Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/16/2005 R June 16, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 16, 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 Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Mark Strain Donna Reed Caron Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Development & Environmental Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 ..~-- AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2005, IN CONFERENCE ROOM 609/610 AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION BUILDING, 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE, 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 MAYBE 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 nON TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A 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 ITom 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 27, 2005, REGULAR MEETING; MAYS, 2005, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MAY 24, 2005, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: BD-2005-AR-7356, Bruce Comer represented by Quin L. Kurth of Turrell and Associates is requesting a 17-foot boat dock extension to allow a protrusion of 37-feet ITom the property line into a waterway that is 750-feet wide to create a docking facility consisting of two boat slips. The subject property is located at 318 Oak Avenue in Conners's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Subdivision, Unit No.2, Lot 12, Block "I", in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) 1 B. Petition: V A-2004-AR-6449, Ashley Doctors, property owner, represented by Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., requesting a variance for a 4.98-foot encroachment into the 20-foot required rear setback for a swimming pool and screen enclosure leaving a 15.02-foot rear yard on a waterfront lot located at 149 Flamingo Avenue. The property legal description is: Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 3, Lot 25. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) CONTINUED FROM 6/2/05 C. Petition: CU-2004-AR-6965, Florida Homes of Collier County, Inc., represented by Kelly Michelle Smith of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a conditional use per LDC Subsection 2.04.03. Table 2 of the "E" Estate zoning district, for a Model Home Sales Center. The subject property, consisting of 5 acres, is located at the corner of C.R. 951 & 13th Avenue SW, at 12815 and 12825 Collier Boulevard, further described as Tract 118, Unit 26, Golden Gate Estates, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) CONTINUED FROM 6/2/05 D. Petition: PUDZ-A-04-AR-6279, Domonic P. Tomei, President of Restoration Church, Inc., and Timothy J. Crane, Manager of Bucks Run Developers, LLC, represented by William L. Hoover, AICP of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., and as President of Catalina Land Group, Inc., the manager of Bucks Run Estates, LLC, requesting a rezone ITom the "PUD" to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) known as Bucks Run MPUD by revising the PUD document and Master Plan to replace the 288 Affordable Housing rental apartments on the "East Tract" with 96 residential units and to delete the previously approved private school on the "West Tract". The proposed use is for up to 156 residential units and alternatively on the SW Tract a church and child care facility may replace the residential units. Some revisions to the development standards are also proposed. The property to be considered for this rezone is located in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 39.06 acres and is located approximately 700 feet north of Vanderbilt Beach Road on the eastern side of Collier Boulevard (C.R.951). (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) CONTINUED FROM 6/2/05 E. Petition: PUDA-2005-AR-7085, The Public Utilities Division and the Collier County Board of Commissioners, represented by Bruce Tyson, AICP, of WilsonMilIer, Inc., are requesting an amendment to the Orangetree PUD Document and Master Plan to rezone 216 acres ITom Agriculture to Public Facility and Community Use. The primary use of the Public Facility portion of the property will be to locate water treatment and water reclamation facilities. The Community Use portion will be used primarily for a passive park. The subject property, consisting of 216 acres, is located in the northeast portion of the Orangetree PUD. Access to the property will be ITom Immokalee Road using the same road as that for the Collier County Fairgrounds, in Sections II and 14, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator Heidi Williams) F. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-3588, Frank Clesen & Sons, Inc., represented by William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., requesting a rezone ITom Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to amend the Clesen PUD, pursuant to the sunsetting provisions of the LDC, to update the PUD document in compliance with the current LDC PUD requirements, for property located on the north side of Pine Ridge Road, approximately 1,000 feet east of the Whippoorwill Lane and Pine Ridge Road intersection, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. This property consists of 4.33± acres. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED FROM 6/2/05 G. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-6919, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. and Eugene U. Frey, represented by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. requesting a rezone ITom the RSF-5(3) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Regal Acres PUD to allow for a maximum of 184 residential units; and, consideration and approval of an affordable housing density bonus agreement authorizing the developer to utilize affordable housing bonus density units (in the amount of 74 units at 2.0 bonus density units per acre) in the development of this project for low- income residents that will designate 100 percent of the units as Affordable Housing units. The subject property, consisting of 36.75 acres, is located on the west side of Greenway Road, east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), and north of U.S. 41. The subject property is located within Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED FROM 6/2/05 2 9. OLD BUSINESS - Presentation ITom the Smart Growth Committee; Discussion ofCCPC certification training 10. NEW BUSINESS - Discuss and set an evening hearing date for the Copeland Area Rezone petition 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 6-16-05/CCPC AgendaIRB/sp 3 June 16, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We'll bring this meeting of the CCPC to order and ask you to rise with me for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Begin with our roll call. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy is not here. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Budd is here. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Addendum to the agenda, we have two continuances, Petition 8B, that is BA-20004-AR-6449, is being been continued to July 7th. And Item 8F, that is Petition PUDZ-20003-AR-3588 also continued to July 7th. There's also a presentation under old business, Item 9 on today's agenda, that we have a request to bring that petition up to the front of our proceedings today, and Mr. Strain is going to have to leave early and I think it would only be fair that we avail him of the opportunity to hear that Smart Growth petition before he leaves. Is there discussion on amending the agenda today? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, sir, I do have to leave at 9:30 Page 2 June 16, 2005 for a doctor's appointment I can't avoid. I have volumes of issues -- two volumes of books to discuss on matters today that I didn't know I would have to leave for. I don't have any questions on Smart Growth. I have no tabs on Smart Growth. I certainly would like the opportunity for the limited amount of time I'm going to be here to be productive. And if I could ask that the board start Smart Growth at 9:30, I know that's a convenience just for me but I would like to see at least us hear part of it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. To clarify the motion, that's to continue Item 8B and 8F and the Smart Growth presentation at 9:30. Is that the intent of the motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And a second, and who is the second? So a motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Midney. Discussion? All those in favor of modifying the agenda signifying by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carried. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Page 3 June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What happened to the petition AR-7180, that was due today? CHAIRMAN BUDD: 7180. I do not know. Was it advertised for today? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ray, do you have an idea if that petition Mr. Adelstein has in his hands was a public notice? MR. BELLOWS: I've been informed by Heidi Williams of planning staff that it was continued. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So it will be readvertised, okay. So anybody that is here for 7180 we're not going to hear it today. Planning Commission absences. I will not be here on July 7th, our next regularly scheduled meeting. Any other anticipated absences? There are none. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Excuse me; I won't be here in any of the meetings in July. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Midney will be out both July meetings. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: July 7th I won't be here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. July 7th we have three definitely out on July 7th, Ray, so that gets us close to sustaining a quorum. So we need to -- MR. BELLOWS: I'll follow up with calls. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, good. Approval of minutes. We have the minutes of our April 27th and May 5th regular meetings. Do we have a motion to amend or adopt hose minutes? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one small change on Page 40: It is a good idea not a good area. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Was that the April 27th? Page 4 June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: That's April 27th. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other corrections? We have motions to adopt the minutes? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Murray, second by Mr. Adelstein to adopt the minutes of both April 27th and May 5th. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Board of County Commissioner report recap. Ray is there anything to report to us? MR. BELLOWS: Last Tuesday the board heard and approved the DR! and SRA applications for Ave Maria. The board approved those both five to zero. They also heard the Cook rezone, and that was approved four to one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: And the approval of Ave Maria was subject to the CCPC recommendations. And there were a few others, mostly the THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Bellows, I'm having a little problem hearing you. Could you move your mic closer? Thank you. Page 5 June 16, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Moving on to our advertised public hearings. Petition 8A, that is PUD-2005-AR-7356. Are there any disclosures on this item? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got an e-mail from BJ. Savard-Boyer and from the neighbor next door, Roger Seefeld. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I received the same. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are these mikes on? Okay, you're on, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I also received an e-mail. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So Mr. Murray received them, Mr. Schiffer received the e-mails.Mr.Midneydidnot.Mr. Adelstein did. I did receive those same e-mails. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I received one e-mail from B.J. Boyer. I also received a phone call from Bruce Burkhard. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I received one e-mail from B.J. Boyer. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I received the two e-mails and also have spoken to Ms. Savard-Boyer and to Bruce Burkhard. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. That completes our disclosures. All of those wishing to present testimony on this item please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you very much. Could we hear from the petitioner, please. MR. SCOFFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Scoffield representing the Comers, the applicants. There is no overhead for today, is there? Page 6 ,...-.- June 16, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ray, do we have overhead? MR. BELLOWS: It's this one. MR. SCOFFIELD: Maybe I'll hold this up so can see it and then I'll hand it to you all up there. This is a -- we're asking for a boat dock extension in Vanderbilt Lagoon this morning. And it's a 17- foot extension from the 20- foot allowed for a total of 37 feet. And there is an existing dock there with a boat lift. The owner wants to add another boat 34 feet in length and put a lift on the -- there will be a dock extension off of the 20- foot dock out 17 feet, and he's going to place a 34-foot boat on that lift. And then he has an existing lift on which he had a smaller boat. Right now he has a Gheenoe, which is a little canoe with a kicker on it right now. So I'll hand this up to you. This is Vanderbilt Lagoon. This is north. Over here is Regatta. This is Palm Avenue. And the applicant is on Oak Avenue and I'll -- this X I have right here is the applicant's house, and the little red rectangle is the dock extension, this thing over here. I guess the easiest way is to just hand these up to you since we don't have an overhead. I know you all have a packet. Maybe I can just explain it from here. This is the system here. The shaded area is the dock extension on the aerial being passed around. There is a little red outlined rectangle, that's the dock extension, that's how far out it protrudes into the waterway. This drawing shows the boat lift placed on the west side of the dock extension. The existing boat lift is on the east side. And we meet setbacks. It's centered on the lot pretty much. All of the criteria is met on the boat dock extension with the exception of the 50 -- the length of the vessels together combined does not meet -- it's not 50 percent of the width of the lot. And that's the only criteria that is not met on this extension. Page 7 ,.,----- June 16, 2005 As you can see from the ariel there are a lot of large boats in this area out in front of the docks and there are secondary boats too, so this is common in that area. And we don't have any other things here, so I would be glad to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there a question for the petitioner? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have two. What about the depth? There was concern about that this body of water is very shallow and that the area closest to the proposed extension is where the water's depth is greater, perhaps not greatest, but it's hard to see on the photo that you gave any depth there at all. MR. SCOFFIELD: Okay. I have been through these quite a few times in this area and we had our surveyor survey out 150 feet from the seawall into the waterway, and I'll pass these out to you. These are the surveyed water depths. You have -- the depths that you'll see on this survey are NGVD depths. The mean low water here is at an NGVD of .5 -- minus .5 feet. So if you subtract half a foot of all of these depths, that's the water depths you have at low water. These depths are taken from the seawall out 150 feet into Vanderbilt Lagoon, and there is more than adequate -- you have at least 5 feet of water. Now, you are going to get full moon, new moon tides. Water depths go down a foot to a foot and a half sometimes more on a full moon or new moon at those locations. But there is more than adequate water depth. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, Mr. Scofield, from the point of the new pier, the new pier, how far out would we have safe passage? MR. SCOFFIELD: We're only sticking outside 37 feet -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so -- Page 8 June 16, 2005 MR. SCOFFIELD: -- from the seawall depth. These depths go out 150 feet into the waterway -- on here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then the other question that I have is looking at the -- MR. SCOFFIELD: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The other question I have, looking at the proposed dock addition I see a line, the riprap, and I see the ghosting of the vessel that you have patterned in thereby the new lift. MR. SCOFFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm just wondering, that bow is awfully close to that riprap. Is that an illusion or is that a reality? MR. SCOFFIELD: No. No, that is there but you -- on a boat, the bow of the boat is up here-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The curvature -- MR. SCOFFIELD: Yes, it comes down, the bow comes way up so you have about 8 feet of where that boat, you know -- 5, between anywhere from 4 to 8 feet where that bow before it hits the water, when it sticks out. So the bow, the tip of that boat is above the rocks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we're not allowing a dangerous condition? MR. SCOFFIELD: No, we tucked it in as tight as we could. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And thank you for the answer to the questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: In here there is a picture of the neighbor's dock to the east. MR. SCOFFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the neighbor has a 30-foot, Page 9 -.--'- June 16, 2005 34- foot boat out there and also has another 20- foot boat tucked in behind here on the configuration of their dock. So there is no reason that this petitioner couldn't configure the dock the same way and not protrude out; is that correct? MR. SCO FFIELD: If he -- the two boats together -- yes, he probably could do that. He has an existing dock there with a lift on one side. Rather than tearing everything out and reconfiguring -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand that he would like to have the easy way out, but in point of fact he could use the same configuration and not have to -- MR. SCOFFIELD: And the setbacks on the neighbor to the-- that's the neighbor to the east. COMMISSIONER CARON: East. MR. SCOFFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: 15.3. MR. SCOFFIELD: Right. It looks like, you know, they are pretty close-up on their eastern property line, you know, it's -- they meet the setbacks on the other side but it's -- if you do, if you do do that, place the boats -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You are meeting on both sides. MR. SCOFFIELD: If you place the boats in parallel, that's correct, against the seawall then you are going to be violating the setbacks and you would have to go for a variance. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, no. Obviously the neighbors aren't violating the setbacks, why would you be violating the setbacks? MR. SCOFFIELD: Because of the length of the boats. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Rocky, in following that up, the boats are 34 feet -- 37 feet long, right? MR. SCOFFIELD: One's 34 -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. SCOFFIELD: And we have up to a 24-foot boat on the Page 10 June 16, 2005 other lift. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You've got 15 setbacks on each side, that leaves you 45 feet. MR. SCOFFIELD: That's 30 feet. You have a 75-foot dock. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. So you tuck one boat on the outside on aT-dock and the other boat on the inside. MR. SCOFFIELD: Oh, on aT-dock. If you were reconfigured -- it'd be like a U-shaped dock coming out from the seawall. You could do that. You'd still be out -- you'd be out close to the same distance though. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Why? MR. SCOFFIELD: Because your lifts are 13 feet wide, there is 26 feet. You would have to be out away from the seawall because of the depth at least 5 feet, and then the 5- foot walkway, so there's 10 feet. So now you're at 36 feet, a walkway between the two boats. So you are roughly the same distance. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not sure I'm following you. Why wouldn't the shorter boat have a lift on the inside of the dock up against the riprap, the shallower depth? MR. SCOFFIELD: Because you got -- you've got to get away from the seawall a little bit. We'd need a -- what I'm saying is if you have your seawall there you would need a 5- foot walkway dock sticking out the side so you get away from the rock. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. SCOFFIELD: So your lift can go down. There's 5 feet. You have 13 feet, 18 feet too, and then your -- another walkway between the boats coming out, there is another 5 feet. So that's 23 feet. Add 13 more feet for another lift on that outside and you're at 36 feet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you need a lift for both boats. MR. SCOFFIELD: And that way we'd have to rip out everything that the owner has and redo it. This way we're at 37 feet and we leave Page 11 June 16, 2005 everything as is. We put a little extension on the end of the existing dock and place a lift over there and -- but you're in Vanderbilt Lagoon, you have a huge, wide waterway. The water depths that you have, we took out, we had a surveyor take them out to 150 feet. There is no problem with water depths and boats navigating in this area whatsoever. And on that aerial I passed out there are boats sticking out approximately that length. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: One question I have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the depth, the distance out on the west of the client and on the east of the client? MR. SCOFFIELD: Sorry? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The length of those two docks that we are seeing -- saying west and east. MR. SCOFFIELD: You mean the two adjacent properties? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How far out are they? MR. SCOFFIELD: Okay. That's in the application. The boat, the dock on the east side -- the west side is out 20 feet, the east side is approximately 29 feet, that's with the boat. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now basically with -- MR. SCOFFIELD: You have a 20-foot boathouse on one side and sticking out, which, you know, people from time to time they tie up outside. What you wind up with, you wind up with a lot of 20- foot docks in the area, people tie up boats on the outside of their -- is what happens. Not supposed to without an extension but that's what happens. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why would yours in the middle need 27 if they are getting out there with just 20? MR. SCOFFIELD: I'm sorry, I don't understand. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This dock you are asking for goes out to 37 feet. MR. SCOFFIELD: That's correct. Page 12 June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You are telling me these two docks are 20 feet. MR. SCOFFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why wouldn't yours with the same two boats -- MR. SCOFFIELD: If you look at the picture of the boat on the east side. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. SCOFFIELD: I -- I don't know, I can't tell you if they have a dock extension or not, but if that boat is tied up on the outside of that dock and they don't have an extension, it's not to code. What happens is a lot of people go in and build 20- foot docks. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. SCOFFIELD: You don't have to come before this board to get an extension. And then they tie up a boat, and you can tie up a 30- foot wide boat out in front of there, or a five-foot -- it doesn't matter if you tie up a canoe in front of it, you are illegal if you don't have a boat dock extension. See, this, this application is for -- nothing can protrude further than 20 feet but what happens is people pull permits all the time for 20- foot docks and then they tie up a boat on the outside of it. When that happens they are not in compliance. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, even if we took another 10, how wide would this 38-footer be, the beam of the 38-foot boat, the big boat? MR. SCOFFIELD: This 34-foot boat? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. SCOFFIELD: Usually they are about 13 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So if you went with that, took a 33-footer you would be all right even with a 20-foot dock. If you took the extension out to 33 feet then you'd have the same -- MR. SCOFFIELD: Well, we just went over that a minute ago. I Page 13 June 16, 2005 was asked if I -- if we put the boats parallel out from the seawall, and we're going to be out to 36 feet if we do that. But that way we would have to rip out the dock, the existing lift and reconfigure it all. Do you understand that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand why it would necessarily take 37 feet to do two boats basically the same size, at least, of the one on the west, and that's out there telling -- you're telling me it's 20 feet. MR. SCOFFIELD: The dock? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The dock, yes. MR. SCOFFIELD: The dock is. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, if you add another 10 feet to work for the boat, or 12 feet, you are still going to have a dock that is 20 feet and a boat that will hang out to 33 feet, and that's still far less than the 37. MR. SCOFFIELD: Well, what we're trying -- the owner is trying to moor two boats and we're trying to do this in a way we can. Besides, if you did, you know -- and a lot of times if you do it the other way, you don't have access in. This way you don't, you are not backing into the neighbors, across their property line into their dock trying to get your boat in and out. The boat would be on the inside lift. This way you are coming in perpendicular to the seawall, there's plenty of water, you are in Vanderbilt Lagoon, it's extremely wide and there's no, you know, there is no complications there for navigation or anything else. And this -- this is the easiest solution to what the owner wants to do without costing him a ton of money. Now you could configure it the other way but it's not as easy as when you start bringing in a boat parallel to the seawall in an inside slip. These are small lots up there, they are 75 feet wide and, you know, and some of them, some of the docks are closer than 15 feet to the property line and it just -- it's very difficult to get a boat in and Page 14 June 16, 2005 out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for Ray. Ray, some of the zone atlases I've seen show platted lots out into the lagoon. Have those long been abandoned? MR. BELLOWS: No. In some cases these lot lines are platted into the waterway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but I mean I actually see like islands out in the lagoon areas, both north and south of this. I mean, they are not showing up in your maps, are they, being long vacated? Do you know what I'm saying? MR. SCOFFIELD: The old plats that are there the middle of lagoon. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SCOFFIELD: Those were platted by the Conner family in Conner's Vanderbilt Beach when they developed it, and those were going to be filled areas. And those are gone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they are gone? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Rocky, how wide is the lift? You have a current lift in there of 12 feet. How wide is the new lift? MR. SCOFFIELD: The new lift is going to be 13 feet wide. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How close to the riprap -- what's the depth of a small boat, the draft? MR. SCOFFIELD: Well, right now, the aerial that you have in your -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Shows a real small boat in that aerial. MR. SCOFFIELD: The aerial you have in your application, that's about a 20 -- that looks to me about a 24, 25- foot boat when that aerial was taken. Right now they only have the Gheenoe, you know, on the lift right now. But they want to be able to put up -- put a 24, 25-foot boat, runabout on the other lift. Page 15 June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you were to use an L-shaped dock and come off the seawall by about 5 feet for your first lift, your first lift being 12 feet, second lift being 13 feet, you would be a total of 30 feet off the seawall. MR. SCOFFIELD: You have to have that 5-foot wide dock along the seawall at least to get you that far out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. SCOFFIELD: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I'm saying. MR. SCOFFIELD: So now you are at 35 feet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, you come straight out the seawall, perpendicular to it like you have in this diagram right here. Leave the 12- foot lift where it is but just run an L-shape to the west. MR. SCOFFIELD: You can't get that boat in there because of the neighbor's boathouse. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're 15 feet from the neighbor's property line, adjacent dock. MR. SCOFFIELD: You got 21, you got 15 off of that is 7, you would be violating your side setback. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't -- oh. MR. SCOFFIELD: Are you talking about just coming off the end of the existing dock? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, but not going out from it with your additional 5 feet, starting at the end of the existing dock, going shoreward 5-feet wide to the west and run that boat along that direction parallel to the seawall, not perpendicular. What it would do is take your 37 feet down to 30. Basically, your protrusion of the waterway would be your lift for about 13 feet instead of another dock. MR. SCOFFIELD: If you would turn -- you're still going to be violating the setback. MR. WHITE: Gentlemen, you have to be on the record. Page 16 June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sorry. There was no overhead. I don't know how to do this without an overhead, Patrick. MR. WHITE: Speak loudly. MR. SCO FFIELD: Look at your aerial. Here is your boat on the lift. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, we're going to have to have that on the record. And if we need to move one of the microphones so they can have a dialogue, that's fine. And I'm not trying to curtail that dialogue, I'm just recognizing the court reporter cannot hear the conversation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I understand that, Mr. White, and I apologize, but there could have been an overhead put here today so this would have been simpler. MR. WHITE: We'll attempt to do that the next time. MR. SCOFFIELD: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is your question still -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It is not being resolved, I'm trying to explain it this way. The other question I have is, Rocky, the distance of the current dock shows on one plan 20.3 feet and the other one 20.2 feet from the seawall. Regardless, I thought you are only supposed to be 20 feet to begin with? MR. SCOFFIELD: That is this -- that's an old dock and this is what happens. A lot of times when I come before this board and ask for an extension, and these questions have come up before when I have a dock going out, let's say, 25 feet and I ask for a 26- foot extension, that's the reason. Because a lot of times in the past, see, a contractor will go in and he'll apply for the dock 20 feet out. When he is sticking poles in the water, he doesn't -- he can measure out but when you are jutting a pole in and moving it around you are going to be out 2 inches, 6 inches, a foot. Now what happens is, when we do these, the contractor who's Page 1 7 June 16, 2005 worked with, they hire a surveyor. They go out into the water, put a stake in the water with the extension that is allowed for. But you'll see these every day on these old docks, and they're, you know, that dock I'll guarantee when this permit was applied for from the county, it was for a 20-foot dock and it's out 20.2. And that's what happens. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have one more question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: You just made the statement that he has a 34- foot boat and he wants to be able, not to have the 20- foot boat that he also has now, but to also have a 24 or 25-foot boat? MR. SCOFFIELD: Up to a 24-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So now you want to really exceed the 50 percent. Right now it's at -- you are exceeding it because you've got a total of 54 feet. But now he wants to exceed it even more, that's the real reason he wants this configuration, correct, so he can get two larger boats in. MR. SCOFFIELD: Let's see. A lot of these lots totally exceeded -- the neighbor, if you look at the picture of the neighbor to the left, that is a 30-some- foot boat on the front and he has a 20- foot -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And he's got a 20-foot -- MR. SCOFFIELD: And a 20-foot boat-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- tucked in the side. MR. SCOFFIELD: A lot of these --look in that area, you can see a lot of these lots have big boats and smaller boats, you know, and they are placed in there, so -- that's one of the criteria in the application -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. SCOFFIELD: -- that's not met. Most of the others are. And that does happen from time to time, it doesn't, you know, it's not a big deal. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I'm set. Page 18 _._-- June 16, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Patrick, when we get an e-mail like this from a neighbor, how do we know that he's really -- I mean, I'm not accusing this guy of anything, but how legitimate is this thing? Because I think it's important. The neighbor to the east is the one that is going to have this in his view. How much weight can we put on that? MR. WHITE: The whole point of the quasi-judicial proceeding is to be able to effectively challenge all of the evidence that is put into the record. It is very difficult to challenge a stale document. There is no credibility of the person who sent it, that can be challenged. You would have to corroborate, essentially, any factual statements that are made in that e-mail through other kinds of evidence that is in the record. So traditionally I would say that most quasi-judicial bodies give very little weight to written communications where there isn't a live witness to provide that corroborating -- or answers to questions that you may have. And the courts, similarly, in the notion of competent substantial evidence, when they are asked to review these kind of quasi-judicial decisions that this body makes, give very little weight to any type of written materials not otherwise supported by other evidence. So, to wrap it up for you, I would say to give them very little weight. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of the petitioner? There may be more later. Let's hear from staff, please. MS. ERNST: For the record, I'm Joyce Ernst, with zoning and land development review. And the parcel is located in Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Page 19 June 16, 2005 and fronted by Vanderbilt Lagoon. And as the petitioner has said, the boat dock to the west that extends, that's where there is a boathouse. N ow that boathouse was approved prior to the current requirement for them to come for your approval. And the dock to the east, they did not get a boat dock extension, and if they came in today and showed that they had a boat that was going to be moored out past their dock, we would -- they would request a boat dock extension. In fact, they are in violation without getting a boat dock extension. As these boats are both moored perpendicular to the shoreline, you know, it's staffs opinion that they do not obstruct the use of the neighboring docks. Based on the information we got, we could not see that this was causing a navigation hazard with this dock extending out to 37 feet. Not I have not received -- the only comment I received was given me today by the petitioner. You all got e-mails. Nothing was sent to our department, at least I have not received anything. The one I got today was from the neighbor to the east and he was not obj ecting to it. I don't know what other e-mails you received, the commissioners received. And in order for staff to recommend approval, the petition has to comply with at last four of the five primary criteria and four of the secondary criteria. And this petition complies with the criteria as outlined, and therefore staff recommends approval. Does anyone else have a question? Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I have a question, Joyce. Under your secondary criteria, the following question and answer are not accurate. For single family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel or vessels in combination described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. Page 20 June 16, 2005 And the answer is, criterion not met. The subj ect property contains 75 feet of water frontage and the combined length of the two vessels total 54 feet or 72 percent, which exceeds 50 percent of the water frontage. And on the primary criteria, the following question is placed, whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land se and zoning of the subject property. And that question references waterfront length and the secondary criteria seem to answer in the negative. But in this primary criteria response that says, criterion met. The boat facility consists of two boat slips, which is appropriate in relation to the 75-foot waterfront length of the property. The subject property is zoned RSF-3, and a single-family residence is located on the subject lot. If it's not appropriate because it exceeds the 50 percent rule in the secondary criteria, why is it appropriate in the primary criteria? (Commissioner Budd leaves the room.) MS. ERNST: Well, actually that one, I guess, is the primary criteria doesn't really refer to the length just because that is a single- family platted lot, that two boat slips are appropriate for that. And -- I did not write criteria so I'm not sure. But I have really not been referring to the lot in conjunction with the width of the boats. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It does say waterfront length, that's -- and that the question is the number of boat slips, and it seemed appropriate to me. MS. ERNST: But I think that two boat slips for any residential lot, they figure, you know, it's appropriate for a single-family lot. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, Joyce. MS. ERNST: You are welcome. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have no other questions. Anybody else have any questions? Okay, are there any public Page 21 June 16, 2005 speakers? MR. BELLOWS: None registered. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. There's no public speakers. No other questions from the panel. Then we'll close the public hearing. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of information with respect to the two sets of criteria, it's important, I think, to keep in mind that failing to meet one or more of either of those sets of criteria is not in effect some defect or violation of the code, but rather they're a set of conditions of the appropriateness or not of the request. And I believe that staff would confirm that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, staffhas already indicated they need to pass just so many of both criteria they -- MR. WHITE: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- meet. That's all -- I understand that. MR. WHITE: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. There's no other questions from the panel. Is there amotion? We've got to have a motion. Can't go forward without one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Motion to approve by Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Second made by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have to discuss -- I'm a little bit confused exactly how big the boats will be. I mean, the testimony today seemed to be different than the packet and the concern I would have which would cause me to vote against it, it sounds like there's too much boat being put in the back yard there. Page 22 _'~' .m'_""___"~""'_"""___'__·- June 16, 2005 What is the exact length of both boats going to be? MR. SCOFFIELD: The -- Rocky Scofield again. The larger boat is 34 feet. The smaller lift can handle a boat of up to 24 feet. So those are your -- that's -- right now he has a canoe. He has a powered, he's got a canoe, Gheenoe, with a little ten horse kicker on it. That's what he currently has. But, you know, I don't know how we can restrict the guy but, you know, the lift will handle up to a 22, 23, 24- foot boat. That's with a center console. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a good answer. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I understand that it would be a lot cheaper for them to do what you have suggested. However he is the one that wants the dock, and I think the dock is out too far now, and if they took the dock out and put up another one he would be able to save that 5 or 8 feet extension. And I find it really difficult to accept the fact of allowing it to go out further than he needs to go out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anybody else? My comment's somewhat along Commissioner Adelstein's. I do believe that they have a right to put two boats, I don't see that as a concern. I think that configuration of the dock, even though it would be inconvenient to the applicant, could be configured in a manner that wouldn't make it go so far out into the bay. That's setting precedent for others in the area. So I would vote to deny. Okay. Hearing no other comments, call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion to recommend to approve this variance signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 23 June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll do that by hand. Those in favor one, two. Those against. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. Motion fails. MR. WHITE: Let the record show that Commissioner Budd is absent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Budd is temporarily absent. Do you have that for the record? The next item on the agenda is Petition CU-2004-AR-6965, Florida Homes model center. Any disclosures by the Commissioners? No disclosures. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. The owner of the property is not present at the present. The petitioner is here and is requesting that this be continued for a few minutes until the owner does come. And this would give you additional time to look at that Smart Growth one that you have to look over. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We can't continue it for a few minutes. We can continue it possibly for later in the agenda, but I can't control anything else. As far as Smart Growth, I think we've already said that will start at 9:30, and I would rather stay with that schedule. So the next item on the agenda if the commissioners want to consider the continuance to another point on the agenda? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. Page 24 ---- June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Schiffer. All those in favor. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. Okay, that will be continued until later in the agenda. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one thing, since you're leaving, are there any particular hearings you would like to hear now? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All of them. Personally, I have a lot of questions on all of them. Unfortunately I have to leave. I'll try to get back if I can get my issue resolved. I think the next one on the agenda is Bucks Run. This is petition PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6279, the Bucks Run PUD. All those having communication or contact or disclosures, please note. Any members of the commission? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Hearing that, I guess the petitioner's ready for the presentation. All those who need to be sworn in, please rise and raise your right hand. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. YO V ANOVICH: It's almost like a Senate committee instead of the typical format. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just watched The Aviator, that's an interesting movie. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. Page 25 ---.-- June 16, 2005 I believe many of you have seen the Bucks Run PUD on probably multiple occasions. Some of you are new to the PUD. This is an amendment to the existing PUD and is actually a reduction in intensity from the existing approved PUD. The property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, just north of the intersection with Vanderbilt Beach Road. The property is about 40 acres in size, it's 39 acres in size, and under the existing density rating system a maximum density of 156 units would be permitted on the property. The existing Bucks Run PUD is for 348 units. There was a component for affordable housing for 288 units, and after the PUD was approved there was a lawsuit filed by some residents of the Vanderbilt Country Club, which made the financing of the affordable housing project no longer feasible. We lost the affordable housing component due to that lawsuit. We met with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and we resolved the lawsuit by agreeing to come forward with the PUD and go back, essentially, to the original PUD that existed in 1999. What we're requesting is a PUD of 156 units, which is down from 348. So there would be 56 units on the northwest parcel, 28 units on the southwest parcel. The southwest parcel could also be a church. If it becomes a church those 28 units would be deleted from the project. On the east tract would be 72 units. The maximum height on the northwest and southwest tracts are three stories or 40 feet. On the east tract we're limited to 35 feet or two stories. We had a neighborhood information meeting and explained the project to all the neighbors. I believe they were happy with the proj ect. We agreed to construct a wall in our eastern boundary. But we also had another meeting with the Vanderbilt Country Club residents and there were several people in attendance there. They Page 26 June 16, 2005 were likewise very pleased with the proposed revised PUD. You've all had the master plan and understand the configuration of the parcels. Unless you have -- since you've seen this before, your staff report is very thorough. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 6 of the staff report there are three things that were promised at a neighborhood information meeting and agreed to. In the PUD I can only see number one. Can you show me where in the PUD it says -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: What is missing? COMMISSIONER CARON: That all homes on the east tract will have tile roofs, and the childcare facility will not be built until Collier Boulevard is widened to six lanes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Caron, those items, whether they are in the PUD or not, we could stipulate them as part of the motion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ms. Caron, I can ask Mr. Hoover to find them, but if they are not in here they were commitments and we have no problem with those being in the motion and we will reinsert those. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's fine. I just want to make sure that you are living up to what was committed at the neighborhood information meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any members of the commission have any questions? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a question. I also talked to Mr. Hoover in regard to this. It's my understanding that the total amount of units that will be used -- built there would be 128. Is that right, wrong? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, possibly, Commissioner. It Page 27 June 16, 2005 depends if the church is going to be built and they do contemplate that the church will be built, there is 7 acre -- which is the southwest parcel, all those 28 units on that parcel would be subtracted from the total of 156, which would result in 128 if the church does go forward. The church, I believe, is currently in for an SDP so the practicality will be 128. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to make sure that we state that or state that in a position that if the church does in fact go up, that the actual count would be 128 units. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I believe the PUD document does address that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I -- guess what, I have some questions. Richard, regarding the church and the childcare center that is going to go there, is there a limitation on the size that -- the number of children that could be used in the childcare center? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We anticipated I think no more than 120. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that could be capped at 120? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that's correct. I don't know where Bill went -- I believe that's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any problem and this is a question similar to what we had on other proj ects in the area, deferring COs until October 1 st or October 2007? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm pretty sure, since this project is an already approved project at a much higher density, we're already in for some development approvals for the project. So, since we've having a less intense project we think it would be appropriate to not have to have a limitation or when we can get COso COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You did agree to a CO on the childcare facility until Collier Boulevard was widened. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that commitment has been in Page 28 ^_"~~_",,_,_,..,,w..,~",,_..~,...,,_..____ ' June 16, 2005 existence for quite a while and we will continue with that commitment. We have no problem with that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What does that mean by widening? MR. YOV ANOVICH: What it means to me is until those lanes are In use. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So why do you use completed? Was that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the term was probably "substantially completed." COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Just as factual matter, the response to the question earlier about the number of children in child care, the PUD on Page 7 under 2.3A shows it as estimated at a 110 students. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Under development standards in the PUD 3.4 it talks about carports and other provisions. Carports are permitted within parking areas and the edge of (inaudible) in multiple family projects. I'm just assuming with the sidewalk issue that the sidewalks will not be fronting the carports, they'll be off to the side or behind. You are not going to be backing into the sidewalk and then -- MR. YO V ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Your front yard setback under multi-family, it says multifamily churches and childcare under Table 1 of your setback table on Page 14. You are talking about 15 feet. Again, it's a sidewalk issue. You have 23 feet for the others. Is that because on the multifamily you're going to use carports? You know, a four-plex is a multifamily, you have usually, a lot of times a frontage or garage. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If your concern is that we would somehow interfere with the use of a sidewalk, perhaps we can add a footnote to make sure in no instance will we interfere with the Page 29 ".~._-- June 16, 2005 sidewalk, like we've done for the landscape buffer footnote, if that's the concern. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, it is. Under Page 15, landscaping and buffer requirements, a 15-foot-wide Type B buffer shall be provided along the eastern boundary of the east tract with a 6- foot high concrete fence that looks like a brown or tan wood and has some landscaping. They're pretty ambiguous statements. Do you have a way of tightening those up? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe the code already requires plantings on both sides of the fence. So if you want to require that we meet the landscaping requirements per the LDC on both sides of the fence that would be fine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, I would rather strike the language that insinuates it could be something other than the LDC by using the word "some landscaping." Why don't we just -- if there is a requirement in the code for the landscaping, and staff is nodding their head that there is, then why do we need to address it as "some landscaping." Basically, you're going to put in what's required by code if those last -- those words are removed. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. For the record, Ray Bellows. The language probably should be modified to just reference consistency with the landscaping requirements of the LDC. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So you would like to end that sentence after the word "would." COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 3.4C.2, we would change it to eliminate the reference to landscaping because we'll have to just fall back on the LDC. Your access plan, you have your access points. Do they line up, any of them line up with that loop road that goes around the Mission Hills shopping center or can they line up with the loop road that goes around the Mission Hills shopping center? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe they can, Commissioner, I Page 30 ~"-'-~_. -"-- June 16, 2005 believe we've put the access point where your staff wants the access point to be. And I believe we're pretty close, or if not already under construction for the access point. There is a site plan in already for the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm looking at it now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- northwest tract and there is a site plan currently in for the southwest tract of this property, and they all show the access of -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Maybe we can get -- when we get the transportation staff -- somebody here today from transportation? Excellent. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You need to go on the mic. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners, for the record, Nick Casalanguida, transportation staff, transportation planning and review. As far as access points on Collier Boulevard, they are fixed. I have met with the design engineer. The road is at 90 percent, 100 percent complete, so wherever their access point is now has been approved by CH2MHill and county staff. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did anybody attempt to line it up with the loop road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think they have. I think we've been up and down this road to try and make all those connections as possible. We're in the process right now of dealing with a situation on Wolf Road as well, so -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So this does line up with the loop road so that potential for a multi-turn entry, left in, left out, full turn is there or not; that's what I'm getting at. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have a copy of the access plan, but what I can -- I have been in meetings, and wherever this access point is, is in the optimal position for 951 designs. Page 3 1 June 16, 2005 MR. YO V ANOVICH: We do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We do. Okay. Responsibility for the traffic light going in in the near future, I'm sure we have language in the Mission Hills and there may be language in here. Can you tell me, do you know for sure if there is? MR. CASALANGUIDA: There is standard language in there that the applicant would be responsible for potentially providing an additional signal for this one, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On one of the development plans, and it looks like it's the parcel to the north, it says the -- there is a nursery apparently to the north and there is a note on the development plan that says possible shared berm with project to the north. Is there any -- what if they don't have a possible shared berm on the project to the north, what does this mean for this plan? Because you have a mixed use area going in there, are you leaving space in there to then apply for the full width berm if you don't get that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, if there is no shared berm the berm would be on our side of the property. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you would provide then, the full berm on your side. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's all I can remember right now. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Commissioner Strain, just for the record, the provisional rule for traffic light section, it's 5.8L. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Found it. I just wanted to make sure it was there. I would just like to make a summary statement. In case I have to leave at least it will be on record. I have just gotten the applicant to more or less respond to, first of all the neighborhood information meeting, there were three items that Commissioner Caron pointed out need to be included in the stipulations. Page 32 June 16, 2005 MR. WHITE: Mr. Strain, if I can interrupt, the second of those three is found on Page 16 of the PUD, it's item 3.4 capital letters E-1 that creates additional language in the PUD document that makes required on the east tract residential roofs being limited to tile. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, so of the three, the third one is the one that isn't properly identified in the PUD as of this time; is that correct? COMMISSIONER CARON: It may be also but we need to be sure, that's all. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that one would still be retained. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that the two story limitation? MR. WHITE: The child day care facility not being built until Collier Boulevard is widened. COMMISSIONER CARON: The widening of951. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The child day care center would be widened when Collier Boulevard is substantially complete. There would be no interference with the sidewalks in regards to multifamily placement of the front setback. Section 3.4C2, the reference to some landscaping will be deleted in deference to the LDC. The reference to the shared -- possible shared berm on the site plan, in case that berm is -- there is not a shared berm the entire berm will be shifted onto the applicant's property. And there were three discussions from the Vanderbilt Country Club's notification we received in a handout this morning, Rich. Are you aware of those two? I'll read them to you. The first one says the Vanderbilt Country Club residents were advised of the following key changes to the east tract of the Bucks Run PUD which is adjacent to our property. One, substantial reduction in maximum permitted units and density. I think you've already acknowledged that. Reduction of maximum building heights from three stories to Page 33 June 16, 2005 two. MR. YO V ANOVICH: They're in the table. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Number three, reduction in the buffer along the eastern boundary of the east tract from 8 feet to 15 feet and a guarantee by the developer that a 6 concrete fence finished on both sides with a wooden or brick appearance would be constructed by the developer within the new IS-foot eastern boundary along with appropriate landscaping. MR. YO V ANOVICH: That's already in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And the last thing I'd like to ask you to stipulate to, do you realize that you are not being granted any concurrency determination on the outcome of today's proceedings and that the concurrency determinations have been waived? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are being waived? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You have not been reviewed for concurrency. MR. YO V ANOVICH: As far as I know we have not been reviewed for concurrency through this process. I don't know if we have submitted some other applications that there may have been concurrency review, so I know I -- I don't want to say that we have not done anything pursuant to the existing PUD to where we didn't have a concurrency reVIew. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As far as today's hearings, this is not providing you with any concurrency determination. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The rezone application, itself, correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's all the points that I would have to make if I was here at the time this gets voted on. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions -- other questions by the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is a traffic question. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, if I could let everybody know, I have been advised that we have some applications that have Page 34 June 16, 2005 already undergone concurrency review, so I just want that on the record. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The PUD itself doesn't provide you with any. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. But I want to make sure the record was clear, we have done concurrency reviews for some PUD plats. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, you had a question for transportation? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This would be Nick's. Have you been carrying this proj ect on your records anyway for concurrency? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Consistency, sir. The review for consistency is in the PUD stage, but they have applications in right now for a certain amount of plats that we have reviewed for concurrency currently. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, any other questions, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Hear from the staff, please. Excuse me, does that conclude the petitioner? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Staff report, please. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. As was reported there was a neighborhood information meeting and then subsequent meetings with the neighbors of the adjoining Vanderbilt Beach Country Club. And the developer and the joint property owners seem to be coming to agreement. Page 35 June 16, 2005 Do you have any other questions? I would be more than happy to try to address those. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for staff? There are none at this time. Are there any registered public speakers for this item? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any summary comments by the petitioner? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-6279 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval subj ect to staff recommendations and those recommendations made by Mark Strain at this meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Murray. Any discussion? There is none. We'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Page 36 June 16, 2005 Is the petitioner here, Ray, for -- does anybody know, on the Florida Homes item that we continued? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: It is 9:30, is our Smart Growth speaker here? Yes, he is. Okay. We moved Smart Growth to 9:30, that speaker is here. From that we'll go to Item 8C, the Florida Homes petition. So if we can hear from our Smart Growth presenter, please. MR. WEYER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Russ Weyer and I'm representing the Collier County Community Character Smart Growth Advisory Committee. And we're here today to give an update on our progress. We're getting ready to sunset shortly so we wanted to bring all of you up to date on what may be coming down the pike for all of you. The Community Character Smart Growth Committee was established to review the community character plan originally presented by Dover Kohl a few years ago and also reviewed other Smart Growth concepts and principles and make -- to make recommendations to the board on implementation of those Smart Growth concepts. The committee reviewed the report to determine what was not covered by existing county policies and regulations -- you are going ahead there -- is it going by itself? And the committee also looked at what was in the process to be adopted and being worked on by other committees, the Immokalee master plan, Golden Gate master plan, rural fringe and rural lands, et cetera. The next one, please. The committee determined that of all of the land use designations in the community character plan, the one that we really focused on for the past, roughly, nine months, I guess it was, was the mixed use development category in the urban area, and it wasn't really being addressed in the LDC at any great length. Page 37 June 16, 2005 So the mixed use is difficult to do throughout Florida and in the United States because the regulations are typically are set up to review uses individually and to create separation, buffering, et cetera, versus connectivity for pedestrians and vehicles. So we looked at it from that context and -- the next one, please -- the desired mixed use development form would be pedestrian-driven and more urban, like a downtown or grid pattern. The committee did meet regularly . We did visit some mixed use projects. We did go down to Fifth Avenue and did a walk-through and looked at some great concepts there and actually looked at a number of projects around the country we brought in to take a look at as well. Next one, please. The mixed use can occur either as uses over uses, with residential over retail, for instance or as separate uses on one site or a combination of both. So our role was to make sure that we had that connectivity in the LDC language and also that we made sure that we did have pedestrian walkways. Next one, please. Growth management plan language was drafted with the staff and approved by the county and the state and that was the initial language that was went through. That language established several potential sub districts, such as Buckley, with more general policy language and some specific criteria we felt still wasn't strong enough. Next, please. The growth management -- I'm sorry, the properties where mixed use can occur within the urban area are residential and commercially zoned properties that are vacant or could be redeveloped. So we focused primarily on the urban area because there are some opportunities there. We thought that mixed use would be great if you put some density in there if you put some residential along with that. Next one, please. The more detailed design standards and the compatibility/zoning would be handled the LDC under the PUD Page 38 June 16, 2005 section or other sections, so that's where our focus was going. The next one. The committee, with staffs assistance and the support of Commissioner Henning, has prepared draft mixed use development language for the LDC to encourage the use of the mixed use concept in the urban area. The language attempts to bridge that gap between the regulations that drive the separation between the uses and allow that connectivity in closer proximity to each other. So that's the direction that the language is taking currently with the staff. The draft language also incentivizes developers to generate mixed used development in the urban areas by increasing density, working on shared parking concepts and creating design criteria that favor the combination of residential and commercial together. This will hopefully reduce the number of urban infill proj ects that will focus entirely either on residential or commercial strips centers. So we were trying to incentivize for those infill areas to be able to do the mixed use and have the developers go in that direction. And currently the draft language is with the community development staff for review and fine tuning. They will be attempting to get this particular language in the current LDC cycle, so it will be coming down to you hopefully within the next few months, right, Bob? Next one, please. Other mixed use incentives that we did not get into this language but will need to be considered in future elements and changes include, first one, residential use allowed as a permitted use under the C-l zoning. We're currently, I think staff is checking with county legal staff on the possibility of that. The next one is a deviation from the native vegetation preserve requirements which may require a compo plan amendment, which they're also taking a look into. Currently right now if you were to look at an urban piece, the preservation, they look at it as a residential piece, the preservation is like 25 percent, which makes it almost Page 39 ....... -- ....,."." June 16, 2005 impossible to plan from a commercial perspective. So you combine the two and reduce that a little bit and make sure that it's not connected to another type of native vegetation area nearby. Then we would recommend that that be reduced. And that needs to be done on down the road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. Could you expand on that a little bit. You are saying that you would reduce the open space requirement in a mixed use development. MR. WEYER: Not necessarily the open space requirement but the native vegetation requirement. Currently under residential it's 25 percent, and under commercial it's 15 percent. But if you were to look at a mixed use they treat it as a residential for 25 percent, which again is almost impossible to plan around. So what we're recommending is we reduce those infill parcels where the native vegetation really won't be able to exist, it won't survive. And the other part of that is if it's not -- if it is connected to another area then we recommend it stay that way, that 25 percent. But if there is no connection and no real use for it then we'll recommend that it does get reduced and a lot of infill parcels are like that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 15 percent. MR. WEYER: Correct. And then the last part would reduce impact fees. And again, these are all things that are down the road that didn't get into our initial verbiage, that will be coming down the road. Just, I guess, in conclusion, the committee does sunset next week. We hope that you continue to help move this important initiative along when it does come to you. We've enjoyed serving the citizens of Collier County. And I do have one quote that your colleague and our colleague Bob Murray had put in here, and I thought it was great. It's time to put the quills and parchment away and end our chapter. The book is still being written and we were a part of it. Page 40 June 16, 2005 So we appreciate it, and that's our report. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any questions, comments? Thank you, sir, appreciate it. (Commissioner Strain leaves the room.) MR. WHITE: If I might ask one question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Mr. Weyer, with respect to that third recommendation regarding impact fees, was there any detailed discussion about the types of impact fees or the amount of impact fees per type that you are suggesting should be reduced and by how much? MR. WEYER: No, sir, that was not done in detail. We just wanted the issues that we didn't get into in a discussion but we felt that they needed to be identified and talked to you about. MR. WHITE: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Before we get to our next petition item we normally take a break about 10:00 AM. It's 20 til. I know we won't get through the next petition in that amount of time. And rather than stretch our court reporter out and burn the ends off her fingers, we'll take a 15 minute break and reconvene at five minutes before 10:00. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're back in session. We'll reconvene this meeting of the County Commissioner Planning Commission. Before we move on to the next agenda I want to remind the Planning Commissioners that, being that this is a temporary facility we're working in, we don't have our normal mics and if you would pay attention to try and speak directly into the mic. And for petitioners and staff, if you would do the same. It's a little bit awkward that we have one mic up here at this table. Staff and petitioners need to take turns and the opportunity would be great to answer a question from the audience before you actually get to the mic. Please don't do that. Please get to the microphone and speak clearly so the court reporter Page 41 June 16, 2005 can get an accurate transcript. Moving on to your next agenda item, that is Petition CU-2004-AR-6965, Florida Homes model center. Are there any disclosures by Planning Commissions on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There appear to be none. All those wishing to present testimony please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I want the board to know that a conditional use is being prepared for. MS. SMITH: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kelly Smith. I'm with Davidson Engineering. I'm here this morning representing Florida Homes of Collier County, Incorporated in their request for a conditional use approval to continue operation of a model home sales center on the property at the northwest corner of Collier Boulevard and 13th Avenue Southwest. The subject property is designated Estates on the Golden Gate area master plan future land use map, and the future land use designation does permit temporary use permits and conditional use approval for model home sales centers. The existing property has two existing model homes on the property. The parking and the landscaping are also in existence at this time. We believe that your staffs report was extremely thorough and we request approval of the conditional use application. We agree to the conditions in the staff report, including the condition that a sidewalk shall be designed and constructed per LDC requirements Page 42 -'- June 16, 2005 along the entire front of the property, 13th Street Southwest, within six months of the approval date of this request. We also recognize that a right-of-way permit will be required from the county department of transportation. I would be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, well, for staff and/or petitioners. On Page 5 of 8 in the staff report it says temporary use permits for model homes shall have a duration of three years from the date of approval. No subsequent issuance of a conditional use permit shall be for a duration exceeding two years. The total time for a temporary use/conditional use permit together shall not exceed five years. Now, it says on Page 2 of eight that you got your existing temporary permit in 1999. It's now 19 -- it's now 2005. And I don't know, but that's six years, to me, and you have been operating continuously, I think for part of this time, at least according to the staff report, without a permit. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. And you are absolutely correct. Their temporary use permit had expired. They were contacted that they needed a conditional use permit. They came in and applied. It languished for some time. County Code Enforcement also had contacted them and there was a -- a code case pending upon the action, on what occurs from this body here because they are in violation. And they are hoping to be able to get a conditional use to operate for an additional two years. MS. SMITH: I would also say that Mr. Schmaeling (phonetic) from Florida Homes is here this morning and I would like to give him the opportunity to respond to that question if he would desire. Page 43 June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. MR. SCHMAELING: Yes. Good morning. My name is Mike Schmaeling. For a while there we were considering the possibilities of actually selling the homes and the land and purchasing a new site within the Golden Gate Estates area. And with the escalation of prices of properties and of course the escalation in building costs, we just decided that it would be best if we tried to retain the site and the models. And that was the brief period of time that we were actually in violation. But we've tried to address that to bring ourselves current, and that's our desire. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schmaeling, during the time that there was a Code Enforcement proceeding, was this an open and functioning model center? MR. SCHMAELING: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Has it ever been closed or has it been an open and functioning model center since June 1 of 1999? MR. SCHMAELING: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Has it been a continually open and functioning new home model center since the certificate of occupancy on June 1, 1999? MR. SCHMAELING: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How long have you been in code deficiency? MR. SCHMAELING: Well, as soon as I was notified of the violation, we immediately contacted Davidson Engineering and contacted Code Enforcement to go ahead and make the application for a conditional use permit to, you know, to show that we were definitely, we had our sights set to try to make ourselves current. MS. SMITH: If I could also respond. The pre-application meeting for the conditional use application was held with Collier Page 44 June 16, 2005 County staff on March 17th, 2004. We did have some difficulty obtaining the proper survey and information to complete the application, but I think the property owner has demonstrated a desire to comply with the requirements and the information presented by the Code Enforcement Department. COMMISSIONER CARON: But from June of2001 until March, at the very least, of your pre-ap meeting, you were operating and you were not authorized to do that, you had no permits to operate. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The challenge I see on this item is separate from whether they were in compliance or out of compliance, in violation of code issues, whatever, there's been a functioning open model home center there for six years and there's a five-year limitation. Because even though there was an administrative period that they were waiting for surveys and tying this down and tying that down and getting everything straight, the net result to the property owner of this business is they have been open and functioning, whatever was going on administratively in the county. I have a hard time granting any extension just based on the item that Ms. Caron first pointed out that the total time period for temporary use and conditional use permits together shall not exceed five years. This petitioner has had the benefit of six years of use, and I'm having a hard time finding a compelling reason that we should just overlook that very simple basic statement that the maximum time is five years of use. They have already gotten an extra year, and you need to give me a good reason why we should go further when you have had net use of the property already one year more than is allowed by code. MS. SMITH: Can I ask a question of your staff why they have recommended approval of the conditional use request for a two-year extension with that information in mind. COMMISSIONER CARON: We'll definitely ask that question. Page 45 June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good question. I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. DeRuntz, you are going to need to take advantage of the microphone. Mr. Schmaeling -- there we go. MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner, code CDS. Recently the LDC was amended and the compo plan, I guess, they had a compo plan amendment for clarification about model home sales centers in the Estates area. There was some concern about this use having to meet the locational criteria for a conditional use in the Golden Gate area master plan and that was modified, and during that modification that the limitations of the three years and then the two years for the conditional use was established previously to that. They could have come back in increments of three years, subsequently in a three-year period come back and again applied for a conditional use. From this amendment, they are now, there is more of a restriction for the time period for model homes in the Golden Gate area. So that has -- that modification has just happened within the last COMMISSIONER CARON: But knowing that they could come back they still did not. MR. DeRUNTZ: I can't speak for them, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: They let it lapse. MR. DeRUNTZ: You are correct, there was a period of time, but they are willing to come into compliance and request their conditional use. And this would be their first conditional use permit request, even though there was that time period that they were operating without -- outside of the temporary use permit time period. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. DeRuntz, what is the current code as far as the number of times and the duration of times you are allowed to get extensions? MR. DeRUNTZ: One. CHAIRMAN BUDD: One time for two years? Page 46 June 16, 2005 MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Now that code amendment that you are mentioning, is that in process and not yet in effect? MR. DeRUNTZ: No, that's in effect now. CHAIRMAN BUDD: What was the previous code? MR. DeRUNTZ: It was a three-year time period. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Initially? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Three year initially. And then how many extensions? MR. DeRUNTZ: And then they could come back subsequently as many times as the Planning Commission and the board of appeals felt that that was an appropriate use in the area. CHAIRMAN BUDD: For three years each time? MR. DeRUNTZ: A maximum of three year increments. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. All right. Because it appears to me that although this is the first technical formal extension, they have had a functional extension of three years already. And the question before us now is if we're going to judge them under the code that used to exist or the code that currently exists. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We have no choice. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of staff or the petitioner? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The code that existed when he got his first approval was the three year, three year? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is, what is the value of the home that is sold of this site, the product that he's selling off this site? MR. SCHMAELING: Is that the market value of the product? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, essentially. Right. Who Page 47 June 16, 2005 are you selling these homes to, what price do you charge? MR. SCHMAELING: Single family homes in Golden Gate Estates price range is around 180,000. We used to try to be a, basically an entry level home builder -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SCHMAELING: -- for the first time home buyers and such but that has largely gone away. Now it's more or less second, upper scale home, but it's still-- that's not an expensive home in Naples -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. SCHMAELING: -- given the area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That probably is an entry level home in Naples. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are we going to hear a staff report? Okay, then I would wait for that question for the staff report. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner? Mr. DeRuntz, any further staff report comments? MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Zoning and Land Development Review. I do want to state that we did hold a neighborhood information meeting. We did have one person show up that was the neighbor, and it was just concern, you know, what was going on and they did not have a problem with the activities of the model home as it was, at that location. Staff is recommending approval with the stipulations as identified in the report. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions of staff? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, refer to Page 5 of 8, Michael. And under the analysis, Item 2, I know from other hearings that I've attended and been part of that the six- laning of Collier Page 48 June 16, 2005 Boulevard is to begin in April 2006 and wouldn't be completed for two years. I don't know that that has a significant bearing on this, but I think it's important to note that that does impact on it. MR. DeRUNTZ: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the other thing is, is there no fee in lieu or has the petitioner agreed that he would put a sidewalk in or as I recall the sidewalk is in? MR. DeRUNTZ: No, the sidewalk is not in on 13th and they are in agreement to placing it within six months of the improvements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So no fee in lieu. Those were my questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff? Any there any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any summary comments by the petitioner? Yes, sir, Mr. Schmaeling. MR. SCHMAELING: I was contacted by a neighbor down the street and they have a lot of kids that catch the bus in the morning and they asked me about parking in the grass along the edge of the road there in the model home. I said feel free to park in the parking lot in the mornings because we're not open until 10:00 in the morning. I'm sure the board is aware of all the little school bus stops. There are random locations through the Golden Gate Estates. They have a little covered roof and a couple of benches and a bicycle rack. At one time I had come down to the planning board down here in Horseshoe Drive and offered to put one of those up. And of course they were not going to give me any permit costs or anything like that, I wouldn't have to pay. But then, again, it was brought up about the liability should I put that up, that I might be liable. The neighbor called the other day and asked me would I be interested in doing that and I told her my present situation with the conditional use. And I would embrace it or even donate a corner of Page 49 June 16, 2005 the property or whatever, you know, if we could get that done. I would be more than willing to try to help that out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Unfortunately the item before us today cannot address the school bus stop. There is nothing that this commission can do to address that concern. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any further questions? And no registered speakers. So with that we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-6965 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of the staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Schiffer. Under discussion, I'm in favor of an extension in that I don't see the reason for a code that has a three-year base period and a single two-year extension for a five-year maximum. However, nobody really cares what I think because the code is the code, and I feel constrained to express my judgment on the Planning Commission on this petition with the current code that's in place even though I don't necessarily agree with it. I don't think that this model home does anything detrimental to the community but there is a code in place and I've got mixed feelings about complying with the law the way I understand it and what is otherwise a reasonable request. So I'm looking for a reasonable argument by the motion maker and second that will push me in a different direction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the reasonable argument is that when he entered into this to build these houses, to build this model home he was expecting three-year, three-year, three-year. Thus ifhe was still using the thing and he was a good neighbor, which it Page 50 June 16, 2005 sounds like he's an exceptionally good neighbor, that he would be reasonably expected to be granted these agreements. The fact that the law changed since that time, really, I think, we should apply to him the law that was in effect at the time that he got the approval. COMMISSIONER CARON: But, Brad, he wasn't even following the law that was in effect when he started out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he -- COMMISSIONER CARON: He was not following that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he didn't get the second renewal, essentially. Right. And there's no justification for that but -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think there's also the possibility here where if the two years is added, he's got an additional time to create his own business again somewhere else and to throw him out on the street today would be a real hardship to him and I think it wouldn't be necessary. It shouldn't be necessary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And providing houses of 180,000 is a need for the county. He's providing a service to that neighborhood. So I think to shut him down now, doesn't do anybody any good. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, just exactly what I was saying before, I believe he wasn't following the rules that were in place when he began, and he is not following the rules as they are established now. And like you, Mr. Budd, I feel constrained by the LDC, you know, we have a code and we need to follow the code. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion? There being none we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 51 ,.., ... ~"., ~.., . June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. Opposed like sign. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Could we have a show of hands, all those in favor of the motion. That is four in favor. And those apposed is three. The motion carries four to three. We'll move on to the next agenda item. That is Petition PUDA-2005-AR-7085. While the audience is shifting in preparation for this next petition I remind the Planning Commissioners to fill out your findings of fact relative to this last conditional use petition that we just heard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I actually don't have the form. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there not one in your packet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I actually didn't get a packet. I finally got one e-mailed today. Can I sign along with somebody else, would that be appropriate? CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'll see if we can get you another copy. Ray, do you have a findings of fact that Mr. Schiffer can use on the last petition? We got our housecleaning done. Ready to discuss the next petition, PUDA-2005-AR-7085. Any disclosures on the part of Planning Commissioners? There are none. All those wishing to present testimony, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you very much. Page 52 June 16, 2005 Can we hear from the petitioner, please. MR. BELLOWS: Before we start. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to let everyone know in the audience that if we do have speakers that want to go up to make a presentation now we have a handheld mic that they can use. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Would be very helpful. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before we get started, Ray, you handed out a number of items. Can you just go over what was handed out so we're sure everybody has everything. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Those handouts were from Heidi Williams. MS. WILLIAMS: One item I handed out is a letter of -- I'm sorry, a letter of objection from a neighboring resident. It's one page. And that was received just a few days ago so it was not included in your packet. The other item I handed out is four pages that are modifications to those strike-through underlined portions of the PUD document you received in your packet. Those are updates to the PUD document. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And then there appears to be an outline to a PowerPoint presentation. Those are the only three new items introduced to us. I just want to make sure we've all got the relevant documents. Okay. MR. TYSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Bruce Tyson, the landscape architect and planner with WilsonMiller. And this is on behalf of the petitioner. I'll be making a presentation. What you have is a PowerPoint show. I'll run through that, so if you have any comments you would like to make as I go through that, by all means please do and we can answer any questions as we get to the end. This amendment is to change the zoning on 215 acres at the Page 53 June 16, 2005 northeast corner of the Orangetree PUD. And the purpose of the amendment is so that we can change the zoning to allow for more public facilities and community use activities on those properties. With me today are a number of personnel from the county. I'm not going to introduce everybody specifically, but needless to say if there are specific questions that come up, these are the people who are here who can answer these and we can at least get to the point of where we certainly have the experts that can deal with these independently and specifically. On the next slide we can see where -- the existing PUD and it shows and you can -- as you look at this, this is the bottom of Page 1 now with your handout. The total PUD is 2136 acres. It's bounded completely by Estates lands except for the fact that in the heart of it on the eastern side is where the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD was taken out not too long ago that you may have recalled. I have a pointer here, and that is the piece that we are looking at in here which is the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD. The significant structures or roadways that are in the area are Immokalee Road, is completely up the west-hand side of Orangetree, and Oil Well Road runs, and basically bisects the PUD right through the heart of it, running in an east-west direction. And in -- initially, the Orangetree PUD was set up in 1985, and at that time of course much of the land in the whole Orangetree area was agricultural. And one of the things that we need to do now, of course that was set up as an active orange grove, that's exactly what the property is, it's completely in orange grove right now as you can see on the aerial. And what we need to do is change the zoning, as we've indicated, from agricultural as it's currently zoned today to these two other uses. And this amendment, when we do this, will allow this agricultural use to be changed to public facilities and community use. Page 54 June 16, 2005 And what we've done here as you can see is we have located the public facilities to the eastern side of this land and we've taken the community use, the uses here and tied it to existing community uses because that's right directly adjacent to the Collier County fairgrounds. So what we wanted to do is make sure that those facilities were in close proximity to one another and therefore it would allow for some very good exchange of land and land uses, depending upon what their needs are. So what this will allow is for -- within the PF -- is to have this new public facilities district and we're asking that it be developed into water and wastewater treatment and common facilities, and in the community use it will be a park as well as a household recycling center. Now, why are these facilities necessary? This has been identified in the county's water and wastewater master plan updates of 2002 and 2003. And what this will do by allowing these facilities to be constructed here, will offer a capacity and reliability throughout the county. These are not independent facilities simply to be located in the northeast portion of the service area. All of these will be completely interconnected back to the countywide system, so it will be far greater and enhance all of the reliability and the distribution of these services throughout the county. In addition, the county has signed an agreement with Orangetree Utilities that by the year 2012 they will take over the utility services district within Orangetree. So that combination of things came together to the point of where the master plan indicated that in this region and in this area new services needed to be provided. Now, why this location? Again, it was a logic (sic) extension of the services area. You see the line that is a little bit difficult to see here, but there is a red line that follows around that indicates what the new services area of Orangetree will be -- excuse me, within that Page 55 June 16, 2005 whole northeast portion of the county. In this process of looking for expansion, public utilities identified six properties identified in the pink and then of course the one in yellow. And the bottom line, very quickly, is the fact that we only had or could find one willing seller, and that is the piece within Orangetree. And so consequently we have now focused on that. The overall conceptual master plan for this 216-acre parcel is, first of all, you can see the star over on the left-hand side, and the access comes across 39th Avenue Northeast. That's the existing access into the fairgrounds, it's just -- I'm sorry, it's a little bit off of the slide. It's over in this location. But there is a roadway that exists through here and that will be the roadway from which we will wind up getting access into the parcel. Again, public facilities to the east, the park to the west. And I want you to notice on this slide one of the things that, with the size of the land that we have and recognizing that we're putting this into a rural area, conceptually you'll see these streets that come down and feed the Estates, the land that's within the Estates. And if you extend those through the property, you'll notice that what we've done by the plan is to try to keep any facility out of that area, out of that sightline completely because for most of these people for years all they have done is come back to a home and seen nothing but trees. And we want that to continue. Now, you know, and the whole point is we will be doing buffering, we will be doing a lot of things. But of course with any initial project you always see it. The idea will be to establish or keep those sightlines to the point of when they are driving home they'll in essence look at the same thing they've looked at in the past. So that was one of the very important considerations when we were looking at this. And of course with the -- again, when I pointed out the fairgrounds that you can see here with the aerial, that we have the Page 56 June 16, 2005 opportunity to do some -- to really, to work with that relationship that's going on between the fairgrounds and the park. So let's take a little closer look at some of these specific elements and what we'll be asking for. All the way to the east and another reason for putting all of these facilities to the east is security. And the water treatment plant goes about as far east as we could take it. For all of the issues that come up with the quality of the water, making sure that there is not the opportunity for any kind of tinkering with that supply, we've placed this about as far away from the public as possible. So that is as far east as we could take it. It is planned according to the master plan for 20 million gallons. The initial stage will be slightly less than that as they go up to the point where we start at 10 million and work our way to 20 million. The point is that that is this current master plan. If in the future it calls for more, obviously it's going to be greater. But as of today the master plan calls for this to get to 20 million gallons. As I indicated it's going to be fully integrated into the county's distribution system and it will be a state of the art facility. Secondly, on this, the public facility side is a water reclamation facility. It's planned for 6 million gallons a day. It again will be fully integrated into the county's collection system and it too will be a state of the art facility. New to the county operations in situations like this, because the county has four plants operating right now but they are all independent, two north and two south. Two wastewater, two water treatment facilities, and to the north and what they call the north and the south. We've never had an opportunity to put two of them together before on the same property. And there should be some significant economical and operational benefits to doing this. So there will be a common area between the two. And that common area will have administrative and training facilities. It will have maintenance and Page 57 June 16, 2005 storage of repair parts. And deep injection wells, which are part of all of these facilities, can be combined and used by these various facilities at this point. Also within this zone we will have raw water wells to extract water that will be serving the water treatment plant. And what is the most important thing here for everybody to realize is the fact that these wells are regulated very significantly and stringently by both the county and by FDEP. And whatever our Public Utilities Department does has to be regulated very, very stringently by those groups, and so those rules will be adhered to. On the park side, when we get over to the community use, there's little to report on this yet because this, this component of the project is not necessarily what we would call an afterthought, but the point is that there is just some land that is going to be left over. And the point is that this, the park, nothing has been planned here yet, there will be some planning that will come in the next three to five years. And at that time, at the same time the park continues to look at potentially combining this with other facilities that are within that zone. And finally, the last use is a household recycling facility. This is needed significantly in this area. There isn't anything that exists out in the Orangetree area. And this will be for your household waste, for bottles, cans, paper and cardboard, things like that. It will be for a household, definitely not commercial hazardous waste. So consequently the greatest word that has been used for this is you got to consider this to be an extension of your garage. So it's for all of those things that are over in the corner of your garage that you haven't touched for two or three or four years and it's time to get rid of and you know they are a little sensitive and therefore you shouldn't put them into the trash bucket. So the beauty of this is that there is going to be a place where you can take this. We wanted to keep this as close as we could to Immokalee Road, so it will on the western part of this PUD or within the western part of Page 58 June 16, 2005 the CU use. And consequently it makes it so that it's as close to Immokalee Road as possible. Now, with each one of these facilities -- and any of those facilities of course they bring on the questions of what can be done to ensure that the project's development will have a minimum effect on the surrounding property. And we've looked at this from the noise, odor, glare and the other issues that you can imagine. With noise the best solution is to mitigate it at the source. And what I'm going to tell you or go through right now are some of the things that the designers for these facilities will be thinking about when the time comes, and I'll show you a couple of interesting technologies that are going to be employed. But with noise, certainly the best thing to do is enclose that at the source, procure equipment that generates less noise. You want to place the source away from the receiver as far as you can, and use acoustic deadening material, all common things, but a lot of times people don't think about that. And a landscape buffer to a certain degree will help a little bit with noise. One of the more interesting technological advances that have been made is through computer modeling. And this is actually one of the county's pump stations where the county does have to meet noise ordinances that we have, and we're planning to meet those throughout the proj ect. But the slide on the left that you see is a source of the noise as it's measured with no attenuation. And then through, and it's all computer enhanced and those are noise contours that are shown in different colors. And then the noise source, you know, using this but with predicted barriers and attenuators and equipments, you can use different kinds of techniques, again, with all of those to reduce the contours to the point of where there is no -- or everything comes to the point of where it meets the county ordinance. And there is noise but at the same time everyone understands exactly what it is and it gets abated correctly and it meets the county's ordinance. Page 59 June 16, 2005 With lighting, what we will do here from the standpoint of glare, shield the lights at the source. We can direct the lights away from surrounding properties, reduce the mounting heights and provide the landscape buffer at the projects' perimeter. When it comes time to odor, many technological advances have been made in this field in the recent number of years. But again no different than anything else is to take care of it at the source. And using state of the art technology, enclose portions of a facility to keep the odor completely under control, and the use of odor control devices. What you are looking at here, the black cylindrical device, is a biofilter that uses bacteria to literally eat smell out of the air. It pulls in directly, it winds up coming up with the emissions that come off of these waste treatment facilities and they pass through the bacteria and they come out far cleaner by the time they get to the top. It's a very interesting technique and process. The other thing that we want to do is, I talked briefly about the perimeter buffer. We have looked at this and this, this sightline, by the way, is taken for the closest residence, which is up on the north side of the project, it's about 450 feet from where we're suggesting the first phase of the project be constructed. And what we've done here with these is, well, difficult to tell from the graphic because of the distance that we are from here. What we've shown is the condition of planting the 12-foot tree on the buffer, and the buffer is right here. The 12- foot tree at the time of planting, what happens in four years, what happens in eight years. And what happens with that is the sightlines, the line that continues up, goes right up from approximately at the 12-foot height probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 feet of anything that could be seen at that distance to the point of in eight years you clear 60 feet. So it's the benefit of having the buffer and understanding what the buffer can do and the -- just, it's just very important as we will go through this process. Page 60 June 16, 2005 The PUD is asking for these buildings to be set back 100 feet from the property line. The county ordinance for industrial facilities requests that side yard setbacks are 50 feet, so we're doubling that. In addition, on the north side of the county's property line where you see this canal that exists, is an 80- foot county easement for drainage. So consequently the three of those two items combined, the 100 feet plus the 80 feet, will mean that these facilities will be over three times what would be required by the typical situation that you could see in Collier County when you would have a residence or a residential use adjacent to an industrial use. While we were at the town hall meeting that existed up on April 6th, Commissioner Coletta had a town hall meeting and the PUD people were there, we were asked a question about property values. And while none of us on this team are experts in property values, what we wanted to do is at least take a look at that and see, was there any relationship to any of the other existing facilities that we had in Collier County that would make -- any -- could claim along the way that in fact there was some correlation between adj acency to one of these facilities and their property values. So what you see here is, what we really wound up doing was we looked, and through the county appraiser's office and property office we investigated and found that in the last 13 or 14 years on the south treatment plant -- now if you are not familiar with where the south wastewater treatment plant, this is Rattlesnake Hammock Road across the top, U.S. 41 here and then St. Andrews snakes it's way through and comes up. So the treatment plant is right there. It is literally sandwiched within a residential community. Well, what we found was we looked at over 65 properties and sales within a half mile of that facility. Craig, go to the next one, please. And then we also looked at what were the sales between, then, a half mile and a mile away, trying to say that generally speaking, the type of structure that you would have within that zone would be Page 61 June 16, 2005 somewhat similar and yet you would not be in direct contact with one of those facilities. And then we did the exact same thing for the north water treatment plant. And the reason, by the way, we used these two is because the other two were -- just don't have that many residential units around them. The north water treatment plant, for those of you who don't know, is -- this is Route 951, or Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road. And so what we did here with the north plant was do the exact same thing. Now, the north plant is in a much newer area so we didn't collect the same numbers. But we found over 105 property sales within a half mile and then we compared that to over 240 property sales that were within a half mile to one mile. What we found in all of this was some interesting statistics and correlations. And what I want you to do is take a look at the two bottom lines, in particular, the two blue lines. What you have here is the -- this is within -- the line at the bottom represents, with the south treatment plant, the wastewater treatment plant, those homes that were within a half mile of the facility. The lighter blue line is homes that were within one half mile to one mile. And it's a -- it's a perfect correlation. And what it amounts to is that these running in parallel simply indicate there is no impact here and no effect. The only effect is the cost of the price, because on the left-hand side is the cost per square foot that we have that we're looking at from the standpoint of what is the value. So for instance it's about $50 a square foot is where it starts off and here it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $75 a square foot. But they stay in parallel, meaning that you can see the appreciation continues the same with both. And similarly with the north plant, the yellow line is for what happens if you were within one mile. And the reason for that is there were hardly any sales. Vanderbilt Beach or Vanderbilt Country Club Page 62 June 16, 2005 came on line after the plant was there. But the point is there are hardly any sales up in here that were within a half mile of the facility. So it was an interesting exercise, at the end of which we determined that there was really no conclusive evidence that we could find that indicated within Collier County that placing a treatment plant adjacent to your property had any significant impact on appreciation. Now, that being said, we also recognize quickly that this is a new plant being placed in a new area and we have nothing to compare that to. So there was no way of saying if we took a new facility and placed it adjacent to some existing properties what effect are you going to have. We don't have that answer in Collier County. So what we have, where we're going now, we have our meeting with you, our today hearing with you. We have the Board of County Commissioners out on July 26. We're going to establish a community advisory panel in the summer of this year. We're going to start construction documents shortly after the Board of County Commissioners' hearing, as there is already a consultant team in place to design these facilities. The first thing that is going to be done is install a landscape buffer, and that's going to happen in the first two quarters of next year. And then right behind that will be to initiate the facility construction in August of 2006, and with a contemplation date right now of completion being sometime in 2008 and 2009. So, with any project like this without anybody saying okay from a carte blanche standpoint saying go ahead and do it, we don't want that to happen because we recognize it's very important to carry on communications with the community. There's going to be a 12-member community advisory panel established. I think we've already got seven members or seven individuals who have expressed interest in doing this. So they will be the eyes and ears for the community to go out and provide feedback, come back and have the opportunity to see exactly what's going on. Page 63 June 16, 2005 And through this whole process there will be a website that will be up and running. You can go to that and use that right now, and it tells you about the dates, informs you about meetings, and tells you about all of the things that are happening. We did have our public information meeting and we did get some comments on that. But what we've gone through and done here is we want to make sure that we have a complete open door policy. We have invited people to go to the waste treatment plants. Many people -- and water treatment plants. Many people have taken us up on that option. Anybody who wants to can go do that at any time. So I think you'll all be very impressed as to what happens in the county. And I'll leave this, the next slide, I'll leave that up in case there's any questions. But generally speaking that's exactly what we're intending to do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for the petitioner? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There are a couple having to do with the deep injection and the raw wells. The deep injection, I understand, is for residual waste products. It's a reverse osmosis plant is being programmed; is that what is going to go there? MR. TYSON: The plant right now for the water -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. TYSON: The water treatment plant will be -- that is the contemplated technique and technology, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the raw wells, that's from the official or that's raw water? MR. TYSON: On this property right now, everything is looking to be drawn from lower than this official water aquifer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How far away will the injection wells be from the raw wells? I know we have a substrate -- we have the strata there that will protect us, but how far away are they? Page 64 June 16, 2005 MR. TYSON: I don't have an answer for you yet. I don't think that these injection wells have been designed. There is not enough information yet on the depth to which they are going. They have done some test wells for water but they have not done any testing yet for the deep injection well to figure out at what level it needs to be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. The question, I understand you have bacteria that perform, but this is hydrogen sulfide we're talking about? MR. TYSON: That is one of the by-products, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which is pretty odorous. How effective -- how high is that stack, that cylindrical object that performs that scrubbing function? MR. TYSON: There are two of them out at the north wastewater treatment plant right now. I don't have a specific measurement. It will be a guess. My best guess is right around 35 or 36 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is adjacent to or a part of or on top of the structure? MR. TYSON: On the ground. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the ground. Okay. So that's not a problem. And the noise code is -- you mentioned that the noise code speaks for it but you didn't indicate the decibels. MR. TYSON: It -- I believe it's 55 decibel requirement at nighttime. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you indicate that your noise level would be lower than the code? MR. TYSON: Not necessarily lower, but it will be no higher than. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because that's a pretty quiet neighborhood out there and I just wondered at that level. I know the structure. I have been to the other plant, and I know it's relatively quiet but it is an area out there. Page 65 June 16, 2005 Another question has to do with, you indicate 2008, 2009 you'll be complete, that you hope to be on line. MR. TYSON: That is the initial phase. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You started out saying the Orangetree would be taking over by the year 2012. And I just wondered, if you are going to be complete in 2008 or 9, what is to prevent from taking over the Orangetree plant and giving those folks some benefit of some really good water? MR. TYSON: It's an agreement that exists right now between the two. MR. SCHMITT: I need to interject in this. That has nothing to do with the -- and I appreciate your question, but it has nothing to do with the rezoning. That is a legal question in regards to the existing PUD and an agreement that's being debated between the two water authorities. So it really is something I don't think is germane to this discussion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt, but my question was, if there wasn't an agreement I might ask for a stipulation, is where I was going with that. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. Certainly that's a policy decision from a -- that is an issue between the Collier water, wastewater authority and then of course the authority that manages this -- you used the word water, the water department, but -- MR. WIDES: May I? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. WIDES: Good morning. For the record, my name is Tom Wides. I'm the Operations Director for Public Utilities, Collier County Public Utilities. We do have an agreement in place, as Brian stipulated here. We do have an agreement in place for 2012. However, that is with another, separate utility, okay, and we will move along on a separate path to see if there is interest to moving into a more current time Page 66 June 16, 2005 frame. However, it is their certificated area. The agreement says 2012, so we can't basically arbitrarily take over that certificated area prior to when the agreement contemplates unless both parties agree to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Wides, I thank you for that qualification. That's a reasonable concern. My last question would be having to do with the orange grove. And there is a statement in here indicating that the applicant intends to leave any trees that are not in the area of the development undisturbed. Does that mean that the county will be operating -- will be producing or -- because I'm concerned with citrus canker. I'm concerned. That may also not be part of zoning but I think it may have some bearing. I'm just concerned with the idea that we're going to leave the trees. Are they going to become the county's burden or what? MR. TYSON: No. It's quite the opposite. I mean, the idea of leaving the trees is if we can find an operator to come in and actually manage the grove, to continue to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. TYSON: That's the only way that is going to work effectively. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So, in other words, they are not just ornamental, effectively they -- they remain productive. MR. TYSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My first question is about the water reclamation or the water reuse. What percentage of the water do you think will go in the deep well and what percentage do you think will be reclaimed? MR. TYSON: I don't have an answer for that. That's very Page 67 June 16, 2005 premature. MR. SCHMITT: Joe Cheatham, Joe can come up. He can address some of those issues. MR. CHEATHAM: For the record, Joe Cheatham, wastewater director for Collier County Public Utilities. The intent of the permit for discharge for this new water reclamation facility is a hundred percent to go to reuse. The injection well would only be used for wet weather disposal. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you anticipate any of that could go into ag, into the orange fields? MR. CHEATHAM: No. The permit will probably go for use for irrigation uses, like golf courses or residential home or common areas. We do not anticipate any agricultural reuse at this time. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Midney, the request for reuse water far exceeds what the authority has available. So certainly -- and I think Joe can address that, but certainly the intent is to meet the customers' demands first and they have far more customers wanting reuse water in this county than the water that's available. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When you say fully integrated, does that mean that the wastewater or the reclaimed water from this will be able to be within the same plumbing that serves the rest of, say, the Naples urban area or the urban fringe? MR. CHEATHAM: Our goal is to fully integrate the raw wastewater into all of the systems, and we're looking at the option of integrating the reclaimed water, but at this time the raw wastewater will be integrated and at some future date we will probably look at integrating the reclaimed water as well. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. My next question is about the household recycling center. Why would you be dropping off bottles, cans, paper, cardboard; isn't that going to be picked up on the curbside? MR. YILMAZ: George Yilmaz. Page 68 June 16, 2005 For the record, George Yilmaz, Solid Waste Director. Yes. We do have curbside service, do take recyclables, those items, but we also have multi-family customers who do bring their recyclables, electronics, cardboard, batteries, those items that accumulate in your garage, to this recycling facility. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I didn't have a question about the hazardous waste but I was wondering why people would drop off their bottles and cans if they were going to be picked up anyway. MR. YILMAZ: Again, multi-family customers do have different structure for recycling. Some of them have curbside, some of them do not have curbside recycling collection, so they do bring their recyclables not collected in centralized location to these facilities. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You are saying that multi-family dwellings do not have curbside recycling? MR. YILMAZ: Very few do, most of them don't. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why is that? MR. YILMAZ: Due to the infrastructure for collection system. They are high-rises and we just don't have service going every floor, collecting from every unit curbside, meaning right in front of your door, recyclables. They have centralized containers that recyclables get collected. Most of them under commercial account. And there are some items that they prefer to bring their recyclables in our facilities. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The reason why I'm asking this is that I noticed that in Immokalee there is a lot of places that are for multi-family and farm workers where there is not a very good recycling effort being done and the county is not doing a very good job of recycling the things that could be recycled. And so I'm questioning, can't the county plan on doing a better job of capturing more of that waste, because, if you just expect people to voluntarily be dropping stuff off, you are not going to get a very good return. MR. YILMAZ: Three brief comments, and hopefully able to answer your questions. Page 69 June 16, 2005 We have mandatory recycling ordinance for commercial establishment, and it is mandatory now, to recycle, in Collier County for commercial establishments generating recyclables. We have a new program just coming up which brings household recyclables, much higher capacity, which is the Carts Program, and, instead of bins, we will have carts with the lid and the wheels and bring -- increasing capacity by 50 percent as far as what we can collect, recyclables. And multi-family, we're aggressively going into every single multi- family and set up there, customize, optimize recycling program at this juncture. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What will you be doing for Immokalee to increase the capture rate in the multi-family? MR. YILMAZ: Immokalee is included in everything we have just said. County-wide. CHAIRMAN BUDD: This is good and useful information, but we really need to get back to the particular land use on this piece of property and get back on track. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. How far away will the odor carry from the wastewater on a windy day? MR. YILMAZ: I will refer that to Joe Cheatham, our wastewater director. MR. CHEATHAM: Again, for the record, Joe Cheatham, wastewater director, Collier County. The intent of our odor control system is to mitigate odors and to make sure odors do not go off site. That is our intent. Whether on an extremely windy day, I couldn't say how far that might be, but our intent would be to not have odors leave the boundaries of the wastewater facility. If you go down to the south county wastewater plant look at that -- and you saw the slide -- in the residential neighborhood, we get very Page 70 June 16, 2005 few complaints from homeowners in the neighborhood for odors leaving that site. So I can't give you an idea how many feet it could be on an extremely windy day, but the intent is not to have any leave the site on a typical day. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My last question is, you've shown us some economic analysis of property values, and you've shown that property values apparently are -- appreciation is unaffected. Does this -- does this answer the question of what the property values, what will happen to them, to homes that are already just to the north of the waste treatment plants? MR. TYSON: I believe in my presentation I indicated that we have a unique situation here in that that is not contemplated. There is no way that we can make that comparison with any of these facilities that exist in Collier County today. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And we don't have any basis for estimating or guessing what will happen to -- if I have a house that's next to the waste treatment plant and it goes in, how that is going to affect my property value? MR. TYSON: I think anything you do like that is completely subjective. It's very subjective. And, as we all know, the property values in Collier County are unique. And that following exactly what has happened there, when you have a facility that is little -- as Mr. Cheatham said, dealing with odor, here is a facility that exists within less than a hundred feet from the back door. We're not talking about property line setbacks, we're talking about use to use. We're less than a hundred feet, and we're still seeing the same appreciation rates. I couldn't help but think that, if you're somewhere in the neighborhood of over 200 feet in the same circumstance, with adequate screening, it is going to have any different type of an effect. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. The question first is, you're involved right now with Section 2, project development; is that Page 71 June 16, 2005 it? MR. TYSON: This is the-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is that, in part, Section 2, project development? MR. TYSON: I'm not sure what Section 2 you are talking about. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In -- our papers come up with a particular situation that bothered me, and it's compliance with applicable ordinances. What it says is, the proj ect is intended to be in substantial compliance with the applicable Collier County zoning and sub districting -- subdivisions, rather. And I can't find how there is any reason for the word substantial. Either you are in compliance or you are out of compliance. MR. TYSON: I agree. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. So whatever it is in the ordinance section, that should be removed. MR. TYSON: Can you point to that specific-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: He's referring to Section 2, Page 5 of our document, of which you have handed out a correction. And I don't know if it addresses that or not. Our zoning and development document for Orangetree, the index lists them by Sections 1 through 9. Section 2 starts on Page 5. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MR. TYSON: This is in the PUD. That's actually the PUD document. That's very common language that happens for all PUDs. That's what that is. That Section 2, the project development, that's -- that is common PUD language that you'll find through all PUDs in the county. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Then maybe it shouldn't be. You either are in compliance with something or you are not. Being partially in or substantially in is not an answer to anything. Maybe because I haven't found it before -- but go ahead. Page 72 June 16, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. MS. STUDENT: This is an old, a pretty old PUD and that language used to be used. I agree with you, Mr. Adelstein. We could just strike it through and take it out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question. With the excess land you are calling a park, on the screen you said excess land not being used now. MR. TYSON: I wouldn't call it excess land. I would say it's land that is not required from the standpoint of the public facilities project component of it. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Yes. And what are your plans? MR. TYSON: For the park? There aren't any yet. There are no specific plans for the park. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think that said it was going to be a community park possibly. MR. TYSON: Hold on a second because Joe Delate is here and I would like to have him answer that question. MR. DELATE: Good afternoon -- good morning. Joe Delate from the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, Senior Proj ect Management. Bruce is right, there is no plan that's designed for this project yet. It's slated to be in the design phase in Fiscal Year 2008, which is approximately two to three years from now. And the construction is not budgeted until 2010. And, as far as -- your question is what it would contain; is that right? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It was called a community park Page 73 June 16, 2005 before. I can't envision bringing the public into such a facility like that, so close to the facilities with the equipment and recycling center. MR. SCHMITT: Joe, if you could explain -- we have a master plan for this. And, Joe, if you could highlight. The lake and everything will be integrated with the park. And again, the perception here that these plants are odorous, I would only encourage members of this committee to go out to one of our plants, existing plants now. I mean, the park is going to be fully integrated as a piece of this. And the attraction is going to be the adjacent lakes. So, Joe, I mean, if you could just highlight that. This has all been coordinated with the property owners out there, the two PUDs, and it's going to be -- there will be a significant attraction for this part of the county . MR. CHEATHAM: That's correct. We have facilities that share -- adjacent to water and wastewater sites throughout the county. We have Eagle Lakes Park, which is on the East Tamiami trail, which is very successful. We also have Veterans Park, which is near the north plant, and we basically have common property lines. They are actually separate ownership but it's all Collier County, more or less. So we look at this as the same situation. This is part of -- hopefully which would be a larger parcel, that lake, which is south of the property, it's going to be acquired by the county. That could be a recreational fishing lake. There is also a piece to the west of that which could be used for potentially, you know, some kind of access to that lake. There is a school to the south. There are two schools to the south: One, Corkscrew, that the cursor is on. We already have a program with the School Board where we have improved their facilities, their athletic facilities. We paid for upgrades and we already use that in our programming and hopefully someday this all may tie together into one, larger community park. But for now we're just looking at this one parcel that is inside of Page 74 June 16, 2005 the rezoned area, the PUD amendment area. And it will be a community park, that's correct. Community Park Services, it's approximately 30 acres and it services a certain radius around the site, approximately over 5 miles. And that's what we plan in the long term here. But we have not designed anything yet. Right now we're only going to cooperate with the utility department to acquire the land and then receive the zoning and the planning will come later. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. It sounds like you are working very compatibly. MR. CHEATHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, these questions are for you. Go to Page 25 of your PUD, which would be the development standards. And Number 7, you have where communications tower -- what is the maximum height of the communications tower? MR. TYSON: In Collier County right now the allowable height of a communications tower is 185 feet before you go to a conditional use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. TYSON: This facility will not have a tower that's that high. What is required, however, is a communications tower that will have line of site connection, so to speak, with certain wells that will be developed off site for contact with those so that they can start pumpIng. So the point is that we're anticipating a tower probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 120 feet, plus or minus. But that -- that's what is -- and that's at this point in time -- again, it will be -- anything here will be less than what the county maximum is. Page 75 -.-<-..". ~_.- June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The setback, Number 7, has the setback is one half of the tower height. And, Margie, let me ask you real quickly. It says adjacent to residential zoned property . Would across the street be considered adjacent? In other words, the northern boundary is essentially all residential. MS. STUDENT: Right. I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are they adjacent or-- MS. STUDENT: Mr. Bellows, how have we interpreted adjacent in this regard? MR. BELLOWS: It's typically the residential lot property lines or the zoning line. Sometimes the zoning line, depending on what side of the road it falls on. The road has to be zoned one way or the other, so normally the state zoning line would fall on -- would be the south side of the road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, in other words, the northern boundary here, the property line is on a road right-of-way? MR. TYSON: No, it's not. It's a canal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are these properties adjacent along the northern boundary? MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They would meet the definition of 7 as adj acent? MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And are you concerned, though, that since your setback is one-half of the tower height, that essentially if the tower collapsed half of it would be on the neighbor's property? MR. TYSON: Since our setback is automatically 180 feet before, as I indicated before, you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. TYSON: -- we never get there. Page 76 .._'.__"-N,·.u,,"__m,~"'·~'''''''_'''·'''_ , June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Height of the structure, 60 feet is the maximum height? MR. TYSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is a tall building. I mean, the one on the right -- and if you look at what you described as a very good idea, to keep it out of the north/south right-of-way, so you wouldn't see it, yet, if that's 60 feet tall, that would be a pretty big piece of structure at the end of that right-of-way. MR. TYSON : We don't anticipate that a significant portion of these structures will be 60 feet high. We anticipate that there is going to be more pertinent equipment that will wind up getting to that height, so it will be far reduced from the standpoint of mass. I think-- I would not look at a structure here as a pure structure that is going to be 60 feet high but, at the same time, the technology that continues in this day and age is for -- as these linear relationships typically between cleanliness and the way in which things are happening, either get higher or longer in a process to get to the point of where it's cleaner. So we're asking for the 60 foot height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But what you are saying is, like the north plant, there is a lot of concrete, I guess, tongs and stuff like that. How tall are they? MR. TYSON: The which now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The north plant. As you are going up Goodlette- Frank you see -- MR. TYSON: The building itself? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. TYSON: The building, I think, is right around 36 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The treatment facility -- MR. TYSON: The treatment facility itself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. TYSON: The highest component of that is the, what's called the gasifiers that are behind that facility. Page 77 June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. TYSON: And they are in the neighborhood of the mid-40 -- somewhere between 40 and 50 feet tall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How did you do the noise contours; how was that developed? MR. TYSON: That's a specialty consultant that we will be hiring that will be part of our team, already has been engaged, and he will be on board from day one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What kind of -.,.you showed a before and an after you did treatment. What kind of things did you do to prevent noise? Is this baffling at the building or just landscaping or -- MR. TYSON: Mainly, it was all focused on the piece of equipment itself. Had nothing to do with landscaping. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Couple of questions, this probably for staff. Why are we changing the statement of compliance, especially as it pertains to Number 5; why are we taking out the units per acre, since this has nothing to do with the facilities here? MS. WILLIAMS: Heidi Williams with Zoning and Land Development Review. The statement of compliance was requested by our Comprehensive Planning staff. I don't believe it was incorporated in the format they wanted. Originally we had the dwelling units in there but, because this applicant is not responsible for the residential portion of the PUD, we did not want them to be the one to insert that overall density and limit it to that, since it's not their intention to modify that In any way. It can be inserted, reinserted, however, it was actually removed upon legal review of the document. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Let's go back to Page 25, Page 78 June 16, 2005 development standards. You have setbacks in there from tract boundaries. So, if I'm reading this correctly, fueling facilities, raw wells, injection wells, all of those can be within 15 feet of someone's home? MR. TYSON: I think the -- not the -- no, is the answer to that. That's not the way in which it's going to happen. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then you should be more clear. MR. TYSON: The raw water wells could be and that's if -- from all of the list that you just went through, those are the only things that will be within 15 feet, the raw water wells. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's already been answered and asked. This letter that we got from the neighborhoods to the north, have you seen this? MR. TYSON: I have. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Is there anything in here that you do not want to comply with? MR. TYSON: Well, there is two main points that have been raised in that letter, the first one dealing with the buffer. We will be putting in a C buffer. I think -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So that we can put into the documentation? MR. TYSON: That already is. I mean, we're -- the reality is we're having -- the county will consider this, for dimensional purposes, an industrial facility, and therefore it requires the C buffer between residential and that -- that use. The second part of that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I've heard several different figures tossed out here: One was that you would be 180 feet from these people. You had said at one point in your presentation 450 feet. MR. TYSON: Let me just try to clarify -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Page 79 June 16, 2005 MR. TYSON: -- so that I'm not confusing you. The setback that we're requiring here or we're asking for here is 100 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. TYSON: That's the setback from the property line to any facility. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. TYSON: Currently, in this case to the north side, now, of the proj ect, there happens to be an 80- foot drainage easement. COMMISSIONER CARON: Correct. MR. TYSON: So, from the north side, we automatically have 180 feet because nothing is going to happen within that 80 feet. The 450 feet that I used is that, the first phase of this project is going to be set back probably in order -- and when I say first phase, what is shown in the initial plan of the master plan, everything can fit to the point of where it will be 300 feet from the property line. So, the 450 feet comes from the combination of all of those, plus somebody's side yard, to the closest part of that facility, in this initial phase. COMMISSIONER CARON: Now, you said something very important there. You just said first phase. MR. TYSON: First phase meaning through the current master plan, through the 20 million gallons for the water treatment plant, the 6 million gallons for the wastewater treatment facility. COMMISSIONER CARON: And anything additional would have to come back through anyway? MR. TYSON: No. Because, if it's part of the master plan, and if one of these plants gets expanded or needs to get to be expanded, then we'll have to use the land. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you will end up, probably, to your minimum, which would be 180 to the north, correct? MR. TYSON: It could be. But here is the other thing that I want Page 80 June 16, 2005 you to be aware of. PUED in this case wants to be a very good neighbor. At the same time, we're all ratepayers in here. And we would set a dangerous precedent to say that we can set every facility back 300 feet from a property line, when in fact, as Mr. Cheatham just indicated -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, this is -- this is a PUD. This is customized zoning so -- MR. TYSON: I understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- so it wouldn't affect anything else. MR. TYSON : Well, it would, because, if you think about it from the standpoint of at some point in time they are going to have to go out and buy some more land to put another one of these facilities on. COMMISSIONER CARON: You may get a request for 300 feet. MR. TYSON: Well, that's exactly what you received in the letter. That's no different. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Exactly. MR. TYSON: It's right to my point, that, if we automatically say, okay, we'll set it back 300 feet forever, then the point is that the precedent has been eliminated. And we -- to eliminate the potential for technology and all of the other things that's going on in this industry these days, to come up and eliminate -- you would be amazed at some of the pictures that I've seen of facilities that look, you know -- they are barns or everything else, the way in which they have disguised them, they are all small. We have adhered to all of the regulations as we've indicated to the county. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's available technology today? MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is Collier County doing any of that? MR. TYSON: They will be doing a lot of that with the design of Page 81 June 16, 2005 these facilities. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's a good thing. MR. TYSON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have one other question, back to the Orangetree Utility, if I could ask the gentleman to speak just for a minute. And my question is, did I hear you correct that you are negotiating right now to try to take over that facility earlier? MR. WIDES: We are not at this point-- COMMISSIONER CARON: You are not. MR. WIDES: -- in time in active negotiations. MR. SCHMITT: State your name, Tom. MR. WIDES: I'm sorry. For the record, again, I'm Tom Wides, Operations Director for Public Utilities. Weare at the current period of time in active negotiation. We have, over the last couple of years, had various communications back and forth. Okay? But at this point in time there is no active negotiation. COMMISSIONER CARON: If you were to be able to negotiate with that utility, would there be a need for this facility? MR. WIDES: If I'm interpreting your question properly-- COMMISSIONER CARON: In other words, is the land already there and it's already an active plant and -- MR. WIDES: We have already-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- is there room for expansion? MR. WIDES: Yeah. First off, that current utility -- I'm sure you've read issues in the newspaper. We are not in a position to take over and operate those existing facilities. We are just not in a position to do that. That would not serve the interests of the customers be served. We strongly feel, and we've made our plans based on this, that in fact new facilities would be built that would adequately, with the Page 82 . ""'~~"._--"""'=._-' June 16, 2005 state of the art technology, accommodate those customers and other customers in the network. COMMISSIONER CARON: As well. MR. WIDES: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that it? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti? MR. VIGLIOTTI: Yes. You have referred to the master plan. This is just Phase I of the master plan? MR. TYSON: The 20,000 gallons per day on the water treatment plant and the 6,000 gallons per day on the wastewater treatment plant are identified as -- that is not Phase I, that is what the master plan has looked at up until the year 2020. The first phase, for instance, will be 10 million gallons on the water treatment plant. And right now it's set for 2 million gallons on the wastewater treatment facility. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But this whole presentation was about Phase 1. And you referred to the master plan. Do you have any information on the master plan? MR. TYSON: The master plan -- the master plan is what I just indicated. It is the -- the water -- the water treatment facility in the master plan goes out to the year 2020. They have identified the need for 20 million gallons, as I indicated on my slides. The initial phase of construction will be less than that, probably 10 million gallons. Okay? What -- the pictures that you have seen would be equivalent of the 20 million gallons, the size of the facility. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That was my question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir, do you have anything in follow-up? MR. WIDES: No. Just in case we had to go there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. In case Mr. Tyson fell in, you Page 83 June 16, 2005 were going to bail him out? MR. WIDES: Commissioners, again, for the record, Tom Wides, Operations Director. If you need further follow on, I'll try to help contribute, but if your question is answered, then I'm not going to confuse it further. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think it was answered. MR. VIGLIOTTI: It was, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of the petitioner? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the original PUD document there is, on Page 33, there is a requirement that no habitable building structure will exceed 25 feet due to the capabilities of fire district. When we discussed building heights, did we amend that or -- these are in the general development conditions. MR. TYSON : We're talking about habitable structures? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. In other words, is the intent to have anything habitable greater than -- MR. TYSON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we could debate whether walking along the top of a treatment plant is habitable, but I don't think so. MR. TYSON: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions at this time? Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: I just want to clarify, and I know there are burning issues between the existing utility and the Collier County utility, being the agency responsible for all of the private utilities, because, frankly, they -- the Collier County is an enterprise fund. They operate their own utility. They cannot oversee the private utilities. I have an operations director that oversees the private Page 84 June 16, 2005 utilities. The current PUD identifies the existing Orangetree PUD to turn -- to basically no longer operate and eventually the Collier County utility will expand its boundaries to pick up that facility. The problem is, right now there are some ongoing issues. There are some legal issues and there are some underlying disputes in regards to that. So I appreciate even Ms. Caron's question in regards to the existing versus what they can -- if their intent is to take it over early. The fact of the matter is, all I can state on the record right now is that the utility knows, Collier County utility knows that it has to meet a certain demand in that part of the county, and they are planning this facility to meet that demand. If there is a lawsuit or whatever comes out of the existing utility, that is separate and completely unrelated to the existing zoning. All we're doing here now is based through a UAR, which certainly you understand in regards to the anticipation for growth and anticipation in regards to meeting customer demand. Weare attempting to -- they, the water, the utilities, are attempting to expand the capacity to meet the projected demand. And that demand, as far as the existing utility, is projected to come out of service in 2012. Now, if that does, if they do or do not, that's a separate issue that certainly is between the existing hot water and wastewater authority and the Board of County Commissioners who serves as the Collier County Utility Water and Wastewater Authority. I hope I gracefully answered questions without putting anything on the record that would complicate any future legal matters. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner? Staff presentation, or is the staff -- petitioner is the county. MS. WILLIAMS: Again, Heidi Williams from Zoning and Land Development Review. County staff has thoroughly reviewed the petition and it has been well covered and discussed so far, so I will be brief. Page 85 June 16, 2005 Comprehensive planning staff has concluded that the petition is consistent with the rural settlement area district in the Golden Gate area master plan. From an environmental standpoint it was determined that this petition was not required to be heard by the EAC, largely based on the EIS submitted by the applicant, and the fact that it was deemed to be already impacted. The petitioner held and met the requirements for the neighborhood information meeting. There were approximately 20 residents in attendance at that meeting. Many of the issues you've already discussed were brought up by those residents and addressed by the applicant, such as noise, odor and other issues. Zoning staff has reviewed the petition and finds it to be compliant with the Land Development Code and recommends forwarding the petition with the recommendation of approval, subject to any stipulations you may wish to add and changes to the PUD docurnent as recommended today. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Questions of staff? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You are now recommending that this go forward? MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry? I recommend that the Planning Commission forward with the recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. I thought you were not going to recommend it because of the possibility of -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of staff? Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Just before the meeting started you handed out four pages here. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Do you want to just review the changes that you made so that we're all up to speed on what's Page 86 June 16, 2005 happening. MS. WILLIAMS: Sure. There were just a few minor adjustments made to the PUD document that you were given. On the title page, the ordinance number referenced as the second to last line was changed from 2004-74 to 2004-73. Two thousand four -- 74 references the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD and 73 is actually the Orangetree PUD. The statement of compliance, the dwelling unit, the density in .5 was removed but can be reinserted if the Planning Commission desires. MS. STUDENT: I'll address that. In my review it had a strike-through in it, underline, and that creates an ambiguity. I discussed this with Ms. Williams and, because there is another Orangetree PUD that will be coming that addresses residential issues, we thought it might be better to have that inserted at that time, but, really, it could go either way. COMMISSIONER CARON: But that would be for a different-- MS. STUDENT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- situation? MS. STUDENT: It could be either way. If it's your wish to put it back in, that's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not for changing the original document. I don't see any need to do that. I think it should be back in. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. We can certainly do that. That was the only change on that page. Page 21, there was another ambiguity where some of the words had both strike-through and underlined shown. Those words are "has been dedicated", and the underline was removed to show that those words are to be removed from the document and remove the ambiguity . And on Page 3 3 there was a reference to a Land Development Code section on .5. That code reference was actually to an incorrect Page 87 June 16, 2005 portion of the code and was just removed so that the actual intent of Item 5 is clear. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff? Very good. Are there any registered public speakers on this item? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Summary comments by the petitioner? Very wise. Andy -- with that we will close the public hearing. And, before we take a motion, I just wanted to make a comment and contrast this petition with the emergency operations center that came before us a few months ago. This -- in both cases we have the county, or a division or portion of the county, as the petitioner who hired an outside consultant and come forward with a public use. Arguably the emergency operations center is an even more critical, more important service to the community than this facility, not to undermine the necessity of clean water and all of the other services provided here. But this is an immeasurably better presentation and manner in which to proceed, where we're not looking for variances, we are not looking for exceptions. We're looking for a positive, open door or receiving a positive, open door attitude with the community, multiple meetings, making information accessible, setting up a Citizens Advisory Committee, addressing many of the possible considerations of odor mitigation, exceeding, in fact doubling the side yard setbacks, going to the trouble of a site line calculation, which was totally omitted in the EOC presentation, and discussing the siting of the facility, not just trying to tell us that, trust me, this is the only site in the known habitated universe that is suitable for this facility. In fact, in this petition you came forward and said, here is the other specific sites identified that we considered, found a willing buyer, went with this property. There was an attempt to measure and treat the impact on the Page 88 June 16, 2005 neighboring residents in regard to light and sound. There was an analysis of potential economic impact in other similar locations. I think it's just an outstanding proposal. I think it was well organized. I think it's the way that government ought to work with its citizens. And, as you may guess, I'm in full favor of this petition. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR 7085 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the -- following the staff's recommendations. Subject to staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Adelstein, a second by Mr. Vigliotti. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I too, Mr. Chairman, agree with you. This is an outstanding proposal. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We will all agree with that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With that we will call the question. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? It's unanimous. Very good job. THE COURT REPORTER: Are we still on the record, Mr. Budd? Page 89 June 16, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: No. We're just clearing the room. Okay. We're off the record right now, just clearing the room. Are we ready for the next agenda item? Ray, are you ready? Come to order on our next agenda item, PUDZ 2004-AR6919, Habitat for Humanity. All of those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Disclosures by the Planning Commissioners? Are there any on this item? There would appear to be none. So, with that, we'll hear from the petitioners, please. MR. MURRAY: Good morning. I'm Don Murray, Planner with Coastal Engineering Consultants. With me here today representing the client Habitat for Humanity of Collier County is Dr. Sam Durso and Nicholas Kouloheras. This petition is for a re-zoning for a planned unit development residential for a hundred percent affordable housing. The project is on 36.75 acres, located on the west side of Greenway Road, approximately eight-tenths of a mile north of U.S. 41 and about 3 miles east of County Road 951. The area is transitioning from agricultural to a residential state. There are a number of units along Green -- excuse me, along Greenway Road to the south of the proj ect. This area in red -- I don't know if you can see the red border, but that is the project site. It's composed of two previously zoned parcels that were zoned 2002 and 2003 for RSF 5 with a cap of 3 units per acre. The reason there was a cap is the traffic congestion boundary took off one unit from the base, leaving three units per acre. In order to provide a more effective -- cost effective development for affordable housing, my client is -- submitted this Page 90 June 16, 2005 PUD to the County. We submitted it last year. The project will provide an additional 74 units above what it was originally zoned for for a total of 184 units. The is -- this is the Exhibit A master plan for the PUD. The 184 units that we were talking about that would be in this PUD would be housed in a two-family style building, similar to a duplex. They are a hundred percent owner occupied units. The access to the PUD is off Greenway Road and will have two points: One leads into a cuI de sac. There is also an intersecting internal road to a loop road. It will have retention lakes. This property also will provide a 3-acre flood compensation area, preservation area, which is above what's required, which is over on the west side of the property. Additionally it will provide a tot lot in a central area, and it probably will have some fencing. There is a canal along the south portion, along the west and south side. There are no problems with it. The site was previously cleared for agricultural use. Now, the proj ect for Habitat is supported by the growth management plan. The policies of the county promote affordable housing. There is a goal of 500 units per year. That is in the growth management plan. This proj ect will provide some of that density, some of the units that would count toward that. The -- I also wanted to say that it is consistent with all of the policies of the Growth Management Plan. The only issue here is roadway capacity. This is a concurrency issue. The number of units that were originally approved, there was adequate capacity. When this petition was submitted last year, there was adequate capacity. Now we're before you and there is no adequate capacity. The additional 74 units could be considered a -- not a significant impact to roadway capacity in itself. So if you count the 110 units Page 91 June 16, 2005 that were originally approved for the site, plus, if you go to the Habitat site at Henderson Creek, they were originally approved for 280 units at that location and they only are building 202 units, so a reduction of 72 units there. These all should be counted within the county's promoting for affordable housing and it should be promoted and encouraged as the policy states. The client, Habitat for Humanity for Collier County, has gone well above what some other petitioners for a typical PUD would do. They provided other conditions or stipulations on the previous rezoning, and they have incorporated that into the PUD as well. Some of things there are, they would provide up to seventy-two hundred and fifty dollars per unit for 24 units or houses along Greenway Road for water/sewer connections. They've also provided the additional flood plain compensation area. So what we're talking about here is, there is only, like I said, one issue, and that's the road capacity. Collier County's policy, like I said, promoting affordable housing, Obj ective 1 of the comprehensive plan on the housing element, and also the other policies, Policy 2.10, which I'm going to read here, it says, through the adoption of local incentives such as NC bonus agreements and impact fee waivers and referrals. Public and private sponsors will be encouraged to provide adequate housing for rural development or rural residents and farm workers' families. That's what we're doing here. The County's own policy encourages this, yet Habitat for Humanity of Collier County -- I'm hard pressed to fine the exemptions that they are getting to encourage this. With that said, let me go through a couple of -- a few other facts of this case. As I said before, the site was approved for 110 units in 2003 and could have been built then. But the development was postponed so Page 92 June 16, 2005 that they could resubmit it as PUD, submit an affordable housing density bonus agreement for a hundred percent affordable housing development, in order to gain the 74 additional units, which they have reduced at another site, impacting the same roadways. The total dwelling units of 184 that is attributable to the requirements of the transportation element of Policy 5.1 and a recommendation by the transportation staff to recommend denial for this affordable housing project -- we understand the concurrency issue here. They have no choice but to recommend the denial based on that one point. But the County also has the ability to recommend approval with stipulations per Policy 1.1.2.B of the capital improvement zonIng. So, with that said, I would like to recommend staffs original stipulations, which were in the staff report -- I believe that's June-- the June 2nd staff report -- that you would consider at least Stipulation Number 1 and recommend approval of this for rezoning that will also solve some other issues, including, one, they don't have to come back for another re-zoning, additional expenses toward a hundred percent affordable housing per buyer. They have already spent a great deal of effort and cost to get this far with this project, when they could have just built the original three units per acre. But, with rising land costs in the county, it's become a critical issue. I point to an article in the Sunday paper in Lee County, the News-Press. They are entering a critical mode for affordable housing as well. So, getting relief from people who are moving to Lee County, they are going to find there's nothing affordable there now. So the roads are going to -- continue to be congested, people are going to make longer commutes, our work force professionals, such as police and fire and others, are going to also find that they are going to have to live further and further away in order to live here, unless the Page 93 June 16, 2005 county steps up with courage and realizes that this is an important issue, and they go forward with new exemptions and new requirements that will promote the affordable housing that they needed to do years ago. And I'm -- I was a staff planner with Collier County several years ago. We discussed this issue. We thought it was critical then. We had no idea. So, with that said, I will turn it over to Dr. Durso. But I do hope that you will recommend approval of this petition today. DR. DURSO: Good morning. I'm here as the petitioner. I think I would also like to say that I should be here as an expert witness on affordable housing. I think I know more about affordable housing than anybody in this county, and probably anybody in Florida. I serve as a consultant for Habitat International. I have been working for Habitat for Humanity for 13 years. I have been chairman of the board for six years. Our local Habitat affiliate is the best in the world. We build more houses than anybody else. We do all sorts of things that other people try to copy. Unfortunately, some of the actions in the county recently are really hurting us and really slowing down our ability. We're not sure what we're going to do in the future. We -- the San Marino PUD was a tremendous defeat for us, and that's 177 units that will never be built. My wife is here as the representative of the families. We now don't know what to tell families that come into our Naples office and what we're telling them is, you can't have a house in Naples anymore. If you want a house, you had better to go up into Immokalee. We really don't like doing that. Anyway, we only have two pieces of land left to develop near coastal Collier County. One of them is Trail Ridge at Henderson Creek. We're about to break ground, hopefully in about a month there. We were approved for 280 units there. We're only going to build 204. That will be a model community. Normally we could Page 94 June 16, 2005 build that out in two years. We're probably not going to be able to do that and try to hold back and see if we can only build 40 house a year. Nobody believes we can do it. I'm not sure I can even do it because there are so many applicants. But we want to do it so we'll still have product for another 5 years. This would be the only other piece of land that we have nearby. Unfortunately -- you know, obviously I wish that we could build 110 units, but what was failed to be said, when this was approved, we stipulated that we would not build for three years. So we really couldn't build this anyways. When this zoning was approved three years ago we said we wouldn't build for three years. We never had the option of building. Once we started down this rezone on this -- we found out two months ago about the traffic issue. Okay? We can't build 110 units. If you can tell me I can build 110 units tomorrow, I would say fine. Let's do it. But we can't build 110 units. So all we're asking is to approve the extra 74 units, which are already there. The county has already counted those units in their growth management plan for affordable housing, which was supposed to be 500 units per year. They've already counted them, as they counted the Trail Ridge 280 units. As a matter of fact, they've already counted the 110 units that have never even been built. So obviously there is a problem with the way the county counts their affordable housing stock, and that's something we'll have to address someplace else. Okay? But all we're asking, approve the 184. We won't build until we have travel counts. That may be ten years from now. It doesn't matter. We just need to have them approved on the books so we don't have to come back for a rezone. And whenever that road gets widened -- it's not going to get widened for a long time. We know that. But that way, whenever it does get widened, and we have traffic counts, so we can build so we have 184 units. That's what we're asking so we don't have to come back with the Page 95 June 16, 2005 expense of rezoning again four or five years from now. We're willing to keep fighting the battle. You know, the newspaper is certainly on our side. If you read the editorial in the paper, they say, well, Habitat is not going to go away and I guess that's true. But we actually are seriously considering looking into Hendry County. We can't find enough land in Immokalee. We do have quite a bit of land in Immokalee. We have a lot of stuff coming forward, but it's not enough for what the need is. The need is for 30,000 units of affordable housing. And we still feel we need more affordable housing close to the jobs. But we're not going to look for any more land close to the jobs. We're not stupid. We just can't keep fighting this battle. We've fought very, very hard for the last six months and so far we've lost. And we hope that, going forward, at least this committee -- if this committee can send a group message to the commissioners, maybe we can convince the commissioners to vote for this. I'm not optimistic of that. But I would like to at least feel that we are not alone in caring about affordable housing. The planning board should care about affordable housing. It's an issue that's important for the county. And even from a traffic basis, having those units built will help traffic. It won't make traffic worse. The people are already here, they are just living in lousy conditions throughout that area. So we would like your support and if we can answer any questions -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Murray. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a procedural matter. I mean, I don't know whether you want to address it or not. I know that the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners have a practice of accepting and acknowledging the expert witness status of planners and other professionals who have appeared before you. I'm not sure that I've heard Dr. Durso asking to Page 96 June 16, 2005 be considered as an expert formally. And I just want to know, if he is, that he confirms that and in fact at that point you would determine whether or not indeed you consider him to be an expert in the area that he's seeking to be considered an expert on. I would like to just get that little procedural matter resolved for the record before we proceed. DR. DURSO: I'm not convinced that I need it. If this committee doesn't consider me an expert, I don't think I have any way to prove that and I feel the same with the County Commissioners. And I think it goes without saying. If you want me -- if you need me to do something to prove it, let me know what it is. MR. WHITE: All you have to do, rather than asserting that you think you are, is ask this commission if they likewise agree and then in that case -- DR. DURSO: Okay. Fine. MR. WHITE: -- for the matter of the law and the record, your testimony, rather than as a lay witness, would be that of an expert. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would make that motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: You are asking -- Mr. Durso, Dr. Durso is making that request. We have a motion to recognize -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: --him as an expert, by Mr. Midney, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. Page 97 June 16, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We think you're an expert too. DR. DURSO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions of the petitioner, open by Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Dr. Durso, with regard to, to try to help us, help me certainly, to see what we can do here, can you give me a time line, given that this project went forward for you, that this approval was gained, can you tell me when you would begin to build and how many you would build in a year and when you would be built out? I know it's a hypothetical, but -- DR. DURSO: Ideally, with the plan we have now, if we're going -- assuming we're only going to try to build 40 a year at Henderson Creek, that will give us enough for five years. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm only referring to this project. DR. DURSO: It has to all playa role. The needs in coastal Collier County are probably for a hundred a year. We can't do it because we've run out of land. So if we build 40 a year there, we would be very happy if we could start building here in six years. But I'm not sure we'll meet concurrency then. I'm not sure the roads would be ready. And then if we started building we would only do 50 a year on that as well. That would be our plan. So we would build 50 in six years, 50 in seven years, 50 in eight years and then the remainder in nine. So it would be years six through nine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. DR. DURSO: We would be happy if we could do that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The problem I have in my Page 98 June 16, 2005 mind is this. After five years, if you go -- we approve it and if they approve it. DR. DURSO: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Five years from now, it's over. You would have to reapply for it. DR. DURSO: No. That's not true. I understand that the PUD will not sunset if we can't build because of concurrency. Now, that's what Joe Schmitt told me. Now, I'm not sure if we need another opinion on that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I've read otherwise and it seems to me -- DR. DURSO: Joe is not here, but Joe told me that, if we can't build because of concurrency the PUD won't sunset. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Let me put this one way. Assuming that I'm correct -- DR. DURSO: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- would you still take it as it is today? DR. DURSO: Absolutely, because we could just come back and ask you to do it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. And-- DR. DURSO: The rezone, that would cost us-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: One at a time, please. The court reporter is having a hard time. DR. DURSO: We would still accept that. If that was the law, that the PUD sunsets in 5 years, we would still accept it because it still would be cheaper for us to come back in 5 years and ask for a PUD renewal then to have to rezone the property. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's all I wanted to make sure you understood, because I felt-- DR. DURSO: Right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? Page 99 June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Taking advantage of your expertise here, aren't you of the opinion -- and I share this, I think, that anything that you build in this area would actually reduce traffic in other areas? DR. DURSO: Absolutely. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That seems to be a difficult thing to get across. DR. DURSO: We haven't been able to get it across. We've certainly tried real hard, you know. We've mobilized the community. We've convinced the community but we haven't been able to convince this entire board and we certainly haven't been able to convince the County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you don't think anyone who lives here will actually drive up Collier Boulevard, hit Immokalee and come back down again; they would go right to work? DR. DURSO: I think they will go right to work. And they'll work on Marco Island. With the Ava Maria petition being approved yesterday or Tuesday, that's going to create 10,000 jobs in Immokalee. We think it's great. We love Immokalee. We've been doing stuff up there. Do you realize how many of our homeowners right now work on Marco Island? Do you think they are going to continue to work on Marco Island once Ava Maria is completed? No way. So we don't really mind putting a lot of emphasis on Immokalee. We're going to keep doing it. But those people are going to try to work at Ava Maria, at least the first 10,000. So, you know, we definitely need more affordable housing for the jobs down here. And Marco Island right now is in the process -- I was present at the Island Country Club a couple years ago. For the last three years, we've brought 35 people to work from South Africa. We bring them in from South Africa and we put them in some rental housing. We give them bikes and they are our work force. That's going to be standard. That's what all the Page 100 June 16, 2005 businesses are going to start doing, bringing people from other countries to work. That's what we face. We see it. I hope to still be here five years from now when I say, we told you so. But, you know, we can do something about it if we can build more housing here but there's nothing else we can do. The commissioners are already adopting that density bonus in the coastal zone as being less so we can't find any land in the coastal zone. Do you think we're going to look for another piece of land on 951? I don't think so. That's stupid. You know what I mean? So where else can we find land? You tell us where to find land, we'll buy it and we'll build on it. We can't -- we've got the message. The message is, go to Immokalee. We're delighted to do it. This is one of the last parcels that's left. The other thing which we emphasize, this is a boundary, an urban boundary, all of the land on the east of this can't be built on. It's all-- has to be done with DDRs and we can't do the rural villages. We can't afford to do it. We're kind of stuck. So we're kind of asking you, what do we do? What would you like us to do? We would like to do the affordable housing. We're the partners with the County. Where do you want us to build the affordable housing and how do we do it? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: No further questions at this time. Do we hear from staff? MS. DESELEM: Good morning. Just barely; but good morning. F or the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I'm a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review, and also here we have a transportation planner from transportation staff that could help address any questions you might have of them. And I hope you have a copy of the staff report that Page 101 June 16, 2005 was prepared for the June 2nd hearing, and hopefully you also have a supplemental staff report that was prepared for today's hearing. And along with the supplemental report for today's hearing you should have received findings of fact for both the rezone and the PUD. And, if I may, I have revised the rezone findings because I noticed an error in Item 17, and I have a colorized copy for you and it will explain -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: And I will eventually go over those findings of fact as part of my presentation. I did want you to have that prior to that. As I noted, you do have the staff report and you do have the findings of fact. You have the affordable housing agreement that's proposed, and you also have a PUD document. Staff has changed their position from what was originally set forth in the PUD in the January 2nd staff report. And we were recommending approval and we are now recommending denial. That denial is based solely on the fact that we're recommending that it not be deemed consistent with the comprehensive plan, and it's basically because of the transportation element, understanding, in staffs opinion, that the petition needs to be consistent with the overall growth management plan and you can't take isolated sections and say it is consistent with one and not another. It has to be consistent with the overall plan. But, in fairness, we have noted that it is consistent with the FLU land use element. It is consistent with the map and it is consistent, as noted by the applicant's agent, with many of the housing element objectives and policies we have set forth, and that hasn't changed from the original staff report. The things that have changed in that supplement that I can bring to your attention, is one item at the top of Page 2 under the housing element. I did add the affordable housing commission's vote, so that you have that. They did recommend the vote approval of it 7 to O. Page 102 June 16, 2005 And our conclusion is obviously different on that same page, Page 2, as I noted the fact that it is not consistent with the overall growth management plan, which brings me to the findings. You have rezone findings and you have PUD findings. PUD findings are found in Attachment A to the staff report, and I would bring to your attention Item 3 talks about conformity of the planned unit development with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. And we note that staff is recommending that such a petition be found inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies under GMP. And Item Number 6 talks about the timing of the sequence of development, which brings you to the concurrency requirements of the growth management plan, and that's where transportation analysis comes into play, and also Item Number 7, which also place into the same issue of traffic, the ability of the subj ect property and the surrounding area to accommodate expansion. Obviously it's the traffic that cannot be accommodated because of the roadway situation. And in the rezone findings, which are found as Attachment B to the staff report. And now you have one that is shown on each page, that is revised 6/16/05. Item 1 notes that staff is required to analyze whether or not the change is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the future land use map and the elements of the growth management plan. And again, staff has noted that it is consistent with the FLU, it is consistent with some of the other policies; however, it is inconsistent with the Transportation Element Policy 5.1; therefore, staff cannot support it, and we are then recommending that it be found inconsistent with the overall GMP. And again, Item 7, which goes back to the idea of traffic congestion and that goes into concurrency issues. In Item Number 12 it talks about a grant of a special privilege. Normally if a use or a petition is allowed by a re-zoning action, then it's not a special privilege because it's consistent with the growth management plan and Page 103 June 16, 2005 the Land Development Code, and that would be available to any petitioner who sought to do that so there would be no special privilege involved. However, because this petition is not consistent with the GMP, staff believes it would be a grant of a special privilege if we were to recommend approval of it. And then the last item is Item 17. This is where I found the error. We are recommending, as noted, that it is inconsistent with the overall GMP. The old language is shown struck through, new language is shown as double underlined and it's all highlighted in yellow so that you could readily identify it. I don't have anything else. I'm available for any questions. And, like I said, we do have someone here from transportation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions of staff? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Ma'am, if this were platted and homes were being built over a period of seven years or eight years or five years or whatever, and they were one by one by one, wouldn't that be considered a de minimis issue and the impact on transportation would be cumulative at some point, but how would that be treated, if there were that circumstance? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, with Transportation Planning Review. If this was platted and we were not reviewing this for zoning or consistency, they would be considered de minimis, and right now we're seeking some questions be resolved as far as when that de minimis actually gets terminated. At 110 percent is the answer we're getting right now so if they came in with a plat right now and submitted just a plot, they would be allowed to give a de minimis, if they didn't exceed 110 percent on any given segment. And apparently that segment ofU.S -- State Road 951 south of U.S. 41 is at 110 percent capacity so it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Currently it's constrained? Page 104 --- June 16, 2005 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Currently it's constrained. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So they would not even be able to proceed on that basis? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not as de minimis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not even on de minimis? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, back to the fact that anything they build there -- and these people go to work on Marco, wouldn't they be taking traffic off of951, so isn't it a swap? And if they were going on 951, they will be going north on it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I would like to address that. Sir, if people who work on Marco, say, came from Immokalee, and now they moved to this development and are going to go to work to Marco, they could take trips off the general system, say, starting coming down Immokalee, Collier Boulevard. But what they would do, in fact, is impact that intersection going, say, from 41 through 951, or Manatee Road, and impact that segment on 951. So you do. You do change the patterns, and it does help. housing, I won't deny, does help the transportation network. But this development would still impact those segments in a way that they would violate our 5.1 and violate the concurrency of the county, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, I have a question. Is the reason we flip-flopped on the approval is -- I mean, you almost make it sound like somebody made you do that. But what is happening when you focused on the transportation and you no longer could hold your approval or what happened? MS. DESELEM: In retrospect, in looking at the overall recommendation and trying to see the big picture, you're trying to remain consistent, as our recommendations in other past petitions. For example, if one thing is found inconsistent with Policy 5.4 regarding Page 105 June 16, 2005 compatibility, unless you can offset that by additional buffering and changes in massing or something like that, staff would be precluded from recommending approval of that because it's inconsistent with one element. And staff believes it's appropriate in this case to look at the overall growth management plan, noting, however, in the recommendation that you saw that, if you believe the timing element, it is mitigation -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. DESELEM: -- as noted, then that might be appropriate. But we were not certain that timing in and of itself is a mitigating factor. Normally when you think of mitigating factors, some people believe that roadway improvements or paying for roadway improvements is a more appropriate mitigating factor. So it comes down to the definition of what is a mitigating factor? And staff did leave that option open to you in the recommendation. MR. SCHMITT: Can I just expand on it? Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development, environmental services division. The -- this was really a discussion Norm Feeder and I had, Norm being the transportation administrator, Susan Murray, zoning director, and myself, Kay. When we discussed the intent, when we wrote the compo plan, the concurrency compo plan and then the implementing guidance in the LDC, it came down to a discussion as to whether or not time was a mitigating factor. And it was -- it was decided that time probably, though it can be -- and that's, I think, a policy decision you can make. The intent was that, when we wrote the guidance for the L -- for the compo plan and then subsequently for the LDC, in the consistency review what Kay is saying is we really can't include time. It was meant strictly to apply to the amount of traffic on those segments, the -- and correct me, Nick, if I'm -- 1, 1 and 3 percent. I can't remember the -- Page 106 -..- June 16, 2005 MR. CASALANGUIDA: 3, 3, 5. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's okay. MR. SCHMITT: I have a lot on my mind. But anyways, the -- it came down to that ruling. And then the ruling that, frankly, time was not a mitigating factor. But in this case, I think, based on the -- and it somewhat is a soft denial. I will admit that, the way it a worded, that the -- it becomes -- it comes down to the time and then trust on the county to implement through its concurrency management system whether or not -- whether we will approve a local development order. And so we said, let's get the rezoning, let's get this identified. Because certainly he can go in there today and build three units an acre. This is to build five units an acre. And if you saw Carson Lakes out in Immokalee, wonderful development, but certainly it could have been a little bit more dense because it's -- I believe Carson Lakes is three units an acre, and the setbacks -- it must be 60 feet between homes. And, of course we are talking about affordable housing here and we're talking about Habitat, pretty standard development, these are going to be duplexes with garages. And the intent was to come in and get the rezoning, frankly, to try to get a little more density above what is authorized out there, three units an acre. And we felt, okay, let's move this forward, at least get the rezoning through PUD that allows the applicant to move through the next phase of development and that is to do the plat -- do the plat and plan and certainly move it through that phase. But we will not issue a local development order, meaning we will not give a final approval for a plat or plan until the concurrency exists. So all this is doing for the applicant is at least getting them through the rezoning to allow for him, certainly, or any developer and it becomes, again, a policy decision, to at least go to the next phase of development. Page 107 June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And doesn't it also give your staff people the ability to plan for these future cars and all the other good stuff? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. Absolutely does. And, of course, it gives us an opportunity to plan as well when we look at the interconnecting through eventually Henderson Creek PUD and some of those other kind of things that need to be done, as we look to the future development of this portion of the county. N ow the other piece of this, and I'll even bring it a little further into perspective, this, of course, is one of the out east -- or east 41 is one of the major receiving areas, when you're talking about the rural fringe. So eventually we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There will be a lot of traffic. MR. SCHMITT: -- have to provide -- I won't say we have to, but eventually the county is going to be planning on providing the adequate transportation network because that, in itself, is critical to the success of the entire TDR program, because again, this is the receiving area, a major area that is identified as a receiving area for-- where we're directing growth and development in the fringe. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the recommendation -- and that was the issue, there was Recommendations 1 and 2. And let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we were to go forward with recommendation of approval and this were to go forward, the second recommendation does state, I think, pretty clearly, that it's all subject to all of the sun setting provisions. And I guess I'm a little confused by this. If they were to be granted that approval, they were -- basically they would be limited to constructing anything, and so they would be in a Catch 22, would they not? Page 108 "" "..-.....--. """""-"-_...-..-.~_." June 16, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Keep in mind, the petitioner acknowledges that indeed, if that's the case, he would still be making the same request of us, so I think it would be prudent for us to make our decision, assuming it's for, in respect to the petitioner's request, that he'll face that another day; and if it's against, then it's a moot point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? Excuse me. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir. I would like to bring one point forward, if I could. One of the things we look at is, when we look at zoning, it is for consistency not concurrency, so the final catch, as Mr. Schmitt pointed out, is the final development order. So if you approve this going forward with the stipulations, he does not get to build. Now, Mr. Durso and I have had many discussions. I personally support his project. Professionally, I'm reviewing strictly as black and white, what trips does it put on the road and what policy does it violate? That said, transportation staff, as Mr. Schmitt pointed out, we are looking at other projects to increase capacity in the area. And I think one of the Catch 22's you've discussed is, for instance, we're looking at an overpass at 951 and 41 or a bypass road east of 951, different proj ects. If an applicant doesn't have zoning, as these projects develop and materialize, what do they do? N ow there is a mad race to catch up to what potentially could be additional trips on the road. The other side of that is, other applicants will say the same thing to you. We want to get in zoning and we want to get in line. So that's the only caution I have for the Planning Commission. Personally I support his project but professionally I have to caution that, if you approve zoning, other applicants will also say, I Page 109 June 16, 2005 want to get in line using zoning for additional capacity. Weare looking at on overpass. That may be four to seven years out, so if Mr. Durso's project moves forward, he would be getting in line for something like that and being prepared to take advantage of those trips -- so. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a fundamental need to make clear on the record that zoning approvals do not create places in any lines for any subsequent allocations of capacity. I understand that, in a generic way what Mr. Casalanguida is saying is true. But I just want to be abundantly clear to this commission that no one gets any particular place in time based upon the point in time that they obtain zoning use approvals. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you for -- MR. WHITE: It is related more so to when they come in for their subsequent site development and platting plans because that is the point where we start asking them to compensate 50 percent of their transportation impact fees. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. White is correct, and this is just a hurdle they get through, is what we're saying. Because once you cross this hurdle, you can proceed to the next step. So thank you for the correction about getting in line but you are getting past one more hurdle in the development stage, you are closer to submitting for a point in line. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Another question. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I want to go back to the sun setting issue for a minute. Mr. White, did you look it up? I think it would be important just to know -- MR. WHITE: Two things -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- because I don't want Mr. Durso to leave here under a misconception either. Page 110 _,eo June 16, 2005 MR. WHITE: The relevant provision is, in the Land Development Code it is 10.02.13 capital letter D 2, which pertains to PUDs approved on or after October 24, 2001. Under smaller C it says, in the event of a moratorium or other action of government that prevents the approval of any final development order, the duration of the suspension of the approval shall not be counted towards the -- this is the first point -- the three-year sunset provision above in A and B, and it is not five but rather three years where the sun setting requirements for this PUD would then become applicable. So, correcting that statement that Dr. Durso made to you about five, it is three. Secondly, the idea is whether or not the actual concurrency management system analysis that leads to a conclusion that you are not entitled to a certificate of adequate public facility can be construed as a form of other action of government that prevents approval of the final development order which, for the purposes of concurrency management, is considered not the traditional thing to be a building permit but rather the site development plan or plat is actually being denied in the sense that is the result of the action of government which prevents its approval. Now, it seems kind of a -- depending upon your point of view, obvious matter as to whether the denial on the concurrency analysis leads to the prevention of approval of the site development plan or plat and plans. Now, I don't know that anyone has asked our office precisely to opine with respect to that issue. I can tell you that certainly it seems, when it's compared to the idea of a moratorium that it's obvious that the Board of County Commissioners have to take some affirmative action to do so. So the notion that some other action of government might be something that arises from an administrative determination under the operation of the rules of law applicable to a set of facts, is the same Page 111 --.- June 16, 2005 affirmative type of action as that of the board, is probably a question we need to very critically think through. In any event, I think that the chairman's analysis of the applicant's position on this is, if I don't meet the requirements of 2A that talk about doing certain things pertaining to infrastructure improvements of 15 percent within three years, then he's prepared -- the applicant is prepared to address those matters and, if necessary, come to the Board of County Commissioners to seek whatever sun setting extension, PUD extension, may then be necessary or appropriate. But to try to give you as clear a forecast of where the law would lead us, I think it's arguable, probably both ways at this point, and something that we need to get clarification both perhaps from our office as well as that of the Zoning and Land Development Review director, Susan Murray, in perhaps an official interpretation context. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And that final decision really is the responsibility of the applicant. And I would say that Dr. Durso is not only a recognized expert in affordable housing, but a sophisticated developer. He's been before us many times and probably has a more than passing familiarity with the codes and regulations, and I think we should take it at his request that all of that that you have described, Mr. White, is true, and that's his problem. And he's saying, please let me have it. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Joe, I have a question for you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer did get my attention. I'm sorry . COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. Patrick, could you really give us that opinion, because I think, you know, we could put a lot of weight on -- Page 112 June 16, 2005 MR. WHITE: You mean in the next ten seconds? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, no. You said you formally -- I mean, you said you have never been requested but let's consider that. It would be important to know if concurrency could in fact stop the timing on these PUDs. MR. WHITE: Well, what you are saying is -- what it would do is simply hold the clock for the calculation of sun setting purposes. I think that it is a question that our office, in order to properly and fully consider it, would have to look equally as critically at the provisions in Policy 5.1 that talk about, what are appropriate and mitigating stipulations that this panel could consider and the board could utilize, if it chose, to ultimately approve this request. You've heard the staff say that they consider time, to some extent, to be something that really isn't a mitigating stipulation. I would have to bring to your attention, I think, the idea that the whole notion of concurrency is kind of, you are looking at the same reality from two ends of the telescope. One end says, let's create more capacity. The other --which typically is considered to be a mitigating stipulation in many contexts, not just transportation. You do something. You plant more trees. You -- whatever the case may be to mitigate. But here, the other end of the telescope is one that suggests that the very purpose for these rules, to assure that no impacts occur, i.e., concurrency, is an equally valid consideration as a mitigating stipulation, if it's imposed as a condition of zoning approval. And I hope that is something I'm stating as simply and clearly as possible because the notion in my mind is that if you are preventing someone from moving forward, i.e., not creating those transportation impacts, by regulation, as a condition, as a stipulation of approval, then you have met the test of Policy 5.1. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's right. MR. WHITE: Some folks would argue, I believe, that that is Page 113 June 16, 2005 exactly what the concurrency management system is intended to do in an administrative function. What you're talking about today is planning consistency under the growth management plan. And I believe, as the staff has indicated, including Mr. Casalanguida, that it would apparently be within the scope of your purview to make those types of recommendations and determinations. And I concur in those opInIons. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess not. MR. WHITE: I'll take that as I guess I said it all. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I just have a quick question for Mr. Durso. Did you say that it was -- that you're building at a project called Trail Ridge? DR. DURSO: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Trail Ridge. DR. DURSO: It's also called Henderson Creek. That's the corner of 41 and 951. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't you, with such a shortage, build out to the max that you're allowed there? DR. DURSO: Okay. Well-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean -- DR. DURSO: -- first of all this came up -- planning takes a long time, okay. We plan -- we started planning that a year or so ago. At that time we thought that San Marino would be approved and we thought that we could build these 110 units, okay. And, when we looked at it, we can do duplexes and do 204 units. To do the 280 units we're going to have to do four-plexes. We have never done them before. We do a great job at single family homes. You know what I mean? So we decided, let's try the duplexes first and maybe someday we'll have to go to four-plexes, but we'd really rather not. Page 114 June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. It was just a curious-- DR. DURSO: So we can only fit 204 duplexes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Duplexes. DR. DURSO: We want to get more density and we had a plan with more density and it was with four-plexes and my board decided not to do that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions of staff? None at this time. Do we have any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have three registered speakers. Captain Pam Ball is the first followed by Yvonne Koolhof. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And, our public speakers, you can get the hand mic from Dr. Durso and stand anywhere it's comfortable. In fact, right where you are at would be fine, so we can hear you. MS. KOOLHOF: I'm Yvonne Koolhof. I'm a resident of Westwind Condominium Estates. I have been very impressed with all of the previous speakers, and of course they have a great deal more knowledge than lay people of Westwind, thus I would like to pay a tribute both to Dr. Durso and all of his work for Collier County. A great deal of what I was going to say has already been mentioned. However, we are concerned, of course, with the strip of road here from Collier Boulevard all the way down to 92. And all of the residents thereof will be affected and impacted by all of the traffic, which has already been mentioned. Concurrency is a very torturous path. I know that. And I'm not a technician or an engineer or a lawyer, so all I can say is that we have been surrounded now by many communities. We are an older community, and we have been left out of the picture. Our main concern, of course, is public safety on the roads. We have Charlie Estates, which is a Habitat for Humanity, opposite us, we have Imperial Wilderness and we have the other community where Page 115 .-,^",...,.,--.",.--,.".-..---"- June 16, 2005 they usually are full, just in the season, Paradise Point. And to the east of us, then, we will be having the -- eventually the new Habitat for Humanity, because, obviously, it is a need. I don't think anybody can deny the need for affordable housing. And we say, well, the sooner the better. I know it's needed. However, there are some concerns. We also have the Reflection Lakes, which is a huge community. Weare skirted by these new communities that are in the process of being built. And also Fiddlers Creek with the condominiums further down the road towards the north. The egress, I think I counted about nine of them, nine prospective communities and present communities, the egress of the traffic is going to empty out all onto 41 east, which is an outdated, two-lane trail. And when you think of what it's going to be like, because even the Habitat for Humanity people, or two working partners, Habitat for Humanity opposite us, Charlie Estates, has got two vehicles in each driveway, so everything -- and the same thing will happen with Regal Acres, excuse me. You have to multiply it all by two, all of the units by two, because just about every household, every unit, will have two vehicles. Do the math. Weare worried about safety . We have reason to be worried about it. Traffic has been mentioned in passing. It has to be more than that. Weare beginning to have difficulty turning out of our own community. It's dangerous. Last week I made a right turn to go onto 41 to go northward and a huge tractor trailer came bolting out from the east and passing me on the left-hand side on the Chevron line. We are going to have some real problems if we delay the construction and the widening of 41 East. We need it now. I don't understand all of the difficulties and the rules or the legal parameters involved. That's for other people to worry about. But I know that if Page 116 June 16, 2005 we have construction too late, when all of these other residents are there using the road, that it's going to be a catastrophe, just like we had in North Naples. I can't see how the Planning Commission can allow the same thing to be repeated, because I like to think that we learn from history. I would appreciate some consideration for that when these decisions are being made. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Captain Pam Ball, followed by Anthony M. Brown. MS. BALL: Okay. I think I've already been introduced. I also live at Westwinds. I also am concerned about the safety issue. I also have some other concerns, which I'll address in just a moment. I realize that this is down the road and there will be improvements to 41, hopefully. I took the liberty of doing my own small survey. Within a mile and a half distance from Manatee Road East on 41 there are six communities with existing or to be constructed residences of approximately 2,000. That's one car per unit. That's two thousand cars blowing out onto 41. That's too much. It's too much. It's already a problem, as Yvonne said. This includes Reflection Lakes, which is to our west. It includes Paradise Point. It includes Imperial Wilderness, Charlie Estates, Sunshine and Westwinds. This is not taking into account, most of the people in Goodland use 41 to come into Naples. Most of the people in Port of the Islands, which is mushrooming, also use 41, not including the commercial traffic from Krehling, from 6- L Farms, which greatly hampers smooth traffic flow. We also have the community of Everglades City, which comes right by us to get into Naples. You are talking a nightmare, an absolute nightmare. To add to this nightmare -- I don't see that it's going to benefit anyone. Page 11 7 -_.~ June 16, 2005 Certainly I agree we need Habitat for Humanity. We need affordable housing, but enough already. Enough. Our community is being inundated with traffic. Another concern of mine is personal peace and tranquility. We are a retirement community. Older folks. We have been through the rat race. We now want our place in the sun of quiet. All ready there have been teenage children, preteen children wandering the streets because Mom and Dad are out making a living. I understand that. I have been there, done that. But this is our time to be quiet and have our tranquility, not to be having teenage children running up and down the streets at all hours of the day and night. Also we have had an increase in cars cruising the neighborhood. Now, who knows where these cars come from. I certainly don't write down all of the tag numbers, with several occupants in them. They are not looking for places for sale. They don't stop at any of the for sale signs. They are not visiting anyone, because I have watched. I walk my dog very frequently. What are these people up to? No good, that's for sure. So I am concerned about safety from both viewpoints. And I would certainly ask the board to consider the older community, the retirement communities and the people who say enough is enough, you know. We need our tranquility and our peace and quiet. Please. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Anthony Brown. MR. BROWN: The only thing I've got to say about this is I think we're getting the cart before the horse. We don't have any stop lights between the school on 41 and State Road 92. We need some more stop lights out in our area to prevent these kids from crossing the street there at Joseph Lane, in Westwind, going to that little store an eighth of a mile west of Joseph Lane. I myself have seen 13,14 kids out in the middle of the road waiting for traffic to go by so they can Page 118 <_.".,,~"··__····.·,,__.,.,~.~~..m,..'__. June 16, 2005 cross the street. I just don't understand why we don't put stop lights, more stop lights out in that area. Until we can put stop lights there and get the traffic organized, that's when we should start building. And I do agree with Habitat for Humanity. I think it's a great thing, I really do. But we can't get the cart before the horse. We have got to do what's right first. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Thank you, sir. There are no other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any summary comments by the petitioner? DR. DURSO: I think everything has been said. You know, we just want to know, where do you want us to build, okay? And, you know, we fortunately, four or five years ago, we had a tremendously aggressive land buying campaign and we have bought lots of land. My wife tells me that we should worry about Immokalee also. Five or six years from now we're going to have the same problem in Immokalee. We're not going to be able to get rezoning in Immokalee. We're going to try to come forward to you with as much land in Immokalee as we can in the next couple of years. But, you know, the affordable housing issue is not going to go away in this county. We've done a good job recently of getting the public to be aware of that and we're gonna keep doing that. But it's getting worse and worse. And instead -- in spite of our best efforts, we're definitely losing the battle. This is like kind of like just scratching the wall. Can we hold on to this one little last piece and maybe someday we can build there. We would like to take that chance. Okay. Like you say, they are going to be building in the rural lands with the TDR program. Why not let us build our project at the same time? And that's when we come on line because the road isn't going to Page 119 June 16, 2005 get widened probably until somebody buys a big piece of land out there east of us and pays to widen the road. And, when that happens, we want to be able to build some Habitat homes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. With that we'll close the public hearing. Mr. Adelstein, you have amotion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I move that AR6919 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioner with recommendation of approval, subject to road availability. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have a motion by Mr. Adelstein and a second by Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: I want to remind you that you actually have two matters before you in this particular hearing, the second of which, of course, is the affordable housing density bonus agreement. So if the motion maker and the second are willing to combine those two for the purpose of this application, I think that that would be appropriate. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's acceptable to the motion maker. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And acceptable to the second. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Under discussion, I just wanted to clarify under the staff recommendation that we had as an update on June 16th, they noted in there that the Collier County Planning Commission may determine that if the developer's commitment to delay any request for local development, i.e., approval for final subdivision plat, can be deemed acceptable mitigation to offset the transportation level Page 120 June 16, 2005 of service concerns. And is that consistent with your motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And with the second? MR. VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One point, in fact in what you were saying there, is it something we could add to the motion that we could consider lack of concurrency to be a government abeyance for timing? MR. WHITE: I think it would be within your discretion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners your opinion that you so consider it, if that is indeed -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Will you state that for the motion maker to see if he will consider it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be that a lack of concurrency with the transportation will be considered a government abeyance in the time frame that they have to build a project. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think you are trying to make a statement to the County Commissioners that they would have to make. We could say -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're advisors, that's all we're doing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll go along with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we have to start considering that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Motion is in favor of that. Second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion and second are modified. Further discussion before we get into such a convoluted motion Page 121 _"~,<.,~.~ ·<·_·"'<~_",",·__m~.·'.~ June 16, 2005 we don't know what we're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We've got it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further discussion? There being none, we'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: It's unanimous. If everybody could clear the room as quietly as possible. THE COURT REPORTER: Are we off the record? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Apparently we're taking a two minute break. We're back in order. We've finished our public petitions. We're on Item 10, New Business, discuss and set an evening hearing date for the Copeland Area Rezone petition. Mr. DeRuntz, you have a request of us? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Zoning and Land Development Review Department. We have a land use petition for rezoning for the Copeland area. And in the application it entails about 90 acres. The -- according to Section 10.3.5, point capital D1, it deals with notice and public hearing requirements. And in that, if I can read, the Planning Page 122 June 16, 2005 Commission shall hold at least one advertised public hearing unless the Planning Commission elects by a majority vote to hear such ordinance or resolution to be heard at two public hearings before the Planning Commission. If there is only one hearing required before the Planning Commission, that hearing shall be held after 5 :00 p.m. on a weekday. And, if there are two hearings required before the planning commission, then at least one of the required hearings shall be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday. And, in such case, the first hearing shall be held approximately seven days after the date the first advertisement is published. The second hearing shall be held approximately two weeks after the first hearing and shall be advertised approximately five days prior to the public hearing. The date and time and place of the second hearing shall be announced at the first public hearing. The petitioner would like to know how the Planning Commission would like this to be heard and advertised. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So the question for us is one or two hearings? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm in favor of one. Some discussion and then a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that we have just one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein for one meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Murray. Discussion? There being none, all of those in favor of the motion signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 123 ~._--".. June 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. MR. DeRUNTZ: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: One meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, should we have it in Copeland, the meeting? MR. WHITE: There is nothing that precludes you from doing so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, wouldn't it be wise, to get the citizens from Copeland? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Your normal petition workload may have a lot of items not related to Copeland, unless you want to have a specific meeting. MR. DeRUNTZ: But this is at 5:00. MR. BELLOWS: It would be at 5:00, so we could have that there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Even better if we could schedule it after Octo ber 1 st. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No way. COMMISSIONER CARON: In fact, we have to make sure we do not. We have to make sure it's before October 1 st. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's a necessity. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There is no public comment. No discussion of the agenda. We are adjourned. ***** Page 124 _H~.,"~,.,,",...T_'._,_~._._._. June 16, 2005 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:40 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman Page 125 'W"_~"._~___"""'''''''.~~_''''_~'' _.. , _~'_,~_""~___."__