in the opposite direction. It's
not that often that we get residential density increases through
Comprehensive Plan Amendments. They almost always are the
opposite; that is, converting from a residential designation to
commercial. And for the most part, and there's probably some
exceptions, but for most part a commercial usage has less
Page 37
May 19,2005
consumption than residential.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not what we're talking
about here.
MR. WEEKS: Correct. But my point is that as far as the
cumulative view, we're having a couple that yes, are having some
increase in density, but we also have some in this packet that will
decrease density. And if we look by changing to a commercial
designation, and if we look beyond just this year, though, look at the
trend of comprehensive plan amendments, almost all of them are to
change a designation for commercial land use.
So looking at the trend of Comprehensive Plan Amendments,
we're seeing a decrease in consumption of water usage, because
they're changing their land use to commercial from residential. We're
taking residential development off the books and replacing with
something that has less commercial water consumption, has less
impacts on parks and libraries and schools and all the other types of
Category A public facilities that are based on population.
So that's not a -- that doesn't completely answer the question that
the Water Management District has asked, but that is our response to
that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, David, what they asked,
and I think Ms. Caron's on a good point, is the last sentence in the
report from South Florida on this No. 1 CCR GMP amendment says,
finally, neither the public facilities impact analysis provided in the
application nor the staffs analysis meet the requirements of Rules 9J-5
and 9J-ll of the Florida Administrative Code as they pertain to the
availability of potable water to serve the development, which would
result from the proposed amendment.
And I didn't see where staff addressed that statement either.
MR. WEEKS: We did. And we only addressed the two
comments that DCA provided.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So even though the agency feels it
Page 38
May 19,2005
doesn't meet 9J-5 or 9J-l1, we just ignored them and didn't respond to
them?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Stress the point that from the number one
perspec -- the number one consideration in reviewing the ORC report
is whether or not there were any objections. Because objections are
what DCA, Department of Community Affairs, can use as its basis for
a noncompliance finding upon adoption.
Comments and recommendations cannot be the basis of an
objection. So the bottom line worst case type of view of this is are
there any objections, and if there are, we need to adequately address
those with the ultimate goal of having the Department of Community
Affairs find the amendments in compliance with state statutes. So
that's our number one concern.
Because there weren't any objections, then it's a matter of
looking at what DCA made as comments. And we responded to both
of those in the staff report. The other agencies, it's a policy matter.
We chose not to respond to those, but --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But if responding to them or
understanding where their concerns are could be a positive for the
community, why wouldn't we want to respond to them? I mean, what
would it have hurt? If the response is something similar to what
you've just said but in a data format, and we've got the data, what
would it have hurt to gone the extra little bit to respond to them.
MR. WEEKS: It certainly wouldn't have hurt at all.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any registered public speakers
on this item?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, we have two. The first -- make that
Page 39
May 19,2005
three. The first is Linda Gutierrez, followed by Garrett Beyrent.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Would our first speaker come forward.
MR. WEEKS: We're growing, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: At that microphone would be just fine. If
you'd state your name for the record, please.
MS. GUTIERREZ: Thank you, yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: They don't need to be sworn. It's quasi
legislative.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's legislative.
MS. GUTIERREZ: My name is Linda Gutierrez.
Good morning everyone. I'm here today to speak for a number
of voters that have signed a petition that I have with me today. All of
these people either live or work in the surrounding area.
I would like to address several problems with this proposed plan.
First and foremost is the traffic issue that will be created by adding
additional homes at this time to the 951 corridor. I know that we've
discussed this a little bit today, but I'm going to give you my take on
it.
I do not believe 951 can handle all of these additional residences
at this time. I realize that Rich and his group say they can provide
experts to verify that it can indeed handle another increase. I would
like to invite Rich and those experts to sit in the car with me for the 60
to 70 minutes it can already take me to travel the eight miles from the
corner of 41 to Davis Boulevard while I wait anxiously to get home to
my family.
Believe me when I say I have plenty of time to study the flow of
traffic and the impact that the following recent projects have had on
this issue, such as the Wal-Mart Supercenter and the 2,000 plus homes
at Verona Walk.
It is to my understanding that a hospital and several medical
parks have already been approved. I caution the committee to wait
and see what the impact of these projects will have on our roads by
Page 40
.".....~'''-".~,.__._". ,
May 19,2005
allowing any more. I would like a wait and see attitude.
Please remember also that this is the one major artery that
handles on and off traffic from 1-75, and this fact will not change. The
corner of Davis and 951 is already a nightmare, and this is the first
look at Naples a lot of our tourists and visitors get.
We ask you to please listen to our wishes, the people that already
live, work and travel this road each and every day.
My concerns do not stop there. Those of us who have invested
in real estate and live in the surrounding areas are of course extremely
concerned about property values.
And please understand that I'm all for Habitat for Humanity and
affordable housing, placed in the right location. The company I work
for has built several Habitat homes, and I have been present at some
beautiful presentations ceremonies. However, I must look out for my
family as well. And I have everything I've worked for invested in the
property. And I want to know who in this room that is pushing for the
project to go through would like a Habitat community in their
backyard.
I will conclude today by leaving two pages of signatures that I
was able to get within a 24-hour period, as I only learned of this vote
Thursday evening at 6:00 p.m. Given a little more time, I promise I
can come up with hundreds of additional signatures. And if you don't
believe me, please give me the time to come up with them. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Beyrent will be followed by
Mr. Bob Mackey.
MR. BEYRENT: For the record, my name's Garrett F.X.
Beyrent. I've been a developer in Collier County since January of
1971. I'm losing my voice.
In any case, I'm here today because yesterday I received a
Page 41
May 19, 2005
contract to purchase my Magnolia Pond PUD, which is three miles to
the north of this particular project. And a year ago, I guess it was
about, maybe two years ago, I proposed to change my Magnolia Pond
PUD to a 700-unit affordable housing project, which didn't go over
too well, to say the least.
About a month later, after they rejected it, they put a moratorium
on my PUD. And to make a long story short, I inadvertently referred
to Donna Fiala as the queen of affordable housing. And I was just
kidding, okay?
So I just wanted to put the County on notice that next month my
PUD will be coming up for sunsetting, and I plan to bring this PUD
back in once again. And it's probably going to create somewhat of a
controversy. But I thought it would be best to put the County now on
public notice, and that's what I'm doing.
And if they have any questions relative to traffic on Santa
Barbara extension or on Collier Boulevard, I might be able to help
them there. But thanks for giving me three minutes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please?
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to note for the record that
Mr. Beyrent has delivered for the record a contract.
I believe this is the contract you made reference to? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Mackey. And I wanted to ask this, is Larry
Mitchell to speak on this item also?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: He is here.
Yes, sir.
MR. MACKEY: Hello. My name's Bob Mackey and I live near
Linda and Eric. And on very short notice, I was able to attend the
presentation that Richard gave the other day at the Comfort Inn.
And while I'm certainly not up on all the facts, it seems to me
that this stretch of 951 between Davis and Golden Gate hasn't been
Page 42
May 19, 2005
addressed. I mean, there's six-laning and all this talk, but apparently,
as I understand it, nothing's really been done as far as what's going to
happen between Davis and Golden Gate.
And it is true now, in my opinion, that it's a parking lot in the
morning. I stopped in and asked one of our local four corners gas
stations there about what he thought about the traffic. He said it's
worse than Miami. I don't know if that's what we're looking for here.
I see that in the last year or so, in my opinion, what's happened
here in Naples verges on development insanity. And I see this -- the
new development that's going in between Radio and Davis, and I see
what's going on at Wal-Mart, and I just cannot for the life of me
understand how the transportation people have come up with a it's
going to be okay plan to deal with the traffic on 951.
Habitat for Humanity is a great idea. I don't know the developer.
It seems to me as though it's more or less of a giveaway. He's going to
be able to increase the size of his sellable units, not Habitat units. He's
going to more than double that. I guess the language is written such
that at least 30 percent may be used for Habitat. Although I don't
know if that means that he has to have 70 percent.
We've been recently down-zoned over there on the eastern
fringe. Some people I know who ended up with 40 acres and could
have subdivided are oh, sorry, you can't do that now.
Yet here we are, from what I understand, on a border adjacent to
this fringe area, ready to put in a whole lot of units. And I believe it's
short-sighted at best, a giveaway at worst. And I don't understand
what's the rush. You know, concurrence, all that's wonderful. He's got
to get going, okay. But let's see the road get built first. I'd like to read
whatever the staff -- what the report was recommended about how this
traffic's going to work.
But I'd like all of you to just drive Monday morning there at 7:30
in the morning. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir.
Page 43
--
'_~M._, ~^._~..._"....,.. _
",..,--_._~-,.
May 19,2005
Next speaker, please?
MR. MITCHELL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Larry Mitchell and I'm a resident of the Naples Lakes
Countryclub that's situated approximately a mile and a half south of
the San Remo PUD on the west side of951.
Mr. Mackey just mentioned that he didn't believe he was up on
the facts. I'm just wondering how many of you, having heard the
presentations today, given that you're in a position of having to make a
decision, are indeed up on the facts.
It's not clear to me at all that there are any facts that warrant your
reliance at this point. We have, as indicated by the transportation
personnel, at least four major roadways under construction,
commencing later this year. We have Rattlesnake Hammock, which is
being widened to four lanes commencing in the fall of this year into
2007 . We have 951, which apparently is intended to be widened as of
next year into 2008. We have Davis, which is really a very important
intersection where it meets 951, under construction from 2009 to
2111. And we have Santa Barbara under construction from 2007 to
2009.
What we have here is a proposal for the addition of
approximately 600 housing units, no more than a mile and a half from
the intersection of 951 and Davis. And the developer seemingly
suggests that in order to mitigate against what might prove to be a
major traffic impact, if I understand him correctly, they would propose
that at least -- that at a minimum as of July 1, '08, which is really in
the midst of all these different projects, road widening projects, that at
least 80 homes would have to be constructed in 2008. Which means
that there will be all kinds of construction activity taking place on 951
while at the same time this development is being built.
And we all know, when roads are widened, roads are sometimes
temporarily narrowed and diverted, there's an enormous amount of
confusion that attends a road widening.
Page 44
,.<^.-....~,._...,.,-,.«
May 19,2005
And what we have here is a proposal for a development that's
supposed to be constructed precisely within the same time frame that
the road widenings are to take place.
And frankly, if you search your soul in respect to all of this, it's
-- at least for me, and I would imagine for some of you who are sitting
in a position of being a decision-maker, it's really hard to understand
how it is that you can arrive at any level of confidence that this project
is properly timed.
Now, no one's really discussed the impact ofWal-Mart.
Wal-Mart's located probably a few thousand feet north of the San
Remo PUD on the opposite side of the road. And it opened in
November of last year.
And when the staff offered its report earlier this year to the
Planning Commission, they didn't yet have any actual traffic data with
respect to the impact of that Wal-Mart Supercenter. And apparently
there's no data yet been presented to this Planning Commission with
respect to the impact of that Wal-Mart.
Everyone talks about the impact of the Wal-Mart. It's an
inescapable conclusion that it's an enormous traffic magnet. It sits
probably less than a mile south of Davis and 951 and a few thousand
feet north of this proposed development. And really, we have no
reliable information in respect to what that Wal-Mart will do to traffic
levels.
Now, I hear the terms consistency and concurrency. I haven't
heard anyone define those terms in any understandable way. I don't
know whether any of you really understand what those terms mean
either.
It sounds like there's supposed to be some level of certainty with
respect to consistency and concurrency, but in respect to this
discussion here today, we have anything but any level of confidence
that these terms, whatever they mean and however they're interpreted,
will actually assure the public of a reasonable traffic outcome.
Page 45
May 19,2005
Now, there's been some discussion that 951 is not yet planned to
be widened between Davis and the entrance to 75. So what we have
here, even given today's plans, we have a bottleneck that's being
created where the proposed six-laned 951 will be narrowing down to
four lanes before people can enter 75. That's an enormous bottleneck.
It's not been addressed. And that bottleneck is probably no more than
a mile and a half north of this PUD.
There are backups today. And you haven't heard the
transportation people address it, but during season there are backups
today coming from the south on 951 leading to 75 that extend a mile
to two miles during rush hour.
So in fact today there's traffic in season that sits in front of the
San Remo Apartments. And even though the roadway might be
widened to six, if you only have four lanes immediately south of the
entrance to 75, the problem hasn't been solved and may in fact have
been exacerbated.
So what does this all mean? Well, for those of us who live in the
community it means that the proposals here from the developer and
from the transportation department are speculative. Noone really
knows what the outcome's going to be.
We talk about modeling. It's a fairly sophisticated proposition
when you have four major roadways that are in the neighborhood all
being widened more or less at the same time, and there's really a fairly
sophisticated paradigm that has to be discussed. And I haven't heard
or seen any analysis here that suggests that the transportation people
have a firm grasp of how it's all going to work out. So what we're
faced with is a speculative circumstance.
And if you as decision-makers think about what it is you're here
to do, you're here to make certain that the public's interest is protected.
And you need to, it strikes me, anyway, be persuaded at least by a
preponderance of the evidence that you hear that there's some level of
certainty or security that the public's interest won't be disserved by
Page 46
~-,._--,;",.,.__._",-"
May 19,2005
virtue of the traffic plan that we're hearing about.
And I would ask you to ask a few more difficult questions of the
staff before you proceed and ask yourselves whether you can actually
understand how it is that the public's interest will be served and that in
fact traffic will continue to flow in an adequate and efficient fashion.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir.
Are there any other speakers?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir, there's not.
Mr. Chainnan, there's three points I'd like to get on the record,
please.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure.
MR. WEEKS: First of all is I don't know if it makes a
difference, but I just want to get it on the record again. The contract
that Mr. Beyrent has submitted is not a signed contract. At least his
copy is not.
Secondly, the first speaker, Ms. Gutierrez, has submitted the
petitions she referenced. There's a total of 29 signatures.
And the third point is unrelated to the speakers. Mr. Litsinger
just asked me to get on the record, again, just for clarity. It does not I
don't think take away the concerns that certain planning
commissioners have, but nonetheless want to get it on the record that
-- to remind you that if these Comprehensive Plan Amendments are
approved, again they establish the parameters for a subsequent rezone
action, but they do not guarantee it, either the subsequent rezone
approval all, or at the requested densities that are proposed. That goes
into context particularly on the issue of public facilities impacts.
Again, it doesn't take away the comments, and I don't mean to
say that it does, but just to remind you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: David, that question had come up
before, and we had asked the county attorney at different times if
something is granted on a GMP, how can we refuse it at the rezone
Page 47
May 19,2005
level. And if I recall correctly, it was very difficult to refuse it if
they're consistent with all the issues that were addressed at the GMP
level.
So if someone comes in and it's consistent with whatever they
walk out of here with, or walk out of the BCC with, how do you turn
someone down at that point?
MR. WEEKS: Well, there's a couple of things. And I agree that
generally speaking it's difficult. But I'll stress two points: One, it must
be consistent with the Growth Management Plan, the entire plan. This
is the future land use element that establishes the development
intensity parameters, primarily. However, other elements of the plan,
most particularly concurrency, which would be applicable. So a
project must comply with concurrency at the time it comes in with a
rezone.
The second point is that the rezone criteria in the Land
Development Code, there must be 15 or 20 of those, GMP consistency
is just one of those. Compatibility issues, public facility impacts and
numerous other criteria are used to evaluate each rezone petition. So
conceivably that's the basis where the board would either deny or limit
the scope of an approval.
And we've seen that happen in some cases where they have
approved a petition at less than the maximum that the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for that site would allow.
MR. SCHMITT: If I could clarify what David said.
Consistency for concurrency. Concurrency is deemed consistent with
the comprehensive plan. That's 5.1 of the comprehensive plan.
When we're talking about transportation concurrency, or -- so if
you want to go one step further, there still is no local development
order issued. Even at the rezoning process, the local development
order would be approval of plat or plan, depending on what type of
development it is, a site plan or a subdivision plat.
Staff would not approve those unless again it is concurrent with
Page 48
---
.~"~^^,.".... ,..--..' '.
If' ........."---.
May 19,2005
the existing transportation models that exist to define the level of
service for those road segments.
So there is another checks and balance again at local
development order, which is the approval of plat or plan.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Schmitt, could you just help
me a moment --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- then in that regard? Because
you spoke of a model. And would the model consist of the other
parts; for instance, the Davis interchange there, the Davis
Boulevard-951. Will that be part of that or will it just be the segment
that relates down that part of the road where the proposed
development would be?
MR. SCHMITT: I can ask Don to clarify that --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's a critical factor
here.
MR. SCHMITT: -- but it's a model within our criteria of within
two years. If you understand the state says three, our local
concurrency rules say within two years of issuing of local
development order, which can be building permit or can be approval
of plat or plan, says basically within 24 months if the improvements
are going to take place, we count those improvements as being on the
ground and existing at that time. Don?
MR. SCOTT: And we looked at it two different ways. We
looked at the trend by itself. And obviously that doesn't take in the
new roadway. And then also Santa Barbara extension, which is Santa
Barbara from Davis down to Rattlesnake. And the six lanes on 951,
the Rattlesnake improvements, the Lely connection in there.
Davis has a six -lane but not an interchange at that location.
Because obviously that's not -- I mean, even in the long-range plan, I
don't think that was considered a funded proj ect at that point.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The last gentleman who spoke
Page 49
May 19,2005
indicated that he believed we were going to have a six going into four,
and I believe I heard you just say that that was not going to be. So if
you could bring the parties together.
MR. SCOTT: Yes, and at 30 percent -- it's not -- it hasn't been
changed contractually or in front of the board, but one of the
comments -- and I agree with it totally, I mean, I've been trying to do
this, too -- the public comment at the 30 percent design meeting was
overwhelmingly that don't stop it at Davis. It doesn't make any sense.
I mean, you don't get it through the intersection.
So I'm trying to get -- you know, get that done contractually and
do it. And I don't see any reason why we can't. That's one of the
reason I'm meeting with FDOT. Because I've already actually talked
to them on the opposite side of the interstate of going through, you
know, one of the -- where the high school is -- comes out and some of
the issues in that area. We know we're not going to be widening like
through Golden Gate City for quite a while to try to get that through
some of that area there to service the interstate.
So contractually, in front of the board, it has not been added to
six lanes, but yes, we are moving towards doing that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, just to qualify,
concurrency in that regard, this is a program that the county realizes is
essential to make this road functioning?
MR. SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If it turned out -- if this Growth
Plan Amendment were approved and if it turned out that the -- that
particular piece of it were somehow denied two or three or four years
later, would concurrency -- for the benefit of the record, would
concurrency stop that proj ect from proceeding, or would the proj ect be
allowed, based on the segment from its point up to Davis?
MR. SCOTT: No, if it's failing, just like any of the other -- I
mean, they did what, a PUD amendment for Wal-Mart. I assume at
one point they thought they could go forward. N ow they're trying to
Page 50
May 19,2005
do a site plan, it's stopped, it can't go right now without improvements.
So it would be the same thing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So there's a checkmate there.
MR. SCOTT: Right, exactly.
That's -- the difference between -- I know it was raised, what's
the difference between consistency and concurrency. Consistency
we're looking out five years. Concurrency is what is it right now,
what's the issue right now with the number of trips on the road and
what you're adding. What is it right now. And they're just not at that
stage right now.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, you wanted to resume your
line of questioning?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: David, back to what you had
answered or responded to before. I understand that when it gets into
the rezone stage, it then goes through another series of review against
consistency with the GMP.
But my concern is exactly what Don Scott said here a little while
ago was that in the Mission Hills, which is the prime example, I voted
against that project because I did not feel that we were timely with
getting the six-laning of951 on board. And you know what? We had
Norm Feder and Don stand up here and say, don't worry, it's going to
be done. And today it's still not done. That proj ect is open and we
have sheriffs deputies controlling traffic now. That is what I'm
worried about here.
And until we have some proof, other than testimony, because
we've had that before and it didn't work, I don't see how we can sit
back and let more and more go on the road system. So that's why I
don't believe there's a real good checks and balances once it leaves
here, because it's just a matter of opinion once it leaves here. Thank
you.
MR. WEEKS: I think that's the policy decision that this board
and ultimately the BCC win have to make, just exactly as you stated,
Page 51
May 19,2005
Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any summary comments by the
petitioner?
MR. DURSO: I'll be very brief.
We do have an agreement with HMA. HMA's going to break
ground in the next month or two. They're going to provide 300 jobs.
Of those, about 200 will be at the pay rate scale of Habitat
homeowners. And we have an agreement with them that we'll give
preference to their workers and they're going to give preference to our
homeowners. And I'll present that agreement to the county
commission when we go forward.
Now, that should help some of the -- that's a large number of our
people that will be working real close by who will probably be
walking to work.
Right now we have at least 30 Habitat homeowners that work at
the Wal-Mart across the street. Wal-Mart employs eight or 900
people. And the same thing. They obviously use a lot of Habitat
homeowners. So a lot of the Habitat homes will not be increasing
traffic.
The final thing I'd like to say is let's at least all agree there's a
tremendous need for affordable housing in Collier County. We have
the worst situation in the state. The Shimberg study from the
University of Florida said there's a shortage of 30,000 units right now.
In the next five years it may go up to 40 or 50,000. So there is a
shortage of affordable housing.
And the county is committed to produce 500 homes a year, but
they're not counting them correctly . You're counting homes that are
approved, zoning petition that are approved. Of the ones approved in
the last couple of years, a lot of those are Habitat homes. Some of
those are never going to get build.
Page 52
>....._.._..._.._,.~._..,..--....,.,-
May 19,2005
A perfect example is our Trail Ridge, we're approved for 280
units. We're only going to build 204. The county still counts those
280.
The Regal Acres PUD, we're approved for 110. We can't build
those for 10 years. They were already counted last year, because they
were approved last year. So the county should only count homes that
are built, affordable homes that are built.
I'd also tell you that 500 is not enough. We need to do at least
2,000 a year. And hopefully in the next five-year plan it will be 2,000.
And we'll figure out a way to do it and we'll figure out a way to count
it better.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I want to point out and remind the
Planning Commission that through the year report, the Board of
County Commissioners has basically eliminated most of the density
bonuses, except for affordable housing. The Board recognizes we
need more affordable housing.
You've all seen the map of Collier County with the existing
PUD's in place. There are not many parcels of property left in Collier
County to come through the PUD rezone process. We had to go to this
property and look at it as a potential opportunity to increase affordable
housing. There was already a process to do it. We're just being asked
to be eligible to do that.
I think we -- there's no question, as Dr. Durso said, we need at
least another 178 units in Collier County.
Ms. Gutierrez is concerned about her property value going
down. And she -- she said who would want this in her (sic) back yard.
Well, the 414 people that will be buying market rate units will have
this in their back yard. They'll share an entrance with it, they'll share
them as neighbors. They'll welcome that, and I'm sure they'll pay a
fair price for their home and they're not going to be worried about fair
market value.
Page 53
May 19,2005
I've stood before you recently for several PUD's, requesting
bonuses for affordable housing, and I will tell you that it's always met
with the same objection about traffic. We're dealing with the traffic
issues. Concurrency will deal with that issue. The system's working,
it's worked on 951 south of 41.
We're not asking for a rezone today. We're asking for the ability
to come back. And it probably won't be back in front of you for about
a year for the rezone to talk about these issues. You'll get another bite
of the bullet.
I want to point one other thing out as far as -- look at it this way:
We have 196 acres with a base density of 1.5 units per acre. We're
trying to increase that. The overall PUD, if you include the 235, will
be four units per acre. On the 196, in fact on the whole 235, we could
buy a TDR and increase the density.
Either you want to do -- we can do 196 more units or we could
do 235, if we could coordinate with our neighbor. That would be
another hundred --let's just say 196, because I control that property.
That's 196 more units on the road.
We're saying in order to bump that 196 of market rate units to
414, that's roughly 218 units. For another 218 market rate units, we're
willing to give you 178 affordable housing units. That's almost a
one-to-one ratio. I don't think anybody has stood in front of you to
make that offer before.
This is a good deal for Collier County, it's a good deal for the
parties to this joint venture. This is meeting a need. The only way
this is going to work out is if developers work with Habitat or others
to provide affordable housing. If you tell us you don't want to amend
the comprehensive plan to give us that opportunity, I don't know what
message you're sending to us, because I've stood before you before
when I wasn't asking for an amendment to the PUD, when I've been
asking for a PUD, and I'm getting the same message. You don't really
want it. Just tell us what you want. If you want affordable housing,
Page 54
May 19, 2005
you need to support this. There's not much land left in the urban area.
This will work. Don Scott has explained the transportation
issues. And you know what? If we have a problem, we'll have to stop
and wait, based upon the concurrency management system.
We ask that you forward the recommendation of approval of this
comprehensive plan amendment. And with that, I'll answer any
questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, sir.
Richard, you didn't stop and wait on Mission Hills, and you were
the representative there as well.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have a concurrency issue.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, because at the time that--
there was testimony that the roads would be improved within a
two-year time frame and that they didn't -- they're still today not
improved. And the Mission Hills is built and occupied and a traffic
nightmare.
You want us to -- this whole thing is not about affordable
housing. All you keep yelling, it's about affordable housing. That's
not the issue. The traffic is -- the issue is the traffic. You want us to
fix a problem for 1 77 families, and create a problem for thousands of
drivers on the road system. And anybody trying to get out of here
during a hurricane evacuation, and I don't think that's a fair scale to
weigh it against.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Mr. Strain, I don't agree.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know you don't, obviously.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And let me tell you why I don't agree.
Because this is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It's not a rezone.
You're not getting any units.
And we have recently gone through the rezone process where
this Planning Commission has added stipulations as far as phasing and
the like to address the concerns you've raised about the fact that 951
Page 55
May 19,2005
wasn't constructed in the time frame your staff has represented.
So there are safeguards at the zoning level that we can address
those issues on, if you need those. We've already told you, if you look
at our schedule, we're talking three years from now before we're going
to deliver the first C.O. That is consistent with what Don's telling you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I have a better way that you
could show that it would work better for phasing. Come back in and
ask for this three years from now when the roads are working. Then
the proofs in the pudding.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: And what do we do about addressing the
need? Because then we're how many years out before we actually
provide the units, Mr. Strain?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're not addressing one need
now by creating another worse problem for --
MR. YO V ANOVICH: I haven't created a thing at this point. I
have a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in front of you. I don't even
have a rezone in front of you. I haven't created one single traffic issue
by this Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And you've not cured one either.
Because there's no guarantee, as Don Scott said, that those roads are
going to be completed within the time frame. There's nothing to stop
you from coming back in here three years from now and asking for the
same thing all over again.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, gentlemen, at this point if we
could shift away from an argument and move more into testimony,
because obviously neither is going to convince the other.
Do we have further questions for the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I do.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rich, my arithmetic on the
589 additional units works out to 178 affordable and 411 market rate.
Did I understand you in your closing remarks to make some change to
Page 56
May 19,2005
that number?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Adelstein, we're -- you and I are
going to be within a unit. There are two units that are still left over
from the original zoning.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'm talking about
more substantial numbers than that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, 178 is -- right now, of the 589
additional units, 30 percent, 1 78 will be affordable.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And you're not prepared to
make any reduction in the 411, give or take --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We actually did at the Board level. We
were actually requesting a higher number of market rate units.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I know that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the board brought them -- let's make
this clear: We were never asking for six additional units. We never
asked for that. We asked for a much lower number. It was
transmitted with an overall PUD density of four units per acre.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY : You're reciting some
numbers, and I'm not trying to impale you on anything. All I'm asking
is did you offer to make a number of market rate houses less than 411
or so? You didn't do that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we did not.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any other questions of
the commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one question.
I'm looking at just the ordinance alone, because once we approve
this, it's the ordinance that's going to go forth. Everything we've said
kind of falls by the wayside.
Where in there does it show that we're going to get 30 percent of
affordable housing? It states that if we build affordable housing we get
the density --
Page 57
May 19,2005
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you look at Exhibit A. Are we all
reading from Exhibit A, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you look at it, it says, under paragraph
C, 3-C, property is eligible for the affordable housing density bonus,
homeownership only. If you look, you keep reading along, it says --
at the end you will see it says that we have to sell 30 percent, at least
30 percent of those to people earning 80 percent or less --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I didn't see --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- of the county's median income.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it. Looks good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, any other questions?
Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just wanted to clarify for the
record the comment made by Mr. Strain that comes out of the Snyder
case. And I'm going to read the holding of the court. And the Snyder
case, really, that had to do with whether rezones were -- site specific
rezones were quasi judicial or legislative.
And it says, upon consideration, we hold that a landowner
seeking to rezone property has the burden of proving that the proposal
is consistent with the Compo Plan and complies with all procedural
requirements of the zoning ordinance. At this point the burden shifts
to the governmental board to demonstrate that maintaining the existing
zoning, which would mean to deny the rezone classification with
respect to the property accomplishes a legitimate public purpose.
And then the court goes on to talk about that government has the
burden of showing that the refusal to rezone the property is not
arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. And if the board carries the
burden, the application should be denied.
And we've taken that to mean where we -- as Mr. Weeks
mentioned, where we look at other criteria in the zoning ordinance to
make sure that when that's analyzed based upon the testimony, that
Page 58
May 19,2005
any finding of denial is based upon those to avoid the problem with
being arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable.
So I just wanted to read that into the record to clarify what the
court said in Snyder.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions of the petitioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll close the public
hearing. Do we have a motion on this item?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'll recommend a
motion for denial for CP-2004-1.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Strain, a
second by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion?
For my own part, I'm not in favor of the motion. If this was a
rezone, I would look for stipulations and delays or appropriate
mechanisms, but in my mind this is a Growth Management Plan
amendment and should appropriately move forward.
I share the concerns about the traffic, but I don't think this is the
time or place to take that stand, so I would not be in favor of the
motion.
Further discussion?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Adelstein.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I want to make a point, too.
In my almost four years here on this Planning Commission, I have
never once turned down Dr. Durso. And for good reason. I believe
the project is worthwhile and should be handled that way.
This issue is completely different. I've seen a lot of problems
coming, and I can see -- as I say, it's nice to say that the traffic
department knows what they're doing and knows what they want to
do. It's going to be another thing whether it gets done, because of the
Page 59
May 19,2005
economic needs and the economic money necessary to do it.
And because of that, it puts me in a position of saying, how do I
protect those -- the homes that we need and also protect the homes of
those who bought their own in the same area. Without that guarantee
that these roads will work the way they should, I can't vote for it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Even if this petition is denied,
and I'm against the motion, workers are still going to have to live and
commute from somewhere else. If they don't live and commute from
this area, they'll have to commute from Immokalee or Lee County.
And this is going to end up with much worse road impacts, including
951, because commuters will have to travel greater distances on our
roads.
And I think that our job as this commission is to consider good
planning in the broadest sense, not just a few intersections.
And in response to one of the speakers, I would like to see a
Habitat development in my neighborhood. What this developer is
doing is stepping up and offering affordable housing as part of his
development. And I feel that we should be encouraging this so that
other developers do the same thing, instead of discouraging it.
Always in this type of public meeting you're going to have the
families -- you're going to have people who are saying that it's a traffic
impact and, you know, we don't want to have this in our backyard.
But you never actually have the families, and especially the children.
The people who are going to be having the most positive impact are
the children of the families who are going to be able to live in this
development who right now are living in overcrowded, substandard
housing.
And as I've said before, I've know families before they moved
into workforce housing and I've known the same families afterwards.
And it has a tremendously positive impact on the families when
Page 60
May 19,2005
they're able to move into decent housing.
As other people have brought up, this is still going to be subject
to concurrency, and so I feel as though if there's a traffic problem, that
will have to be dealt with at that time. We don't have to worry about it
in this setting. So that's my feelings on this.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
Further discussion? Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm going to be against
the motion, too, because we're smarter building affordable housing
than lanes on 75.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, this is a very, very difficult
decision to have to make here.
I think one of the compelling arguments has to be the issue of
the roads as they would be built, as they are desired to be built but in
fact can they be built. And a point was well made that we'll be
constructing this development amidst serious road building, and
further exacerbate a problem that's already horrible.
And I know we need the affordable housing, and I want the
affordable housing, and I'm certainly in favor of that. I'm in a --
distressed greatly by the fact that there may be that we don't have the
confidence in our concurrency -- I guess in our concurrency we
believe it's so, but we don't know that we have the finances to go
forward, and that leaves that wide open.
My concern would be whether concurrency can be effective in
that case. If we're using models, it seems to me we need to have all of
the roads able to take the load. So I will join in Mr. Strain's
recommendation, although very reluctantly.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I will vote for Mr. Strain's
motion, and because I think there are two concurrency issues here that
I'm not sure are being adequately addressed. One is obviously the
Page 61
May 19,2005
transportation issue. And secondly, I believe that we have a water
management issue. And no one -- and that -- it's been stated by staff
so far has just been sloughed off. So I think from -- I think that's a bad
planning on our part, and so I'll vote with Mr. Strain on this issue.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Abernathy?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't believe I've ever
asked -- as Mr. Adelstein said, I don't believe I've ever voted against
affordable house, be it Habitat or a developer's version of affordable
housing. In the latter case, I've sometimes not had much confidence
that that was the way the housing was really going to turn out, but I
voted for it anyway.
I'm not quite sure I understand why Habitat got itself involved
with a developer. It seems to me that Habitat has always bought its
own land and come in and asked to build its own homes.
This to me, the price of 411 or so market rate houses in order to
get 178 affordable houses is too dear a price to pay insofar as the
traffic on that road is concerned. I just have a feeling that Sam Durso
has climbed aboard a Trojan Horse in this case. So I'm going to
support the motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. All the commissioners
have weighed in on the motion. We'll call the question.
All those in favor, please signify by saying aye, and a show of
hands so we can get our count right. All in favor of the motion.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: That is five in favor of the motion.
Those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
Page 62
May 19,2005
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
So the motion carries 5-3.
It is 10:14. We'll take a IS-minute break.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we're going to call the Planning
Commission back to order.
And before we resume with our next agenda item, I've been
appropriately admonished by our court reporter that I need to do my
job. And in order to do that, I need all the Planning Commissioners to
work cooperatively with me.
Number one, we need to speak in a little bit of a slower rate,
clearly and distinctly into the microphone.
Second, we need to take pains not to talk over top of the speaker
or one another. And toward that point, I've again been reminded by
the court reporter that part of my role would be to recognize speakers
specifically, as a Planning Commissioner has a course of questioning
that they're pursuing, to allow that individual to take their course of
questions to the conclusion without being interrupted by another
Planning Commissioner. And I'll certainly try to keep the audience
and everyone else from interrupting. Because what happened in the
last petition is we entered into an ever increasing crescendo of speed
and volume, and in the attempt not to be upstaged by anyone else, and
blazing fingers over here can't keep up.
So if everyone would just slow down a notch or two. We've got
all day, even tomorrow, ifnecessary, and we'll proceed in a very
logical and orderly fashion.
So with that, we will look at our next agenda item. CP-2004-2.
If we could hear from the petitioner, please.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Bruce Anderson, from the law firm of Roetzel and Andress, and I'm
here representing the Bonita Bay Group.
Just to remind you the general nature of this application, it's
Page 63
May 19, 2005
to change the future land use map designation of two rural fringe
parcels that are presently designated neutral which abut
receiving lands that are owned by Bonita Bay. It's proposed that the
153-acre parcel which abuts lands that are already designated
as receiving, that its designation be changed to receiving. And the
second half of the proposal involves changing the designation of an
approximately 88-acre parcel commonly known as the Talon parcel
from neutral to sending. These parcels were part of the southern
portion of the original Twin Eagles proj ect.
I would remind you that the county's leading environmental
organizations, Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier County Audubon
Society and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, all support this
amendment, as did the Planning Commission at the transmittal
hearing, and as did the County Commission at the transmittal hearing.
The Department of Community Affairs registered no objections to this
map amendment. Both the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee and the Board of County Commissioners have
ranked the Talon parcel, the 80-acre piece proposed to become
sending, as a priority one property for acquisition under the
Conservation Collier program. Obviously if the designation on the
Talon parcel is changed from neutral, which permits one dwelling unit
per five acres, to sending, which permits development of only one unit
per 40 acres, the market value of the property is reduced. Now, if the
property owner obj ected to this redesignation, that would be an
entirely different matter. However, in this instance the property
owner is the one requesting the redesignation.
Bonita Bay's plans are to incorporate the 153 acres that are
proposed to become receiving lands to be part of a rural village that
Bonita Bay would plan to develop on the south side of Immokalee
Road. Without the redesignation of the 153 acres, this property would
not meet the minimum size requirements for a rural village, which is
300 acres, exclusive of any green belt. Approval of this map
Page 64
May 19, 2005
amendment would provide several significant public benefits.
Number one, completion of a regionally significant wildlife
corridor and flowway that begins at the CREW lands by Bonita Beach
Road in Lee County and stretches for approximately six miles to the
Vanderbilt Beach Road extension in Collier. The Immokalee Road
wildlife underpass that is under construction is to provide a link
between Twin Eagles and these lands. Another public benefit is the
ability to preserve 80 acres as preserve area that's sought by
Conservation Collier, which abuts a school site owned by the school
board, which in turn abuts land owned by the County and planned for
a park. It's a unique opportunity to assemble a large contiguous
tract of land set aside for public use. Third public benefit is the ability
to provide a route for a connector road to link Immokalee Road and
Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, which would then provide for two
ways to get to the adjacent school site and the county park. Fourth, the
Bonita Bay Group has committed to seek a rezone to a rural village.
That application is being finalized and will be filed next week. And
hopefully it will be coming back before you for a review in six to
eight months' time. The proposed rural village will help start the rural
fringe TDR program. We respectfully request that you once again
recommend approval of this amendment. And I and Mr. Mulhere are
available to answer anyquestions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions of the petitioner? Mr. Strain?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, yeah. I guess or staff the
petitioner both.
Staff is recommending denial; is that correct?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The DCA -- well, first of
all, I've got questions of staff more than the applicants, so I'll just wait
and ask staff so everybody can finish with the applicant. That might
be easier.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer?
Page 65
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're being requested today to
also change the size of the green belt. In your calculations, what's the
size of the green belt you've been using?
MR. ANDERSON: It's a minimum of200, an average of three.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're using the new
number, as if it would be approved later?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of the petitioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none at this time.
Anyone else from your team?
MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And we will hear from staff, please.
MR. WEEKS: For the record, again I'm David Weeks, Planning
Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department, pinch hitting for
Michelle Mosca, the assigned planner.
Staff had recommended denial of this petition on two primary
points, the first of which is that the neutral lands in this petition, as
you know, are partly being proposed for sending designation and
partly for receiving.
And the native habitat, native vegetation types on the property
are pretty much the same, in our opinion, based upon our review and
the submittal of the FLUCCS codes data by the petitioner. So our
concern is that if you have the same habitat types on the property, why
is it appropriate for one to be sending and why is it appropriate for the
other to be receiving.
The second point was that this piece of sending lands, this 79
acres, compared to the other sending lands shown on the future land
use map, is isolated. The other future -- the other sending lands shown
on the future land use map are either much larger in size in and of
themselves or they are abutting other conservation lands, which as a
Page 66
May 19,2005
result you have a very large connected protected area or conservation
type area.
So that was the two basic points for why staff did not support the
petition.
A different point, but it fits into the mix a little bit differently, as
opposed to an emphatic point of our recommendation is not to support
the amendment is that petitioner has made various commitments at the
transmittal hearing and stands by those commitments today that they
will submit a PUD for a rural village on this property, that they will
provide a wildlife corridor that connects this property to properties
north of Immokalee Road and going all the way up into Lee County.
That third point of staffs is if that is the case, we think it is
appropriate that that commitment be made more than just as a
statement on the record but in fact make it part of your amendment;
that is, change this from just a map amendment to also a text
amendment.
That concludes -- the other point I'll just simply mention is the
vote at the transmittal hearing was 4-3 by Planning Commission to
approve the petition, and the Board voted to approve by a vote of 4-1.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you.
Questions of staff? Mr. Strain?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: David, I understand staffs
position, and I want to read the DCA's position as well. DCA said in
their letter of April 8th, 2005, we would like to point out that unlike
the other sending areas that are connected to a major environmental
system or conservation area, this proposed sending land would be
isolated from a major environmental system, and that could diminish
its purpose and utilization as a wildlife habitat.
It goes on to say that they're suggesting to put in a linear wildlife
corridor. And the last sentence says, further, we would suggest that
the county direct the focus of the implementation of the TDR program
to the areas already set aside as sending and receiving areas in order to
Page 67
May 19,2005
advance the purpose of this program established in the comprehensive
plan, and to ensure protection of those areas.
While DCA didn't object to it, it doesn't sound like they think it's
the best idea in the world. And I think that's a concurrence more or
less with staffs recommendation, is my understanding.
I'm not going to talk about the water one, because I bet you
someone else has that in mind here this morning, and I'll let that --
defer that to somebody else.
Mr. Vega wrote a rather detailed memo that is included in my
packet. I'm assuming everybody got that one. Are you familiar
enough with that memo to answer questions on it? I don't see him
here, so I -- but he brought up some very interesting points about what
is actually being preserved versus what would have been preserved
had it not been done this way. Are you familiar with his memo?
MR. WEEKS: I haven't read it since transmittal, but I can try to
respond.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: He said that the language
regarding the doubling upon utilization within rural villages has been
left in, so that what has historically been a single residential unit can
now become eight units within a rural village.
What did he mean by that? Do you have any idea? Can your
provide any insight into that?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, that relates to Petition No.4 on today's
agenda, which is the petition that will add three additional TDR
bonuses. So that if you today have the opportunity to buy one TDR
credit, which translates into one dwelling unit, the additional bonuses
would change that to add an early entry bonus, and also the restoration
and maintenance bonus that if you restore the property in whatever
way is necessary and then implement a management program, you get
an additional bonus. And then subsequent to that bonus, if you also by
gift deed that property to a government agency, such as Conservation
Collier or the State of Florida, then you get an additional bonus. So
Page 68
May 19,2005
from staffs perspective, Mr. Vega's wrong, those bonuses would turn
one bonus into four, not into eight.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's why I couldn't understand
that. I was wondering where he was coming from.
Okay. He did say something else, and I've got a few questions,
but these are the longest ones so let me get past those.
If designating those 80 acres of sending go hand-in-hand with
reclassifying the remaining track as receiving, all that has really
happened is that a parcel that would have had the density of 44 units
under historical densities or as a neutral land now has a density of 92
units. The additional 48 TDR's created for the 80 acres of sending are
free to the developer, who still owns the remainder of the parcel and
he does not have to go through a TD R bank to acquire them. Is that an
accurate statement?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let me go on to my -- the
archeological and historical society -- no it's called the division of
historical resources, they've apparently reviewed this and they said in
the end of theirs, we cannot determine if we concur with the
archeologist's results and conclusion.
Based on the minimal site information submitted at this point,
we recommend that these sites be preserved in place. And they're
talking about two sites that were recognized.
Is that addressed in this document as being applicable? I haven't
seen where we've accepted that as a -- again, it's maybe a
recommendation, not an objection. So are we incorporating that into
any kind of approval that might result in this proj ect?
MR. WEEKS: No. That would be the prerogative of the
Planning Commission and ultimately again the board.
If you wanted to change this from a map amendment only to
make it a text amendment whereby you can add specific provisions,
such as you shall preserve the archeological sites, or during the rezone
Page 69
May 19,2005
process that those will be reviewed.
As a matter of process, when the rezone petition for the site is
submitted, the archeological sites will be reviewed again. Just as we
do -- several things that occur at the rezone stage also occur at the
comprehensive plan amendment stage, the consistency with Policy 5.1
regarding transportation being another one.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there another strength to having
it in the GMP, versus the PUD, or versus a rural fringe application?
MR. WEEKS: The difference would be that if it's in the
comprehensive plan as a specific commitment as in thou shalt preserve
the area, something very specific as opposed to it shall be reviewed
during the rezone stage, certainly that would have more teeth. If you
say it shall be reviewed at the rezone stage, you're simply repeating
what is already a standard process.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. In their statement supplied
by R W A regarding the compatibility to surrounding land uses, they
said that the proposed map change for the southernmost 79 acres
would create a very compatible relationship to the surrounding lands.
But they're going to make it a sending land. Are there any other
sending lands in that area?
MR. WEEKS: No, there's not. To be fair, the property to the
west does contain a large preserved area. It's a golf course.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right.
MR. WEEKS: So they are adjacent to some preserve areas to
the west. It's just not designated sending.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think anybody would like to
have a sending area next to their home, so I guess in that regard it's
compatible. But there are no -- it's not compatible to another sending
land in the area.
MR. WEEKS: That's true.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's an isolated sending land is
what it boils down to.
Page 70
May 19,2005
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. From staff's position. Obviously
the petitioner does not agree with that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It also said, the proposed roadway
would be designed to be compatible with surrounding conditions in
order to protect and preserve on-site wetlands. Yet in their
environmental report they said there are no on-site wetlands in the
entire property, either the southern or the northern.
So how do they justify a statement, in your mind, regarding the
proposed roadway design that's going to accommodate wetlands that
aren't there?
MR. WEEKS: My recollection, from discussion with petitioner,
we had the same question. And I believe what they meant was there
are no jurisdictional wetlands. That is, the State of Florida, or Army
Corps, any of the appropriate agencies have not said they claim
jurisdiction. That's not the same as saying there's not some wetlands.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if it gets rained upon, it's a
wetland?
MR. WEEKS: I can't answer that exactly.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The 79-acre sending area would
protect valuable wetland habitat and provide corridors for the
movement of wildlife through the project. But the corridor is that
linear corridor that has a series of right and left-hand turns to get down
there. But I guess that's how they're assuming that statement's going
to be met.
Now, on the item number four, you attach some documentation
that told what sending lands typically are. And one of the definitions
or one of the statements was non-NRPA sending lands -- on average,
non-NRPA sending lands are characterized as having 19 percent
wetland, 85 percent total vegetation and 84 percent strategic habitat
conservation area. And in an analysis of that property, has any of
those percentages been determined? I mean, we know there's no
wetlands, so what about percentage of total vegetation or strategict
Page 71
May 19,2005
habitat conservation areas, do we know of any?
MR. WEEKS: The wetlands, I'm sorry, I don't know the answer
to. The vegetation, my recollection is it was even higher than 85
percent. It was very high. That was --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So they might meet one of those
criteria at this point.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And under the existing neutral
designation, which applies to the entire 232 acres, some 130 acres will
be preserved. But they go through the calculations in which they're
doing now, and it looks like there's going to be 125 acres of native
vegetation preserved. So they're actually decreasing the amount of
preserved vegetation by changing from the neutral to a combination
receiving and sending. Is that something that you're familiar with or is
that --
MR. WEEKS: I need to defer to the petitioner to answer that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's all the questions I have,
David. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further questions of staff? Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question of staff
also.
Apparently the wildlife crossing has already started to be
constructed. My question is, why would they start to construct it if
they don't know yet if this is going to be reclassified as a sending
land? Aren't they being a little bit premature?
MR. WEEKS: My understanding and recollection is that they
had made a commitment to do that, regardless of whether this
amendment went through or not.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why? If they don't know how
the land is going to turn out. If there's going to be any wildlife to be
crossed, I mean, what if this all developed as a regular development
and there is no significant wildlife preservation there, why would they
Page 72
May 19,2005
invest all that money? Because I know wildlife crossings are
extremely expensive to build, especially on a large road like
Immokalee Road.
MR. WEEKS: I believe that all goes back to the original Twin
Eagles PUD rezoning and a lawsuit that was filed, and it's part of the
settlement agreement that was reached between Florida Wildlife,
Collier Audubon and the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, might be a minor point,
but on Exhibit A it says, having reference to the future land use map,
but it is assumed the county will, in the very near future, amend the
zoning atlas to reflect the new rural fringe mixed use overlay. And it
goes on.
And I was looking at the documentation in Exhibits F and G, and
it appears that the agricultural mobile home overlay, which was in
place on the map for Exhibit F, ceases to exist on the Exhibit G map.
Is that just -- is it just in fact that it will happen, or is this part of the
amendment that is going forward as the map wiUlook? It's assumed
that the change appears to have been made on the map is what I'm
relating to.
Exhibit G. If you look at Exhibit F and you look at Exhibit G,
Exhibit F references agricultural -- A, H -- let me say it again. A,
mobile home overlay. Part of its legend. And it's a green, a light
green.
MR. WEEKS: That's the zoning overlay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. And when we get to
Exhibit G, we see that that's no longer valid. That's gone now.
MR. WEEKS: Exhibit G is identifying the future land use
designations, not the zoning.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I believe then that based on
Page 73
May 19,2005
what was said in Exhibit A, this is a given that that will happen?
MR. WEEKS: Not necessarily. The -- if I'm following this, the
zoning overlay that is in place, the mobile home overlay, that will
remain to be seen when they submit their petition. Presumably they're
going to request a change from agricultural zoning with the mobile
home overly to PUD.
MR. MULHERE: If I can -- I can clarify that very easily, if I
could.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere with RW A.
What we were saying was although in the language in the Land
Development Code the rural fringe mixed use district has been
adopted, the zoning maps do not reflect a designation for that. The
zoning maps do not say A, MH-RFMUD.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: We assume that will occur, because this land
is in fact already in the area that's designated part of the rural fringe
mixed use district.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was what I needed to have
understood for myself clearly. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have another question.
I see later on that we're going to be looking at something called a
rural village bonus credit. Is this something new? Because I
remember three credits, but I don't remember one of them being a
village center bonus credit -- or rural village bonus credit.
MR. WEEKS: That was one of the original bonuses that were
approved with the rural fringe amendment. But it's always been that
basically it's a two- for-one. If you develop a rural village, you
automatically get a bonus on a one-for-one basis. So for each TDR
that is used for a rural village, you get a bonus or free TDR.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Maybe that's where Mr. -- the
Page 74
May 19,2005
one you were talking about, Mark, came up with the eight. One goes
to eight if it goes into a rural village.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You know, that could be. If they
doubled -- if you're in a rural village, do you double the gross or do
you double the net? Meaning you double just the one that you could
have got? Let the record show it's yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Weeks, you have some help behind
you.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, I do. That's Marti Chumbler, outside
counsel for the county.
And she also wanted me to make sure I get on the record that
that bonus for the rural village TDR's are only up to the minimum
density of two units per acre. Once you've achieved that minimum,
you no longer continue to get the rural village bonus.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So could you consider that to be
one to five? I mean, one turns into five if you count the village?
MR. WEEKS: If you qualify for all bonuses, yes.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Then it could be one to five
rather than one to four.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none.
Do we have any registered speakers on this item?
MR. LITZINGER: We have two. Brad Cornell, followed by
Nancy Payton.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
And I'm here to support this, again, for adoption these
amendments for the map change ultimately have benefits for the
public and for the environment, and we believe that those stem from
the wildlife and flowway corridor that's a regional landscape scale
Page 75
May 19,2005
corridor that's already being implemented, and we don't believe that
it's -- that the destination is isolated in the sense that it is a destination.
And so by virtue of the corridor ending in a preserve next to a
school site, next to golf course preserves, next to a park, this is a
wildlife destination. And it's also important for the flowway
restoration aspect of this project.
We also believe that that combination of the school park and
preserve sending lands that would be redesignated are important and
valuable and deserve to have that change.
And I -- I remember in the rural fringe committee that the
process of establishing the neutral designation was sort of abruptly
short-circuited by the school district and the county coming in and
saying they wanted to buy this Kaufman tract on which this land is
originally -- where it was originally contained. And they didn't want
to have their ability to build schools in particular -- the school district
didn't want their able to build schools constrained. So it went to
neutral and there was language instituted for that purpose.
I think that that didn't allow this consideration for sending, and
now that we have that opportunity, we should take that.
And finally, I believe the rural village opportunity presented
here by Bonita Bay and by the map changes that are being proposed
has significant benefits for natural resource restoration preservation on
sending lands elsewhere, as well as the 79 acres on-site. And this is a
virtue obviously created by the demand for the TDR credits that the
building of the rural village would create. And I think that ultimately
that argues for approval of these amendments. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Hold on a second. Mr. Midney, you have
a question?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you tell me, Brad, in
addition -- how many TDR's in addition to those transferred from
within the project will Bonita Bay have to buy in order to develop a
rural village?
Page 76
May 19,2005
MR. CORNELL: I haven't done that math. My understanding,
it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 to 900 TDR credits. But I
would ask that you defer that to the petitioners.
They do get some that's nowhere -- it's a very small percentage.
The bulk of their credits they'll need to build a village will come from
other sending lands, which is an important --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Have there been, besides this
potential project, a demand for TDR's up to this point?
MR. CORNELL: Well, that's a loaded question, because the
way the TDR program is set now, we have the opposite problem than
what we thought we might. In other words, the values of the TDR's
have gone so high per credit that the developers cannot afford to buy
them and build profitably.
So what we've needed to do, and you'll see that in the subsequent
petition, 2004-4, that we've needed to create more value in TDR
credits, basically create more credits so that they actually will be used.
So there's not been a demand because they've been too expensive.
There has been a demand in the sense of developers have wanted to
use them but couldn't afford to buy them. So now we're trying to
create the situation where they can afford to buy them, land will get
protected, rural villages will be built, et cetera.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir.
MR. CORNELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next speaker, please?
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation.
I just wanted to expand quickly on the issue of TDR's, that there
is a demand for TDR's. It's a matter of you just can't find them yet or
you can't afford them. So there is a demand for TDR's. It's a matter of
-- it's finding them. And that's what hopefully we're going to address
when we do the -- discuss the bonus TDR's.
Florida Wildlife Federation supports the amendment before you
Page 77
.·_...N..·.___¥.·..,,__
May 19,2005
for several reasons. One is because of the linear preserve and the 80
acres which is currently on Conservation Collier's acquisition list.
And this would be an easy way to get those conservation lands. They
are high quality, they do abut a school site and a park site to the east.
And I understand from the school board and from the county that
there has been a tentative plan done for those three parcels to integrate
them so that all the quality habitat across those three parcels are
preserved and are interconnected.
There's a school site, there's a road that comes through down to
the Vanderbilt Beach extension that also can cross a bridge that
currently exists into N orthem Golden Gate Estates, providing an
opportunity for Golden Gate Estates folks to go up to this rural village
to get some of their needs that currently they have to come west.
The school board did support this amendment when it went
before the County Commissioners, and they see the benefit of this
larger project and how it fits into a need in that particular area. It is
innovative thinking, not only for the rural village, which will help
jump start our TDR program, but also to begin to integrate and kind of
have a campus for schools and parks and conservation areas.
It does abut Northern Golden Gate Estates areas, which has few
parks, and even though Northern Golden Gate Estates is rural, it
doesn't have conservation land within it. It hasn't done any
conservation planning out there. So it is an opportunity for those folks
to have some access to nice lands.
It's our understanding that the linear preserve that connects
underneath Immokalee Road up to CREW, the minimum width for
wildlife to move will be 300 feet. And where it was going to be 200
feet on the Bonita Bay site, it abuts a preserve area on the other side,
so -- on the west side. So that there will be significant room for
wildlife to move north and south.
The corridor, the crossing was done in conjunction with the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Page 78
May 19,2005
Commission, that linear preserve exists requirements in a permit that
Bonita Bay has for Twin Eagles.
The wildlife crossing is the result of our settlement over our
Twin Eagles challenge with Bonita Bay, and there is every intention
that there is going to be that linear preserve down the west side of that
project. And it is viable wildlife habitat. And I think it's important as
those areas build out, those linear preserves in connecting in that way
become more and more important.
So I hope that you will support this and understand the mega
picture of this project and not just concentrate on what some feel but
we do not believe is an isolated 80 acres. It is connected through
private preserve areas. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Nancy, you seem to speak
in favor of the petition we're going to hear a little later to create
various other credits for sending lands in addition to the one?
MS. PAYTON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Isn't that the equivalent in
land terms of devaluing the currency? If something is worth one and
all of a sudden it's now worth four, haven't you devalued that in the
process?
MS. PAYTON: Well, individually as you add them up, each
unit may be less, but in total you're getting much more money for five
acres for those TDR's. So money in the pocket is going to be much
higher for the landowner.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why couldn't you get the
same amount?
MS. PAYTON: Because a developer -- and I'll let others who
have better knowledge about the economics of this deal in detail. But
as I understand it, can't afford to buy one. It's just too costly to buy
Page 79
May 19,2005
one and then convert that into your unit within the receiving area.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So you make it cheaper for
them so they can buy them.
MS. PAYTON: Well, I think it's a matter of, you know, when I
buy toilet paper at Costco, I get a lot more for a lot less.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I didn't want to drag
the discussion down to that level. Let me just say it's --
MS. PAYTON: I pay more but I get a lot more tissue per --
well, I'll give up on that one.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me just say that some
days it's getting harder to tell the environmentalist from the
developers, so I'm just a little curious as to why you're so heart and
soul on the same side on this issue.
MS. PAYTON: Well, I wouldn't say that we're necessarily on
the same side, but our goals are to preserve sending lands and to get
them protected. And this is a mechanism to do that. And that was the
goal of what we had to do under the final order is to protect those
sending lands and find mechanisms to do that, and reward owners for
doing it.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Has anybody taken Mr.
Vega's suggestion to heart and determined what percentage of the
sending lands would be preserved anyway because of their
characteristics?
MS. PAYTON: I don't think those sending lands would be
preserved because of their characteristics.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: None of them.
MS. PAYTON: They would fragmented, they would be
crisscrossed, they would be degraded. And that's the problem we have
now and that's the problem we had under our previous Comprehensive
Plan, that it wasn't doing the job to protect those environmentally
sensitive habitats. And we need to do landscape planning and that's
what we did.
Page 80
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other speakers?
MR. LITSINGER: That's your only other speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
Any summary comments by the petitioner?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to try to
answer some of the questions that some of you had raised.
Number one, as far as the designation change and the amount of
native vegetation preservation that would be required under today's
designations versus the designations that are requested, I guess staff
forgot about this, but we committed to, as part of the PUD filing, to
save the same amount of native vegetation under the new designations
as we were required to under today's. So there's not going to be any
net loss as a result of the change in designation.
Number two, I want to walk you through the credits that will be
created versus what is needed for this rural village.
The change in designation would create an additional 63 TDR
credits, assuming the bonus TDR's come into existence.
Mr. Mulhere, who has the day-to-day dealings in trying to get
this prepared and submitted, tells me that a total of 853 credits are in
fact needed for this rural village. So it's a drop in the bucket. At the
minimum density of two units per acre, 853 TDR credits are needed.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Also, the archeological sites are being -- are
being preserved in the PUD submittal, which you will see.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, I think you have a question?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes.
You represent the applicant. Have you -- you acknowledge you
have not been through a concurrency review?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You have not been through one.
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
Page 81
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted that on the
record.
MR. ANDERSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
Some day I'll explain why, but I gotta -- they tell me why first.
MR. ANDERSON: We will.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question of staff, if Ms.
Caron doesn't --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I've got one of Bruce.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: While you're here, Bruce, Mr. Abernathy
has a question.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY : Your commitment to
preserve in the PUD, is that sort of like a Mr. Eagle that's a matter of
record now?
MR. ANDERSON: And it will be in writing in the PUD
document, not just my casual remarks here today on the record.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you don't mind us stipulating
it as part of any kind of decision that came out of to day's meeting,
assuming if there was one that was positive.
MR. ANDERSON: No. No, not at all.
I'll tell you what I would be reluctant to do, because we were
frankly quite flabbergasted when staff suggested the adding some text,
which was new to us. And I would be reluctant to do that for one
reason only, and that is because DCA would not have previously
reviewed the text. If you want to add some stipulations that don't--
you know, that are part of your approval, as long as they're not added,
you know, to the text, because then that opens it up for DCA to
re-review everything. And--
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Just, if I might, I'd like to express
a concern. This is a Comprehensive Plan, and I find that it's getting
Page 82
May 19,2005
more and more specific. And the more specific it gets, the more
unwieldy it becomes to ever amend. And the time to do those types of
stipulations are really at a later development order approval.
I was talking to a colleague that mentioned how easy Lee
County's plan is compared to Collier's, because it's general and it's a
consti -- supposed to be a constitution and not the law. It is
implemented by Development Orders and Land Development Code
Amendments.
And just from the legal perspective, the more specific it is, the
more unwieldy it becomes, the more difficult it becomes to amend it.
And that's all I'm going to say about that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney, you had a question?
COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Yeah. Bruce, will this change
that you're asking us to make today result in less housing units, more
housing units or the same housing units?
MR. ANDERSON: It increases the potential for the number, but
it doesn't change the underlying base density. Because on the 80-acre
piece today you can build five-acre home sites.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, could you give us like
some figures as to what would be the potential increase in houses
today as opposed to our not doing anything?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, it would all occur on the 153 acres.
The potential density would be simply by virtue of the fact -- the
increase would be simply by virtue of the fact it's going to be
developed as a rural village. And the density change -- the maximum
density increases from one unit per acre to a maximum of three units
per acre inside a rural village.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Ifwe approve what you're asking
today, would this result in increased clustering of the development on
the property?
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, absolutely. Yes, sir. Because I want to
emphasize the point that the 80 acres that are proposed to be changed
Page 83
-', ..,.......~_..~.....,"..,
May 19,2005
from neutral to sending right now today can be developed and
crisscrossed with roads and done as a five-acre subdivision, five-acre
home sites.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that all?
MR. ANDERSON: And as a result of this, there won't be any
homes located on that 80 acres.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm going to bring up the
water issue once again, and I will state that in a meeting that I had
with Mr. Anderson and Ms. Payton and Mr. Cornell when we were
going over the original TDR bonus proposal, I said to them at the time
that according to my reading I did not believe -- I thought that there
was a water issue at that point in time. They did not know anything
about a water issue, and we said that we would look into that issue.
I brought it up the first time around at transmittal and was just
sort of brushed off. Well, now the South Florida Water Management
District has brought up this issue and so I will bring it up again. And I
will tell you, as I told you then, Bruce, I can't support it if there are
water issues.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, let me try to respond.
Number one, the applicant did try to get the most recent
information from Orangetree Utilities. The information that they have
been able to get, and it wasn't because Orangetree provided it, was that
in 2003 the peak demand was 423,000 gallons per day for water and
they had a capacity of750,000 gallons per day.
COMMISSIONER CARON: This is the same Orangetree
Utility --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that has a problem a day. Okay.
Just checking.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, and that brings us to the second really
important part is that Orangetree Utility is probably not going to be in
Page 84
...---.-
May 19,2005
operation or exist by the time this rural village begins development.
The county is slated to take it over and provide a new plan in 2008.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Which means it will come on
board about how long after that?
MR. ANDERSON: I've been told by the utilities people 2008.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They can do -- Collier County can
get all the upgrades done in 2008 when they take it over?
MR. ANDERSON: That's what I have been told by the utilities
people. Because they've been after another client of mine to try to
extract well sites for the new plan.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can I ask one question?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Extract the water, not the
sites.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Was that it, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development, Environmental Services.
Commissioners, you'll see that rezoning for the north plant. It's
on your schedule. I believe it will be for the next meet. If not, within
30 days for the north plant rezoning and for the construction of the
north water -- of both the treatment plant and the water plant.
And Bruce is right, but I believe it's -- you said 2008. I believe
it's 2012 we'll eventually have the entire operation out there. So -- but
it could be -- I'll have to check my notes that it's 2008. But I just want
to make sure you understand, the petition is moving forward for the
north plant.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bruce, I've got two quick
questions. There's a road that's talked about connecting Immokalee to
Vanderbi1t; is that right?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does it go through this sending
Page 85
May 19,2005
area, this proposed sending area?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we're not--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm asking Bruce. Do you know
where the road goes? I mean, the audience is not --
MR. ANDERSON: It's going to be -- you'll see where the road
goes when the PUD comes before you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I guess. Is it a secret? I
mean, is this --
MR. MULHERE: No, Mr. Strain, it's not a secret. But you
perhaps may recall that there was some discussion about the alignment
as to whether it would go through the sending land or might it be more
appropriate, if I may --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, it's going to have to go on
your property somewhere, isn't it?
MR. MULHERE: Just give me a second, I think I can show you
something.
Or might it be more appropriate to swing it over and bring it
somewhere down here, still connecting to Vanderbilt, and serve the
future elementary and high school, as well as the future park,
preserving the entire sending land.
Now, we're only required to preserve 80 percent of the sending
land acreage. 80 percent. If we had to run the alignment down here
that so we do connect and fulfill that commitment, we are prepared to
do that. But we are still in discussions and planning with the
transportation department, parks and recreation and the elementary --
the school board. And we've met with all three, but we haven't
actually resolved anything at this point.
I understand that CH2M Hill, who has been designed (sic) to
design and engineer Vanderbilt extension, has come up with some
potential plans. We have not looked at those.M
Page 86
May 19,2005
So whether we have them when we submit our rezone in a week,
I don't think we will, a week or 10 days, whenever we submit the
rezone application, I don't think we'll have that nailed down. But
we're still committed to providing an alignment. And if it has to go
through the sending lands, it's more important I think that we have the
connection, and so we're still reserving that right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In some cases the school board
has gated their roads. This wouldn't be one that would be gated,
would it?
MR. MULHERE: No, it would not.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The last question for maybe either
you or Bruce, you're going to be creating by this sending land the
potential for 48 additional TDR's, if I'm not mistaken, the calculations
I read?
MR. ANDERSON: Sixty-three.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, additional. Now, does that
-- each one of those come with it the potential for being multiplied by
tvvo, three, four, or--
MR. ANDERSON: No, that's multiplied.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's including the multiplier.
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the petitioner?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other summary comments?
MR. ANDERSON: No. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, with that, we will close the public
hearing.
Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a
motion that we recommend denial ofCP-2004-2. And my main
reason is the following: They want to designate this as a sending area,
yet it's zig-zagging through a rural village. It's got a school on one
Page 87
May 19,2005
side, a golf course on another and estate zoning on the south. And yet
it's supposed to be a destination for wildlife.
There are no wetlands, which is typical of sending areas. They
should have at least an average of 19 percent wetlands. All I see this
doing is providing 40 -- or 63 TDR's.
The property is fragmented by possibly a road going through, it's
crisscrossed and it's degraded, in my opinion. So I don't see why this
should be considered a sending area.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Strain, second by Mr.
Adelstein. Discussion?
Yes, sir, Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm not convinced that it's a
really significant wildlife corridor, but I think that it does have --
Conservation Collier identified it as something that was one of their
priorities, so it does have at the very least open space value. And I
think that in general it's a good idea for us to incur its clustering of
development as a planning board.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And for my part, I agree with your
comments, Mr. Midney, I can't support the motion.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with Mr. Midney, I
can't support the motion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I too agree with Mr.
Midney.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we'll call the question. All those
in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
Page 88
May 19,2005
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, that is three, I think. Show hands,
please.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: That is three.
Those opposed, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: That is five in opposition. The motion
fails, 3-5.
Do we have an alternate motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. I move we
forward Petition CP-2004-2 with a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I would second that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Schiffer, a
second by Mr. Murray, to transmit with approval.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just one comment.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The purpose of this is to designate
a sending area. Not creating housing, not creating cluster, designating
a sending area. This is not typical sending area, it fits none of the
criteria for sending area and makes no sense. So that's just my
comment.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would have to question, if it
achieves the purpose of clustering then it seems to be supportive of it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, call the question. All those in favor
Page 89
May 19, 2005
of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, same split, then. Everybody in
agreement, it was 5-3. Same players as we had before.
Yes, Marjorie?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I believe you said transmit. This
is an adoption hearing, so I just wanted to correct that for the record.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: You're correct. That was a misstatement
on my part. I said transmit and should have said adopt.
So the motion to adopt is approved 5-3.
With that, we'll move to our next agenda item. Next item is
CP-2004-3. This is the Vanderbilt Beach Road neighborhood
commercial subdistrict.
Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please.
And just as we get warmed up on this item, well, certainly it's
our intention to hear this particular item complete. It's 11 :22. And if
this looks like it's going to be a two-hour item, somewhere in the
middle we're going to stop and have lunch. Which is not to
discourage any conversation, but just to let you know that's where
we're going to go. But if we can be concise and all find ourselves in
agreement in an expeditious manner, that would be even better.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: As long as it's a positive agreement.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, that's for me to be seen.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good -- well, I guess it's still morning.
Page 90
May 19,2005
Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are
Tammy Kipp and Amy Turner, owners of the property, and Wayne
Arnold with Grady Minor and Associates.
You've seen this before. Your recommendation to transmit the
last time was, I believe, 7-1.
The two parcels of property are located on Vanderbilt Beach
Road. Parcel one is at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and
Livingston Road, and parcel two is just a little east of that.
Parcel one is approximately 9.18 acres, and we're requesting up
to 100,000 square feet of retail development on that site. And parcel
two is approximately eight acres, and we're requesting approximately
80,000 square feet of office and medical use, and also making some
clarifications to the adult living facility uses allowed on that parcel.
Since our last meeting we had a neighborhood information
meeting. We heard loud and clear that the primary objection was to
self storage. We have eliminated self storage on both parcels as a use,
so self storage is no longer allowed on either parcel one or parcel two.
That was -- the people from Village Walk were pretty adamant about
not wanting self storage and we accommodated that.
We also eliminated from the parcel one parcel gas stations, fast
food from that parcel as well.
David, what version do they have? Did you hand out your
version this morning?
MR. WEEKS: No.
Mr. Chairman, let me interject, if I may. Mr. Yovanovich is
mentioning changes that have occurred since your transmittal. You do
not have any of those changes. They're a neighborhood information
meeting, which, by the way, was voluntary on their part. Was just
held, what, less than a month ago?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, the neighborhood -- there were
further discussions after the neighborhood information meeting with
the Village Walk people that occurred the later part of last week. So
Page 91
May 19,2005
we agreed to some further changes to what you have in front of you.
And I wasn't sure what you have in front of you. We can hand that
out right now.
But just the synopsis of it is basically self storage has been
eliminated on both parcels. Parcel two is limited to office uses and
adult living facilities. Parcel one, no gas stations and no fast food.
Now, they were -- fast food is a little bit difficult to describe,
because they were opposed to, you know, the McDonald's, the
Wendy's, Checkers, Taco Bell and Burger King type fast food. But as
you all know now, Starbucks has a drive-through concept and they're
not opposed to that. So our first stab at this was was to actually name
names, if you will. Mr. Weeks had some concerns about actually
naming names in the comprehensive plan, so we'll have to work out
some appropriate language to address the types of fast food that would
be prohibited. And, you know, for instance, is Subway considered fast
food? Nobody had a concern about a Subway, but we just wanted to
make sure that wasn't considered fast food. So we have to work out
that kind of language.
I would like to say, I think at this point we've satisfied the
neighbors around us. We are requesting that you make a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to
recommend adoption of the Vanderbilt Beach Road neighborhood
commercial subdistrict.
And with that, I'll keep it short so I don't encourage a two-hour
conversation.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a two-hour conversation.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The handout you just gave us
obviously we have not had time to read, but we're being asked to
recommend approval on something that by your comments there may
be some uncomfortable language in it in regards to David Weeks.
Page 92
May 19,2005
And I feel -- I don't know how we can legally say we don't want a
McDonald's, Wendy's, Checkers, Taco Bell or Burger King, but yet
we want a Kentucky Fried, a Popeye's and some others. So where is --
I mean, to me this would be -- wouldn't this be a legal problem?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, interestingly, Mr. Strain, up in Lee
County they do name names in their Land Development Code when
they're talking about an LDC, the definition of fast food. So the
bottom line is we're going to have to work it out. We know what --
they don't want fast food. But we don't want to get caught up -- they
do want a Starbucks, and Starbucks now has a concept of
drive-through. So we have to refine the definition.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I don't mind eliminating
something, I just don't want to do it in a way that -- I don't care if Lee
County does it right or wrong, that's their problem. But I don't want
the county to be in a position where we're going to be sued for
something because we're bias in the way we stated it in our GMP.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. Weeks has made some
changes. Instead of saying the names, he says certain fast food is the
term that he's comfortable with, certain fast food.
Now, we'll address that I guess at the PUD stage to make sure
we can properly define what that is.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I would certainly like the county
attorney's opinion on this, but the county attorney doesn't seem to be
here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, isn't there an SIC code
that would distinguish a restaurant from a fast food restaurant?
MR. WEEKS: There is, Mr. Schiffer. There is. The issue is
they're really getting into the specific stores within the fast food chain.
For example, they listed about five here. Well, what about Dairy
Queen and Juicy Lucy's? Well, I think their intent is they don't want a
Page 93
May 19,2005
fast food with hamburgers of any kind. They mentioned Taco Bell;
does that mean Taco Caliente and so forth? I would conclude yes.
So as Mr. Y ovanovich was stating, I think we should at this
point in the comprehensive plan just state something to the effect of
certain fast food restaurants, that obviously is very ambiguous, and at
the rezone stage try to get more specific in the language of whether it
gets into naming names or something more specific way of defining it.
We might be able to go through into the SIC Code and maybe there's a
way to--
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I wouldn't be naming names of
companies in the comprehensive plan or even the zoning document,
for that matter. I wouldn't do that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's where I was concerned
about. I didn't want to mislead the people who you're trying to strike a
deal with into thinking they have something they don't have. So we
need to figure out a way to tell them what they're going to have or not
going to have in some specific terms that aren't going to be naming
names and causing problems --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the way -- the way Mr. Weeks has
worded it, fast food is brought. So there's certainly going to -- they
may get more protection than they originally wanted.
It was clear to us that these types of fast food they do not want
on the corner, because they do generate a lot more traffic than certain
other types of fast food. And if we can't come to agreement on a
definition that will make them happy at the zoning, then we may have
to eliminate fast food altogether.
I think what shouldn't be lost, though, is that we worked with
Village Walk to come up with things that made them comfortable with
the proposed comprehensive plan. We can work out the details of the
definition of fast food later.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why not turn it around the
Page 94
May 19,2005
other way and list the ones you want on there? Now you've got the
ideas of this is available and that's available, and that's perfectly legal.
It's not saying anything about those that you don't want, but you have
okayed those two or those three that you feel --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You don't want that in the
compo plan.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I would not put names of
companies in the compo plan or zoning document because, in my legal
opinion, it could be discriminatory if you have a list of those you want
and then have -- by expressing an exclusio eltores (phonetic), meaning
you don't -- we're going way far afield on compo plans and the
specificity. That's all I have to tell you, Chairman and members of the
Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And I would just remind everybody, it
would be a great help if we speak one at a time? So Mr. Adelstein,
any further discussion.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. The answer is I have a
right on my property to say what I want to put on. I may not have a
right to say I'm not going have this or this, and I understand that issue,
but on my property I say I want to have a Subway and I want to have a
this on it, I have a right to do that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And perhaps what we can do is say fast
food is excluded except for sandwich shops, things like that. And we
can work that out at the zoning document. I think what David has
proposed is an excellent starting point on certain fast foods. At the
zoning document we can come back with a definition that will get the
types that will work out. But we don't need to make that decision
today.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions, Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Rich, is the concern
Page 95
May 19,2005
free-standing fast food restaurants? I mean, because the ones you cite
are like a Starbucks and the Subway seems to be in a mall setting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, Starbucks now has a
freestanding concept.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, but could we not at this
point just say gas stations and freestanding fast food restaurants shall
be prohibited? And then we can move on.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, I would like to go with
what David has is certain fast foods. I think that makes people
comfortable. And at the PUD stage, we can -- we'll write a definition
in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is this David's wording, or -- so
what would David's wording be?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can give you my copy.
And again, it took a while to get a meeting with the Village
Walk people. I appreciate the fact that they did meet with us and we
were able to work all this out. And I apologize for the fact that it has
to be last minute, but that's the way the neighborhood process works.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Weeks, you have the language?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. My version would be to modify the
leading paragraph, the very first paragraph under 11, to delete the uses
that were listed there and replace it with allowable uses shall be a
variety of commercial uses, as more particularly described below and
mixed use, commercial and residential. Prohibited uses shall be gas
stations and convenience stores with gas pumps, and certain fast food
restaurants.
And then under parcel one and parcel two, I have more specific
language as far as the allowable uses go, but nothing more definitive
regarding the fast food.
I agree with the general comments that, number one, I think it's
best to deal with this at rezoning. Number two, I think we're on the
right track in looking at freestanding fast food restaurants as a starting
Page 96
May 19,2005
point, at least. Because as Mr. Y ovanovich has mentioned, we keep
seeing changes in the market, so Starbucks might be a freestanding
that qualifies as fast food that they want to keep. Maybe the
distinction is that's a coffee shop as opposed to a full meal. But again,
at rezone stage, I --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Marjorie, are you comfortable with that
language that Mr. Weeks read as being appropriate?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Margie, how does freestanding--
how does the fact that we're saying in a public document that we're
going to restrict certain fast foot restaurants not show some bias that's
going to be forthcoming in the zoning document?
And I'm wondering, isn't there a -- there's just got to be a better
-- if you've got -- if you don't want fast food, let's just not say fast
food. If you don't want freestanding fast food, well, you can't have
your cake and eat it too in all cases. If they don't want certain fast
foods, it might just be simple to say no fast foods, just to keep the
county out of a liability issue. I mean, I don't want it to appear as
though we've got some kind of bias to certain -- and we're setting it up
now to set it up -- to further it in the zoning document.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Perhaps it would be better as to
define what certain means, and then utilize terms like freestanding.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: I was going to suggest, maybe -- because I've
seen the way I've written this, certain fast food restaurants, certain
seems to imply store names. And that was not my intent. So perhaps
certain types of fast food restaurants, so we get into categories, not
brand names.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That would probably seem better,
yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what I thought you meant.
Page 97
May 19,2005
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I thought David meant.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, do you have anything else
in your line of questioning?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray, anything else?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. As long as our legal
counsel is comfortable.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good.
Further questions of the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, I haven't even started yet.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Mr. Strain, back on your
course.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I can't tell which language we're
using, so you're going to have to bear with me. And if we've changed
so much that we're not using it now, the questions may be irrelevant.
David, on -- or whoever, on Page 6 under the -- or Page 5, I'm
sorry. Under the staff report, proposed amendments, Petition 2004-3,
there's a paragraph that says, uses that may emit odors offensive to
nearby residents, such as a full-service restaurant, shall be prohibited.
Is that sentence still included as part of this GMP amendment?
Because if it is, my question is, first of all, how do you determine if it
may emit it? How do you tell what's offensive? Is Italian food
offensive or is it Mexican food or is it German food? There's too
many ambiguities in this type of language.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, at this point restaurants are no
longer allowed on parcel two, so I think that language can be stricken.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
One of the statements in your urban commercial district
language paragraph, the first one says allowable uses shall be retail,
personal service, restaurant, office, and all other uses as allowed,
Page 98
May 19,2005
rather by right or by conditional use in a C-1 through C-3.
When you say by right or by conditional use, conditional use
isn't something that's allowed, it's a something that you have to come
and apply for and it's granted through a process. So are we changing
the way a conditional use now becomes reality by saying it's now
allowed in the GMP, or is it subject to the same conditions and
procedures as it is in those zoning districts, regardless of what the
GMP's saying here?
MR. WEEKS: Subject to the same LDC processes. The reason
for stating that was to make sure that if we only said the uses
permitted in the C-l zoning district, that might be interpreted as
permitted as in by right, thereby excluding conditional uses. So the
point was to make sure that all C-l uses are allowed --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Including--
MR. WEEKS: -- subject to LDC processes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On the next page there's a last
sentence of the paragraph, of the second paragraph under parcel two,
at the time of rezoning, the developer shall incorporate a detailed
landscape plan for the portion of the property fronting Vanderbilt
Beach Road. Does that mean it's going to be different than what our
code requires? Or is it -- because our code already requires detailed
landscape plans.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, more than likely it will be. But we
wanted to commit -- the residents had a concern of what are they
going to look at when they're driving down the road. And we said we
will have a graphic depiction of the cross-section so you will see what
you're going to get.
More than likely it will be more than the code minimum. But
you and -- most people can't visualize what does the code minimum
result in. It was a commitment that we would have the picture there so
they would understand it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is storage taken out, did I hear
Page 99
May 19,2005
you say?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Storage is gone.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's going to remove some
questions, so --
Concurrency. You have not been through a concurrency
review?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I personally have not.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You as the applicant's
representative, has the project been through a concurrency review?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it has not.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
This proj ect, should it go through, what do you think the time
tables are being requested?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would anticipate that we would not
get COs until October of '07.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's a similar situation that we
MR. YO V ANOVICH: That you've been doing all along
Vanderbilt Beach Road.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's all the questions I have,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions of the petitioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none at this time. Could we
hear from staff, please.
MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners. John David Moss,
Comprehensive Planning.
The only item that hasn't been touched on yet was something
that transpired at the neighborhood information meeting on April 13th.
Some of the residents, particularly those of Fieldstone Condominiums
that's in Wilshire Lakes PUD on the easterly portion of parcel two,
expressed concern about a buffer between any commercial
Page 100
May 19, 2005
development and their development. And it appears that this problem
has been addressed in the language now. They have agreed to put a
30-foot buffer on parcel number two to separate these two.
One other thing I just wanted to bring up real quickly is there
was a gentleman at the meeting, Mr. Stephen Shay, who was upset
that he had sent a letter to the Commissioners regarding this petition
that wasn't read into the record, and so as an alternative to reading it
verbatim into the record, you've been provided with a copy. And I
just wanted to make sure all of you did receive that.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm glad you didn't ask to
read it.
MR. MOSS: And that's really all I have to say. Staff is
recommending that petition be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Question. Mr--
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to -- as has already
been mentioned, I've taken the proposed changes submitted by the
petitioner and made some modifications to it. I don't know if you want
me to read the entire thing into the record. I read one paragraph a
while ago.
What I've done is wordsmithing. I've not eliminated any uses
they have proposed. What they had submitted in the revised language
which has been submitted to you, I simply wordsmithed it, changed
the format quite a bit. But it's not -- I don't consider it to be
substantive. But I would ask for your concurrence, if your motion is
to approve, and vote to allow staff to be able to do that, to make the
wordsmithing changes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. In the -- what appears
to be Exhibit V.E.1 and V.E.3 having to do with drainage, just out of
curiosity more than anything else, all others use the 2003 annual
updated inventory report, but for drainage for some reason we use
Page 101
May 19,2005
1999. Is that the latest data, is that why? Perhaps Mr. Weeks would
know that.
MR. MOSS: I'd like to defer to David Weeks to answer that.
Did you hear the question?
MR. WEEKS: No. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine, I'll repeat it. It has
to do with the drainage and the use of the AUIR for 1999, as opposed
to all of the others which are represented in 2003 data. So the
drainage -- my question is, is that the last data that we have for
drainage?
MR. WEEKS: No, it is not. We prepare an AUIR annually.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So why would we use 1999 I
guess is what I was curious about.
MR. WEEKS: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: I think that was a staff oversight of perhaps not
catching that and asking the petitioner to submit more recent data.
I will say that for drainage requirements at the comprehensive
plan stage, there's really not much to review for. The details occur at
the rezoning and even beyond that --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that.
MR. WEEKS: -- subsequent development.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It seemed to jump out at me that
that would be there. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any further questions of
staff?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just a comment.
David, you said you're going to wordsmith this?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, the last time -- the
last item that just came before us, we suggested adding a simple little
sentence that said you shall preserve the archeological sites, and they
Page 102
May 19, 2005
got all bent out of shape that we're going to change the text and
therefore it's going to cause problems with DCA. Well, why doesn't
that apply here?
MR. WEEKS: Well, I think two things: One, that was going
from a map amendment only to a text change. I think that was part of
the reason. Because DCA had not seen any text associated with that
amendment.
In this particular case, they have seen text already. And the
types of changes we're making are all more restrictive. They're
eliminating uses, they're increasing buffers. Everything is moving to
make the site less intense.
For that reason, I believe the commission will be supportive, as
well as the DCA.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the last one, DCA just got a
bunch of pictures?
MR. WEEKS: They got support data, but the actual -- what you
have voted on is a map change only.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, okay. So the meat of the
calculations and how that affected something necessarily didn't mean
DCA's reviewed that.
MR. WEEKS: They would have seen that information, just as
you have in the staff report and in the application package. But what
is voted on was a map change only. The various commitments they
had made are for just that, verbal commitments.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any registered public speakers
on this item?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any summary comments by the
petitioner?
Page 103
May 19,2005
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, but I think David wanted me to just
state on the record, they were kind of like reorganizational changes,
and we're fine with the wordsmithing he's made, and the way he
reorganized the district is fine.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With that, we'll close the public
hearing. Do we have a motion? Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that CP-2004-3 be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein. Do we have a
second?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a second by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David wants to say something.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh, Mr. Weeks.
MR. WEEKS: Just for the record, would the motion maker
reflect that that includes the changes made, the wordsmithing?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And the second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the second agrees.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion and second agree.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, as the sole vote against
this last time, I'm going to vote in favor of it this time because the
neighbors cleaned up all my problems.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, all those in favor of
the motion, signify by saying aye.
Page 104
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. It is unanimous.
It is now 11 :45, which is close enough to lunchtime, so we are
not going to start on the next agenda item, which is CP-2004-four.
We will take a one-hour lunch and be back here at 12:45 to resume the
business. Thank you.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we'll call the Planning
Commission back to order.
And before we start with our next GMP adoption item, we had
amended our agenda this morning that under Item 10, new business,
we would hear a proposal for an evening date for the Copeland area
rezone. And Mr. Weeks has just informed me that that request is no
longer valid; there will not need to be a date set for a Copeland area
rezone.
So for anybody that's listening through this entire exciting
Planning Commission meeting, waiting for that specific item, they no
longer need to.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification--
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. WEEKS: -- that will need to occur at a future date, but just
we don't have to set the date now.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.
Page 105
May 19,2005
MR. WEEKS: There will still be a requirement for you to have
an evening hearing for that rezone item, it's just that they're not as
close to being ready to go to hearing as we had thought. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. So we will then pick up with
agenda Item CP-2004-4; that is, a change to the rural fringe mixed use
district sending lands to add three TDR bonus provisions.
And Marti, I believe you're making the presentation on behalf of
the petitioner.
MS. CHUMBLER: I am. I'm at least starting the show on this.
Marti Chumbler, outside land use counsel for the county.
And I'd like to start making with just some general comments
that are equally applicable to the compo plan amendments and to the
LDR provisions, which are a later agenda item.
But obviously as you all are well aware, we've brought to you
today both the Compo Plan Amendments -- at your suggestion,
brought to you both today the compo plan amendments themselves, as
well as the LDR implementing provisions, so you see them as a
complete package.
The idea -- and I'm responding somewhat to some of the
comments that were made earlier this morning. I understand there's
some concern about what does the creation of these new bonus credits
do to the TDR credits themselves; what does it do to the sending
landowner.
And I think it's important to understand that you have really
competing interests here. You've got the sending landowner, who
really their interest is how much money can I get for each unit that's
removed from my property, meaning each residential unit.
The developer, on the other hand, is interested in how many
units can I build in receiving land. So they have different positions
here. They look at this from different scenarios.
What we're trying to do is create a circumstance where the
interest of the sending landowner, in maximizing the value they can
Page 106
May 19,2005
get from their property and the interest of the development community
to maximize the number of units they can build in receiving land, are
sufficiently meeting in the middle in terms of the values they need that
there is in fact -- there are in fact transactions.
Right now that's not happening. Right now the value that the
sending land property owners are asking for their TD R units are so
much and translate into so few units in receiving, the developer -- the
development community has not economically been willing to pay the
price. So we're trying to make a situation where there's a market
meeting and those transactions can occur.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Marti, what is the price; do you
know?
MS. CHUMBLER: My understanding, and perhaps Mr.
Anderson can speak to this better, but my understanding is -- price for
a TDR unit in the market right now, Bruce?
No, that's the minimum. No, what people are asking for a TDR
unit right now, to sell their TDR unit.
No one's been willing to sell them at the price that the
development community has been willing to pay. And Mr. Anderson
I think is better prepared to respond to exactly what prices the
development community has been able to -- willing to pay.
But I think he can also tell you what value is attributed to getting
that extra unit. And that's really what it comes down to, what is an
extra unit worth in receiving land. And you can't just look at what
they're going to sell that unit for, obviously, because they've got to pay
the under -- buy the underlying property, they've got other costs
involved in addition to purchasing a TDR credit.
So that what the development community is looking at is what is
the value of an additional unit. And it's the price that I'm having to
pay for the TDR credit, makes sense for me to buy that extra unit. If it
doesn't, they're not going to buy it, regardless of what the -- I mean, if
the TDR seller is asking for a price that's more than the value of that
Page 107
May 19,2005
extra unit to the developer, the developer's not going to pay the price.
That's just what it is.
So what we've tried to do is expand the opportunities for value to
the sending owner. And in order to do that we needed to create the
opportunity for the developer to get more units. So we've created
several different new categories of credits. Keeping in mind, we have
the base TDR credit that you can remove one TDR credit for every
five acres from sending or legal nonconforming lot less than five
acres.
Now, let's talk for a minute outside of rural villages. And that's
it right now. What we propose to add is an early entry bonus.
Originally we had thought to make that early entry bonus available for
a five-year period, but at the advice of Dr. Nicholas, we decided that
five years was too long. People were going to still wait to see what
happens, and so we ratcheted that back down to a three-year period.
So someone who removes TDR's, removes units from their
property during the first three years will get one extra bonus credit.
We've also then -- yes?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where are we in that time
frame?
MS. CHUMBLER: It starts from the time that these compo plan
provisions -- or implementing LDR's go into effect. But it's also,
we're going to grandfather it back to the first -- in other words, if
somebody were to today, before the LDR and compo plan amendments
were adopted, remove a TDR unit from their property, and later this
summer the LDR's go into effect, they could still get the value of that
-- they would be considered within that three-year period.
But the three years runs from the effective date of the
implementing land development regulations. Which is one of the
reasons why we wanted to pair these compo plan amendments and land
development regulations together, so that we could immediately start
into that program.
Page 108
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Marti?
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here.
I feel sort of like I'm flying in an airplane and it's going through
clouds. I mean, if you don't know what the gap is between the
meeting of the minds between buyers and sellers, I would have
thought that before you created this elaborate scheme, you'd know
what kind of dollars people are talking about. I mean, this is what
makes the world run, not these provisions, but it's dollars.
But if you don't know what the gap is, how do you know how
many of these gimmicks, provisions, you need to create?
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, let me first caution you. I mean, it's
easy to do the strict mathematical calculation to say you've now
created four units, or if you're in a rural village five units where you
used to have one. But strictly that's not correct.
Keep in mind that two of those new bonus credits that we're
creating, the environmental restoration and the conveyance bonus are
not going to be used as often and maybe very infrequently used.
Because there's a price tag connected to them. Unlike the early entry
bonus that you get automatically if you act quickly, these are going to
cost somebody some bucks. It's going to cost you money to do that
environmental restoration, and that's not anything to sneeze at.
The conveyance bonus, if you take advantage of that, that means
you're giving up your property. A lot of people are not going to want
to do that.
So while, yes, those are options out there, and the county has
done some calculations showing a 50 percent participation rate in
those additional bonuses, I think that 50 percent is extremely high. I
don't think you're going to see anything like that in the first 25 years
of this program.
Keep in mind that Montgom -- as Dr. Nicholas has testified, I'm
not sure if it was before this body but before other bodies, in
Page 109
..~~--_.. "
May 19,2005
Montgomery County, Maryland, a program that's been in effect for 30
years, they have yet to reach 80 percent participation in just the base
TDR program.
So yes, those two are options, but those two are really there.
And perhaps Nancy or Brad will speak to these when they testify.
Those are really there to achieve slightly different goals. Because if
you all will recall, when we adopted the TDR program to begin with,
there was some public testimony that yes, you're going to preserve
some sending land by removing development potential off of them,
but what's going to happen to that land? It's just going to sit there, the
exotics are going to get worse, you're going to have not as good a
situation as you might have now, if you have a responsible property
owner, but it will be the same.
So what we've done is we said okay, we want to give some
people incentive. If they will agree to remove the exotics from their
property, they get a little bonus for that.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are there some precedence
somewhere in the United States that indicate that this dog will hunt
with these additional incentives thrown in?
MS. CHUMBLER: Not that I'm aware of. Certainly Dr.
Nicholas has not mentioned to us other incidences where they've
created bonuses for this purpose.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The County Commission
has said there's not going to be any more than these for another three
years?
MS. CHUMBLER: Right. Not for -- I'm not sure if they put
three years on it, but for a period of time. And certainly staff is
strongly recommending that we let this attempt, these changes go to
see what happens.
Dr. Nicholas has said that if these don't work, you may just need
to decide, well, the TDR program is not working.
Although, you know, when you say it's not working, keep in
Page 110
May 19,2005
mind what the purpose of the TDR program was. The purpose of the
TDR program was to ensure that people who are now finding
themselves with less development rights on their property because of
the designation of sending lands and the delineation of certain
properties as one deserving of conservation and preservation would
get some potential for value back, some opportunity to regain that
value.
If people choose not to take advantage of it, it doesn't mean the
TDR program has failed, it doesn't mean the whole thing has failed, it
just means that people have decided not to exercise that option.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. That's putting the
best face on it, I'd say. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Your comparison, you said, was
in Montgomery somewhere?
MS. CHUMBLER: Montgomery County, Maryland. That was
one of the programs that Dr. Nicholas has testified about.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What's the average home price in
Montgomery County, Maryland?
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, obviously Montgomery County is a
subdivision community of Washington DC. I can't give the --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's a --
MS. CHUMBLER: -- price. I would say very expensive --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, yeah, that'd be higher -- the
average pnce --
MS. CHUMBLER: But he used that --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- would be higher--
MS. CHUMBLER: He used that --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- than 468, right?
MS. CHUMBLER: He used that as an example. In the
beginning, and I'm talking several years ago when Dr. Nicholas first
came here and testified to this body, is it was one of the first TDR
programs in the nation. And it was formed for somewhat the same
Page 111
May 19,2005
purposes as this one was, which was to preserve not only natural areas
but also to ensure that agricultural areas were not prematurely
converted to residential development. Which was exactly the charge
the government cabinet gave to Collier County when it began looking
at the TDR program.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further presentation?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one question.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reduction of greenbelt, is
that something you worked on, or --
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, it is.
And I think it's important to note there, that came out of
comments that were received this summer. And in part, when the
suggestion was made that we reduce the greenbelt, one of the things
we looked at is well, what did we do in the eastern lands?
And in fact, in the eastern lands for developments there, towns,
hamlets, villages, the surrounding buffer open zone is 300, except for
adjacent to the Camp Keais Strand. So this reduction is really akin to
what we already have in place in the eastern lands.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes. Marti, on, let's see, looks
like E, public facilities, but just above it, actually, in growth
management. And I don't know what page that is, but it says possibly
-- and the question is, does the proposed amendment create a
significant impact in population, which is defined as potential increase
in county-wide population by more than five percent of population
projections?
And the hedge was possibly. Is that based on what you have just
Page 112
May 19,2005
told us, that if it takes off, it will just possibly go to town?
MS. CHUMBLER: Exactly. I mean, if you had just raging rush
to the county to sever TDR's, which we don't expect, you might see
that.
But based upon our review, our research and Dr. Nicholas's
input to us on what participation rates have been in TDR programs
throughout the country, we don't expect that to happen.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the event, though, that those
projections, that there's no stopping us once we begin that process, if
that were to occur, and I know it's not likely, but is there anything in
there to stop that --
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I mean, even though we're urging the
county commission not to tinker with this program for a number of
years, if in fact it turns out that you just got -- you have, you know,
rampant development, much beyond what -- anything what we
expected, the county commission can always revisit it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we would remain mindful,
that's the --
MS. CHUMBLER: Right, exactly.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there any further presentation?
MS. CHUMBLER: Bruce, Nancy? Do you all want to make
any further presentations? These are co-petitions. This was actually a
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I understand you have co-petitioners. If
there's no further presentation, I'm sure you'll be around for questions.
Okay, if we could -- well, does that count as a staff presentation?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, that does.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So that's our petitioner and staff
presentation.
Page 113
May 19,2005
Are there any registered speakers?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes. Which also happen to be
co-petitioners, Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, Nancy is passing.
Brad, do you have something?
MR. CORNELL: Only to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, nothing at this time.
We will then go to questions. Mr. Strain, you had some
questions?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Scott, could I ask you some
questions about the impact this mess is going to have on the rural
fringe? Oh, I'm sorry, I shouldn't foresay what I'm thinking.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Prejudging.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don -- Don Scott for the record,
by the way.
A couple of weeks ago 11,000 units and 1.2 million square feet
in retail were more or less reserved for capacity on our road system.
MR. SCOTT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Main roads being Oil Well Road,
Immokalee Road, places like that.
Being as how that area is preserved, that amount's reserved right
now, how does this quadrupling of density in the rural fringe have the
availability to go forward on roads that are in the same area?
MR. SCOTT: If you're looking out beyond -- I mean, some of
the issues we're dealing with through the update of the long-range
plan. And also, in conjunction with that, we're modeling the build-out
study. And obviously a lot of the projections that came out of that
assumes this. And we're still looking at the implications of that.
I don't have a real direct answer at the moment as to what all the
implications of that are at this point.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So we don't know what the
implications of this quadrupling ofTDR's will have on the
Page 114
May 19,2005
infrastructure involving the road system?
MR. SCOTT: No. Not particularly -- you know, the model
from the aspect of the old model, it was great for west of 951; was
terrible east of 951. And that's the process we're going through right
now, to try to get all that updated.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And based on the fact that staff
earlier said they did not bother to respond to concerns of some
agencies when they mentioned potable water facility shortages, or let's
not say shortages, analyses that are consistent with 9(J)(5) and
9(J)(11), we didn't respond to those concerns, so we don't know if the
water then -- situation that Mrs. Caron brought up earlier is also
addressed for infrastructure.
MR. SCOTT: Same thing. They're dealing with the issue of the
-- essentially the east of951 study, if you want to look at it that way,
or even the long-range plan and the build-out. I'm still analyzing
many different corridors that you'll be seeing over the next several
months, so --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There was a paper done by Talon
Management in which they came up with a number of units. And
there was another paper done by Mr. Vega, Mr. Vega's units. I think
he estimated 71,000, could be. Talon had a little different number.
What persons per household would be used in an area like that;
do you know?
MR. SCOTT: David, do you recall?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: EPH or the rural fringe area?
MR. WEEKS: I don't recall the specific number offhand. I do
know that it was a little bit apples and oranges. The number we used
was what's referred to as a person's per total dwelling unit ratio.
Now, the difference is, a person's per household is the permanent
population divided by the number of occupied dwelling units. Persons
per total dwelling unit is that same permanent population, but divided
by all dwelling units, whether they're occupied or unoccupied. Now,
Page 115
May 19,2005
seasonally occupied units are classified as vacant or unoccupied.
The distinction here is that the persons per total dwelling unit
ratio is always going to be lower than your persons per household
ratio, unless you happen to have 100 percent occupancy, which does
not exist in this county. On any of the tracts in different geographies.
My recollection is that figure was something like 1.6.
Something like that, somewhere around 1.6 persons per total dwelling
unit. Again, I don't have the persons per household, but that would be
higher.
MR. DUANE: I do have the -- Robert Duane, for the record,
representing the co-applicant.
The data that we used, David, was 2.66 units for each -- per
single-family, and it was 2.5 or 2.52 persons for multi-family units.
And we didn't assume an occupancy level in the impact analysis that
we did, we just assumed 100 percent, therefore making a worst case
scenano.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Why did you choose to look at a
worst case scenario? You think that's something that you'd normally
want to use as a worst case?
MR. DUANE: Well, we -- you may -- I believe you reviewed
my public facilities application analysis in some detail. It was 10 or
15 pages of equations. And we made a number of assumptions. But
with regard to water, we felt very comfortable that the improvements
that were made to the treatment plants in those areas were more than
sufficient to accommodate the increased population that would result
from this amendment. I can go into more detail and give you the
gallons and the other improvements that are --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I wasn't even going there. I was
purely interested in how you came up with your persons per
household calculation. I'm not complaining about it, I'm not saying it's
right or wrong, I'm just curious as to what you came up with, why you
came up with it, and how you said that it was a conservative or a
Page 116
May 19,2005
maximum that you potentially would expect, a worst case scenario,
and you used it for that reason, so --
MR. DUANE: And I got that data from the planning department
as their estimate of the average person per household for single and
Illlllti-jf(lIllil)r.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The rural fringe goes all the way
up and borders a stewardship receiving area, right -- or stewardship
sending -- SSD, a stewardship --
MR. DUANE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. DUANE: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions for staff? Yes, sir,
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for Mr. Anderson. And
truly to get a better understanding of the supply and demand of these
things, you were asked the question when you were in the audience
what the value was and you said none had been sold. So do we know
what the supply and the demand for TDR's are?
MR. ANDERSON: The numbers that I have been hearing, that
people are paying for buying title to the land that will have a TDR, as
opposed to buying the TDR itself, has --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially buying the land
and giving themselves the TDR off that land --
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- severing it.
MR. ANDERSON: Has been selling for between 15 and
$20,000 an acre.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they need five usually to
get this TD R, correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Five acres? Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So multiply that times five,
that's the value of the TDR. And you'll wind up owning the land still.
Page 11 7
May 19,2005
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do you know what -- is
there a demand out there? Are there people that are coming and
saying I can't get a TDR, I'm looking for them, or--
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, yes. I mean, that was the whole genesis
for this amendment was that there was no movement to sell TDR's. I
mean, people didn't understand, you know, severing a TDR from my
land and I still keep the land, but I put a conservation easement on it
and I can still use it for what I've used it for, but -- people had a hard
time understanding that, I think. But they do understand selling their
land.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Or gifting it; in this
case.
So we don't really know what -- I mean, there is no -- I mean,
how many TDR's have been recorded? They are required to be
recorded, correct?
MR. LITSINGER: None yet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: None. So -- okay. So we don't
know what the market will bear.
MR. ANDERSON: No. Of course, the county established a
minimum for the base TDR of $25,000. And of course that's -- if
anybody could find one for that, why they'd snap them right up.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I'm confused
because it appears -- if none have been recorded, the only people that
are really interested are people that are buying land that they will
ultimately sever the TDR from. That's the only action we're having,
correct?
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, and let me just comment that
according to Dr. Nicholas, that's not unusual. That oftentimes, at the
beginning of a program like this, because people are not accustomed
to it, what oftentimes happens at the beginning of the program, when
there's still a certain amount of uncertainty about what all this means,
Page 118
May 19,2005
it's not -- what you frequently find is the people who want to purchase
the TDR's end up having to buy the underlying dirt and then severing
it themselves.
And then after people become comfortable that yes, I see how
that's working, the sending landowners become more comfortable with
the idea that they can sever off the TDR's and continue to own their
property and have some uses on that property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the person who's buying it,
though, he can sever it and get the TDR. Ifhe does it quickly, he gets
the bonus. The conservation -- I mean, the maintenance of it, how
much is that? Do we know what that costs?
MS. CHUMBLER: That's going to be --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then on the --
MS. CHUMBLER: It's going to be very site specific. It
depends on the amount of exotics on the property. It depends on
whether there's any, you know, other types of restoration that needs to
grow on that property. It depends on how large the property is. It
depends on how accessible the property is to roads.
There are any number of things that will -- that come into play in
determining how expensive it's going to be for that piece of property
to be restored and then maintained.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then once he restores it, he
could then donate it to some government agency.
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would he have to restore it
prior to donating it, or --
MS. CHUMBLER: No, one of the provisions -- because most
governmental agencies are going to have their own restoration plan --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MS. CHUMBLER: -- that they want to apply so that they could
do the two together. And as long as there isn't a restoration plan in
place, whether it's one they're funding or one the governmental
Page 119
May 19,2005
agency's going to fund, they could get both credits.
But again, you've got to find a government agency who's willing
-- I mean, there's not every piece of property that the government's
going to want.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions?
MS. CHUMBLER: Let me just point out, Stan reminded me of
one thing I neglected to point out to you.
There is one wording change that we are going to suggest for
clarification purposes. And of course I'm sure I don't have the same
page numbering that you do, since I have yet to have the page
numbering.
But this would be under rural villages, sizes and density. And
there is a reference to the whole -- this is 3-B, which in its entirety
reads, the additional density necessary to achieve the minimum
required density for a rural village shall be achieved by -- and then
we've stricken some language and we add, any combination ofTDR
credits and TDR bonus credits.
And then the next sentence is where the change is, for each TDR
credit acquired for use in achieving the minimum density in a rural
village, currently we have one TDR bonus credit shall be granted.
We want to be careful, in thinking about this some more, to
distinguish between that additional bonus unit you get in rural villages
from TDR credits. Because they really aren't TDR bonus credits,
they're really rural village bonus units.
So our suggestion is rather than calling them TDR bonus units
there, we would call them rural village bonus units. And it's really an
attempt to make sure that our language is as clear as possible
throughout, and we've distinguished all these various bonus and bonus
units in a -- through the language that's consistently used.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that would to be to make
sure that the maximum is five in the rural village, not eight, thati
Page 120
May 19,2005
somebody could confuse it with.
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, there's two reasons: One, to make it
that unlike the other, the TDR credits and the TDR bonus credits,
there's not going to be a certificate that someone gets from the county
for this that they can sell later. This is a bonus unit that the developer
gets when he goes in and uses TDR's, which he has to, to put in a rural
village. This is a bonus to the developer for doing a rural village,
which is preferred because it's going to be more concentrated,
self-contained development than would be development outside of a
rural village.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you be more specific
about what the conservation credit means? How clean does the
property have to be? And is that in perpetuity? Because that sounds
like it's a pretty awesome responsibility.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yeah, we struggled with that as well. And
if you look in the Land Development Code. Let me see if I can turn to
it quickly. There's a provision that's really driven by how long the
security bond -- how long a period the security bonds has to last. And
I believe it's -- did we come up with 20 or 25 years?
MR. LIT SINGER: It's based on the RF -- RMP. And we went
to a surety bond relative to performance under the RMP until
achievement of the RMP goals, or until such time as it was conveyed
to one of the identified agencies.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So the person would have to
purchase a bond?
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
MR. LIT SINGER: Surety bond.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And we have no idea how much
the bond is going to cost?
MS. CHUMBLER: Again, it depends upon what the cost is of
the restoration.
Page 121
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It could be more than $25,000?
MS. CHUMBLER: It could be.
Of course, remember, the bond is going to be for the whole
acreage. So it's likely you're going to be seeing these -- in fact, the
likelihood is that these environmental restoration and conveyance
bonus credits are going to arise not from your five-acre parcels but
from your larger parcels.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We've heard from the petitioner's joint
team.
Mr. Anderson, further comments?
MR. ANDERSON: I wanted to share with Mrs. Caron
particularly that the water and sewer infrastructure requirements for
the rural fringe, when the rural fringe amendments were originally
adopted, were based on, and the water sewer district boundaries
redrawn, based on a build-out at the maximum densities authorized by
the rural fringe plan. And this amendment does nothing to change the
maximum densities that are authorized.
And impact fees for water and sewer have been based on a
build-out of the water and sewer systems, the plants, to accommodate
the maximum density.
So at least insofar as water and sewer are concerned, those have
been looked at with some particularity by the county staff. And Mr.
Litsinger can confirm that.
MR. LITSINGER: He is correct in his statement.
The original water and sewer master planning process associated
with the adoption of the rural fringe mixed use district did use the
maximum size rural villages that we have provided for both the 315 --
100-acre and the l25-acre in drawing the new rural fringe water and
sewer district. And their calculations and master planning process has
been based primarily on the maximum numbers, in order to be
Page 122
May 19, 2005
conservative and plan on the worst case scenario.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But you did not have these
additional three bonuses at that time factoring --
MR. LITSINGER: As we stated, Ms. Caron, we have not
changed the maximum potential density that the receiving lands may
absorb. What we're essentially doing here is creating the opportunity
to approach those densities through viable development scenarios and
a viable market and TDR's which will make those development
scenarios possible.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What's the population cap you
were using for the rural fringe?
MR. LIT SINGER: I don't have that handy with me at the
moment.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, okay.
And we didn't answer in response to South Florida Water
Management District's concern over the water issue so -- yet you're
telling us we did have the information, we just don't want to tell them
what it is.
Okay, just trying to understand for the record, thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Wouldn't they have been provided that
when the rural fringe plan was originally transmitted?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, they were.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And they could have answered
the question then to South Florida --
MR. ANDERSON: If they'd looked at their old records, sure.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, we could have --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, we.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- answered the questions if we
looked at the old records, couldn't we? If it was there.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further questions?
(No response.)
Page 123
May 19,2005
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any concluding comments by the joint
petitioner's teams?
MR. ANDERSON: Just to encapsulate. Remember that the
TDR program is a means to an end; the end being the conservation of
environmentally sensitive lands. This is not a chicken and egg
situation or question. There can be no TDR unless and until a
conservation easement is recorded to preserve the property in
perpetuity .
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So with that, we've heard from
registered public speakers, the petitioner, the staff. Our questions.
We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll make a motion that we
forward Petition CP-2004-4 to the Collier County Commission with a
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: A motion to approve by Mr. Midney,
second by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Mr. Chairman, this is a
quadrupling of the TDR system, reducing the park acreage by 33
percent, reducing the greenbelts by 33 percent. They're using
additionally, besides that being crediting the TDR's, they're going to
now double dip by using it for mitigation with other agencies, which is
only going to allow more development in more areas that now have
that mitigation available.
We've got statements today that we haven't had a road analysis
to see how the concurrency's going to pan out with this rural fringe
being built out and the phasing or the timing.
We don't have utility verification in response to south Florida.
And all this is, the development community simply wants more for
less so they can retain higher profits. And I just -- I cannot go along
with the motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion?
Page 124
May 19,2005
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The reason why I think this is a
good idea is because I think that the expansion of the TDR's is the
only way to promote the conservation of the environmentally valuable
lands, and that is by clustering development. Because if we leave it
the way it is, one house per five acres, it's going to end up putting
more strain on our road systems than clustering mixed development
will, because you'll have commercial in the clustering and the rural
villages.
And I also am going on what Ms. Chamblis (sic) and Dr.
Nicholas stated, that there's likely to be a low utilization of these TDR
credits, but that's the more likely scenario.
And just to Summit, it's very cloudy the way it is right now, but
to me the alternative is worse.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll call the question.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, if we could go by hand. Those in
favor of the motion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: (Indicating.)
Page 125
,--...-.....' ".--.......---......-.,
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: It is four.
Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have four.
Motion does not carry, we have a tie.
Yes, ma'am?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I also want to point out that under
the special act that we still have from years ago that govern the
planning commission to adopt compo plan amendments, you need to
have five votes anyway.
So that doesn't really make it an issue here, because it's 4-4 and
it doesn't carry. But I just wanted to put that on the record to remind
the Planning Commission, that you need to not just have a majority of
those that are here today but a majority of the full complement under
the special act.
It doesn't matter, I just wanted to put it on the record.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. So is it acceptable for us to
have a tie vote, motion fails and our business on this issue is done, or
do we need to have an affirmative action either in approval or
rej ection?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think I'd try another one, you
know, on the approval side and see what happens and then it's clear
that it's --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we'll try both ways.
So then there is someone to make a contrary motion we'll take
action on?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll make a motion we deny--
Page 126
May 19,2005
recommend a denial for CP-2004--
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Strain, second
by Mr. Adelstein.
Any insightful discussion that would change someone's vote so
that we could have a positive action?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just ask one thing,
Mark. What if we -- first of all, of the four bonuses, one of them does
sunset, which is the three-year thing.
And the second thing, what if we added more dimension back to
the greenbelt, would you be more in favor of the thing, or --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're encouraging development
in areas we don't even -- we have a road system now that's failed. We
have a series of utility questions not even answered. We've got a huge,
huge development going east of town that's going to have huge
impacts on the road system. And now we want to put more on by
quadrupling a system that we don't really need to encourage? I just
can't -- no, I mean, I see no reason to change my motion, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But one of the points Paul
made, which I think is strong is it is an anti-sprawl way to develop.
We're going to be building these dense rural villages, the villages are
going to eliminate traffic on the road by providing the necessities
within the village itself. And we're missing an opportunity -- we're
not going to develop -- I mean, right now it's going to be developed
one per five acres. That's a massive sprawl across the --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're making an assumption on
that. And even if it did, I'm not sure that's wrong. I think a lot of
people living in these one to five acres are living in a much more
environmentally sensitive manner than we're going to see benefitting
from what small areas and sending areas are going to -- yeah, sending
areas are going to get out of this.
I mean, you don't develop an entire five-acre parcel when you
Page 127
May 19,2005
build a house on it. You have preservation requirements or maximum
clearing requirements on that parcel now.
So pieces of everything are still going to be there.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We seem to have this
fixation on doing something about tie votes. N ow we have a motion
to deny, in effect. How in the world is that going to garner five votes
in favor of it? The most that you would get are people against the
motion to deny, and that does not amount to a vote in favor. How
many times do we have to kick this horse?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's part of the --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We do the --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I know you were. What's
the point?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Hold on, hold on. Everybody be quiet.
One at a time.
Mr. Abernathy, you had comments. Please complete your
comments.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm asking Marjorie, what's
the point of this vote?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I suppose it's okay just to leave it
as it was then and just that it fails.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, we have a motion on the floor that
we need to dispense with.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll call the question.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We have a motion to deny. All
those in favor, say aye and raise your hand, please.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have three.
Page 128
May 19,2005
Mr. Abernathy, were you in approval of the motion to deny?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'm not in favor of
having the motion, but I'm in favor of denying, so I guess I'll --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, so we have four in favor of the
motion.
Those opposed, say aye, raise your hand.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
It is again a 4-4 tie. Weare done with that agenda item.
Moving on to the next item. That will be CP-2004-5, the Davis
Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use neighborhood subdistrict.
Can we hear from the petitioner, please.
MR. MURRAY: Hello. I'm Don Murray with Coastal
Engineering Consultants, and I'm here representing the client today for
this petition for a Growth Management Amendment to change this
property which is located at County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard.
The request is to amend the Land Development Code and the
map to provide a -- what we're calling the Davis Boulevard/County
Barn Road mixed use neighborhood subdistrict.
This petition has not changed much since it was here before.
There was one change that you requested, and that was to take the
height cap off the size of the buildings, or the height of the building.
That was agreed to.
And then before the Board of County Commissioners the board
requested that the petitioner look at providing 10 percent affordable,
10 percent workforce housing for any number of units above the base
density of four units per acre.
The petitioner had no problem with that, agreed to that, and
that's where we are today. We're back to you.
And rather than go through all this, unless you'd like me to, I'll
Page 129
May 19,2005
open it up to questions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions would be excellent.
Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the height
requirement now?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The height requirement? It's
based on the compatibility of existing structures in the area. I think
that was the issue. We came in, we asked for five stories. The ALF
that's located across Davis Boulevard just to the north is four stories in
height, so we had no problem with just eliminating that and bringing it
back at the time that we do a planned unit development for this
project.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A simple one, perhaps. But in
the application, I note under general location, it's for South Naples. Is
that the legitimate designation for the area? That's commonly known,
to my knowledge, as being East Naples. Is that a question that's valid
here, or is it just a matter of conversation?
MR. MURRAY: Probably a matter of conversation. It's
probably -- it's more I guess borderline South Naples. I don't
remember the exact boundary.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. WEEKS: In response to that question, the subj ect property
is located within the South Naples planning community. The county
staff -- well, county government has divided the unincorporated area
into 12 planning communities. This lies within South Naples.
I think in a more generic sense of how a person such as yourself,
Mr. Murray, that resides in East Naples or what you consider East
Naples, you might have a -- your own I call it unofficial or layman's --
I don't mean to be offensive in any way, but your own definition of
what East Naples is to you. But that is different than the official --
Page 130
.----.- _.'. ~ -..-,---.------.'.
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's official.
MR. WEEKS: -- planning community.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm looking to find
out.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
Further questions?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got a couple.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Probably more of staff than there
are of you. But maybe as the representative of the applicant, you
won't have any problem with this.
Under the general criteria, it says, rezoning is encouraged to be
in the form of a PUD. If it is -- if it were to read rezoning shall be in
the form of a PUD, I think there'd be a lot better control over what--
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Marjorie's hand is going up.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Yes, Marjorie?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: This has come up before. There's
case law that a local government cannot require somebody to do a
PUD if they don't want to. So that's why we've consistently used
preferred in the comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll try to remember
that next time, thank you.
Under the -- part of your description of your project, you're
getting into issues of interconnectivity and you're surrounded by
Seagate (sic) School, if I'm not mistaken, on all sides; Davis on one
and County Barn on the other, so there is no property around you that
is not school.
And I don't think it would be a good thing to have any kind of
interconnectivity between a school yard and commercial or residential
of this nature.
So I was wondering, do you have any objection if we took out
interconnectivity of either pedestrian, bicycle or roadways?
Page 131
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we're working on doing a
joint access with the church to the south, but we have no objections to
not having an interconnection with the Seagate School property.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Seacrest.
MR. MURRAY: I'm sorry, Seacrest.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Seacrest. I'm sorry. Yeah.
Is there a way to word that into this, David?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, I'm sure there is. I'm going to take a look at
it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Caught you sleeping, huh?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're providing -- just to
interject, we're providing buffers along the east side, and there are
some wetlands, so that's not a problem. And we have discussed it with
Seacrest, and they have no problem with the potential design.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's all I had. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other questions for the
petitioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none.
Ifwe could hear from staff, please?
MR. WEEKS: F or the record again, since I'm standing at the
podium now, David Weeks, planning manager in the comprehensive
planning department. And I'm pinch hitting again for someone, for
Glenn Heath, who's no longer working for us.
Not a lot to say here. This petition is patterned after the
residential mixed use neighborhood subdistrict that was just adopted
about a year ago. The specific reason that this specific petition has to
be before you, asking for their own plan amendment, is because
number one, they don't meet the spacing criteria. They're less than a
half mile from some commercial zoning to the west of the site on
Davis Boulevard. And secondly, the ratio of residential to commercial
Page 132
May 19,2005
acreage is also a little bit different, a little bit higher ratio of
commercial than that particular residential mixed use neighborhood
subdistrict.
So that is the reason they have to be before us in the first place.
If they could comply with that existing subdistrict, they could simply
come before you as a rezone petition.
Staff has recommended approval before. As Don's already
noted, staff inadvertently failed to remove the height provision within
there, and that's being corrected. Other than that, we still support the
petition.
In response to Commissioner Strain's comment, I'm taking a
look at the language here to see what we need to remove regarding the
interconnection.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none.
Are there any registered public speakers on this item?
MR. LITSINGER: No, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none.
Any summary comments by the petitioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There appear to be none. We will close
the public hearing.
Do we have a motion on this item?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that CP-2004-5 be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And I will accept language
from the staff.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Adelstein, a
Page 133
May 19,2005
second by Mr. Murray for adoption, approval for adoption. Is there
further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There is none. We'll call the question.
All those in favor of the item, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: It is unanimous, 8-0.
MR. MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And they said it couldn't be done.
Next agenda item is CPSP-2004-7, amendments to the future
land use element and future land use map and map series, Golden Gate
area master plan element, future land use map and map series, capital
improvement element and so forth.
Mr. Weeks, you'll be making the presentation?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. And I'll just jump right in and say these
are primarily of a housecleaning nature, and I'll leave it at that. And if
you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Probably the best presentation all day.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have no questions. I have read it.
I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are no questions. Is there any
Page 134
".....'''....-.....-..'.'
May 19,2005
registered public speaker?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. There being no further
information on this topic, we'll close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. I make a
motion we move CPSP-2004-7 with a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Schiffer, second by Mr.
Adelstein with a recommendation to adopt. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries unanimous, 8-0.
So we have completed agenda Item D and we move back to
agenda Item 8(C), amendments continued separately in the advertised
meeting from April 27th.
Who's making a presentation on that item?
MS. CHUMBLER: And I apologize, I assume we're on -- this is
20308?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes.
MS. CHUMBLER: Then this obviously is -- or the -- to some
extent at least, there are some different provisions, but to some extent
Page 135
May 19,2005
these are the proposed land development regulations implementing the
TDR bonus provisions that we've just talked about.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you're not doing -- the first
one in my book is the affordable housing issue. You're not doing that
one?
MS. CHUMBLER: So I got called up too early then.
MR. LIT SINGER: I'm not aware of the affordable housing
Issue.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought we had 10802 --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, definition for -- to amend
the definitions of housing workforce? Housing -- affordable.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's Susan Golden.
MS. GOLDEN: Did the Planning Commission get Cormac's
revised definition?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Not that I recall.
MS. GOLDEN: If you don't have this -- I'm also pinch hitting.
This is a revision, and again, I'm not sure whether or not you received
it in your packet for affordable workforce housing --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Don't tell us anymore until you're at the
microphone and identify yourself for us, please.
MS. GOLDEN: Do you already have that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have it. Yes, I have it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
MS. GOLDEN: Susan Golden from Financial Administration
and Housing. I'm here on behalf of Cormac Giblin.
There were some minor changes that were made to the definition
at the last affordable housing workshop meeting, which was a week
ago today. And I'm available to answer any questions that you may
have regarding the material that I just provided you with.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions?
Mr. Strain?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, no, I'm not quite a speed
Page 136
May 19,2005
reader, so give me a second here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, I already had this document. I
don't know how I came across it, but I already had it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, there seems to be a minor
difference.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This is the old one.
MS. GOLDEN: There may just be a few minor changes from
the county attorney's office as of late last week.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would have a question, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I note now they're all -- the
definition's now all workforce housing. We no longer have affordable
housing.
MS. GOLDEN: It's affordable workforce housing. It's a more
inclusive definition. So that there's not a distinction between
affordable housing and workforce housing, but they specifically target
income ranges, which I believe is what your prior description also
included.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Heretofore I have
understood that like 63,000 gets you into workforce, and it doesn't
have any supplement from any governmental agency or any other
support. And so it's effectively free market housing on a certain level.
But now when we speak of workforce, we're including
everybody; is that right?
MS. GOLDEN: We're including everybody from no income or
people that are on fixed incomes. You know, $400 a month in Social
Security disability, all the way up to a family that may earn 100
percent of median income, which is currently $63,300.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I'm not objecting to this, I'm
just a little confused about the politics of it. Originally the term
workforce came about because nobody wanted to use the word
Page 137
May 19,2005
affordable.
MS. GOLDEN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So now you're combining the two
words together. Are we accomplishing anything?
MS. GOLDEN: I'm not sure. It may just be a matter of
semantics. But I think what happened, if you recall, in Commissioner
Fiala's workforce housing committee, we did talk about a distinction
between the two. There were some concerns from people who felt that
they were representing the affordable housing community, that they
were somehow being ignored when we discussed workforce. Because
people may be working in this community on a full-time basis and yet
only earning 12 or $16,000 a year. So we don't want to exclude the
very low income that are also working and contributing.
And the decision was made last Thursday at the affordable
housing commission to make the term more inclusive by referring to
any of the below market rate housing that's constructed or moderately
priced dwelling units, whatever term people prefer, to just making that
inclusive and calling it affordable workforce housing.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Again, I don't have any problem
with what you're proposing, I'm just wondering if you're going to
accomplish the goal. That's fine, thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just--
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to be anal about this, what
you just said is that should we down below where we have owner
occupied workforce housing, should you add affordable prior to
workforce on that? Just to be consistent.
MS. GOLDEN: That's probably something that the county
attorney's office would, yes, point out later. They didn't catch that, but
we'll add that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you're also creating
Page 138
May 19,2005
these categories like very low income, low income?
MS. GOLDEN: The categories are really based on some of the
HUD definitions and the funding sources that are utilized. There are
different funding sources available for people in that 51 to 60 percent
of median income. Once you get into 61 to 80 percent of median, there
may not be as much funding available from the state or federal
government.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a reason you call them
both low income?
MS. GOLDEN: Because HUD terminology refers to anybody
under 80 percent of median as low income. So we're trying to be
consistent with both the state and the federal definitions.
But anyone between that 51 to 80 percent of median income, by
the federal government regulations, are considered low income.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We've heard from staff -- or we heard
from petitioner, which is staff.
Mr. Mulhere, I'm not sure who you represent, but we'd like to
hear from you.
MR. MULHERE: I'm representing myself on this issue. Bob
Mulhere with RW A.
I just wanted to maybe expound a little bit. The -- this really
combines the two existing definitions. I think Mr. Strain, you're right,
there's probably some level of political correctness that's involved in
combining these two, whether it achieves that goal or not.
We had a definition of affordable housing, we had a definition of
workforce housing. And these levels haven't changed below. They're
the same as they always were.
It's important to retain the term affordable because of the state
and federal connotations in terms of funding and assistance. But the
Page 139
May 19,2005
problem was that a number of people were concerned that by
separating the two and suggesting that if you qualify for affordable
house you might not be part of the workforce was inappropriate, I tend
to agree. And I think I'm the one that wrote the definition. So I think
this is really an excellent change. I think it's much clearer, and
hopefully it is not offensive, really, in any way to anybody, it's more
inclusive, but doesn't effect the necessary divisions of income in
relation to the opportunity to get state or federal funding. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bob, you know, part of the
thought process I believe was that a lot of people, when they heard an
affordable housing project was going in their neighborhood, they got
all upset. So we started using this word workforce, because how do
you get upset at people that are in the workforce.
But I'm wondering now if you're not just going to open a can of
worms for people to get more upset all over again because now
they've not got affordable back in there.
MR. MULHERE: I think --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Not that it's bad, but--
MR. MULHERE: I think you raise a very good point. And that
certainly may happen, but it's probably -- using the correct
terminology, we'll simply have to deal with the issues on a
case-by-case basis.
There is -- you know, as you know, there's some discussion
about creating a term called gap housing, which would be housing
that's -- it's gapping the bridge between affordable and market. And
market is very high in this county. So that would even be higher, I'm
sure, than potentially 100 percent of median income. But that hasn't
come to fruition or to reality yet. But that certainly might be one other
way to separate the issues. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bob, something must have
happened along the way, because the title of this says change: separate
and clarify the definitions of affordable housing and workforce
Page 140
May 19,2005
housing.
Well, that isn't what they did at all. You melded the two.
MR. MULHERE: I would agree. I mean, I didn't write that,
obviously, but I agree.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That needs to be changed.
MR. MULHERE: I think it was combining or creating one
singular definition that includes it all.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah, right, that's what the
substance of it is.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none at this time.
We've had staff presentation, petitioner presentation. Any
registered public speakers?
MR. LITSINGER: None on this item.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. We will close the public
hearing.
Do we have a motion on this item?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that 1.08.02 be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr.
Murray.
Further discussion?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. Would the motion
maker accept a notation that the item entitled "change" should be
modified to support the prose that goes on down at the bottom?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the second agrees.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, very good.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're dealing with the term
Page 141
May 19,2005
affordable workforce housing.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we have a modification agreeable
to the motion. And the second.
Further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There is none. We'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries, 8-0.
Next agenda item. What is the next agenda item?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 2.03.07, I think.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, I agree, LDC section 2.03.07,
overlay zoning districts.
MS. CHUMBLER: And Mr. Chairman, certainly a large part of
the LDR amendments that are 2.03.07, as well as 2.03.08, which is
probably the next one on the agenda, relate to the bonus TDR credits
that we've just discussed in the compo plan.
So unless you have further questions about those, I would intend
to focus my comments on the other changes that are reflected by these
regulations, if that's acceptable to the commission.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Hearing no objection, I think that's
acceptable.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You don't care what parts we ask
Page 142
May 19,2005
questions about, do you?
MS. CHUMBLER: Absolutely not. I will leave that up to you.
The first such change, certainly you can flip through Pages 4, 5,
6, 7, all of those changes relate to bonuses. Turn your attention first to
what I have is Page 8. And hopefully our page numbers are the same.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mine aren't even numbered.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We have no numbers.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that's the closest we've been
SInce --
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I didn't have numbers either until Stan
just handed me one with numbers. So I was back there trying to write
page numbers in.
Well, let me describe it for you. It's a page that begins -- it
should be about eight pages into 2.03.07. The first change indicated at
the top of that page is a paragraph (B) with new language, the
generation of environmental restoration maintenance bonus credits.
That's not the one I'm going to focus your attention on, but that is at
the top of that page.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We don't even have eight
pages.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't even have eight
pages.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ours isn't even that long.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We don't even have eight
pages.
MS. CHUMBLER: 2.03.07?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Down in the lower left-hand
comer there's a TAL number.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ours starts at 540912.1.
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
Page 143
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And it goes--
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Stays the same.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Stays the same.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yeah, that's the document number. That's
just the document number. But it -- actually, you're right. It should be
-- because mine starts at Page 4. So you're correct, it should be about
the fourth page. I apologize for that. I was just looking at the page
number without recognizing that mine started numbering at Page 4.
At the top of the page it's (B), the generation environmental
restoration bonus credits.
I see some are saying yes and some are saying no, so perhaps the
commissioners who have it --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mine has it.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Got it.
MS. CHUMBLER: Commissioner Adelstein, are you --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't have it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Four pages in.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Third from the back.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, you're on 13.
MS. CHUMBLER: 13 is .08.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, has everybody found it? If you
found it or found someone that you can look at it with.
Okay, we're ready. We're with you now.
MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. And if you'll look at the middle of
that page, there's language that creates a new sub-paragraph, small
Roman vi. And this relates to the requirement that when someone
severs a TD R credit from their property, they have to provide
evidence, documented evidence that they've notified any mortgage
holder or other security, anyone who holds security interest in that
property .
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was a question that was
raised at one of our --
Page 144
May 19,2005
MS. CHUMBLER: It was. That's in response to some of the
questions that were asked, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What page number is that in
yours?
MS. CHUMBLER: It's on Page 8 of mine, but I'm not sure of
what the significance of that page number is.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, it'll work, because I've got
to ask other questions. I'll just refer them to your numbers.
MS. CHUMBLER: That gives you a reference, all right.
Also, just a minor wording page -- wording immediately above
that where we had stricken the words establishing and added sufficient
to establish, really I think that was more it's strictly a grammatical
wording type change without any intent to change the substance at all.
Okay, the next non-TDR bonus provision in that -- in .07, it
really -- there's only one more and it relates to a related subject that's
on the very last page. And it's the very top of the page, (G), as in
George. That's merely a notice that it's not going to be the county's
responsibility to notify any mortgage holder or security interest holder
when a TDR is severed.
So those are the only two non- TDR bonus related provisions in
this regulation that I've identified. All the rest relate to and were
intended to implement the TDR bonus credit provisions that we
discussed in the earlier presentation.
But I'm happy to answer questions on any subj ect.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Marti, on your Page 8.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Paragraph one at the bottom, you
talk about where TDR credits were severed for March 5th, 2004 until
the effective date of this provision. Haven't we heard comments that
there's been no TDR's created?
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, but there may be before the effective
Page 145
---.-.. ~-~--'-~""
May 19,2005
date of this provision. The intent was to go back to the earliest date on
which someone could have created a TDR through the effective date.
And, you know, at any time in this process, up to and including the
adoption date of these regulations, someone could come in and seek to
sever TDR's.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, I have no problem with it, I
just want to make sure we weren't misinformed prior to this.
MS. CHUMBLER: No, that was our intent.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On Page 9, it's talking about
mitigation and that the properties that are used for TDR's, and also
converted to conservation lands to get the other bonuses and every
other thing can also be used for mitigation through the Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife and some other agencies. That
should be on your Page 9, top of the page.
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, there's also a provision in .07 or in .08
that has similar language.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, my question is, if it's used
for mitigation, does it have to be used for mitigation for lands within
the rural fringe, or is it used for mitigation throughout Collier County?
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, our intent is it would be -- that would
depend upon what another governmental agency allowed to you do.
I can tell you that in the South Florida Water Management
District, if you're using it for mitigation on one of their projects, they
want it to be in the same water shed.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, but as far as this document
goes, there's no restriction.
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
For example, if the Army Corps of Engineers or the Water
Management District allowed you to mitigate for impacts outside of
the rural fringe, that would be acceptable to us. But keeping in mind,
those governmental entities want mitigation that's in fact going to
mitigate for the wetland's loss. So what they're looking for is
Page 146
May 19,2005
something that sufficiently close or performs similar enough functions
that you are in fact mitigating for the lost wetlands.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if you've got a TDR and
you've used the conservation bonus, you've created an overlay on the
property, you can still take that land and use it for mitigation with
these other agencies, even though it couldn't have been used for
anything but conservation land to begin with, because it already had
an entitlement on it that prohibited it from using any. So what is the
court gaining --
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, that's not true. If you -- if you strip
off the TDR, remember, you can continue to use that property for
agriculture --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right, but if it was --
MS. CHUMBLER: -- continue to use it for, that if you use it for
mitigation, you would not be able to do.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If it's agriculture, it wouldn't
qualify .
MS. CHUMBLER: You would if you choose to not do
agriculture on the property anymore and instead use it for mitigation.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, let's talk about a sending
land that's not ago
MS. CHUMBLER: That's not ago currently?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. Natural land. You used--
you converted the TDR, then you'd get your bonuses. And one of the
bonuses is we're entitling it with a conservation easement?
MS. CHUMBLER: No, that's -- no, one of the -- the TDR
credit, the first TDR credit that you remove, you have to put a
conservation easement in place. And the purpose of that conservation
easement is to record in the public record, to make a public record that
anyone doing a title search down the road can come in and see that
there are restrictions on the use of this property.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, then that still-- that
Page 147
May 19,2005
just -- that's going where I'm trying to understand.
MS. CHUMBLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You've already got conservation
allocated to the property. You can't do anything with it. You can't
develop it. So what good is the Corps and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
and South Florida and all the others think they're gaining by saying
well, you can use that twice, you can use it for us, too?
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, let me--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What is the environment gaining?
MS. CHUMBLER: I think there's some -- the term conservation
easement is somewhat misleading. Conservation easement is a term
used for a wide variety of restrictions. It really is just an easement that
limits use of a property. It could limit -- a conservation easement
could be so broad as to say simply you won't do heavy industry on
that property. It's still a conservation easement, even though you're
allowed to do everything else.
So you've got conservation easements that go all the way from
being fairly loose and still allowing lots of different kind of activity on
the property to conservation easements that are extremely restrictive
and won't allow any use on the property.
So the general term conservation easement doesn't necessarily
mean that you can't do anything on the property. It depends on what
the terms in the conservation easement are.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, but we're talking about
these TDR sending lands.
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What are the terms in those
conservation easements? Are they restricted?
MS. CHUMBLER: If all you were creating that conservation
easement for is to allow you to strip off a TDR credit, then the
restrictions are those restrictions that the compo plan and the LDR's
have put in place. It still allows to you do agriculture on that property.
Page 148
May 19,2005
It still allows -- you know, it allows the things that are allowed in the
compo plan under a sending land from which TDR's have been
severed.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the bonuses that are--
MS. CHUMBLER: If, however, you're going to use the
property as mitigation for the Water Management District, they're
going to require more restrictions than that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. But if you choose to do
the environmental restoration and maintenance bonus credit for that
same piece of property, so it's already then restricted by that
restoration credit, you still can use it as mitigation land with the Corps
and other groups as well?
MS. CHUMBLER: That's our intent, yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Basically you're taking then the
ability of producing more mitigation land out of the environment
scope, because you're double dipping on the same piece of property.
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I guess there's two ways of looking at
it. You're double dipping or you're allowing the sending land owner
who has lost some property rights to get some value back. So it really
depends upon your view.
And frankly, one of the things we have told people at public
workshops is your value -- one of the values and one of the uses now
available for your property is it's used as a mitigation bank, which
would not be true if we didn't allow mitigation.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you could do that today,
right?
MS. CHUMBLER: You could do that today, but you would not
-- but you wouldn't get a TDR credit for it unless you -- well, it's
arguable. If we were silent in the compo plan and in the regulations
about the right to use it for mitigation, people could still, and I suspect
still would come back and argue to you, it's not prohibited and
therefore we can do it.
Page 149
May 19,2005
But we wanted to make it clear that you can do it. And in fact
we encourage it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further presentation?
MS. CHUMBLER: No, not on that particular regulation.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. You want to continue on, or are
we ready for --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We need a motion on that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are you ready for action on that
particular --
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, we have a public speaker
registered.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you for that
reminder.
Public speakers, please.
MR. WEEKS: Brad Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Brad
Cornell, again on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
And I want to add a couple of things that I would like to hear on
the record and provide for you.
One is that obviously we're very supportive of these Land
Development Codes because we're supportive of the compo plan
changes that we were co-sponsors of.
I think it's important to remember that concurrency requirements
are still going to apply on all these developments in receiving lands,
and so there will be an accounting and a consideration by the local
government for how this fits into the landscape, and relative to roads,
schools, water and sewer.
And I think it's also important to remember that the water supply
is likewise treated like a concurrency issue and will be addressed by
Page 150
--...- .-.---".-~...-
May 19,2005
the consumptive use permits through the Water Management District
and in fact the Big Cypress Basin and the Water Management District
are both on record as supporting these policies. So I think that's an
indication that they believe there is a way that water supply and
resources can be provided for in these areas.
And relative to the mitigation issue, Mr. Strain is right, you
could look at this as a double dipping issue, but I think that the point
that we would like to stress is that that is worth the incentive that that
provides, the added incentive that that will provide for landowners not
to develop sending lands.
And remember, that is the objective of these policies. We're
trying to protect sending lands. Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat,
wetlands that need to be restored and panther habitat, as well as other
specIes.
So to us it is worth having that mitigation be available to people
on those sending lands. If that tips the balance, do not develop. If that
adds one more value to a landowner not to build a house but rather to
preserve and restore, and that's why we support those. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Any other speakers?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
We now have two more.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I did want to point out what
the uses that are left after a conservation easement is recorded on
property under the comprehensive plan.
As Ms. Chumbler stated, agricultural uses, cattle grazing. And
you can have a detached single-family dwelling unit if you have a
40-acre parcel and you have only placed a conservation easement on
35 out of the 40 acres, you can still have a home on that last five acres.
You can also have parks, essential services, and oil extraction and
related processing.
And those are all items which might be prohibited under a
conservation easement from another agency such as DEP or the South
Page 151
May 19,2005
Florida Water Management District.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can you have those if you use the
environmental restoration and maintenance bonus credits?
MS. CHUMBLER: That depends on what kind of restoration
needs to be done there and how the activity mayor may not affect it. I
would suspect you can't have cattle grazing, because you're going to --
if you're going to restore the native vegetative scheme, that's not going
to be very consistent with cattle grazing. But oil and gas, I mean, we
don't have Brian MacKinzie here to argue the point, but having heard
him before, he may very well argue that you could do that consistent
with the restoration maintenance on the property.
But I've yet to have ever seen a mitigation conservation
easement from a Water Management District that would allow oil and
gas extraction.
MR. ANDERSON: And I want to hand this over to Mr. Duane.
You had provided to you the information that Mrs. Caron had asked
about earlier with regard to the water supply. It was provided
originally when this -- when the TDR bonus GMP amendments were
submitted. Unfortunately it was not included in your abbreviated
packet.
I would like for Mr. Duane to quickly repeat to you the
information that was originally provided as part of the transmittal
package, and -- which the Water Management District also had.
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane again.
Going back to the data and analysis we previously provided --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Has anybody asked a question
about this in regard to this LDC amendment? I simply asked you
about mitigation for these TDR's. What is this we're getting into? Is it
about this section on Page 8 that we're talking about?
MR. DUANE: Well, there seemed to be some
misunderstanding, or at least that was my perception of when we
discussed the water management issue. Marjorie has actually gone to
Page 152
May 19, 2005
see under what basis we may open up that hearing again. But I need
about 30 seconds to get this one point on the record.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bob, if it's not pertaining to this
section in the LDC, why are we doing this? We're not asking about it.
We've already voted and gone beyond it. What is you're trying to do
here today?
MR. ANDERSON: We want to show that there's adequate
capacity to support the units that are authorized by these LDC
amendments, as well as the GMP amendments. I don't -- for the life
of me, I can't understand why you wouldn't want to have full
information, Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I wanted the questions posed by
South Florida Water Management District answered and I want to see
the answers in my packet. They were not in there. And we got
testimony from staff that they were not addressed, nor were they
answered. That was the whole point, not the fact that you want to put
more things on record. We could put a ton of things on record. That
doesn't answer South Florida's questions.
MR. DUANE: May I, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. DUANE: Thank you. I'll be very brief.
The Table 5.5 that was prepared by Greeley and Hanson in May,
2004 estimated, based on a build-out population for the rural fringe
area, the need to provide for 10.35 million gallons per day.
In the Greeley and Hanson analysis chart 1.5, they have
programmed 20 million gallons of capacity by 2023 that generally
coincides with the time frame that they base the 10,000 million (sic)
gallon per day's needs assessment.
So they're almost -- and there are other improvements that go
along with water supply. The only point being that the capacity at the
plant and the other improvements are designed to accommodate more
than twice the capacity that was estimated by Greeley and Hanson for
Page 153
May 19,2005
our water needs at build-out.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: David, can you tell me if staff
provided potable water facility analysis consistent with requirements
of Rules 9(J)(5)0062A, 9(J)(11)0061B4 concerning the potable water
service in response to their questions raised by South Florida in their
correspondence of 4-19-05.
MR. WEEKS: We have not provided that information in your
packet.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, David.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I'd also like to say, if you
read what the Water Management District says, it says the analysis did
not provide existing demands on the utility, actual use, as well as
reservations or encumbrances. And so it's impossible to determine
how long a surplus actually exists. So they don't have all the
information.
MS. CHUMBLER: I would just like to make it clear on the
record that it's the Department of Community Affairs that determines
consistency, and the Department of Community Affairs did not come
to the same conclusion evidently that the Water Management District
did.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further public speakers on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't believe there are any more
registered.
We've had our staff presentation and the petitioner presentation.
We'll close the public hearing. Do we have an action or a
motion on this item?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a
recommendation of denial of2.03.07 of the Land Development Code
amendment.
Page 154
__>'~_ __u....,___._··-·
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion to deny by Mr. Strain, second by
Mr. Adelstein.
Discussion on that motion?
(No discussion.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Just for my own part, I do not agree with
the motion and will not be in favor of it.
Further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll call the question.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Let's have a hand raise on those in favor of the motion.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
One, two, three in favor.
And those in opposition, please raise your hand.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: It is five.
Page 155
May 19,2005
Motion fails, 3-5. Do we have a contrary affirmative motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How would we find the motion
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, since we've tied on the last
one? In other words, if we were to approve it, we'd have to find it
consistent with the compo plan. And as far as we're concerned -- first
of all, we would probably have to wait until the Commissioners
created the Compo Plan.
MS. CHUMBLER: I would think, Mr. Chairman, I agree with
Commissioner Schiffer. I think sending -- making a determination
that the whole package was consistent, having not approved the compo
plan amendments, would be problematic. However, I do think that
you could forward to the commission with an affirmative vote at least
those two provisions that have nothing to do with the bonus credits
and are not driven by the compo plan provisions.
So I would recommend that those were the two that related to --
they have nothing to do with the bonus provisions, they merely have
to do with the obligation of the sending landowner to provide evidence
that they've notified their mortgage holder and also the related
provision that it's not the obligation of the county to notify the
mortgage holder.
So those two provisions which are not driven by compo plan
amendments and are not intended to implement the compo plan
amendments, I would recommend that you take a separate vote and
perhaps at least forward those on with an affirmative vote. But I do
think it's a problem if you've not sent on to them with approval of the
compo plan amendments to send forward the implementing LDR's.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a motion consistent with
Marti's recommendation?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move that motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Murray,
Page 156
May 19,2005
second by Mr. Schiffer.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This is just for the elements that
are not part of the TDR bonus programs?
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, those two provisions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Being none, we'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries, it's unanimous, 8-0.
MS. CHUMBLER: But Mr. Chairman, I now think you do need
to take a vote on the rest of it. Because the one vote on the entire
package has failed.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. So we need an affirmative vote on
the balance of that item, separate from the mortgage notification and
clarifications that we just have taken action --
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I think the motion before was not to
send them on. That failed.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes.
MS. CHUMBLER: So there needs to be a second motion on the
remainder which you don't necessary have to have -- you need to have
a motion to send the remainder of the provisions on. I think it
Page 157
May 19,2005
becomes problematic to approve those.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How can we find it consistent
with the GMP? We can't.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So it's a motion to transmit, not a motion
to find them consistent?
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So we're looking for a motion to
transmit.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which means what?
MS. CHUMBLER: Just to send them to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, is there any way we
could stop it from going there? There isn't. So, I mean -- so it's -- I
think why don't we just move on? I mean, why have a motion at all?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Because it will take 45 seconds and we
could be done with it and there's no longer any gap in our process.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I so -- I make a motion
that we transmit it with no recommendation.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Schiffer, second by Mr.
Adelstein.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This is a motion with no
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No recommendation, just
transmit.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Just transmittal.
No further discussion, we'll call the question. All those in favor,
say aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
Page 158
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm opposed.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, motion is 7-1 to transmit.
Okay, next item.
MS. CHUMBLER: I believe we're on 2.03.08.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes.
MS. CHUMBLER: Which again, much of it has to do with the
bonus provisions. And as I did with the other, I'll go through and try
to identify those provisions which are not linked to the compo plan
bonus credit provisions.
The first of those appears on the second page of mine. It's under
paren. three, allowable uses. And this has to do with the use of TDR
credits in golf courses.
It was unclear from the language, although always the intent, at
least from staffs perspective, that while you have to have a TDR
credit to build for each acre of golf course, that that TDR credit could
also be used to entitle a residential unit. And so the purpose of this
language was to clarify that intent.
And I know there's been some questions raised by various
parties about the reasoning behind that. Originally when the
requirement was made to require a TDR credit for golf courses, part of
that whole scenario was to disincentivise, in other words, to
discourage standalone golf courses. And if it were read to mean that
the TDR credit, you use it for golf course and that's all you could use
it for, you can't use it for residential unit, it has the opposite effect.
So in order to -- if you're going to have a golf course, we want
you to have, or we would prefer you to have some residential units
connected with that. That's incentivised if the TDR credit can be used
Page 159
May 19,2005
both for the golf course and for residential unit. If you do it the other
way around, it has the opposite effect.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I understand that making this
modification gets you the result you're looking for of attaching
residentials to a golf course. I don't understand why you want
residential attached to a golf course.
MS. CHUMBLER: That was the stated preference from the
Board of County Commissioners when we started this process.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Not just increased density?
MS. CHUMBLER: It may increase density. Now, I think there
was some testimony earlier this morning that golf course memberships
are out there for the asking, so it may in fact be that there are not
going to be many standalone golf courses anyway.
But I know that there was a strong opinion, what, two years ago,
three years ago, when we went through this process against standalone
golf courses.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you could actually say it
backwards, is that if you're building a community with golf courses,
the golf courses are going to penalize the community.
MS. CHUMBLER: Right. Well, it also -- I mean, you're
looking at roadways. Certainly if you've got residential community,
you know, a golf course incorporated with the residential community,
you're not going to have people having to drive to the golf course. So
you've contained some of that traffic.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's good for the screen
industry, too.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: See, wasn't the objective to have
the -- if you have the residential density and you want to build a golf
course, you need TDR's for a golf course. So now what you're going
to do is you're going to have a community, get the TDR's for the
single family or whatever you want to put there, and the golf course is
a freebee.
Page 160
May 19, 2005
Is there any acreage attached -- because the golf course takes up
about 125, 150 acres. So now someone could come in and build a golf
course as part of a TDR program for a village or for a development
anywhere and not have to buy anymore TDR's for the golf course for
all that land.
MS. CHUMBLER: That's true.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It isn't TDR -- isn't -- golf courses
aren't development.
MS. CHUMBLER: That's true. You are correct. There are two
sides to this.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think that's why the language
was the way it was the first time. Because I know it's one of the
strike-outs.
MS. CHUMBLER: Well--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It says, the additional required
density for such golf course development shall be achieved by
acquiring TDR's from sending lands.
If that was left in, then even if you wanted to build houses along
a golf course, if you wanted that golf course, you'd still have to, for
the acres that was purely golf course, buy TDR's. That was the
objective. I don't --
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, my understanding is that that was not
the objective. And this was intended to clarify the objective of
allowing the TDR credit to be used both for residential density and for
golf course.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It certainly does convenience
some not to have that be the objective, certainly. Especially if you
own a golf course and you want to build houses around it and you
only need one TDR now to develop instead of separate ones.
MS. CHUMBLER: You need one TDR to build a unit.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. But now the unit comes
Page 161
May 19,2005
with a golf course.
MS. CHUMBLER: With part of a golf course, yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have some other questions on
that page. And it really involves transportation, and he just left.
Lucky guy.
It looks like that you can entitle the golf course with these units
but you can still build a freestanding golf course without building the
units, but they have to be left on the books, more or less, for future
modification of the same project, according to the language here.
Well, that -- you're creating phantom units, and which is just the
biggest problem we hear Don Scott say he's got in regards to
concurrency.
MS. CHUMBLER: That's my cell phone ringing, I apologize. It
will stop in a minute. If it doesn't bother you, I'll just let it ring.
The reason for that language there is it's sometimes difficult to
determine whether something is the same project or not. Would you
prefer Don Scott to answer those? And I can turn my cell phone off.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd love to hear him address them,
yeah.
MS. CHUMBLER: But let me tell you what that language there
that's added -- I assume you're referring to the language at the bottom
of the page that carries over to the next?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CHUMBLER: The intent there is -- it's sometimes difficult
to define what a project is. Just because it doesn't all come to you in
one fell swoop, you don't want to be in a situation where someone --
you know, they have various phases of the proj ect. It may come in
over a period of years. So this was intended to recognize that projects
-- and to define what we meant by a proj ect, and the reference here is
to the project definition that's used for DRI purposes in determining
whether a development should be aggregated and treated as one
project for development of regional impact purposes. So that's where
Page 162
May 19,2005
that language came from.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, I was asking about a
sentence, and I can read it to you. I know you were out of the room.
It says, TDR credits used to entitle golf course development may
also be used to entitle dwelling units within the same project or a
future modification of the same project.
Now, my concern is if you've got TDR's in a golf course being
built, like say Bonita Bay East, I think that's the name of the course
that's out there, and they don't build the residential units, you guys --
the golf course gets permits, it gets built. What if they 10 years from
now decide they're going to use that TDR, that same one, not by
another one, because this would entitle the property that had units
around that golf course for the number of TDR's they purchased?
How do you keep that on your books for future concurrency elements.
MR. SCOTT: I guess from our aspect, you know, I have units
on the books that are really never going to get built. And until it's said
one way or the other, I would either have it on if it said yeah, we're
going to build units, or I wouldn't have it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But see, they're not going to--
they wouldn't have to make their mind up at any point --
MR. SCOTT: I wouldn't then necessarily have them on the
books then.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, then how do you
differentiate that from the phantom units that we have out there in
developments that obviously are not going to build out, but you've got
to keep their full capacity on the books?
I'm worried about concurrency in keeping the roads open for
phantom units that aren't going to be built.
MS. CHUMBLER: They wouldn't be phantom units. I mean,
the phantom units that you usually see in transportation concurrencies
where someone has an approved PUD with units vested or some other
development that's been approved, but you don't know when they're
Page 163
May 19,2005
actually going to hit the dirt, when they're going to actually appear,
that's what's referred to in the development community in the land use
as phantom units. That's not what this is.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, it says--
MS. CHUMBLER: This says you will have TDR certificates
that still could be utilized if someone were to come later and seek
development approval. But there's been no development approval yet
that allows there to be residential units attributed to those TDR's.
MR. LIT SINGER: This would not vest those as units from the
standpoint of transportation issues associated with the subsequent
development approval under the definition in 3.80.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But they would be used to entitle
a golf course.
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And if they're used to entitle a
golf course, at some future modi -- they could come in and modify the
project to add residential units but without purchasing anymore
TDR's; is that right?
MS. CHUMBLER: And at that point they'd have to be
considered in terms of concurrency. They'd have to undergo
concurrency review, just as the original golf course. If they came in
with the golf course to begin with, there would be concurrency review
of the golf course. If the next year they came in and wanted some
residential units to tie to that, they would have to undergo concurrency
review for those residential units.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Even for the same TDR they
already used?
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, just to say, isn't a
phantom unit, isn't that a good thing for traffic? Because it's a much
Page 164
__._k_"" . ____~_"~_.'__~'
May 19,2005
more conservative thing. I mean --
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, not really.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think Don will debate that with
you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Our problem with traffic isn't,
you know, people going, where are the cars.
MS. CHUMBLER: The problem with phantom units is you
don't know when they're going to hit the ground. I mean, that's -- and
it's not just Collier County. There's a lot of jurisdictions in states that
they've got so much on the books as phantom units that you don't ever
know whether they're going to materialize today, tomorrow or never.
And that throws your concurrency program off terribly.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now that doesn't usually
show it as golf course situation. In most times if they are developing a
golf course, they will put the golf course in first, they'll let it go for
two years, and then they'll start to build the homes around it. Now
they have the TDR's available and then they would start to use them.
This way when the homes are built, the golf course is usable. Go the
other direction and you can't use the golf course.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, you had another --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One question.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- question for Mr. Scott?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, do you have a definition
somewhere in the LDC or in your books that define what a
neighborhood circulator is, local residential access and a residential
loop road is?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I went back to the e-mail that was sent
originally at the time of this. A neighborhood circulator serves to
distribute traffic from collectors and provides direct access for
abutting properties. Through trips are discouraged and generally
streets connect to collectors.
Page 165
May 19,2005
Local residential access streets provide direct access to adjoining
properties within a neighborhood. Through trips are discouraged and
generally streets do not directly connect to arterials or collectors.
Residential loop streets are a special category of local residential
access streets with outlets that begin and end on the same street or on
different streets but oriented in such a way that they would only be
used for access to residents on that loop. They're less than 1,200 feet
in length. Through trips are discouraged.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're reading that from
something. Is that in the code?
MR. SCOTT: It's -- I don't --
MR. LITSINGER: Those definitions were developed by staff
relative to the need to identify the binary road system terminology that
we use within the rural village and the need to assure that our rural
villages were not built with limited access due to interconnectivity
issues with various arterials.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I appreciate all that, but are they
in the code?
MR. LITSINGER: They will be.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They're not in the code yet, but--
MR. LIT SINGER: In the next cycle those definitions are going
to be added to the code.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The capitalized terms in this
document, how do we define them?
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, there are a number of terms that are
going to be -- there are some additional definitions throughout that
need to be added to the definition section. In the way that Collier
County code is set up, you've got a separate definitional section.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right.
MS. CHUMBLER: So there are a number of terms that are
going to have to be added to that definitional section, some of which
come out of these LDR's, and some others, as I understand it.
Page 166
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So we're going to be looking at
approving LDR's whose terminologies don't have definitions for them
in the Land Development Code currently.
MS. CHUMBLER: But Mr. Scott has just explained to you
what is intended by those -- on the record what's intended by those
definitions.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But someone looking it up would
have to go through the minutes of this record to find it.
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They would have to know that's
in this minutes of this record to find it.
MS. CHUMBLER: Or ask Don Scott.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or ask Don Scott.
And as you have said, I went through and there are a lot of other
capitalized statements in here, but I don't know of any definitions for
them. So in essence we really don't know what they mean until they
get redefined or worked out in the LDC.
MS. CHUMBLER: Correct. Actually, if you'll note, and this I
think was done in the last recodification of the Land Development
Code, words that have a definition in the code are mostly in bold.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, there's -- I know, I know
that. But I also notice that you've got a lot of capitalized terms in here
that are just what Don said, apparently definitions that aren't going to
be implemented yet.
MS. CHUMBLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think it's odd that we're putting a
code before it and we're not defining anything. I don't know how
staffs going to read some of these or interpret it, or citizens are for
that matter. It's neither here nor there.
That's the end of my questions, thank you.
MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. And I had a few others. You kind of
leapt ahead on the roads, because that was one of the other provisions
Page 167
May 19,2005
I was going to identify that are not tied to the bonus credits.
But the next actually appear on the very next page, and that's
Page 3. Again, another golf course provision. That's just to add the
terms best management practices of the Audubon Gold program. The
addition of that language makes that provision consistent with all the
other golf courses provisions applicable to the rural fringe.
There is, at the bottom of that page, some minor wording
changes to the oil and gas exploration provisions. I think we talked
about this last time before -- I appeared before you all that we
attempted to make that language consistent throughout. In our
attempt, I see you looking over these, we didn't catch them in every
instance, but there are regulations that are currently being revised by
the Department of Environmental Protection related to go oil and gas,
and so our intent throughout on each of these oil and gas exploration
and oil and gas extraction provisions is that it will refer to the rules as
existed on blank, 2005 and then paren, the effective date of this
provision. So that will capture the very most recent DEP regulations
at the time these regulations are adopted.
There are some minor wording change still on Page 3 related to
public schools, and that's done for consistency purposes.
There is language again on Page 4, same purpose. We
inadvertently left parks, open space and recreational uses and private
schools off the list. The last time the compo plan was amended, that
was not intended. In fact, the LDR's -- or the compo plan allows that.
It was inadvertently left off in the LDR's. But those are allowed used
under the compo plan.
You have the same oil and gas change there on Page 4.
Page 5, here is where the rural village road system language that
Commissioner Strain asked Don Scott about. Appears at the bottom
of Page 5.
On Page 6, at the top of the page, just some minor wording
changes. There was an inadvertent reference to an SRA designation,
Page 168
May 19,2005
which obviously in the rural fringe mixed use district it's not an SRA
but instead a rural village PUD, and so we've made that correction.
The next change is one that does relate to the compo plan
amendments, and that's the change in the greenbelt width, and so I'll
skip over that one.
The bottom of that page, golf courses, again, this change to the
design standards and golf courses is made simply to make that
provision consistent with all the other provisions related to golf
courses in the rural fringe mixed use district.
The -- again on 7, you've got public schools. That language is
corrected. Oil and gas is corrected.
At the bottom of that Page 7, in the compo plan currently
multi-family is an allowed use in neutral lands. And these provisions
are intended to add some design. The design specifications were
multi-family homes in neutral, which the compo plan says that the
LDR's will spell those out. So that's what this does. The current
compo plan already allows multi-family in neutral and simply refers to
the LDR's to set forth some design specifications, so that's all this
does.
On Page 10 there is -- here is the standalone provision I
mentioned earlier that allows mitigation for -- in sending lands from
which TDR's have been severed.
On Page 11, there are some date changes. These date changes
relate to the North Belle Meade area. And they are made to make it
consistent now with the compo plan. Those date changes had already
been made in the compo plan and now we're carrying them over to the
LDR's.
And those date changes, originally, if you recall, were made
because there was a challenge to the comprehensive plan. The dates
that were in place there slid for a year to reflect the period of time
when the applicability of the compo plan was held in abeyance by the
administrative challenge to the compo plan.
Page 169
May 19,2005
Paren. 3 there, which relates to greenbelts in the North Belle
Meade rural village, again, here this provision would state that while
-- because a greenbelt is not a requirement in the North Belle Meade
rural village, that greenbelt can give someone who elects to add a
greenbelt, they can include that greenbelt in their calculation of the
required minimum open space for the rural village.
And those are all of the changes that do not relate to TDR
bonuses.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: That would be our -- with everybody
changing hats, I can't keep straight now if it's the petitioner or staff or
a joint presentation. So we've heard from somebody. Do we have to
hear from somebody else?
MR. LIT SINGER: The LDC is a staff petition, staff proposal.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good. Any registered public speakers?
MR. WEEKS: Yes. Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And he's passing.
Any other registered speakers?
MR. WEEKS: I don't think so. Bruce and Bob? I don't think
so. That's it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: No further presentation?
MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, we have one last item on
Item 8(C) relative to the LDC, wanted the last-minute change on the
public participation change relative to neighborhood information
meetings that we introduced to the board at their first LDC hearing,
and we'd like to share that with you to have you affirm that decision to
add the change.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's 10.03.05?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes. Do you have that?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. Can we -- can you take action on
2.03.08 first?
Page 170
"_.._---_..,"..._..,,..~
May 19,2005
MR. LITSINGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Looking for a motion on 2.03.08 on those
provisions not tied to bonus credits, as presented.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Moved to approve?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Adelstein,
second by Mr. Schiffer.
Further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: One in opposition, so there's 7-1. Motion
carnes.
We're going to take a brief 10-minute break in favor of our court
reporter.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That vote was for not -- only the
non- TDR bonus provisions, right?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Because last time we
voted separately for the other side of it. I don't care if we do that or
Page 171
May 19,2005
not, it seems useless, but --
MS. CHUMBLER: I think that the final vote last time was to
simply a vote to send on the remainder of the provisions without any
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. And in order to stay consistent,
before we take that break for our court reporter, we have a motion to
transmit those items tied to the bonus credits with no action, just a
motion to transmit.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Schiffer, second by Mr.
Adelstein. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So that's two in opposition. So it's 6-2 to
transmit with no recommendation.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You're not transmitting these.
These are Compo Plan -- excuse me, these are land development
regulations. So we're not trans -- unless you mean transmitting to the
Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, that's exactly --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- forward to the Board of County
Page 172
May 19,2005
Commissioners.
Ten minutes.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we'll call the Planning commission
back to order. Resume with the LDC amendments. And Item 2.05.02,
density blending is our next agenda item.
Do we have a presenter for that item?
MR. LITSINGER: Excuse me, I'm not sure if -- we had that on
our list of those that had been continued.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, it may be.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had marked it down, Mr.
Chairman, that it was one of those, if that means anything.
MS. CHUMBLER: We apologize. Stan and I both thought that
you all had passed on that one the last time.
. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I honestly don't recall. I just know it was
in my agenda packet, so I'm --
MS. CHUMBLER: Right. Well, just for safety sake, until we
double check that record, this is one that is not driven by the compo
plan amendments, it's to make the LDC's consistent with
comprehensive plan provisions that have already been adopted and are
in effect.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So with that, do we have any further
presenters, speakers?
MR. LIT SINGER: No, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll close the hearing.
Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I make a motion to recommend
approvalof2.05.02.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Strain, second by Mr.
Page 173
May 19,2005
Abernathy. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, all those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries 8-0.
And next item is LDC amendment Section 10.03.05.F, public
participation.
MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, I would ask, did you receive
-- because obviously it's not clear what you received in your agenda
package. Did you receive the updated May 5th, which was presented
to the Board of County Commissioners, which has the one change that
we have added since the last time you reviewed this particular
amendment?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, this is what's amended. The
one we got was amended on May 5th at 2:46 --
MR. LITSINGER: That would be the change where we -- the
only change from the last time you saw it was we added the exclusion
of the county initiated site specific amendments related to the
evaluation, appraisal report from the NIM process. That is a practical
consideration, and also due to the very detailed public participation
process and development of the EAR report.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.
MR. LITSINGER: Any practical logistical considerations.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray?
Page 174
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How does one know a
substantial change has been made? What method? What means by
which a decision is made?
MR. LIT SINGER: That's a staff determination prior to the
adoption hearing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other presenters on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any public speakers?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, close the hearing. Do
we have a motion on this item?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to
recommend for approval Section 10.03.05.F as presented here for--
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Strain, second by Mr.
Abernathy.
Further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There is none.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
Page 175
May 19, 2005
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries 8-0.
Okay, am I correct that that concludes our LDC amendment
request?
MR. LITSINGER: That's all we have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good, I'm not missing any.
We move on to our next agenda item and that is Item 9, old
business. I'm not aware of any.
Item 10, new business. There was going to be an announcement
of an evening date for the Copeland area rezone, as noted earlier. That
-- the necessity has passed and we're not going to consider that.
There was also an addenda to the agenda noting that on June
16th, the chairman of smart growth was requesting permission of this
body to come forward and address us.
I think to keep things clean and formal, it would probably be
appropriate to -- for us to have a motion accepting that request to
come before us on June 16th.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that motion, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Murray.
A second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Schiffer.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who's the chairman?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Mark Morton.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Are you on that
committee still?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am, yes.
May I give some background?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think I'll make the motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, there's a motion and a second
Page 176
May 19, 2005
already.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, the man that did it is
doing it. Do you want to do it that way? Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. But I would still
like the opportunity to explain to you why.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'll back off if it's
inappropriate.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, Mr. Murray has withdrawn his
motion. Mr. Adelstein will make the motion to accept the smart
growth chairman's presentation to us on June 16th. Mr. Schiffer's
second still stands.
And Mr. Murray, you wanted to give us some background on
that presentation?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I just -- the smart growth
community character committee is sunsetting end of June. And the
purpose of the meeting, of coming to this committee and seeking to
have us understand more about what that committee has been
attempting to do and where its focus has been and where it hopes that
it will continue to be, and if nothing else, to help to explain some of
the bases that our LDC language and growth plan amendments were
fixed.
And we hope that will help as time goes by because of -- I guess
about four and a half years, maybe more was spent with that
committee developing all of this. And they just expressed a desire to
say farewell, so to speak, in a manner of giving education.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good, thank you.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sorry I'm going to miss
that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
Page 177
May 19,2005
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
And the last item was just to point out that the county staff is
planning a two-day Planning Commissioner training event. Mr.
Schmitt had the information on that. Is there anyone that has that in
his absence?
MR. LITSINGER: No, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So our report is there's an exciting
and stimulating two-day event. More information will be coming
forward at some future time.
I assume there's no public comment, no discussion to the
addenda. We are adjourned.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:54 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman
Page 178