Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/01/2005 R September 1, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, September 1, 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell A. Budd Mark P. Strain Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Lindy Adelstein Kenneth Abernathy Robert Vigliotti Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. and Env. Services Ray Bellows, Planning Services Marjorie Student- Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 MINUTES & RECORDS AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1,2005, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA 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 PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -JULY 21, 2005, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - Not Available At This Time 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2004-AR-6700. Eden Institute Foundation, Inc., represented by Kelly Smith, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., requesting Conditional Use per Table 2 LDC Section 2.04.03 of the "E" Estates zoning district for a private school and group care facility. The proposed project includes a school facility for individuals with autism along with a group home which will allow for respite care, areas for outreach services, including physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy, and recreational facilities for the use of the students as well as program participants. The subject property, consisting of 9.63 acres, is located at 2101 County Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Michael J. DeRuntz) 1 B. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-6207. MAC Builders, Inc., represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of Talon Management, Inc., requesting a rezone from the C-l and C-2 zoning districts to the PUD Planned Unit Development zoning district to allow a maximum of 86 multi-family dwelling units. The property, consisting of 10.76 acres, is located on the northwest corner of Radio Road extension and Palm Springs Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) C. Petition: PUDA-2005-AR-7152. Valewood Properties, LLC, represented by Bruce Tyson ofWilsonMiller, Inc., is requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development "PUD" Document and Master Plan to revise 21.74 acres ofland from Commercial to Residential use, allowing an additional 260 multi-family residential units. The subject property is located in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. (Coordinator: Heidi WiUiams) CONTINUED FROM 8/18/05 D. LDC Special Cycle 2a. 2005. Continuance of the hearing, specifically on the proposed amendment for PUD expiration and retirement of excess numbers of dwelling units. CONTINUED FROM 8/18/05 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 9-1-05/CCPC Agenda/RB/sp 2 September 1,2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning. We'll bring this meeting of the Planning Commission to order. Please rise with me for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will start with our roll call. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Budd is here. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney is not here. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Addenda to the agenda? I am not aware of any agenda changes. Ray, are there any staff changes? MR. BELLOWS: No. There's no changes, other than a lot of individuals here for item 8C, and I don't know if you want to move the -- change the agenda for that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We'll consider that. Mr. Strain, you had a modification? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Yesterday all the panel was sent an e-mail by staff. They wanted to talk about having a meeting to discuss a meeting. So on today's agenda I would like to get that issue Page 2 September 1, 2005 resolved. So maybe we could have a meeting on the agenda today about discussing the meeting about possibly having a meeting. So if you all don't mind, I'd like to get it put to bed so we haven't got a -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: How about we put that under item 9, old business. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's fine. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it's an agenda item to decide whether to have a meeting to have a meeting? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that's what staffs asking, and I just want to get it resolved rather than have a flurry of e-mails going back and forth. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We want to make sure the people get all the government they're paying for. Okay. Any other requests? And do we want to take Mr. Bellows' suggestion that item 8C, the Valewood Properties, commercial to residential, be moved up to the first agenda item today? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I know there's folks here for the other one as well. Some of them asked me when the -- when they would be up, and I told them fairly early so they could get back to work. So I'm not sure that there's a need to change it in regard -- for that reason. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't have strong feelings either way. If there's no motion, we'll continue with the agenda as published. There being none, there are no -- excuse me, there was an addenda to the agenda, Mr. Strain's item under old business. Do we have a motion to make that change to our agenda? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Seconded. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Moved by Mr. Murray; seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Page 3 September 1, 2005 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER LINDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Planning commission absences. I'll be absent the rest of my life. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's how it's been all along. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just going to make it official? CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm making it official. This is it. Any other -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah, they're happy at that. Approval of minutes, July 21 st, regular meeting minutes? Do we have a motion to adopt as submitted? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Seconded. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein is the motion. Mr. Schiffer is the second. Discussion? (No response.) Page 4 September 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, all those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER LINDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Board of County Commissioner report recaps? Anything, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The board did not meet in August, so there are no recaps. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The republic is safe then, huh? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good. And chairman's report, I just wanted to point out to all those registered lobbyists in Collier County that the renewal period is coming upon us, and I believe -- yeah, here it is -- annual registration shall be required and shall occur on or after October 1st of each year. So for all the lobbyists in the community, it's time to renew. We will move on then to the advertised public hearings, beginning first with petition CU-2004-AR-6700, the Eden Institute Foundation. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any disclosures by Planning Page 5 --~-->,._, September 1, 2005 Commissioners? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. Kelly Smith kind of briefed me on this over the phone. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. There being none, if we could hear from the petitioner, please. MS. SMITH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, I'm Kelly Smith with Davidson Engineering representing Eden Florida. From Eden Florida this morning also is Taire Malloy, who's the Assistant Director of Development, Dr. Vicki Isler, who is Director, and Frank Garbarino, who is the Development Coordinator. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me for just a second. If there's somebody from our county IT department listening in, eight out of nine planning commissioner monitors are not working. Mr. Abernathy is the lucky one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mine's on the wrong channel. I've got it now. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And the rest of us are out of luck. So if somebody from IT could help get us started up. Please continue, and we'll look at the screen up here. MS. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MS. SMITH: The subject property is approximately 9.63 acres and is located at 2101 County Barn Road. It is currently zoned Estates and designated urban mixed-use district, urban residential subdistrict according to the future land use map. The Board of County Commissioners previously approved a conditional use for a senior independent assisted care living facility on the property. That approved conditional use has subsequently expired, and other than a previous stipulation, is not a part of our request today. The applicant, Eden Florida, is a division of Eden Institute, a Page 6 September 1, 2005 Princeton, New Jersey, based non-profit organization founded in 1975. The mission of Eden Institute is to provide a comprehensive continuum of community based life-span services for children, adolescents, and adults with autism and to provide support to their families. Eden Florida was founded in 1996 to meet Southwest Florida's pressing need for individualized and specialized services for individuals with autism and their families. Eden Florida currently operates a facility on Learning Court in Fort Myers. We're requesting two conditional uses for the subject property. The first is to allow for a private school for up to 50 students with autism. The school would provide services for individuals between the ages of three and 21 and would include a treatment and support facility, outreach services, recreational area, and a recreational facility. The second conditional use is approval request for a category group care facility to serve up to 12 clients as an -- on an as-needed basis. There are currently two houses on this property. Eden Florida intends to demolish one of the homes as the area for construction of the school facilities. The other home, which is shown on this site plan as the respite home, is going to remain and has been renovated. They intend to open a six-client group home, which is a permitted use by right. As the school is built, it is their intention to phase out the group home and allow for respite care for their students, again, on an as-needed basis. It would not be a permanent living situation. It's their philosophy that their clients, their adult clients, should live in the community, and, therefore, living on a school campus doesn't meet that need. The subject property is adjacent to two churches, an elementary school, and a future private high school. The neighboring property to the east is developed with a single-family residence, and those Page 7 September 1,2005 property owners did attend our neighborhood information meeting and were very supportive of the property. As pointed out in the staff report, the predominance of education and religious institutions surrounding the subject property ensures that the requested continual use is compatible to the adjacent properties. We agree to all the stipulations in the staff report and request approval of the conditional uses as requested. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna can go ahead. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron then. He defers to you. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Just a couple. The TIS says that the acreage is 9.91, and the staff report says it's 9.63. Do you know what the actual size is? MS. SMITH: I'm sorry. Nine point 63 is the correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is correct? MS. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And let's go over those student and client figures just one more time. You're going to have 50 students plus 12 clients in the building that already exists, plus an additional six? MS. SMITH: The building that already exists will be a six-person group home. That would be -- that would be a transitional use as the school is developed. COMMISSIONER CARON: But that will always remain? MS. SMITH: It will always remain as an opportunity for respite care. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. SMITH: It is not their intention at this point to have 12 residents in that group home. But because of funding and fundraising and timeline to construct the school, they wanted to have that as an Page 8 -"~-_.,,~... September 1, 2005 option. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. SMITH: Until the school is developed. COMMISSIONER CARON: So the potential is for 68 people at anyone time to be -- MS. SMITH: Sixty-two, because the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- on that property. MS. SMITH: -- existing six people would be incorporated into the 12. COMMISSIONER CARON: Part of that 12, okay. MS. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Good. And my last question is for transportation, so I'll wait. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Kelly, my only question was, is there's a lot of facilities here. Will people, after they graduate, be coming back here? In there you define life-span needs. So will this be used for after they graduate the school program? Will this be a community facility or-- MS. SMITH: I'm going to ask Dr. Isler to answer that question for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While she's coming up, what exactly does respite mean, just to make sure I -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What was the question? MS. SMITH: Respite is -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Respite? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You beat me to it. I was going to ask that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay. DR. ISLER: Good morning. I guess I'll start with the first one. As our students -- Page 9 September 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Could you identify yourself for the record, please? DR. ISLER: Oh. I'm Dr. Vicki Isler. I'm the Director of Eden's Florida program. For -- when students graduate from school at age 22 for children with disabilities, what our program -- what our philosophy is is that they will move into the community like any other typical child graduating. We would provide a variety of programs for them. It's -- we don't want it to be near the school. We'd like for it to be like yours or my home in the community. And, you know, various numbers, maybe six, maybe two in an apartment. So, no, we don't expect them to come and live on the campus after they graduate. It's not -- we really want to be community based. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And-- DR. ISLER: The respite. What we're looking at is, we wanted to have a home where, say, parents have children, you know, a child with autism, they want to go to Disney and take their other children, they want to leave them with us for the weekend, where families could have a safe place for their children to say, should there be a death in the family and they'd have to leave, where trained staff would always be available. So the respite piece would be more based on the needs of our community in short-term stays. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me -- for example, the gymnasium, which is far away from the school, or at least off to the side, is that something that would be -- I mean, would that be used by the old students, or is that totally something for the present-day students? DR. ISLER: Well, we were looking at, you know, having an opportunity, say, there are a lot of children in -- it would be used by school students, of course. Page 10 September 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. DR. ISLER: But there are a lot of students in the Collier County public schools who go to public school but may not have an after-care program or after-school or place to go where something is set up for children with disabilities. So there could be a possibility of having like, you know, children come after school and have a gym class or something. So it would really be a part of the entire community but primarily for the children who attend school at Eden. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason I'm asking -- I'm not against it. But I just want to make sure -- because the application doesn't really clarify it, and there's a lot of square footage for 50 students that -- I get the feeling there may be other functions you're going to want, and I'd like to make sure that that's in the application so COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're included. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words -- DR. ISLER: I'd like -- the thing is, with the 50 students, there's one teacher for every two students. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. DR. ISLER: So you're looking at a pretty, you know, low teacher to student ratio. I don't know. I don't foresee a lot of things going on outside of regular school activities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But what you described is, in other words, an after-school program for -- I mean, it could be parents that work and the kids are in public school, you'd want them to come in there. So I think -- I'd like to make sure that the application clearly allows you that, because there is like -- for every student there's 200 square feet, which is a large amount of building. It appears to me there might be more use than is being described, and I'd like to make sure you describe the uses so you don't have a problem in the future with a use that wasn't at this hearing. Page 11 ---"~ September 1, 2005 DR. ISLER: Okay. Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The question is, how many students or participants are there going to be in this group? DR. ISLER: Going-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're saying basically 50. DR. ISLER: Fifty children, yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's not going to be any larger; you don't need more? In other words, if you're going to need more, it's better to put in more now than it would be to have to come back to do it again. DR. ISLER: I understand. We don't typically -- I mean, we could put more in. We don't typically go over 50 just because of the needs of the children. If you get too big, you risk quality care. We could -- I mean, we could certainly add a few more if -- to kind of, you know, mitigate that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is there a possibility that you may want to or may have to? DR. ISLER: I think there's probably always a possibility. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, then I would suggest that you consider putting -- making the number 50, not your maximum, but go something like 75, and then let it be. DR. ISLER: That would be fine. I'm not opposed to that at all. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Unfortunately, the petition has been advertised for the amount of students listed, and that would require a continuance and readvertising. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And that would be the petitioner's discretion if they chose to do that. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And I was going to ask Page 12 " -~~~~""~ September 1, 2005 actually, have you planned for facilities to accommodate more than 50, accommodations, et cetera? DR. ISLER: I believe that our plans had been done for 50 children, yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'd like to talk to Kelly. Thank you. Kelly, are you comfortable, or do you think we could add something? I'm not concerned about the 50 students, but I'm concerned about other functions. I mean, could we add something in there that would make sure that in the future it's clear that there may be other functions other than the 50 schooled there? MS. SMITH: Certainly. I don't think that Eden Florida is opposed to making sure that any additional uses are incorporated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I can see the gymnasium used, you know, for past graduates having different kinds of stuff there that you wouldn't want them to be excluded. Okay. I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Kelly, the lady that was just here indicated there's two-to-one staff ratio? MS. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You've got 62 students? MS. SMITH: There will only be 50 students. The 12 individuals if -- the 12 individuals would either be already students or they would be living in the group home so that your actual student population would only be 50. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the way this reads, it says, and another for a group one category care facility to serve up to 12 clients on an as-needed basis, and that's after it talks about the 50 Page 13 ..--.,-.,. September 1, 2005 students. So now you're saying that it's not 62, because I think you earlier suggested 62 was the number -- MS. SMITH: It could be 62 people -- 62 clients on the campus, but only 50 of them would be students. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. How many people will be there as administrators and employees, full-time or part-time, to service the 62 people? I know two-to-one ratio for the students, so that's 25 right from the get-go. DR. ISLER: It will take me probably a minute. I have to think for a second. If we had -- obviously there would be 25 teachers for those 50 students, so -- and then a supervisor for each 10 students, so that would add five, and then probably your support staff would add another 10, and your administrative staff would add -- it just went out -- would add approximately 10 to 15. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That brings us up to about 123. The TIS that was done, I believe, for 50. I'm not sure how Mr. Scott may want to look at that or how staff would look at that, but the TIS should have been done to reflect accurately what the use of the site is going to be. And the count that the TIS is for, I believe, shows 50. And Kelly, if I'm wrong, please let me know. But on the first page of the TIS and the introduction, it says number of units, A, a private school with 50 students maximum. And it does the traffic analysis based just on that, and I'm just wondering how 123 equates back to 50. MS. SMITH: The land use code used in the TIS bases the trip generation off of the number of students and not the number of staff. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then when transportation comes up, I guess I'll see how this is going to impact their calculations. Again, it's not saying that it's bad, but I'd rather it be accurately stated so everybody knows what to expect. In your neighborhood informational meeting the -- and this is directly from our package that was sent to us -- the agent's Page 14 September 1, 2005 representatives committed to installation of a fence around the entire site prior to any new construction of buildings. I'm assuming you're going to do that? MS. SMITH: Yes. DR. ISLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The next one was, the applicant's team stated that the proposed day school would enroll a maximum of six students between the ages of 3 and 22. MS. SMITH: I believe that's a typo. We didn't -- we didn't discuss six students. We discussed 50 at the neighborhood information meeting. And actually, the neighbor who attended the meeting -- we also at the meeting only discussed six people in the group home, and it was the neighbor at the meeting who encouraged Eden Florida to seek 12 students in the group home. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So while -- staff then needs to verify that that's an error in their staff report and get it on record as a corrected measure to what it needs to be. The other issue -- and I'm just reflecting back on it. I heard you say there's going to be an after-school program. Now, you have 123 already using the site either by employment or by students. How many bodies will be attending, could potentially attend the after-school programs? DR. ISLER: The after-school program is typically a small group of students. It's not as many as the school would have attending. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you have a number that you would max that at? DR. ISLER: I don't have an exact number. I could probably give you a really -- I could say no more than what you would have there during the day. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So another 62 students? DR. ISLER: Is wouldn't be in addition. It would be -- there would be no more children than you would have during a regular Page 15 -.-----,. September 1, 2005 school day for the after-school programs. So all those children wouldn't stay and -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So at any time you're not going to exceed 62 -- or 50 students, let's say? DR. ISLER: I don't -- I don't predict that we will. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Where I'm trying to go, ma'am, is to not have something come back and surprise the neighborhood they didn't expect based on the information provided at today's meeting. And one way to do that is to cap everything that you're requesting with a number that works for you -- DR. ISLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- but also tells the public exactly what to expect anywhere down the road. DR. ISLER: I mean, the only thing that I could foresee happening where we would have more people than on a typical day would be, say, we had a family picnic where all the children and siblings came, we had some sort of dance for families, probably a special event. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Those aren't really considered-- DR. ISLER: So that would be the only time that I could foresee that we would have more teachers and students than we would normally have on a typical day. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. This is probably more of Kelly's issue. Kelly, the application, where it asks for the names -- who all the -- who, the list of the officers and stockholders in the corporation are, it simply says, Eden Institute Foundation, Inc., 100 percent. That doesn't provide this panel with any recognition of conflicts of interest. We need names and bodies. MS. SMITH: Yes. And I apologize for that not being completed correctly. I would be happy to provide that information. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Now? Page 16 '--.-... September 1, 2005 MS. SMITH: We can provide it now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, it would be nice to have it on record so that if any of us are sitting here, we're not voting on something that could be a conflict. MS. SMITH: Okay. DR. ISLER: All of the individuals that are officers on our board, we have one regular board member that lives here in Naples, and the other officers are in N ew Jersey. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could you tell us -- DR. ISLER: They live in New Jersey. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could you tell us the name of the member in Naples. That would be most likely -- if anybody has a conflict that would be -- DR. ISLER: Yes. It is Julie Stanley. She is one of our parents of one of our students. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And if you have a list of the rest, could you leave it with the court reporter for the record so someone has it? DR. ISLER: Yes. We'll just leave this with you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me ask a quick one. Is this a private non-profit or -- DR. ISLER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. I have questions of staff, but that's -- I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none at this time. Could we hear from the staff, please? MR. DeRUNTZ: Good morning. My name is Mike DeRuntz. I'm the principal planner with the Zoning and Land Development Page 1 7 .---.....-. September 1, 2005 Review Department. We did hold a neighborhood information meeting on June 27th, and at that meeting, the adjoining property owner was present and was supportive of this petition, as was mentioned earlier, that he was interested in having a fence installed along his property line in conjunction with what was approved with the previous petition, and they have incorporated that into their site plan. I also have a copy of a letter from this joint property owner stating his approval. And I apologize, that came in later after the packets did go out. As was mentioned by Mr. Strain, there was -- there's a question about the staff report and the number of students during the day period and it -- the six is incorrect. It is 50 students. The application has been reviewed and is found to be consistent with the growth management plan. And with the uses surrounding the property, it was found to be compatible with those uses in the land development code. If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to try to address those. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have two. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I want to get into this -- into the transportation issue, the trip generation. Why are we using only 50 when there will obviously be more people on that property on a regular basis, than the 50? MR. DeRUNTZ: I'll let Mr. Scott answer that. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. In the code it goes by the number of students. That assumes staff and support. Now, would it assume a two-to-one ratio? I don't know. I don't have the code in front of me that describes exactly what schools they're comparing it to. But that assumes -- it's just like any other Page 18 "- September 1, 2005 thing, if you do by number of employees for a business, it also assumes support staff and other things with that. It's not strictly just the number of students that are at the school. It's also support. COMMISSIONER CARON: It supposedly is built in? MR. SCOTT: Yes. Now, is it built into the level of two- to-one, I don't know without looking at the code, the specific descriptions in the code. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Unlikely. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, unlikely is true, exactly. It probably doesn't. There's probably not that many studies when you get right down to it for something that's specific to this that's compared to. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did you review this before you approved it? MR. SCOTT: Yes, we did. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That question didn't come to mind? MR. SCOTT: Not at the time, no. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the ITE trip generation rate used for private schools and middle schools then wasn't questioned in regards to the recommendation of approval? MR. SCOTT: No. And obviously, if you're real close to -- we're widening County Barn, we're widening all the roads down there, so we don't have as much of a -- if you're talking about 10 trips down there, it's not as big an issue. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, and I would agree with that. But my concern, Don, is kind of like we're discovering now is that some of the things we approved in the past have greater impacts than we thought they did at the time, and -- MR. SCOTT: As we've discussed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- while they wouldn't have hurt us now, down the road we've said, oh, we didn't account for that many trips in the road from that generated spot. And I know you're going through that right now with some projects in the county. Page 19 September 1, 2005 MR. SCOTT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It would be better if the TISs were accurately reflecting what's really happening. MR. SCOTT: Well, on the other side of that, too, during site planning, some of these things might be -- find some in the site plan __ the TIS with that will be a little different than the one you're even looking at today. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I know we've discussed the site plan -- MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- scenario before, and a public meeting doesn't open up to people the site plan. MR. SCOTT: Exactly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So for the public, I'd like them to know what to expect. MR. SCOTT: Yep. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one more question. County Barn Road is in the process of being widened? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: But it's not a failing road according MR. SCOTT: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to this? MR. SCOTT: We -- it's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a philosophical question. Why are we widening roads that aren't failed when we have failed roads that aren't being widened? MR. SCOTT: It's a level of service D right now. Its standard is D, but the road surface itself is falling apart. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I know. I drive it. MR. SCOTT: To go in there and rebuild -- they did like a $30,000 overlay on it, which was just essentially a Band-Aid job. To Page 20 September 1, 2005 go in there and rebuild the whole road when we know it needs to be widened, two to three years, or two years from now, doesn't make any sense, that's why we're rebuilding it. And obviously, there's some more growth going on down there. We've heard there's two public schools going in and some other __ CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for staff? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one of Mike. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, the utilities prOVISIons provided with the package shows 100 maximum population to be served. We now know it's going to be in excess of 120. Is that going to have any substantial impact on the project in your mind? MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir. (Mr. Midney is present.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's all I have. MR. DeRUNTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers on this item. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any concluding questions of the staff or petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, I'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-6700 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the -- subject to staff recommendations and the recommendations of this board. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have a motion by Mr. Adelstein, a Page 21 "~.__.-.,_.,-_._"~.,-"._..,.,~-~.. -~"- . September 1, 2005 second by Mr. Murray. Discussion? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to make sure, will the motion maker include as the conditions one, two, and three, include items four and five, installation of a fence, to make certain that's included, and also sidewalks or payment in lieu of, which are also included in the packet? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, but that's in staff recommendations, either way. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So with that clarification we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER LINDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Thank you. We'll move on to our next item. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have to fill out the conditional use packet. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Quick reminder. There are findings of fact that each of the Planning Commissioners must complete and pass down to Mr. Adelstein. Okay. We're moving on to our next agenda item. That is petition Page 22 '--"---"-"'-'-'-'_._'-"-'---"-~-- September 1, 2005 PUDZ-2004-AR-6207, Mac Builders, requesting a rezone from C-l and C- 2 zoning district to the PUD zoning district. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any disclosures by Planning Commissioners? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I received a fax from Cathy and Tim Gorman and a fax from John Smith. Essentially both were against the proj ect. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Same for myself. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Same. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Same by Mr. Adelstein. I received the same correspondence myself. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I did, plus I had a conversation with another neighbor, Mr. Hampton. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Same as those who have spoken before. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Same. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Same for Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER CARON: Same. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And same for Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, since everybody's actually taking my same, they're actually e-mails. They weren't faxes. Page 23 ".,~,~. ._-«.,-_._.~~"~.,,,. September 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, I don't know where they came from, but I know they appeared on my desk. Okay. So we have our disclosures. If we could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. I'm Tim Hancock, agent for the applicant, Mac Builders, and that's M-A-C Builders, who are the owners of the subject property covered by petition PUDZ-2004-AR-6207, the Mac PUD. Also present today is a representative of Mac Builders, Mr. Carlos Veloz, who was sworn in, and planning coordinator Kelly Smith with Davidson Engineering. The subj ect property, as you can see on the -- are your screens back up on your desk yet? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MR. HANCOCK: Okay. The subject property's approximately 10.76 acres in size located at the Northwest corner of Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard. Its current zoning is a combination C-l and C-2, which was established in 1993 under the county's zoning reevaluation ordinance. The property was down-zoned at that time to comply with the ordinance and retained its commercial zoning based on its location fronting a county collector road, which was Radio Road at the time, and its proximity to established and built C-4 property, which was Woodside Lanes, a bowling alley with lounge, located immediately to the west, and the Circle K located directly across the street. I'm fairly familiar with the down-zoning since I filed the application under the ZRO ordinance in 1993. Since that time, Radio Road has been altered and the property now sits on a local road that dead-ends to the east and does not enjoy the visibility that it did when it fronted Radio Road. As I've mentioned, Woodside Lanes is immediately west of the Page 24 --"~."""".----,.-".."~.".-.,..--.,,^ September 1, 2005 subject property and has a lounge located on the east side of its operation closest to our property boundary. There's an outdoor smoking area there, again, right next to our property line. To the south is Radio Lane and a C-4 zoned parcel with a Circle K convenience store that, as you'll hear from the neighbors, is a very well-traveled location used through cut-through -- used by folks for cut-through traffic. To the east is the Triad PUD, which this body heard and forwarded to the county commission with a recommendation of approval in February of this year. You may experience small moments of deja vu today because the development standards that you're going to be hearing today in this project are nearly identical to those of the Triad PUD. The BCC subsequently approved the Triad PUD for multi-family development at eight units per acre. To the north of our project is developed single-family and multi-family units. The property is zoned RMF-12 with a density cap of seven, which again occurred during the zoning reevaluation period in 1993; however, immediately next to us it has been developed as single- family homes. As you go one street back, you'll begin to get a mix of single-family and multi-family or duplex, and then single-family beyond. The request before you today is to rezone the subj ect property from commercial to residential PUD for the purpose of developing 86 multi-family units at a density of eight units per acre. The county's future land use map designates the property as urban residential, which permits a base density of up to four units per acre. This property also lies within a density band of the activity center, which I believe is activity center number nine, permitting an additional three units per acre, and the compo plan further permits the conversion of commercial zoning for a density bonus of up to 16 units an acre; therefore, this property has the ability to request a maximum Page 25 _····~_~."__u'_~.~_.~ '._._" September 1, 2005 density of 16 units per acre. The original application that was filed for this property sought a density of 8.8 units per acre for a total unit count of 95 units. We have reduced that to eight units per acre and 86 units, identical to that of the Triad PUD. After reviewing the actions relative to the Triad PUD and meeting with the residents of the adjacent neighborhood on two separate occasions, one was the required neighborhood information meeting, a second was a follow-up meeting we requested with the residents, we did modify the application to reduce the density. The original requested density, and even that reduced, have not been arrived at lightly. You may remember Triad came in at, I think, 13 units an acre and reduced to eight. We submitted this zoning application before we were aware that Triad was in the mix. First thing we heard about Triad was a public information notice my client received to go to their neighborhood information meeting, which we attended. This project was really kind of built from the ground up. Extensive market studies have been performed to determine what is the most marketable use for the property, and what kept coming back was townhome style development, two-, three- and four-bedroom units. So we've really kind of created the unit based on the market demand, and then created the site plan. As you can see, the site plan we're submitting has more detail than probably most PUD master plans that you see with regard to the style of unit, location of buildings, and so forth. So in arriving at originally our 8.8 units per acre, we really designed the project from the unit up as opposed to just trying to throw a density out there that we thought might work. That being said, what we're talking about here is strictly market rental units for sale. And as stated to the residents of Palm Springs, Page 26 _'~'^_h,___~'_ ._. . .. September 1, 2005 we're willing to place a deed restriction on the property to prohibit the development of a rental community in this location. The proj ect, as proposed, will have a single point of access onto Palm Springs Boulevard, and we have, again, agreed, to align -- I'm sure transportation would require this in any event -- we have agree to align with the entrance to the Triad PUD. Going back to that discussion, you may recall that there was an effort to move that entrance down to Radio Lane. It turns out that is not going to work because of spacing criteria problems. And it appears right now that the entrance to the Triad PUD is going to be approximately 350 feet north of Radio Lane. That exact location had not been determined by the time we submitted our application. But the entrance you see up here will actually be moved south to line up with the Triad PUD entrance, which is what I'm sure transportation will be requiring. That's also what the residents asked for, that we line up with that entrance, and we're happy to do so. If we should, however, come in and receive an SDP approval prior to Triad, we will locate that entrance as close to Radio Lane as possible with the approval of the transportation department. Recognizing that while the property to the north is zoned for multi-family use, the lots have been developed with single-family. In order to establish a higher degree of compatibility with those properties than would exist under the current zoning today, we've employed the following techniques and included them in the PUD: Number one, our maximum building height is 35 feet, or two stories. This will ensure that our building heights are comparable with the permitted height of the existing homes and the zoning thereon. The entirety of our native vegetation preserve is located along the rear property line between us and those single- family homes, providing a natural vegetation buffer of more than 90 feet in width. When you combine the buffer with the setbacks, there will be a minimum of 140 feet between principal structures with a 90- foot wide Page 27 September 1,2005 mature stand of pine trees and saw palmetto in between. The Land Development Code will also require that a wall or woodcrete sty Ie fence be erected along this property line, and we've left it to the residents as to whether they'd prefer a wall or a vegetative screen. We'd be happy to request a deviation and modify the PUD if they prefer additional vegetation along the preserve as to a wall. But as it stands right now, the code requires a six-foot privacy wall, and that's what we'd be required to do. But in either event, an additional visual screen will be installed to meet those code requirements. The balance of the property will employ vegetative screens to comply with the land development code requirements of landscape buffering. I've reviewed fully your planning staff report and recommendation of approval, and with it entered into the record, I don't feel it's necessary to restate the points made therein, but there are a few areas I wish to expand on in order to make a complete record for today's decision. Staffs position, as well as ours, is that the proposed multi-family zoning will be more compatible with the surrounding land uses and also more compatible with the transportation infrastructure in the area than would development of the property under its current zoning. The basis for this is that in 1993 when the lands were down-zoned -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How about slowing down a little bit, Tim. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. The basis -- the basis for this is in 1993 when the lands were down-zoned, including the land that is now developed single-family -- that was also affected by the zoning reevaluation ordinance -- commercial zoning represented a transitional zoning category under the conditions at that time where Radio Road was a higher traveled collector road as opposed to a lower level dead-end road, the way it is now. The two key components that really went into that down-zoning Page 28 ---,'",.-,.._._-,,-_._--- September 1, 2005 have been altered, and the one we've mentioned is Radio Road. Its status has changed; its trip levels have changed. I think if you're looking to site commercial zoning today, this would not be a location that you would say would be a home run for commercial development. The second thing that has changed is, of course, the single-family development to the rear. So we have a different condition today than we did in 1993 when C-l and C- 2 zoning were designated on the property . If you were to kind of go through that process today, you probably would shy away from C-2 zoning which permits uses such as appliance repair, food stores, hardware stores and so forth. It also permits medical office. And you'd probably shy -- go to something closer to either a lower intensity commercial or a higher intensity residential. If this parcel were to be developed under its current zoning, you could achieve a yield in excess of 100,000 square feet of general and medical office on the property. C-l does not permit medical office, but C-2 does. And based on the amount of C-2 on the site, of the 100,000 square feet, just about 30,000 square feet of it could be medical office, which has a higher trip generation. The result of that is, if it were to develop under its current zoning, which would require only a site development plan approval at the staff level, the level of traffic on the local roads would be a 300 percent increase over what's being proposed today. Now, I'm not telling you that Mac Builders is altruistic in their intentions. Obviously a multi-family project here makes the most sense from a financial standpoint. But from a planning standpoint, it results in a reduction over the current zoning of two-thirds of the number of trips on a daily basis. If traffic is truly the concern, there's no question that residential development at eight units an acre represents far less impact than the existing commercial zoning. And when you look at how your county Page 29 September 1, 2005 staff looks at existing zoning and rolls it into their projections for capacity, basically this property has already -- is already in the traffic model assuming it's commercially developed. So this would represent the ability to pull trips out of that model. Would it have a material impact on the roads around or cause you not to have to expand a road? Certainly not. But we're talking about a difference between 860 trips a day and 573. By virtue of the BCC approval of the Triad PUD, a determination of compatibility was arrived at through the application of development standards contained in the PUD and the reduction in density to eight units per acre. The Mac PUD is a nearly identical application to the Triad. If it appears the two columns in the table are identical, it's because they are. There are minor differences between the two proj ects such as the size and configuration of the preserve area, although the locations are the same. Also the Triad PUD requires that the project has a 24-hour controlled access gate, while the Mac PUD does not contain that requirement. The second item I want to point out on the table is that we have also, in discussions with the residents, agreed that the average unit size within our project would be 2,000 square feet, which is a mirror of the Triad PUD. That language was not contained in the PUD that's before you, but we'd be more than happy to agree to it as a stipulation of any conditions of approval here today. Over the past month or so, development services received 34 form letters and one e-mail objecting to the project. Those letters represent 30 adjacent homes that object to the project primarily on a perceived increase in traffic that would result from the rezone. And right now there's nothing there. So anything that's built there for the folks who live in that neighborhood is perceived as an increase in traffic. Page 30 '~'----~""-" September 1, 2005 From a land use perspective, we have to consider what the existing zoning is and what traffic would be yielded from that, should it be developed. And I'll tell you that the C-l and C-2 zoning there is not a paper tiger. There is a market out there, particularly with the HMA property, the hospital going in on 951. My client believes there is an office market out there. Is it as strong as the residential market? No. So when I talk about commercially developing the site, it is a possibility. I won't say that it's our -- obviously our preferred alternative, but it's certainly not so far out of reach that it shouldn't be considered. The second item mentioned in the form letters is the increase in density due to plans for some of the units being constructed as four-bedroom units. This resulted from a meeting we had with half dozen residents following our neighborhood information meeting where we brought in elevations and floor plans and all the material that had been developed. And the objections we received primarily were, one, aesthetic. A couple of residents didn't like the elevations. The second objection received is, they really didn't want to see four-bedroom units. Zoning doesn't limit bedrooms. It deals with units and bases them on an average. But the reality is, there's a lot of families out there, and those families need housing. Everyone can't have a two-bedroom, 2,500 square foot condo. But the three-bedroom or four-bedroom, 2,500 square foot condo is definitely something there's a market for. Our studies have shown that. But in recognition of the concerns that the residents expressed about both floor plans, number of bedrooms and elevations, we're withdrawing those plans from consideration. We're standing here before you like every other person in zoning, saying, we're asking for eight units an acre, multi-family townhomes, and we don't want the issue to degenerate to aesthetics over the Page 3 1 September 1, 2005 architecture of the building. We will construct townhomes with attached garages. That's the same element of detail you had on Triad. It's the same element of detail we're offering here today. I would hope that withdrawing that elevation, meaning we're not going to build what we showed the residents, we'll at least put some comfort to those folks that were unhappy about that elevation. After our meeting with those representatives, we asked them to review our plans and get back to us with any requested changes. To date we have not received any such communication, until Mr. Bosi forwarded letters of objection to us that he had received. Our door does remain open to discuss any relevant zoning issues should the residents wish to do so. I'd like to reiterate the changes that have been made should it be the desire of this commission to mirror the elements of the Triad PUD that the residents supported. The density, again, has been reduced to eight units per acre for 86 units, identical to Triad. The average unit size will be 2,000 square feet, gross floor area, identical to Triad. The building heights, setbacks, and allowable stories already mirror that of the Triad PUD. The developer will install a six-foot privacy wall or equivalent landscape enhancement, whichever the residents choose, along our northern border, abutting the single-family. Again, identical to Triad. In summary, the staff report contains supporting documentation of the project's compliance with all of the decision-making criteria contained in LDC section 10.03.05. The proposed proj ect serves to reduce traffic impacts to the neighborhood over the existing zoning, and the proposed development standards are compatible and complementary to the single-family to the north and identical to those of the Triad PUD. The proj ect meets or exceeds all LDC requirements for development of this nature, with one exception being a deviation requested that normally requires sidewalks on both sides of the street. Page 32 - ,---_.,.~_..._.~-~.~,~._._. September 1, 2005 It's a very small internal loop road. We're asking for a deviation to have a sidewalk only on one side of that street. If it's the desire of this body to require it on both sides, we don't have a strong objection to that. Finally, it's our contention that your staff agrees that the proposed project represents a more appropriate transitional land use than the current zoning as it relates to the neighborhood behind the project, and we agree with that point. I ask for your favorable consideration of the findings placed before you today. I'd be happy to address any questions you may have at this time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Questions, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Hancock, on the average, the rendering that you show, they're all boxes and they all appear to be the same size structure, that's your representation. Would you please tell me what your averages are based upon, with the low number and the high number? MR. HANCOCK: My recollection is we're around 1,600 square feet on the low end. Seventeen-fifty square feet on the low end, and the high end we were approaching 2,400 square feet. I'm sorry, 2,200? Twenty-two hundred, however, more than half the units were slated to be -- were expected to be a three- or four-bedroom unit, so that's why the average of 2,000 square foot -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate -- MR. HANCOCK: -- was not problematic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But are they intended to be for single families? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And are there going to be restrictions that require that only single families remain as residents Page 33 -~--,---,.',~"-~.._.,- September 1, 2005 and not multiple families? I know that sounds a little odd, a little strange, perhaps. But in other words, in the documents that will be there, they're not going to have group families; is that right? MR. HANCOCK: This is not a group housing project. And if we need to place into the deed restrictions that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure that you do. I just want to get it on the record-- MR. HANCOCK: I'm not sure we can legally but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- it's not your intention to sell a product or build a product that is intended to house families and it will accommodate four bedrooms. About how many four-bedroom units do you expect to build? MR. HANCOCK: It's about 30 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thirty percent? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. On the site plan, the units on the south property line and the east property line, they're backed right up to the buffer meaning that the back door of the unit's going to open up into the landscape buffer. Would you have a problem if you pulled those back? I mean, I don't think the intent of our buffers is to have people's barbecues and stuff like that in it, so -- MR. HANCOCK: Well, there isn't much room behind the back door and the buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's zero room right now. MR. HANCOCK: Well, the actual setback, I believe -- and let me look at an enlarged -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The setback's 20 feet, the Page 34 ,_._~-'~'"".__." September 1, 2005 buffer's 20 feet, and your project's at 20 feet. And the problem with that is, that's the public side of the project, too, so essentially what these people would have is the back doors of all those units right up into a landscape buffer. And, again, four bedrooms, there's children, and that's their back yard, and that kind of doesn't respect the concept of the buffer. So would you have a problem pulling those at least 20 feet away from the buffer? MR. HANCOCK: Honestly I don't know that we can achieve 20 feet for two reasons, and your point is well taken. And it may be more of a visual site planning issue here, because I don't think it was ever our intent to have the back of the unit directly on physical landscaping. While the buffer's 20 feet in width, the plantings don't consume 100 percent of that 20 feet regardless. I think we can certainly agree that a minimum of 10 feet between the buffer and the back of the unit is achievable. One of the problems we had is originally we wanted to shrink this project away from Radio Lane and away from Palm Springs Boulevard, but then the need to buffer to the single-family to the north and placing that vegetative preserve area all along that boundary, really squeezed the site down a little bit more than we would have liked. But I think we can pull those off a minimum of 10 feet off the landscape buffer. And as you understand, Mr. Schiffer, the buffer may be 20 feet in width, but the landscaping itself occupies approximately the center 10 feet or so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But I mean, the reason we want buffers is to buffer the proj ect. I mean, and if the buffer has, like I said, barbecues or playground equipment in it or something, that's not working. I mean, I still think 20 feet. I think maybe even more because these are the sides that the neighbors are going to see. I mean, everybody's going to be exposed to these two sides. Even though there's a beautiful buffer at the top, not that -- not everybody's going to Page 35 -~"--'--<""""-"~' September 1, 2005 see that. Let's just talk about that one at the top. What is the width of that buffer there? You've given it an acreage. You kind of do the math, it comes out to something less than what you're showing. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. The width of that buffer is 93 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And can you put that into the -- I mean, it's not on the drawing that I see. MR. HANCOCK: Well, no, we didn't call out that detail. We certainly can add that as we go to the county commission, if that's your desire, sir. But it is 93 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that came from the acreage you needed, correct? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because if you really divide 600 into -- well, okay, 93 would be -- okay, that's it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How affordable will these sites be for middle-class families? MR. HANCOCK: Well, it's not an affordable housing project. And you raise an interesting point for us. When we started the project, the original target price was to come in around $270,000 at the low end. That was well over a year ago. I would expect them to be in the 300,000 range; however, the neighbors want them to be 4- or 5- or 600,000; the higher the better. So we -- we're stuck in a bit of a quandary in discussing this with the neighbors. So, you know, initial price point is not a basis for a zoning decision, but based on our looking forward, the starting price is going to be in the 300's. The developer's indicating that's about where it will fall, which as you look at the median home prices in Collier County, is below median, but by no means are we talking affordable housing here. We're talking market rate units. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Midney? Page 36 September 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The first point was your statement that there would not be a -- they would not be rental units. I don't think you can afford to make that statement, because if I bought one of the units, I would certainly have a right to rent it out. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. My statement was that this will not be a rental community. You're absolutely correct, and that becomes one of the problems is that a particular owner has a right to rent. Now, there can be deed restrictions which this body and the commission do not enforce, but the deed restrictions can limit the number of rentals per year. And it's fairly typical that a minimum rental period of 30 or 60 days is standard in deed restrictions to keep properties, particularly those closer to the beach, from turning over every week or two weeks. But can somebody buy a unit and rent it out? Absolutely. But my statement is, this will not be a rental community, an apartment community. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How many four-bedroom units does Triad have? MR. HANCOCK: I don't believe that they made any commitments or, at least in the neighborhood information meeting I attended, no floor plans, so I have no way of knowing how -- what their bedroom division is or will be, no, sir. And it's not in their PUD either. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I couldn't find it either. So you have no idea whether these four-bedrooms units would actually do the job you think they would do without becoming a rental and bothering, of course, their neighbors? MR. HANCOCK: All we have are market studies to indicate there is a need in this community for three- and four-bedroom units for purchase by families, and that's what we're basing our proceeding Page 37 September 1, 2005 forward on are those up-to-date market studies. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Tim, you had said that the entrance for your project is going to be directly across from Triad? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Then at the end of the sentence, you had said there's a possibility it may not. Could you explain? MR. HANCOCK: I may have -- I may have explained myself into trouble there. What I was trying to say is that should the Triad PUD be delayed and its entrance not determined by the time we go through the SDP process, that that decision would fall to your county transportation department as to where the entrance would fall. I know Triad has to go through an environmental resource permit because they have wetlands on the site. We don't have to do that, so we may find ourselves tracking consistent with or slightly ahead of them as it pertains to locating our entrance. That being said, to date -- and Mr. Scott can confirm this today if he agrees with it -- it appears that the magic distance is 350 feet from the intersection of Radio Lane back on Palm Springs Boulevard. And that's where Triad is, to the best of my knowledge, being told they're going to line up, and that's where we're going to advise our plan to line us also. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All right. I'll discuss this with staff. MR. HANCOCK: OKAY. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Most of my questions will be of staff in order to try to shorten this discussion. But, Tim, I have three for you. In the neighborhood meeting, you indicated that you offered to work with Mr. Hampton and Page 38 September 1, 2005 opposing property owners throughout the course of this process. In regards to working with them, how did you go about doing that? MR. HANCOCK: I followed up the neighborhood information meeting, contacted Mr. Hampton by phone. We requested a meeting with he and the community representatives. We met at Mr. Hampton's house. He and his wife were gracious enough to host us. There were six folks there that indicated they represented the community. We met with them, we shared with them the elevations, the floor plans, all the detail we had to that date. We discussed with them some of the Triad PUD constraints as to whether or not they wanted to see those rolled into our document or not. And we had a very frank and candid discussion. That meeting ended with our asking them to, you know, come back to us. We hand -- you know, they have the PUD, come back to us with any changes that you feel are appropriate or would like to make. And that's the last conversation we had with those folks. I have spoke to Mr. Hampton since then just to call him and let him know that the planning commission hearing for last month would be continued because of a signing problem on our part. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you believe he and those neighbors at that meeting are in favor of what you're presenting today? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: I don't know about Mr. Hampton. I don't know them individually. But no, and based on the letters I received, they seem to want it to remain commercial. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's where I was going. Do you realize that -- I mean, I know you realize -- you took the elevation apparently that you must have showed them at that meeting off the table; is that what you said earlier? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Because it was Page 39 September 1, 2005 objectionable; is that a fair statement? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Yet you're offering nothing to put on the record, which means it could be far worse than what you showed them off the record? MR. HANCOCK: It could be. It could be far better. The point is, Mr. Strain, architectural elevations are not a zoning decision. So we made our best effort to bring forward something that we thought they would find at least agreeable. They didn't. So we've agreed not to go that route. But to stand here today and nail an elevation to this project is not a zoning-related matter, and we're just not ready to do that at this time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you understand the zoning you're asking for today is discretionary? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, I do. I also understand that 10.03.05 lists a criteria by which you must make your decision. And we certainly stand behind the staff report in agreeing with each of those criteria. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll be discussing that with staff in a minute. But no elevation here today. That certainly can have a -- can weigh on our decisions here today since you're offering none. The other thing that is different between the Triad PUD and the Mac PUD, when Triad was here, they did go to lengths to work closely with the neighborhood. I know you've had meetings. They worked out their differences with the neighborhood. From some of the e-mails I've seen -- I think we've disclosed them today -- the attitude of the owner of your particular piece of property is not quite as consistent with working with the neighborhood as we saw with the Triad PUD, and I think that may be a discrepancy that is something you -- isn't going to compare equally to the Triad PUD. Page 40 September 1, 2005 I've got a list of issues that some of the neighbors have brought up, and I will bring those up as we go through the staffs meeting, and I'll want your opinion on them as we go through it, but I'll ask you at those times that we bring it up. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Strain, may I ask, at the Triad hearing, was an elevation a part of that hearing? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't recall. MR. HANCOCK: I read the record; I don't believe it was. So I don't know that this project being treated any differently than Triad would necessarily be appropriate, and that's certainly your discretion, sir. But I don't believe it was a part of their hearing, nor was it at the county commission. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But this is a discretionary zoning hearing. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that I forgot. Tim, when you described the height, you said it was 35 feet or two stories, yet the development standards say 35 feet and two stories. Would you mind changing that to or just so that -- because the way it's written, you essentially could add two stories on top of 35 feet. MR. HANCOCK: Certainly not our intent. So cap at two stories, cap at 35 feet both apply. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When I went into the Internet to look up pines Florida, I found out, after a rather long period of time, Page 41 ~_"~·'"·"'_~"__~__,''''~__"M._..~_"k'~''" September 1, 2005 Pembroke Pines, is it common to use Pines as a locality over there by the east coast as opposed to Pembroke Pines? MR. HANCOCK: I honestly don't know. If you're referring to the address of the applicant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I am. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Rose -- Hollywood and Pines apparently are two -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're interchangeable? MR. HANCOCK: Apparently, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That gave me a little bit of a struggle to get that one. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. No further questions at this time. Can we hear from staff, please. MR. BOSI: Good morning, Chairman Budd, planning commission membership. Mike Bosi from Zoning and Land Development Review. A couple things I would want to point out before we get into the staffs presentation. One, indeed, elevations were not part of the Triad discussion. We seem to be making a lot of reference to the past zoning action that happened in February. Clarification also, the wall is not required by the land development code when you have residential units or residential development next to residential development. I would hope that the -- with the applicant offering the ability to build a wall, if it's the desire of the neighbors, I would -- I would hope that the neighbors maybe clarify that position as to whether or not, because if it's not written, the wall requirement isn't written into the PUD at the site development stage, it will not be required, so I think that's a matter of issue that we'd like to see clarified as well. Also within the original staff report, this was originally scheduled for the August 4th meeting because of sign posting deficiencies. It wasn't able to go. Page 42 September 1, 2005 Within that staff report, I had indicated that the transportation department was supporting the request for deviation. That was incorrect. Transportation's position is with sidewalks only on one side of the street, the residents who live on the other side of the street are somewhat neglected, and it's not an equal opportunity for pedestrian access and, therefore, they are not supporting the sidewalk deviation Tim had mentioned. Also, this is a multi-family PUD request rezone. Group housing is not a permitted use; therefore, Commissioner Murray, that could not be developed within here based upon what's allowed for by the PUD document. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood that. I just wanted to make sure because of the question of four cars possible that it be understood it was never intended to be multi-family. MR. BOSI: Further on the clarification for the building height, where it says two stories or 35 feet, I think you're right, we need to clarify, 35 feet height, maximum height, with a cap of two stories is, I think, where the planning commission would like to see the modification in. And I would definitely, at the conclusion of the meeting, no matter what the result, make sure we modify in that regard. It has been reviewed by all the county staff in terms of its compliance with the growth management plan, the applicable policies and also from the zoning perspective in terms of its compatibility, and Tim went into the history of the site. It is surrounded on two sides by commercial. Residential zoning with a cap of seven to the north and a cap of eight. It's within an inter -- it's within a mile of an interchange activity center. Now, an interchange activity center is determined by the growth management plan. It's the most intensive transportation juncture that you have within the county's overall land development scheme. Page 43 September 1, 2005 This area, based upon the modification of Radio Road, as Tim has mentioned, it's no longer an attractive area for commercial. And staff sees the consistency of this action and the consistency is going to provide to the overall zoning environmental as one of favorable. You have your commercial to the west and to the south of the project. This is at eight units per acre, you have seven units per acre cap to the north, and then beyond that you have six units per acre, and then you go down to a single-family zoning district. We believe that this eight units per acre is consistent with what the zoning pattern within this area establishes, and I think we pointed that out in the staff report. And just as a sidenote, I've heard a lot of references so far of the development standards within Triad compared to the Mac PUD, and the one thing is that when you have a development, when you have a PUD rezone, a residential PUD rezone, it's -- the development standards are the things that are in place to protect the neighborhood. The one thing I will say, and it has been kind of lost in a lot of the criticisms of this petition is, for example, a front yard. A front yard in Triad PUD only calls for 20 feet. The front yard within the Mac PUD calls for 25 feet. The rear yard is 15 feet within Triad. In Mac, it's 20 feet. So I think the development standards are comparable. The density is comparable. The type of development is comparable. I think Commissioner Strain has hit upon maybe some of the greatest sources of contention with the neighbors, is they maybe have not gotten off to the right -- or the proper dialogue hasn't been exchanged between the neighbors and the -- and the individual-- the developer. But from a zoning standpoint, from what staffs looking at, from a professional planning standpoint, we believe and we fully support this action as being a consistent and a beneficial zoning transportation action within the -- within the overall area. And with that, I would open myself up to questions. Page 44 September 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Questions for staff? Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, page eight of your staff report. The top of the first paragraph, you talk about commercial and multi-family zoning districts around the site. That's because the single- family estates homes to the north were at some point rezoned to RSF -6 maybe, or whatever they are. MR. BOSI: RMF-12 with -- capped at seven. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But they are being utilized, and that neighborhood is being utilized as an Estates residents area, is that correct, or single-family -- MR. BOSI: No. Estates homes would be on large lots. These are -- they're single-family homes. They are absolutely single-family homes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So the multi-family doesn't occur to the north, it's basically -- MR. BOSI: Oh, it does. To -- well, I guess you have a strip of single- family homes, and then beyond that you have duplex homes. So there's -- and I mentioned, those single-family homes are an interruption to the zoning pattern, and it makes -- and staff has had to take somewhat of a different view in a different light of those single- family homes based upon its context within the overall surrounding zoning. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you remember which was first, the single-family homes or the zoning? MR. BOSI: I would probably have to say that the zoning was first, but I don't -- for hundred percent certainty, I can't make that claim. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Some of the residents that have been there a while, I'll asked them to express their -- because that's an older neighborhood. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not sure how the multi-family Page 45 ~.^-,--~-"--~._.. September 1, 2005 zoning occurred, but we'll find out. On your same page of the staff report, second paragraph, just a minor correction. As noted, Radio Road at one time intersected with Collier Boulevard. Didn't it actually intersect with Davis, and then Davis intersect with Collier boulevard? MR. BOSI: You're correct, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Under your rezone findings, number five, whether the changed or changing conditions make the passage with proposed amendment necessary. It says, the proposed rezone, then the lower impact to residential development in comparison to commercial on a community infrastructure make the proposed change necessary. I'm going to probably get further into this where I've tabbed another point where I didn't think you thought it was necessary. Do you think it's necessary to eliminate the commercial and go to this multi - family? MR. BOSI: No, it's not, and that's an incorrect word. I guess necessary is not -- I would say a favorable outcome. But necessary, by no means is this necessary. The zoning as it sits could be developed with commercial. Would I view that as professional planner as a beneficial thing to this community? No, I wouldn't. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is item number five one of those items that you typically get from an applicant and paste into this page, or did you write that yourself? MR. BOSI: No. That was authored by myself. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the word necessary though written by you isn't really the correct word to have there? MR. BOSI: That was a -- that was an error on my part, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Number seven. Second sentence of the answer to number seven, the proposed change will result in an overall increase in daily trips within the school. I guess that's not right Page 46 .....~_,~~v~_._~".·.~·,.~" ~__ September 1, 2005 either? MR. BOSI: That is not right, obviously, COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So number seven isn't right. Number six, whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The answer goes on to talk about what is in the neighborhood with the concluding sentence, the proposed residential PUD rezone will eliminate the last undeveloped commercial parcels in the area. It doesn't talk about influencing or adversely influencing living conditions. In fact, it doesn't even discuss living conditions in the entire response to number six. Is that a true statement, or do you see where you may have in -- MR. BOSI: What I see is I led up to -- I didn't put the conclusion. I put the factors -- the factors that were arriving towards the conclusion. The conclusion was omitted. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In this board's deliberations, I know that we're supposed to consider the rezone findings and the PUD -- the findings for the PUD. This one doesn't have a conclusion, number seven is in error, number five is in error. I'm not sure where this is going to go -- MR. BOSI: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- but we should have had them-- I wanted to point it out to the board in their deliberation. Number 10, whether the proposed change will adversely effect property values in the adjacent area. It says, in general planning theory, you believe it is more compatible with surrounding residential land uses, and no appraisal was done. So does anybody know from an authoritative viewpoint whether this will have an adverse effect or not on property values? MR. BOSI: We do not -- we do not require applicants to provide market studies to indicate whether or not a proposed change will be an economic gain or an economic detraction from the individual areas. Page 47 September 1, 2005 What I simply put was that the -- the transition would be more compatible. And with that I was inferring that the likely outcome would not be a negatively -- a negative outcome for the area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But there's no authority on -- you're not an authority on appraisals? MR. BOSI: Absolutely not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Number 14, whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The answer that was asked both requested it of the neighborhood and the county. The response seemed to be as related to the county. Was there an analysis done to respond to number 14 in relationship to the neighborhood? MR. BOSI: Well, I think the last sentence, the proposed conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning is viewed by staff as a more compatible land use to the general area, and general area, I should have maybe said localized general area. But the general area was utilized to refer to the surrounding Palm Springs neighborhood. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Under the findings for the PUD, the last sentence of number four, the development standards and commitments contained within the PUD document will ensure that the proposed rezone will not negatively impact the surrounding developed and undeveloped neighboring properties. I guess that's a subjective statement, because some of the basis for number four has to be from the rezone findings that we just discussed that may not have been properly written, and I imagine the impact of value would have an impact on the response to number four. But since you couldn't really opine on the impacted value, then number four then is somewhat unanswered. MR. BOSI: I would have to disagree. I think with my certifications as an American Institute certified planner, I can make a Page 48 ~""-----'-""'..,,_._.,_.~,~..., September 1, 2005 professional opInIon, and what I put forward was a professional opinion based upon the zoning action that was being requested. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you believe that this project will not negatively impact the neighborhood? MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Have you seen any kind of elevations or anything that would indicate the type of structures and style that's going to be built there so that we know that it's going to be of a quality and nature that is going to be consistent with the neighborhood? MR. BOSI: I know that the Florida Building Code requires that the safety of the structures will be required. The aesthetics? As a professional planner, dealing with the land use and multi-family structures not being required as to be architecturally reviewed, I don't spend a tremendous amount of time on aesthetics. The elevations that was presented at the neighbor information meeting were not received well by the neighbors, and I -- and the applicant has indicated they weren't going to go with it. I'm not sure what you can do at the zoning stage to start incorporating -- incorporating an architectural requirement. I would be open to whatever the planning commission would suggest in that manner. But I am ill-prepared or inadequate to address aesthetics within the zoning document. MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, Ray Bellows. I agree with Mr. Bosi. It's -- the zoning action really doesn't address, or we don't have the ability to present architectural criteria or designs. The LDC is silent on the issue; therefore, it's -- I don't think it's an issue that is a part of the review criteria that staff is looking at. In addition, in the question of dealing with these rezone findings and PUD findings, the planning commission is not constrained from taking staffs opinion at heart. You have the ability to look at these conditions, these criteria and come and form your own opinion, and Page 49 --_.,----" September 1, 2005 that is the purpose of providing these criteria into the staff report so you can look at how staff is looking at this and so you can form your own opinion. It's not that you're constrained from making your own determinations on these issues. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, can architecture ever have a negative impact on a neighborhood? MR. BOSI: Oh, I would have to say most definitely. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Into the PUD. Section 2.6, model homes and sales facilities. They're asking for a series of issues involving their potential sales facility. Are any of those deviations from the LDC? MR. BOSI: Not that I'm aware of. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Under section 4.2 it's talking about conservation preserve area. A principal use one, passive recreation area, boardwalks and recreational shelters. Is that necessary to be in there? MR. BOSI: No. That was -- that was language that was suggested by the applicant, and the environmental staff who reviewed it did not take an exception to it, therefore, that's why it's there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Almost done, Mike. Next one is of transportation, so I think Mr. Abernathy has something to ask you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mike, I want to talk to you about deviation for sidewalks. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm sure you're just a conduit for this comment, but I'd feel much better about holding the developer to sidewalks on either side of the street if that were a code requirement rather than somebody over in the staffs opinion that to not have them on both sides of the street would deprive people of equal opportunity. I've never heard equal opportunity brought into the Page 50 <,<. -'.--'~-_.~--->-' .. September 1, 2005 sidewalk issue. MR. BOSI: Commissioner Abernathy, it is a code requirement, and the reason why it's a code requirement is they want to -- they want to have residents on both sides of the streets have the opportunity to walk on sidewalks on their side of the street, and, therefore, the equal opportunity, maybe I was somewhat -- somewhat dramatic with that statement, but that was the premise of the code that exists. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought that they were required. Then your eloquence just sort of overran itself, I guess. MR. BOSI: I apologize. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other questions of the staff? Yes, sir. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The issue of the units backing up onto the buffer, are you okay with that from a planning concept? MR. BOSI: And you were talking about the units that will sit on Radio Lane and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the only public right-of-ways. MR. BOSI: Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. BOSI: Well, those are -- the way this is going to be developed as a multi-family tract is they'll be one individual parcel, and those will be fronts, so they're going to have to have a 25-foot setback from the property line. Now, I know they have a 20- foot -- they have a 20- foot landscape -- landscape buffer, so there's only going to be a five-foot. You may want to increase -- and if there's concern about that is -- and Tim had mentioned that there could be a 10- foot separation between the landscape buffer and the back of the structures. You may want to increase that front yard setback to 30 feet and you accomplish the effect -- you accomplish that effect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: ell, you're considering that the Page 51 September 1, 2005 front yard setback? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the front door to the house will be on that side? MR. BOSI: Well, the front door to the house is on the internal private road. It's going to be all with -- developed with -- these aren't going to be -- these, I do not believe, are going to be individually platted properties to where the condo's going to be sold with an individual land use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The townhouse. The townhouse is an individually platted property. I would consider -- I mean, the front really is fronting the private street. It's not fronting the -- I mean -- MR. BOSI: That is not the -- if they -- if they plat the individual parcels, that would be correct. The way that the traditional townhouses are -- well, I guess the traditional townhouses have been blended over the past couple years. But traditionally it's one parcel, and the exterior of those parcels is where you gain your front yards from. And the internal streets -- the internal streets are considered a private driveway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is reviewing the development standards, the front setback has the back door, and the rear setback has the front door? MR. BOSI: That's how zoning would treat it, unless they're platted individual parcels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How come I want to say yikes? Okay. So in other words, they've already violated the setback requirements in the documents they've presented? MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the 20-- MR. BOSI: I think this is a master plan. This is not a site development plan. And the master plan, I guess, if you were to inter Page 52 "---,... September 1, 2005 that the condo units are backed all the way up to the setback line, then yes, they would. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wow, I'm confused. I mean, this document's shown as what they kind of intend to develop, right? I mean, it's not a joke? MR. BOSI: It's a more specific master plan than you traditionally would receive within a PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So say this again. On a private road, the front setback is going to be on the public right-of-way, and those setbacks coming off of the private road are considered rear setbacks? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know. Okay. I'm done. I'm stunned; I'm not done. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for staff? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just one. I mean-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- Brad's brought up a good point. Where would addressing put their address, on the Palm Springs Boulevard or on the internal road? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. BOSI: Probably the internal road. Actually -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's the back of the house. MR. BOSI: No, actually, I'll address that question with the response that we've gotten from the post office. They would no longer be delivering mail to individual units. There will be centralized mail kiosks what will be required of this for mail distribution. So that may be -- that may gain an address off of Palm Springs Boulevard. Probably Palm Springs Boulevard because of where their access point's going to be. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But if they built a house oriented to Palm Springs Boulevard, the front door couldn't be accessible from Page 53 ,"_"'"H'",~,"__·,."w September 1, 2005 the driveway because the driveway's going to be in the back; is that right? Then it becomes like an alley house; is that -- MR. BOSI: The driveway -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How would you -- the homes that are fronting Palm Springs Boulevard, they can't get access from Palm Springs Boulevard. You're not going to have a bunch of driveways? MR. BOSI: No. They're going to have an internal -- an internal drive. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. But that internal drive is their alley, not their -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's their rear property. MR. BOSI: If you want to call it an alley, it's an alley. It's an internal driveway. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The same thing happens to the south along Radio Road? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you drive into the Radio Road, and the first thing you see is the -- well, you see the fronts of these houses, but they're really the backs, although the fronts are on the road? MR. BOSI: Well, I'm sure the architectural -- their architectural design -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'd just like to make a clarification. The road could be platted in the front, and then you'd have two front yards. Any -- the code says you have a front yard on any road -- public road frontage or any platted road frontage. So if it's a platted road within the center of this project, then that would be also road frontage, where a front yard setback would be measured. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We also need to remember that this is not some new code wrinkle discovered here for the first time. We've seen this dozens, if not hundreds of times, and it's never been a focus of Page 54 ._-~-_._-_.". September 1, 2005 discussion. But this is pretty common, and I think maybe -- MR. BELLOWS: And the other issue is most of the master plans don't show this level of detail, and that's a question that doesn't typically come up until you go through platting or site development plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Ray, then let me understand, is that what -- the setback for the back of these townhouses, no matter what you call them they're the back, will be 25 feet off of the public right-of-way? MR. BELLOWS: Since it fronts a public roadway, it has to have a front yard setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the street that's on the private side, you're considering that a front, not a rear like Mike was? MR. BELLOWS: If it's a platted road, then it is a road that has -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's a private drive. It's not a platted. MR. BELLOWS: If it's a -- I think what Mr. Bosi was alluding to is that if multi-family projects have an internal road system that is not platted, then it can be deemed a back or an alley. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are no more at this time. We can hear from registered public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me. Mr. Strain just found another question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I was waiting for. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We're waiting for transportation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We do have more questions for staff. It will be transportation. Page 55 September 1, 2005 Mr. Scott? MR. SCOTT: I thought I was going to get by. CHAIRMAN BUDD: No, you're not that lucky. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Don, I have a question on the entrances between Triad and this. Isn't there a way we could make them compatible, make them work somehow? MR. SCOTT: We will. I think the point he was trying to make is, whoever gets to the site plan first -- it's already been decided from -- I mean, I think we beat it to death the last meeting at the Triad. We wanted it further back. But with, you know, discussions with the neighborhood and you guys, we went to 350 feet. It's going to be 350 feet. His point was, he might be there first or whatever. It's going to be at that point. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. So they will match. Thank you. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, Radio Road is still a right out? No left out, right? MR. SCOTT: Radio Lane. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Radio, whatever it is. MR. SCOTT: Yep. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When you get onto Radio Road from Radio Lane -- MR. SCOTT: Yes: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You can only go right. MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is it impossible to put an entrance onto Radio Road from this project since they have the 660 foot clearance? MR. SCOTT: Onto Radio Lane? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Radio Lane, I'm sorry, Radio Lane. You guys keep changing names. I've been here for a long time. Page 56 .-----_.--. September 1, 2005 We've always called it Radio Road. MR. SCOTT: When it changed to the other portion that was built. We discussed this in the last one. It didn't meet the spacing. There was a driveway that was on the edge of their property. I don't-- where's the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You need 660 feet spacing; is that correct? MR. SCOTT: It's 330 between driveways, so you're looking for 660 of clear so you can put it in the middle of it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So between the Woodside Lane's driveway and the Palm Springs Boulevard entryway, you'd have greater than 660? MR. SCOTT: I don't -- I don't believe it's that -- the frontage is that long, is it? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know. I was just -- that's the question I'm asking. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I don't believe so, because we had the same issue on the other side. I think it was about -- I don't know. Do you know what the frontage is? Okay, 596, their frontage. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Pretty close. MR. SCOTT: Close, yep. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The other question I have is the ITE code used for this townhouse condominium. I pulled the ITE manuals up and reviewed them. It's LUC (sic) 230. And the way this is set up is using an average. Do you have any inkling as to where the average would go if you had predominantly more bedrooms in the community than what the average was used in the ITE manual? MR. SCOTT: I think the average would probably be lower than that then. I mean, their trips would be higher. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right, lower than four bedrooms? MR. SCOTT: Right. The average -- my guess, not calculating out, would be three would be an average, but -- Page 57 September 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if you have four bedrooms, most likely you're going to the higher side of the span of the ITE 230, and they used the average for their traffic impact? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I did notice too in ITE, five persons equal one trip. They have some conversion, so if you have to count bodies. And you know with more bedrooms there'd be more persons in these units for sure. MR. SCOTT: And we've had that discussion before about number of vehicles, too. If you -- it's like an average of 1.5 vehicles per household. But obviously if you have more vehicles, you're going to have more trips. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Don. MR. SCOTT: Yep. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: None at this time. Ray, how many registered public speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: Three. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. If you could call them up, please. MR. BELLOWS: Cathy Gorman, followed by Rich Hampton. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And for members of the public, you can speak at either microphone, whatever's convenient. MS. GORMAN: Good morning. My name's Cathy Gorman, and I live at 722 Pine Crest Lane, and we are a neighbor. I guess I don't think it's too often that a community comes before you and says, could we keep commercial instead of going to residential, but that's what we wanted to do. I'd like to start by just answering a couple question that I heard come up this morning. I don't believe anyone from Triad is here, but I spoke to them just the other day so that I could ask them how many bedrooms are you having. The answer is three; two- and Page 58 ··_·~_,_.~o········,·,. September 1, 2005 three-bedrooms. There are zero four-bedrooms. And that question was asked just a few minutes ago. Just for clarification, I'd also just like to ask if I heard correctly. When they are talking about four bedrooms, did they say 30 percent or 34 units? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thirty percent. MS. GORMAN: Thirty percent. Okay, thank you. I thought I heard 34 units. This all started with the neighborhood meeting. We were notified exactly one week before that meeting. The letter was dated July 5th, but we didn't receive it until July 27th, so a lot of people couldn't come. I spoke to Mr. Bosi, and I asked him if that's okay, is that kind of legal? And he said, yes, it was. So I said, well, is there a way we could have a second one? That's how the second meeting, to the best of my knowledge, came about was when we requested it because so many of us could not be at the other. What we did though was, instead of having big groups of people meet with them, we, again, took our neighborhood and said, could we kind of speak for you, hence the 40 letters that you have, et cetera. That's why a lot of people aren't here today. The problem is the four-bedroom units. And I know that maybe that doesn't usually play into zoning and whether it can be rezoned or not, but it really does in this case, because as you already have established, four-bedroom units are going to be teenagers driving -- I have one myself -- you know, and many more people, many more trips. I have three children. I assure you I make a lot of trips between school, et cetera, during the day. I also would like to comment, I guess, when I believe Mr. Bosi said that we didn't get off to a good dialogue with the builder. No, we sure didn't. When we went into the meeting, we started to ask the builder -- I really don't care about elevation, to tell you the truth, Page 59 . --_._-_..~"_...-",_.,--- September 1, 2005 because I know that's been a lot of question here. We cared about what product are you putting into our neighborhood. And I am not a realtor, and I am not a planner, but I can tell you, if you are selling houses below the median market value for three- or four-bedroom houses, yeah, that is going to have a negative effect on a neighborhood. I just think common sense tells us all that without being realtors. When we did meet with them, again, it all centered a great deal around the four bedrooms. I also take great exception to -- and Triad comes up a lot here because you would think Triad has the exact same type of units and building; it doesn't. Triad did a 39-page traffic study from Metro. Mac did three pages. They're right here. One of them's really just a cover page. I called Davidson Engineering, who also did the site plan -- or Exhibit A, as I know it -- and asked them, do you do full traffic studies? They said no. So I don't even believe that a full traffic study was done on this side of the property. And when it is done, it needs to take into account all the other traffic that is now being generated in this area from all the other developments that have since come in. It also needs to take into account Triad's development coming onto Palm Springs Boulevard. So I am asking, before anything gets done, could we also do a real traffic study and do a -- or a larger traffic study? Could we also do maybe a pedestrian study? We have a great deal of problems -- I shouldn't say problems. We have a great deal of children right now who have moved into the apartments in that area. One bus picks up at least 20 students. I don't even know how many buses come back and forth there. Triad is going to do, as part of their development, putting in a bus stop, which is going to really help alleviate it, but there's just so many more trips going and coming. People come from, not in Palm Springs, other places down on into there to drop the children off to those bus Page 60 --~"-,_.__..'~'-,^ . September 1, 2005 stops. So that's where the dialogue was going. It wasn't going too good. I guess, in closing, I should say that I took great offense that they're saying in the traffic study that this proj ect will not have a negative impact to the existing roadway conditions. I think, yes, it certainly will, especially with those amount of trips. Also, you should know that a few things happened at that neighborhood meeting with the six of us that I don't know if it's -- it was represented clearly the way that I understood what happened at that meeting. Mac, maybe unintentionally, mislead us by saying that they would get back to us, so we were waiting to hear, will you lower the density. And, instead, I called Michael Bosi one day and said, Michael, you know, where are we with this? And he said, oh, they submitted and it's at eight. And I said, gosh, nobody told us as the neighbors that. I called Mr. Hampton and said, have you heard from them? He said, no, not a word. So they're talking about, oh, they wanted to talk to the neighborhood. No, they didn't contact any of us to tell us that. We found out through Michael Bosi. Mac tried to basically deceive us by not answering at that meeting how many were going to be four-bedroom units. We asked. I physically sat there, took their plan that you saw before and counted A, B, A, B, A, B, and came up with 40 percent being four bedrooms, when they knew that that was a very big touch point with us. What they did then was -- I now felt threatened by them because what they said was, and I quote -- and he was talking about big, bad commercial. He said, do you really want commercial? If I build commercial, you won't like what I build. Now, gentlemen, I -- and ma'am, I'm sorry, all that I can say is you have neighbors right now that I feel have been maybe unintentionally misled, threatened in my opinion, you know, deceived Page 61 September 1, 2005 in my opinion, and scare tactics, because the scare tactic came in when he said, well, if we don't get this, if you fight us on this, what's going to happen is we're going to build even more four-bedrooms. And we said, you know, where are you going to put them? And he said, well, when I have to start chopping up -- they had longer strips -- and when I have to start chopping these up, then we're going to make even more four-bedrooms to make up for that space. So at that point the meeting was kind of over. We thought we'd hear something back. We didn't. Also as a final note, just so that you know, Triad, who has worked with us and who came to our neighborhood and who has been very decent with us, is only building 72 units, not 86. So again, please take into account that I as a neighbor feel misled, deceived, and with scare tactics. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Rich Hampton, followed by Jonathan Smith. MR. HAMPTON: Good morning. My name's Rich Hampton. I live at 706 Pine Crest Lane. And for the record, I don't oppose the rezone, but I come before you today to talk about some issues that I think you need to take into account when you decide on a fair density. And I think you recall maybe last time I was up here when I talked specifically about the safety of our neighborhood, because that's what I'm most concerned with. I've heard the professional planner talk, I've read all the -- I've heard all the -- I'm not a planner, but I live down there and I have a great interest in the children. I can tell you that the school bus -- the first week of school, the school bus picked my two children up, a fourth-grader and a first-grader, there were 92 kids on that bus. Six to eight of them standing in the aisle. I had to rectify the problem with the bus barn. Page 62 September 1, 2005 We got it fixed. Since then we've had four temporary buses come down to pick them up because they cannot facilitate picking all those kids up that we didn't take into account that live back in Tuscan Isle, which has now completed its phase II. All traffic, these studies, all the things that we're talking about's all hypothetical theory . We live down there. I'm going to tell you right now that someone's going to get killed walking through Circle K. Every day -- I've had to move the bus stop twice now. We've got eighth-graders who walk to and from to get their breakfast. And although this sounds trivial maybe, go down there sometime. I asked you last time to go down and take a look at it between seven and nine o'clock. Although I realize we're faced with the fact that we're a growing community, we've got to look at these things, maybe it's preferred that we downgrade to residential, we need to be smarter about the way we're planning these things, because someone's going to get killed because of our lack of planning. We've got no sidewalks for the kids to walk to bus stops. And I want to correct something that Mr. -- I think, is it -- Bosi said. He said that these single-family units were a disruption to the development down there, which is completely incorrect. If you look at the -- and I don't know how to move that around. But if you look at the back street, I believe it's Pine Cone Lane, that is the only street where multi-family exists in our whole neighborhood, okay? Those were built 14 months ago, is when they CO'ed. Since then code enforcement's been down there every day, because we call them every day, to talk to them about the cars up on blocks, the walls that have been dead bolted with doors shut so that they can put two and three families in each side of the duplex. That's a disruption to our neighborhood. And now we're talking today about putting more multi-family units in the same neighborhood. I'm okay with the rezone. I'm okay with the building, but I think Page 63 ....,...~'O>".__~.~_,__.__.,_..".~ September 1, 2005 we've got to be smart about the density we allow, and we've got to be smart about these traffic studies and looking at where we're going to put these entries and exits, because that's what's truly affecting our neighborhood. And the talk about commercial, you know, I realize I wouldn't want commercial behind me, and I live there, and it will be behind me. The bottom line is, we need to decide what's the best for the neighborhood, not what's best for the financial market. You know, I heard somebody say, you know, what's the average cost going to be? And I'd want to clarify that point. Our concern was, what is the price break going to be? Because we're going to end up with two and three families, just like the street to our north, in these dwellings if they're built at 265, 270 with four-bedroom units. That's what's going to happen. We all know that. And I was told we can't have the institutional bias against having many families living in apartment complexes, things like that. We paid a premium and dumped our entire life savings into an estates-sized home, and that's going to be severely disrupted if we go with these units at that density. Now, I do commend Mr. -- Tim for doing what he's done. I think they have tried to work with us. I just don't think we're there yet. I think it's going to be up to you, it's a discretionary hearing, to decide if the density is appropriate. That's the only thing I'm asking you for, and for some suggestions from the planning commission on how we're going to fix our traffic problems. I mean, it's really -- you know, I know you face them countywide. But I'll tell you, we're at a threshold right now in our neighborhood that needs to be addressed ASAP, right now. We can't wait any longer. That's all I have to say. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What do you suggest is the appropriate density for this project? MR. HAMPTON: Honestly I think there needs to be a natural Page 64 ~-...,.",._-,..^ September 1, 2005 decrease, because as you start at Tuscan Isle, I think they're at 14. Maybe somebody can correct me on that, but I was told originally 14 at theirs. Saddlebrook up the way, I believe, is just less than that, then we've got Triad, which is going to be to their west, which was approved at eight, and as you heard Mrs. Gorman say, built out at seven. They decided the market would bear seven. I would like to see a decrease of that, and I think that's the best way to answer that, Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I have one question, sir. Have you lived there very long in the home that you're in? MR. HAMPTON: I've lived there a little over two years. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know how the zoning got rezoned, whether the home was there before the zoning and it was a different type of zoning, or that zoning came on later? Do you know anything about the -- MR. HAMPTON: I don't. I do know that the builder who built the majority, or a good portion of our homes, Mrs. Gorman's home, my home, when we bought -- when we purchased the home, was hopeful that they could build more single-family homes in the back street, and that was kind of the expectation that we had. And if you go down there and you drive, you will find homes built in the '60s, single-family dwellings, where people have lived for 20, 30 years, and now are being faced with this huge density issue. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HAMPTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Jonathan Smith. MR. SMITH: I'd like to thank the board for allowing me to come before them. And my name is Jonathan Smith. I live at 761 Pine Vale Drive. I have lived there on Pine Vale since 1988, and I've lived as a Page 65 September 1, 2005 full-time residence in Florida in Naples since 198 -- '78. We're not against the rezoning to a multi-family, but we are -- we'd prefer a commercial for the reasons of it being more of a nine-to-five flow of traffic. As you can see from the little map there, that the -- though it's not -- it's zoned commercial and it's not isolated. There is the Woodside bowling alley, there's the Mazda dealership, and there's the Circle K, there's also a vacant lot which does obstruct the view as far as being commercial right now. But once those trees are removed, it would be obviously easily seen from both arterial roadways. I kind of feel it would be a poor place for residential because of that unless it is -- unless there's enough buffering to block the view for the residents and for the commercial. Right now there's some 438 units in Saddlebrook and Tuscan Isle, and there's some 91 units in Palm Springs, plus the 86 in the Triad area, not to mention the surrounding residential areas, so there is a need for commercial still, especially a C-l where like child care or something where the low-income housing that basically the Tuscan Isle and the Saddlebrook is, would have a place to take their children. We also prefer to see the access for the development off of Radio Lane. I believe there is adequate distance. The distance between the Woodside bowling alley and the Palm Springs Boulevard is some 750 feet, which, divided by two, is greater than 350. So we believe that there is adequate distance there to put the traffic onto Radio Lane. We'd also like to see -- I didn't realize the -- since the PUD I read, whatever, they -- I guess they have decided or are willing to put a wall up, I was hoping to get at least a type B buffer. Nothing was stated in the PUD that way. A type B allows for an 80 percent opaque buffer with a six-foot wall. And I'd like to see at least that on -- along the residential areas and the two roadways. I'm sure they'd want to have one along Woodside, too. And I guess one thing that concerned me was in the PUD; I didn't Page 66 September 1,2005 know that they had changed it to 2,000 square foot. But in the PUD is stated for 750 square foot units. And if there were any four-unit buildings -- or four-unit structures, that that would be far undesirable since the adjoining estate homes on the north and the Triad, which is, in their PUD, stated to be an average of2,000 square foot. Like I say, we're not really against the rezoning, but we would like to see something that's not as dense as the -- what they're anticipating and something that's desirable for the neighborhood. We do know that development's going to happen, and it would be nice to get the homeless off the vacant lot anyway. So thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Strain, you have a question? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Smith, I've got a couple questions for you. I notice the shirt you're wearing is one of our local engineering firms. You do work for the firm? MR. SMITH: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What kind of work do you do there? MR. SMITH: I'm a civil -- well, we're a civil engineering firm, as a draftsman. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you used to dealing with distances and numbers? MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you feel that 750.5 feet is an accurate reflection from center point to center point of the openings along that -- MR. SMITH: That is taken from a county aerial, the GIS mapping. It is very accurate, yes. The county maps are very accurate. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Transportation was here a minute ago and they represented a lesser number than you're coming up with. I'm just trying to weigh which one. Page 67 September 1, 2005 MR. SMITH: Well, if you look on the -- here's a -- there's a picture of the plat that's -- recorded plat. The number that it shows on there of -- it's showing 660 from the property corner to the center of Palm Springs Boulevard. There's also the distance from the property corner to the entrance to Woodside. On their site plan they are showing less than 600 feet, but that didn't account for the radius. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But just for measuring of those distances, do you normally measure for traffic opening purposes from center point of the nearest opening or from the right -- edge of the right-of-way of the nearest opening? MR. SMITH: We measure from the center to center. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to confirm then, there is enough distance based on the center to center measurement to fit in under the criteria of transportation, an opening onto Radio Road? MR. SMITH: I believe, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any other public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers registered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do you have questions for the petitioner or staff? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: If there are none, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? I think they're waiting for you, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the problem I have is I didn't believe that the Triad PUD should be approved, and I recommended denial on that and I lost. So I wasn't going to start the meeting out with that kind of a note because I didn't want to waste the time. Page 68 September 1, 2005 I have a series of 10 stipulations, if it's deemed to be approved. I also have a series of what I believe are inconsistencies with our codes in regards to this proj ect, just as I had with the Triad development. Now, I can proceed to make a recommendation for denial only to be overturned by the rest of you. So before I go that far, does anybody want to make a recommendation of approval? (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If not, I will continue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Continue. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Give it a try. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd like to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for denial of PUDZ-2004-AR-6207, the Mac residential PUD. I'm finding it inconsistent with land development code section 4.07.02(B)1, D-3b, D-3d, D-3f, D-3g; inconsistent with section 5.4 of the growth management plan; inconsistent with the rezone findings of five, six, seven, 10 and 14; inconsistent with the findings for the PUD of one, three, and four. Most all of those are issues in reference to compatibility . COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Strain, second by Mr. Adelstein. Mr. Strain, I hate to admit this, but I don't have all those code sections memorized. Could you give me just kind of an overview of what your inconsistencies are? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I can read each section, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Not -- well, just kind of a summary of what your -- what your assertions are, please. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The future land use element, policy 5.4 refers to compatibility. Under the land development code, all those sections I referred to are 4.07.02 of design requirements Page 69 September 1, 2005 talking about the areas for the PUD, the external relationships, and especially the residential density. Under the sections I cited, most of them were discussing convenient and unsafe access, traffic congestion, conflict or -- with the GMP, create a threat or incur abnormal public expense, be incompatible or inconsistent with surrounding neighborhoods, areas, or otherwise be inappropriate. In the rezone findings I used the issues that I was talking to Mr. Bosi about, where under testimony today he admitted there were some errors in those rezone findings. And the findings for the PUD, I do not agree with him on the -- on his analysis of compatibility. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Discussion on the motion? Yes, sir, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm in favor of the project because I think it at least is minimally favorable to families. It's not affordable housing, but it's a whole lot better than most of the projects that I see come before us for housing which are half a million dollar residences and above. It's almost like there's a bias against families and children. And in my experience, children always grow up to be teenagers. And if we have all the housing that's going to be approved by this board only for upper-income people, we're going to have jammed roads leading into and out of Naples, and people who work in Naples are all going to have 12-hour commutes, which is already true of most of the people in Immokalee who have to drive to Naples in order to go to work. I think that this is the kind of thing that we need. We need families that can live closer to where they work. So I'm going to vote against the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other discussion on the motion? Page 70 September 1, 2005 (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion of denial, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER LINDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So that is two in opposition, seven in favor, motion carries. It is 10:22. We'll take a 10-minute break. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: If everybody could please take their seat, we'll call the planning commission back to order and resume with our next agenda item. We will pick up with item C. Petition PUD-A-2005-AR-7152, Valewood Properties requesting an amendment to the PUD document and master plan to rezone from commercial to residential. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you very much. Disclosures by planning commissioners. For convenience, let's start at the end with Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I don't believe I had any conversations with anybody on this. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer? Page 71 September 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. I had a phone conversation with Bob Shafto regarding density, a conversation with Martha Lancaster, resident of Quail II, regarding the Valewood Drive aesthetics, and the three letters from Robert Myers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Those I had, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. None, Mr. Midney? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Same three letters, and I talked to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I received three letters from Mr. Myers and spoke with Rich Y ovanovich regarding this item. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got so many letters I don't even want to spend the time repeating them all, but I think they're all in public record, and I have spoken to Richard Y ovanovich on some general issues and Clay Booker on some general issues. I believe that's all. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And I appreciate that reminder. I also spoke to Mr. Booker. I had forgot to disclose that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had three letters, but consistent with my policy, I didn't open them, so I don't know who they're from. I saw the letterhead, but that was enough. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I received the same three letters. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I have letters and some e-mails, and that's it. I have no conversations with anyone. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Before we hear from the petitioner, I just want to make one personal comment. It's pretty easy to see that the room's fairly full. This is going to be an item of some great excitement and interest, and I would request by everybody present here that you show appropriate respect to everyone that comes forward and speaks and not have any side comments, and that is Page 72 September 1, 2005 appropriate and fair and polite for everybody involved. And we really need your cooperation, because with crowds this big and issues that are of this much importance to so many people, things can get out of hand, and we're not going to let that happen. So with that, please, if we could hear from the petitioner. MR. TYSON: Good morning, Commissioners, I'm Bruce Tyson with WilsonMiller. I'm a landscape architect and a planner, and I'm here on behalf of JED of Southwest Florida, the petitioner on this property. They are also the owner of the property, and I believe we have disclosed in the application their financial interests. With me today is Richard Y ovanovich, who is representing them as well, our land use attorney. We have Joe D'Jamoos, the president and owner of JED of Southwest Florida; Andy D'Jamoos, the vice-president; Brad Guarino, the project manager; and Gavin Zones, professional engineer and AICP, also of WilsonMiller. He is our traffic engineer. What we are asking for -- and this may be a slight modification to what you have in front of you -- but is to change the land use from commercial C-3 to multi-family residential at a density of nine units per acre, not 12. So we are at nine units per acre. On the visualizer you'll notice the red indicating the property. It's 21.7 acres. It's located approximately three-quarters of a mile east of Interstate 75 on Immokalee Road, and it is immediately abutting to the east Longshore Lakes, where you see the cursor. You have Quail II PUD. It's part of the Quail II PUD. Let me see if I can move this around to help you out a little bit. That is right there, and then you have Quail Creek to the north. All of those properties are served by Valewood Drive. In front, between Immokalee Road and the Valewood Village property, as we will call it, is a 20-acre commercial property part of the PUD, and in that red area that you see right there is also part of that commercial land right now. That is the portion that we are Page 73 September 1, 2005 requesting to be rezoned from commercial to residential. Immediately to the west and across Valewood Drive from this property is a property called the Meadows, which is a 60-unit multi-family development which was approved as part of the PUD, the original PUD, and is going to be absorbed into the Quail Village home ownership association. Let me quickly go through some specifics of the property. This -- and, again, it's 21.7 acres. It was -- as a matter of fact, it was cleared in the '60s for agricultural purposes, and it was part of a property from the existing maps that extends over into Longshore Lakes. That was all part of an agricultural development. We have not gone before the EAC simply because it was determined that there are no wetlands on the property, and the property had been -- there's no native vegetation as well. The only vegetation that exists is along Valewood Drive, and that happens to be an exotic Brazilian pepper hedge, primarily. In addition to that, the one thing that does exist on the property is a water management permit. And the unique thing about this water management permit is that it ties it to Longshore Lakes so that the drainage from this development goes into Longshore Lakes. As a matter of fact, it's not only this development, but it's all of that development that is in the front of this property as well, meaning out toward Immokalee Road that is also commercial. Let me just try to help you along with that. This is the piece here that I'm talking about and referring to. That entire component is part of the water management district permit. Pipes are already in place, and the water goes through the pipes, comes down, and goes through the back yards and then into that portion of Longshore Lake. The developed properties, there are four or five of them now. This is in 2004, January aerial, so consequently some of the properties are missing, but all of those properties are allowed to discharge in the Page 74 September 1, 2005 exact same manner. Now, how did we -- to come up with 196 units, how did we really get to this density? Well, as you are aware, the growth management plan allows for projects that are commercial to be rezoned to residential at a rate of up to 16 units per acre. We recognize that that is a sizable number. It would be one thing if we were immediately tied to an activity center, but at the same time, we looked at that, and that is a number that exists within the growth management plan. In addition, the growth management plan allows for a density of up to three units an acre to be allowed for projects that are within one mile of an existing activity center. In this case, the center of the activity center is at Immokalee Road and I-75. I believe it's activity center number four. And as indicated before, you can see where Valewood Village is approximately three-quarters of the way out. It is completely within that density band. The interesting thing about it, of course, is that it also cuts through a portion of the Quail II PUD. And when you look at all of these numbers that are put together to be -- to look for the words consistency and compatibility, the most important thing, of course, is to recognize and make sure that the underlying densities of any of these projects are never violated. And so when we looked at that -- as a matter of fact, when we did our original plan and looking at it at 12 units an acre, everything fit into the exact same category. So at nine, it would have to as well. And when we did that, you come up with an underlying density within the Quail II PUD at 193 acres of777 units. The 135.55 acres at three units per acre gets you to 406 units. The overall potential allowable density, therefore, within the Quail II PUD by the GMP is 1,183 units. And the total density of the Quail II PUD within Valewood Village by the time you add Valewood Village at the nine units per acre is 556. Page 75 _~h_,~,_.____~.._.__.,..·__· M September 1, 2005 Quickly translating those numbers for you, totally we're at 47 percent of the allowable number of units in the GMP, and we are at gross density within the Quail II PUD of 2.9 units per acre. Certainly we're taking advantage of those numbers. You say, well, how can it be that low? Well, there's a golf course that's in -- that's part of the Quail II PUD and creates a substantial amount of open space. When we looked at this in trying to come up with where we were, again, with all of the number of units and what seemed to make sense, one of the advantages, of course, is the fact that, as you heard me say earlier, that the water management would be contained on another property. Typically, the water management of projects in Collier County takes about 15 -- somewhere between 15 and 18 percent, depending upon their density and depending upon how much impervious surface you have. Assuming the lower number of 15 percent, it would equate to about 1.3 units per acre if you extrapolated that out. So consequently, if you took a site plan and placed it on here at nine units per acre that would be common throughout the rest of the county and placed that same site plan on here and had the use of that 15 or 18 percent that we don't have to deal with here because the water management is taken care of in Longshore Lakes, the effective density is reduced to about 7.7 units per acre as a feel on the ground. So there's a big difference between what's approved and what's constructed. And consequently, taking in all the considerations and the fact that you don't have to do water management, it has a very major impact on the way in which the proj ect is developed, finalized, and exactly how it feels. So that was a very important consideration in the determining of the number of units to request. We also tried to take a look at what would happen if this proj ect wound up being a commercial venture. And since it is already a commercial property, the question was, what does a commercial Page 76 ,-,.~---».,,, _..._.~-"- September 1, 2005 property do for anyone here? Is it viable? And in talking to the ---- as a matter of fact, our owners and developers here are primarily commercial developers. They, too, recognize that there's a certain value and there's a compatibility issue if you look at it when you think about what's going on when you come back in Valewood Drive. Now, if you've been back in Valewood Drive, the first think you encounter is coming across quite a pleasant bridge that goes across the Immokalee Road Canal, you go under a number of live oak trees that have, over the years, because this project started a number of years ago, they now have created a complete canopy. And if you drive back in there, the feeling is far more residential than it is commercial. However, that being said, we can point to a number of examples -- I'll point to a couple in the Strand, and I can point to a couple around the hospital on Immokalee Road -- that have sizable office buildings, sizable retail components that are not right on -- directly on Immokalee Road, and at the same time, they exist very nicely back off the roadway. So it's not impossible to say that this could not (sic) be developed as commercial. However, you'll also notice that this property butts up against a whole series of single-family units in Longshore Lake. And in that situation, having sizable buildings, and as a matter of fact, continuing with the existing code that allows that C-3, it also allows four-story buildings, up to 50 feet in height to be developed in there. That could be a commercial development. So consequently, that is right in the code right now. As a matter of fact, that's in the Quail II PUD, that's an SDP process, and that could be done without having any board hearings. So our -- we took an approach of saying, maybe it could be done as a complete office proj ect. And so when we looked at that, the traffic that was developed from that versus a 12-unit building at the time in that development, was about 40 percent more from an office building at the peak hour, Page 77 September 1, 2005 and we just looked at it from that standpoint. We didn't do an in-depth evaluation. No matter which way we turned with that, we felt that it was going to be better for the community, far better for everyone along Valewood Drive, if the project came out as a multi-family residential project, because the traffic was going to be substantially less. In reality, if you were to build that, it would probably be a mixed use type of commercial development. They would have some retail, because you can see to the east on your visual point there where the property line comes down and virtually touches out to Immokalee Road, you've got good visibility, so probably it would wind up being somewhere -- a certain component would be commercial, a certain component -- meaning retail, some component would be office, and some component would be medical office. And if you look at that -- and we looked at a.m. peak, we looked at p.m. peak, we looked -- we looked at it any way you could, and we looked at it from an -- average daily trips. And no matter which way we looked at it, in all cases, a nine-unit multi-family project was going to have less traffic than would a project of 230,000 square feet, 30 percent of it being retail, 30 percent of it being office, and 40 percent of it being medical office, which would probably be built there, and that's at 230,000 square feet, which, by the way, does not max out the property . So I think where we've come to is the fact that, as we look at this -- and I want you to look at this as not necessarily just Valewood Village. I think what you have to do is step back and look at this as the Quail II PUD. And the point is, if we were standing here today and we came to you, would you approve a PUD which has an overall density of 2.9 units per acre, is only 47 percent of the total allowable residential units, offers compatibility with the surrounding uses, and is consistent with the growth management plan, and I hope your answer to that would be yes. Page 78 ----"-'-,,--.-.---..----,,---.-" September 1,2005 I'll entertain any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for the petitioner? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And I think Margie, this is kind of for you, too, is, I'm familiar with the commercial reduction to residential for 16, but does that apply within a PUD? Can a -- first of all, I think that's being removed from the GMP to begin with, and secondly, I thought that was for existing zoning districts, not within PUDs. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It is my understanding that that would also apply in a PUD zoning district. MR. SCHMITT: Do you want to talk into your microphone, please. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. It's my understanding that that could apply in a PUD zoning district; isn't that correct, Mr. Bellows? And I believe our long-range planning staff or growth planning staff has concluded that it does. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So a developer could -- with a PUD, put in commercial, come back 10 years later and say, hey, I get 16 units, or I can ask for 16 units? I guess if you said he could, he could. Is this area in a traffic area where you require reduction in density? Isn't there a situation where you would have to -- MR. TYSON: No, it is -- it is definitely east of Airport Road, which is the limit for where the traffic congestion boundary is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the -- okay. I'll come back later. MR. TYSON: Could I just make one more point? I should have concluded with this instead. I handed out to you a version of -- a revised version of the PUD, and let me just go through a couple of changes that happened. Page 79 September 1, 2005 This happened as a result, by the way, of a meeting that we had with the Quail Village and the Quail-- excuse me -- Quail Village and Longshore Lakes homeowners' associations. And as a result of that, I just wanted to go through a couple of things with you. I'll start out by just the changes. There's a number of changes that happened right up front in the statement of compliance, simply to go from the 12, so that you'll see a whole series of changes there right in that first section. On page eight, you will notice a change going in the application of 12, that is now nine for the number of units. The maximum number of units, also on page eight, on paragraph 8.34D, is 196 versus 260 in the application. On page 12 in the table, the maximum building height is in the -- is there right now as three stories over parking. We are proposing two stories or 35 feet abutting the Longshore Lake PUD and Valewood Drive. Three stories, or 45 feet, elsewhere. That, by the way, when you work it out very quickly, is, about half of the building would be at two stories and half of the buildings would be at three stories. That's about half of the property fits into that area. On the building setback on page 12 as well, 35 feet was in the application on the east side. That is now 50 feet, and minimum building area, which was not in the application, is now 1,600 square feet. And if you will look then on the -- on page 15, under the landscape section, 35H, the fourth paragraph has been added. If you will notice on your graphic, the little yellow spot that's up in the far north corner, there's a portion of the wall that has not been completed. It's actually right now behind a lot of shrubbery so you don't even notice that. But the developer has agreed to construct that wall and to finish it so that it's a complete wall. There's an existing wall that exists all along the entire east side of the property right now. Page 80 September 1, 2005 And finally, the last point in there is that trees -- or the property from a buffer on the east, north, and west side, so therefore, it's all along the east property and then all along Valewood Drive -- shall contain trees with a minimum height of 12 feet. That's two feet above the requirement right now in the LDC. And in addition to that, shall be one-half of the height of an adjacent building, whichever is greater. So if we wound up with a 32-foot building that adjoined those properties, you'd wind up with a 16- foot tree in the buffer. So those are the changes that we have gone through and looked at. In addition, there's a couple of other points that should be made because they're far more appropriate to be placed in a -- in any kind of homeowners' or condominium documents, and they will be that Valewood Village will contribute a proportion of dry land -- in this case it's 12 percent -- of the dollar amount for the maintenance of the stormwater management that goes into Longshore Lake. So they'll take care of their proportional share of the water management for the maintenance of that facility. Secondly, when he comes to rentals, this is a -- definitely a for-sale market-rate project. And what will happen here is it will be -- occasionally some owners may wish to lease. Well, as a document that will be inserted in those homeowner documents, we'll indicate that all leases shall be for a minimum period of 90 consecutive days and no residential unit may be rented for more than three times in any calendar year. So it's just to avoid the transient nature of any type of rental. Another point is that there is an association between Longshore Lakes, Quail Creek, Quail Creek Country Club, and Quail Village that deals with the maintenance and upkeep of Valewood Drive. They are. all quarter-share members right now. Assuming Valewood Village becomes part of that, they will now be an equal partner or pay for 20 percent of that maintenance. Page 81 September 1, 2005 And roofing materials will not be asphalt shingles. They will wind up being other than that. And then one other comment that we plan to do is build a gated community. The idea is that every other community that is back there is gated, so the idea will be to make it to the point of where that is the case, and that will continue the existing high quality that will exist within that community. Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Going back to your page 12, the setbacks. The concern I have is that you describe front yard setbacks as what you're showing on here as building setbacks. Could you remove the word front from that and make it yard setback so that -- for example, you remember the last hearing, you know, you have a different rear yard setback, and I wouldn't want anybody to be confused that your intention there is that 50 feet there is devoid of all buildings, accessory -- MR. TYSON: Okay. We can make that modification, sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's no buildings within that 50. MR. TYSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I would just get rid of the word front to make sure of that. That's all for now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What do you anticipate will be the sticker price of these units? MR. TYSON: Everything we're hearing from the standpoint of market, they will be above -- about 500, and I would say that would be the entry point in a couple of years when it comes out. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Does this project plan to do anything for affordable housing in Collier County? Mr. TYSON: Could I have Rich Yovanovich answer that, please? Page 82 ---'--'-"'-"-"<'-'.~,---_.".~. ".,.-...........-.--.... ._.'_._,~--~,-~...,~..._..._-,_._.-"._--~..- September 1, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We recognize that there's going to be an impact to affordable housing, and we have -- or will work out an arrangement. We'll make a donation, which we've done on other projects, of roughly a $1,000 a unit, depending on what gets approved to go towards addressing affordable housing, either in Collier County, within the urban area or in the Immokalee area. So we recognize that we need to address that issue, and we'll address that issue. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Marjorie, on that issue that Richard just mentioned, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Requesting or requlnng an applicant to donate to a, I'm assuming, a private enterprise for a specific non-profit purpose -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, nobody's asked me to do that or required me to do that. We've agreed to do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Has anybody asked you on your other projects? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's irrelevant to this discussion. Let's talk about this project. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Richard, I just want to make sure that if there's an extraction, it's legal. MR. YO V ANOVICH: I never said it was extracted. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Midney? Other questions of the petitioner? Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Tyson, under your project description on page 2 of your PUD, item 2.2B, it talks about a maximum of 60 dwelling units added for a conversion of a sewage treatment site. MR. TYSON: Excuse me. This is part of the existing PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Page 83 September 1, 2005 MR. TYSON: That is the part, talking about the Meadows. That is the Meadows. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to find out, yes. MR. TYSON: Okay. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That is been converted? MR. TYSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The 360 units existing, does that include the Meadows or not include the Meadows? MR. TYSON: It includes them. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Of the 360, how many of them are single- family; do you know? MR. TYSON: Not off the top of my head. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not familiar with Longshore. Do you know the density -- do you know the number of units in Longshore? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Five hundred and fifty-six. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know if their only exit is Valewood Drive? MR. TYSON: I believe it is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Five hundred and fifty-six. Under your page -- and I have to go with the PUD that was given to us with our package because I couldn't read yours this morning. So page 8 of the one that was provided to us. The residential R-l district -- oh, you already answered that, 360 does include the water treatment center. I just found it in a couple places, so I kept tabbing it. Let me go back. On Page 10, J, development standards, this may be a staff question as such. You're talking about what the standards are going to be for the proj ect infrastructure. Why? I mean, aren't you going to have to be consistent with land development code? MR. TYSON: Totally. Page 84 September 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. This shouldn't -- this really isn't necessary to be in your PUD? MR. TYSON: It doesn't need to be. Frequently it winds up being there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Under same page L4, little i, principal uses and structures. Townhouses, multi-family dwellings and neighborhood recreational facilities. Those are usually noisy. Where are you planning to put those? MR. TYSON: That would certainly be in the center of the project. The neighborhood in this case means the neighborhood for Valewood Village only. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you could -- under the same category but the following page, little 3i, you again refer to community parks and similar uses, shuffleboard courts, tennis courts. If those were to be placed in the project, where would they be placed? MR. TYSON: Again, the idea would be to have that as a community central facility . We would certainly strive to place most of those in the center of the facility so it would be as close as possible and not encourage traffic. We want people to walk to it, not to ride to it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And the noise to the surrounding neighborhoods would be minimized, too. Under N, development standards. MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You provide a nice paragraph saying that you're going to be in accordance with the LDC. Ray, is that an option? MR. BELLOWS: No, it's not an option. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So we don't need to mention it again in the PUD. Under your development standards table, you have front setback from internal drives at 20 feet. I know that 23 feet is supposed to be Page 85 September 1, 2005 the minimum to allow for parking. I just want to make sure you're aware that 23 is the minimum, not 20. MR. TYSON: Well, in the -- I'm aware of the fact that it's 23, but in this case, we will have -- everything will be garaged. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. TYSON: They're planning on two-car garages. So I don't know if there's a need. I recognize -- let's put it this way, I recognize that there is a need to make sure that the bumper does not overhang the sidewalk. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. And that has been deemed by staff in the reviews they currently provide to the public at 23 feet, so -- I mean, I know you could argue you could use a shorter car, but if they're not going to allow it, it doesn't make -- MR. TYSON: I'm not into -- no. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 13, C, water management. You're going to submit anything for approval, CDES. Do we need to say that in the PUD? MR. BELLOWS: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Under transportation, you're going to be consistent with our traffic control procedures. Do you need to see that in the PUD? MR. BELLOWS: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. I would just hope that maybe after doing this enough times and wasting enough meetings on it, we would eliminate some of this language. Under the engineering, detailed paving and all that will be pursuant to CDES. We don't need that either. Under landscaping, item H, second paragraph. Up to one-half, or seven and one-half of the 15- foot Collier County draining easement that runs parallel to and 20 feet west of the east property boundary may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements of section four of the LDC. I couldn't figure out what you're trying to say there. Page 86 September 1, 2005 Could you explain that to me? MR. TYSON: Sure. Very characteristically on drainage easements, and drainage easements only, the landscape buffer can occupy half of them, and I just wanted to make sure that it was -- it's not a specific statement that is made in the LDC, but it is allowed. And I just wanted to make it clear exactly what was happening here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is this a deviation to the LDC? MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The whole thing? MR. BELLOWS: Just the last part. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Heidi, have you been following this? MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. For the record, Heidi Williams, Zoning and Land Development Review. This was reviewed by our landscape reviewer, and this was found to be in compliance with the land development code. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But is this a deviation to the land development code? MS. WILLIAMS: I don't believe it is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then we don't need it here, I would think. I would just offer that up for maybe next time. Next paragraph, I would ask you that same question. It's talking about six-foot high fence. Minimum setback. Trees shall be planted 30 feet on center, 30-inch heights with three feet on center. If it's not a deviation then -- if it is a deviation, you have to stipulate it, and I want to -- MR. TYSON: It's not a deviation. It was a request by the reviewer of the landscape, because normally it would be the commercial developer who would wind up putting in that wall or fence. In this case, it will be the residential developer simply because there have been commercial developments already started that have Page 87 September 1, 2005 not been asked to put in a fence or a wall behind their facilities. So we're making it very clear as to what needs to be accomplished. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Under your traffic improvements, you talk about a -- access on -- the PUD talks about an access on Valewood Drive, and it's 4.1C, little i. And it says, the street connection on Valewood may be the principal access to the lands to the east unless such principal access is authorized by the Quail Creek and Quail II Development Organization. The PUD map shows it as an access. Is this now not a principal access point, or how is this being addressed? MR. TYSON: First of all, this is in the old portion of the PUD. Nothing's being asked to be changed here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. TYSON: Our interpretation of that is that was the access point that goes into Longshore Lake. That was the -- that was the request when this PUD was developed to say, leave a point where we can access the development to the east. That has nothing to do, as we interpret that, has to do anything with Valewood Village. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is Valewood Village to the east of Valewood Drive? MR. TYSON: Yes, but all of Longshore Lakes is, too. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, I'm just wondering why you limited it then to Longshore Lakes. I understand your reasoning. MR. TYSON: I didn't change it. That's exactly what the wording was in the previous PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But your analysis limits it to believing it's just Longshore Lakes that this applies to and not to your development; is that right? MR. TYSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'm just wondering how you concluded that. On 4.3, Band C were crossed out. Does that mean those were Page 88 ,-~"."',,-,,, 'q ..... .- September 1, 2005 completed? A combination of -- in this case, no, neither one was completed. They were no longer determined necessary with the water management permit that now takes all of the water from this locale and puts it over into Longshore Lakes. Those were requirements. As a matter of fact, we were asked to clean this up by the engineering department so that those points were no longer in here because they were no longer necessary. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've been here for a long time, and I remember driving past that area when the canal to the south was being reworked. In fact, the machine that was reworking it knocked out a bunch of sections of that Cedar Creek fence that Longshore Lakes has around it, and there was a sign up at one time saying, see what they did. This says, the Immokalee Road canal shall be improved along the entire southerly boundary with Quail II project. If that got done, who paid for it; do you know? Because it looked like this PUD was obligated to pay it for it. MR. TYSON: No. I think what happened at the time, or between the original writing of this PUD and this, if you recall, South Florida came in and did a significant widening and bridge improvement project on that canal, I'm going to guess, about five or SIX years ago -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, they did. MR. TYSON: -- and I think they were the ones who did it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Interesting. I have a lot of questions of Mr. Scott, so I thank you. MR. TYSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for Mr. Tyson while he's up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Scott, looks like it's your turn. Page 89 September 1, 2005 Oh, I'm sorry. I'm out of sequence. If that concludes the petitioner's request, or representation, then we'll move on to our staff report, and Heidi Williams would open that. MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Again, for the record, Heidi Williams, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. This petition was reviewed by staff on a request for 12 units per acre, conversion of commercial property in the Quail II PUD to multi-family residential. Staff found that the petitioner's request did comply with the growth management plan and the land development code. The required neighborhood information meeting was held on July 5th. It was well attended by area residents. Concerns were expressed by those who attended on traffic and the proposed density. You have before you today a revised PUD document explained by Mr. Tyson. You also received, for the record, additional correspondence that was received by me after your packet was sent to you. The zoning analysis of this petition is highlighted in the staff report and covers the transition of uses Mr. Tyson did explain. Essentially we looked at commercial development along Immokalee Road and the lower density residential to the north and east. This proj ect could be viewed as a transition between something that is considered very low density and something more intense. The applicant was asked by our landscape review to provide a wall and place that requirement in the PUD. The land development code does require a commercial developer when building to provide that wall when adj acent to residential. Because the residential does follow, it was asked that this requirement be placed on the second applicant, in this case the residential property. In response to Commissioner Strain's question about the weir and the language that was removed from section 4.3, that was a request of Page 90 September 1, 2005 our engineering department noting that those improvements have been made, and this language was now extraneous. Staff does recommend approval of the petition. And as I said before, it was reviewed at 12 units per acre. Certainly at nine units per acre that is now proposed with the additional stipulations given by the applicant staff is still in favor and recommends approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have of me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, what kind of review did staff do for the need for commercial in this area, specifically office area like that? I mean, obviously we know there's a lot of retail in the area. But is there any review as to whether this area needed office space to balance out everything? MS. WILLIAMS: We haven't reviewed what could be needed in the area. We simply reviewed the request made by the petitioner on what they would like to put in that space. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But in other words, there's no concern over whether, to balance our community, it would be good to have commercial in this area, places where people go to work and stuff? MS. WILLIAMS: The petition was reviewed to look at what was proposed, and the multi-family proposed here and the surrounding area seemed to blend in a way that would be compatible. Office space in this location is not -- is allowed currently, but that's not what the petition is for. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Schiffer, just for the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development, environmental services. We don't evaluate an overall evaluation in regards to the commercial. That is market driven. If this is in commercial -- or it's within an activity center, certainly it's within one mile of the activity center and all the commercial zoned areas within that activity center. But in regards to a Page 91 .-.---- September 1, 2005 holistic review for commercial, that is not part of our review. That aspect is market driven. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Especially on individual amendments, we're looking at an amendment that has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and staff has found, the comprehensive planning department's found it consistent, and there's no override -- there's no overriding commercial office policy that says a certain amount of office space has to be located in North Naples or whatever. There's just no plan for staff to go by. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there wasn't any review like that. My concern is we're getting a lot of PUDs. Obviously residential's hot. They're converting a lot of commercial to res -- I mean, I hope we're not trying to solve the workplace housing problem by getting rid of the workplaces. I mean, the workforce housing. That's it. Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just one. Heidi, my memory's getting difficult at times. I know I've driven by Quail II before it was probably built, and Longshore Lakes. But do you know which one came first? MS. WILLIAMS: The Quail II PUD was adopted before Longshore Lakes was adopted. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did they have a common developer, if I'm not mistaken? Was that the Hardy group that developed both of those; do you know? MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of that history. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: At some point someone had to, maybe Don Scott -- never mind. I'll save you. Don Scott's the guy that maybe could answer this. It has to do with Valewood Drive. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Page 92 "~--,._-..-,->,..--'- September 1,2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Hi again, Don. MR. SCOTT: Hi. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think we'll build up to my question here so I can understand what I'm trying to say and give it to you in the most concise way possible. MR. SCOTT: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There was a transportation study provided to us in contrast to the one provided by the applicant. This one was provided by Gray Calhoun and Associates. It came in our -- it came in one of our packages. Have you seen that? MR. SCOTT: I don't think I have then. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Because they come up with a startling difference between traffic impacts of this proj ect from the way the applicant saw it and the way they're seeing it. And I'm not sure that they even have got all the issues in there, but I didn't know if you had time to review it or not. When Longshore Lakes decided to connect into Valewood Drive, the Quail II was already permitted or zoned or had an order for 360 available units there. Longshore added 550. Now, I know Longshore is all single-family, and I know probably 300 of the 360 in Quail II is single-family, or at least a good portion of them, I should say. I know that 60 out front are Meadows, and I've already heard today that that's multi-family. But we've got close to say 800 single-family. The traffic counts done for this applicant's proposed project was done on the townhouse style, which is 5.7 ITE trip generation. MS. WILLIAMS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Single-family comes in at almost double that, at 9.57 ITE trip generation. The reason that's important is, because when I generally understand PUDs to come forward to us, Page 93 September 1, 2005 they try to show the best possible scenario for their trip counts on the road system. And if they have a mixed-use PUD with a commercial component, I have not seen one yet come through that hasn't taken advantage of the capture rate. MR. SCOTT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And since two PUDs now exit through Valewood Drive, you've got a combined capture rate under a single- family category and ITE of over 800 units. Now, just on the Quail II -- let's forget Longshore Lakes, because I didn't realize how its interconnection occurred until today. But if you just take the calculation of 360 single-family times the trip generations rate 9.57, you get a daily trip count of 3,445 EDT. Twenty-five percent of that is what you would normally allocate to internal capture if you had a mixed-use component; is that fair to say? MR. SCOTT: Yeah, 20, 25 percent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's 1,361 EDT. They're claiming that there's 1,446 weekday trips generated by what they're proposing, and they're showing a net gain by the 230,000 square feet of commercial taken off of 10,087. But if you add the intentional capture rate that the PUD probably depended on to get approved in the first place, you've got to add 1,361 additional trips just for Quail II, and that doesn't include Longshore Lakes, which probably relied on the same benefit of internal capture rate, and it also doesn't take into account up to 10 or 15 percent bypass rate. Are all those logical conclusions to possibly come to? MR. SCOTT: I think you're hitting on it with the commercial side. Is getting rid of commercial everywhere best for transportation? No. If it's an area that you need it and -- the funny thing is that it would be better if you could pick exactly what it's going to be and then say, you know, this is what I really need in this area, and that will cut trips in a different part of the county, but you don't always have Page 94 "¥..----.---,.--.-- _, " I ,,~~' .- September 1, 2005 that choice either, so -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, what I did was calculated out, like I just explained to you, and I showed not that they have a positive increase on trip generation at the density they're trying to get of one-oh-eight-seven, they actually have a negative increase of 790 EDT, and it only gets much, much worse by the time you add in Longshore Lakes. So, in essence, the loss of that internal capture kills the traffic impacts in relationship to what it could have been and what that PUD probably relied on at the time it was approved, assumingly your predecessor, if there was such a thing. When your department reviewed this, did you look at the internal capture rate that was logged? MR. SCOTT: And we've looked at different scenarios through actually having other submittals of it. If it was retail, office, and medical. If it was, you know -- different scenarios from trip-wise. Now, strictly, is that going to lower it on Immokalee right out in front, probably not. But does it help something from somewhere else? F or instance, if someone from the Estates is coming in, and instead of going to Pine Ridge and U.S. 41, they go to this location, yeah, it helps the network out. And that's the problem with, you know, specifically saying that all commercial's bad or residential's what we want in certain areas. Now, I know you kind of touched on this, there are a lot of locations around the turning from residential to commercial. Are we meeting the future demand for the whole entire population of the county? That's a concern of ours in transportation. Is it specifically at this location? No. I'm a little less concerned, obviously, because we have a lot of commercial at the corner of -- or retail at the corner of I - 7 5 and Immokalee. As we get further out towards the Estates and some of the things that have changed recently, yeah, we're very concerned by that. Page 95 'N.__."'__'~'^- September 1, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: Don, if I could just interrupt for a minute. I mean, you -- as the planning commission certainly can recall, we had another petition which was clearly commercial where staff recognized it was a needed entity, that was the commercial site on 951 just south of Immokalee Road, and, of course, that was going -- that went down in defeat, and now you're going to see that proj ect come back as a mix of residential and commercial. So we recognize in some areas of the county there is a desperate need for commercial sites because we want to bring that capture rate away from the urban area, or at least in areas where we know where growth is taking place. So it -- many times it depends on the mood of the community because that one went down in flames, so to speak, if you use the analogy, because the residents in and around that proposed site were totally against it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And back to the other question. I mean, good planning isn't based on mood, isn't based on marketplace. It's based on good planning. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but -- and even if you can get the residents of a neighboring place, let's -- you know, no specific place, they want to have reduced, you know, like office, a reduced use. But, you know, look around the county, we need gas stations for crying out loud, and -- but does anybody want a gas station next door? I mean, that is a problem for our future planning. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Don, in looking at the TIS that was supplied, they are indicating that they have a -- only a couple segments exceed the di minimis impact. It didn't take into consideration the argument that I just proposed to you, so I certainly would question the validity of the entire TIS in regards to its impact of the PUD on the roads when the internal capture rate is taken away. And also, as you indicated, Estates people and other people may pull into this thing, so your bypass traffic of 10 to 15 percent, all these percentages that are recommended uses by ITE, and I see continually Page 96 ~_.~--~-~--~--~-~- September 1, 2005 when these proj ects are initiated, developers take advantage of them. Well, it may work in the opposite effect for something like this. And also on that intersection that's being planned for I-75 and Immokalee Road, in your analysis of the road system versus this change, did you take the Target into consideration? I know the Wal-Mart's already up and running, but the Target is not. MR. SCOTT: Yes, yes. And one of the things, if from a -- if you look at what I submitted to you last year for the AUIR, in the capacity in there, it did not assume the loop, it did not assume six lanes onto the interstate. N ow that we've gone to the board and got approval for the right-of-way at the Target, and we're moving forward with FDOT with that project, the capacity's increased on that segment of roadway also. So not only do we have the impacts of their developments -- which actually, if you look at it from the model, was higher anyway, because that -- when Target went in, it had a much higher square footage, and they've reduced that. It was -- I don't know, it was like 400 something down to 325, or whatever it was originally. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's all I've got, Don, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a couple of Don. Don, review the traffic study, isn't the flow of the commercial essentially the opposite of the residential? In other words, in the morning when everybody's leaving the residential thing, the commercial people are coming in the opposite way, and -- MR. SCOTT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- essentially, you know, to be balancing that this is a lesser flow. It's an opposite flow, too, isn't it? MR. SCOTT: Yeah, it can be an opposite flow. Obviously it will be different if it ended up being -- for instance, retail it might be a later peak than the morning peak. So, you know, it depends on what Page 97 September 1, 2005 type of uses it ends up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another question, too, is, I've been in there in the morning, and it's really kind of difficult to come out of there; there's a lot of backup. Would it be a good idea to connect Valewood through this -- the Executive Drive by the gas station? Wouldn't it be wise to add another outlet for this neighborhood, something further away from the Oaks light and everything? MR. SCOTT: In some of the issues specifically where signals are going to be in the future, one where you've got -- we're doing -- Immokalee is the design build. The design hasn't started because it is design build. Within about three months we'll be kicking that project off. Weare looking at some of the access issues. Obviously, people want to keep their signals, but the more signals, the worse the level of service is going to be in the future. Logan, obviously, is going to be a signal in the future also, to the south and to the -- you know, the southern portion, widen -- we're doing the new roadway from Immokalee down to Vanderbilt, the new two-lane section, and then the developer's doing the section from Immokalee up to Bonita Beach also. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the question -- I mean, you know, where Valewood comes in is very close to Oaks. MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's obviously extremely difficult to even stack. Wouldn't it be wise to add another alternate route out of this development? You know, there's a lot of claim that this is an interconnected development, but it isn't really an interconnected. It's an only-connected development. MR. SCOTT: And you're hitting specifically issues that we've tried to address previously with the neighborhoods up there. I don't know where we're going to end up. Valewood was put up as a temporary signal. That's not, I believe, Page 98 -,,,~.,._....,,,,.,,-"' ~.._-- September 1, 2005 where they want to end up. The thought behind that was at one point Oaks was talking about removing their signal. I believe they want to keep their signal there, too. We -- end result is we don't want them that close together. And I know where you're going from there. And are we going to get there from an interconnection? I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But wouldn't it be -- as we're looking at this piece of land here -- because it's -- where they want access, wouldn't it be wise for that access to come all the way through their property, come out onto Executive Drive and give that extra access? It wouldn't add traffic to the neighborhood. If anything, it would peel traffic off in two ways. MR. SCOTT: It makes sense. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. There being none at this point, are there registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: We have about 14 registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: The first one is Bob Shafto, and I believe he has a PowerPoint presentation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: As there are so many speakers, I just want to make a point. The official policy is that individual speakers will be limited to five minutes on any item. Individuals speaking on behalf of an organization or group may be allotted additional time. And it has been my policy as chairman of the planning commission that as long as we're receiving new, competent, and credible testimony, that it is not redundant, we'll extend whatever time is necessary. But as we may possibly receive redundant testimony, at that time I'll call the speaker and try to hear new and fresh testimony so that we can consider the issues. Page 99 September 1, 2005 Sir? MR. SHAFTO: Yes. Mr. Chairman, my name is Bob Shafto. I'm the president of Quail Creek Country Club, and I've been asked to speak, in addition to the country club, for the Estates, so I would like a little more time, if I could. I think I can get this done in a little less than 10 minutes. I'm going to make some introductory comments as an overview here, then I'm going to talk about our position, the position of Quail Creek and the Estates, talk about our concerns and make some arguments about compatibility and about the impact of traffic on this project, and then make some summary comments. If you'd like to interrupt me as I go through this and ask questions, feel free. Make them easy though, would you? As a quick overview. There are three communities that share Valewood. To the north is Quail Creek Estates. By the way, that's about 25 years old this year. To the east is Longshore. Both of those are single-family homes. And then we have the Village and the Meadows to the left, and then the property that we're talking about. Valewood goes right through the middle of this property. At one end is a gatehouse at Quail Creek Country Club and at the other end is this traffic signal. You can see Longshore over to the right. Now, this property -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Stop a second. MR. SHAFTO: The Valewood Drive goes through this property. It's approximately eight-tenths of a mile. It's a constrained road. There's nothing we can do to modify it. It's the sole access, this stop light, to three gated communities with 1,183 homes. And by the way, 94 percent of those are single-family homes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir? MR. SHAFTO: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you go back three -- two, before? Page 100 ~.,~.".---,"" September 1, 2005 MR. SHAFTO: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- MR. SHAFTO: That one? You want me to go back one more? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you point out to me, if you could, where the gatehouse is there? MR. SHAFTO: The gatehouse, I have an arrow there. At the very -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that the gatehouse? MR. SHAFTO: That's the gatehouse of Quail Creek Country Club, and it dead-ends there obviously, unless you can get in, and it dead-ends at the traffic signal, and it's eight-tenths of a mile. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. SHAFTO: Now, in addition, Quail Creek Country Club is a member-owned country club. And we got a letter because we're in standing as an abutter, and there are some 420 or so non-resident members that use this street, plus we have 160 employees that use this street, and so we've got a lot of concerns, as you can see. Today we have problems. I've been told -- I don't go to work. I'm retired. But I've had a lot of people tell me, that going to work in the morning, they can see 15 to 20 cars and have two and three light changes. Our primary problem is a.m. peak hour, but, of course, we have problems in the afternoon. Now, I took that picture yesterday. We've got substantial backup every morning at that light trying to get out of there. Kind of a nice-looking picture, isn't it? Now, we're opposed to this amended PUD. We're opposed both to the density of nine units per acre, and we're opposed to the development standards of 45 feet and three stories, because we think they are incompatible. We proposed six units per acre, building heights of no more than 30 feet, two stories, and 1,600 square feet. Our concerns to begin with on compatibility of the neighborhood Page 101 ~.,. -""~.._.-.-"",, ,..-._- September 1, 2005 start with -- it's my understanding from reading the land development code that the calculation of residential density is you take the number of dwellings and you divide it by the gross acreage, excluding any existing residential and commercial property. If I do that calculation for Quail Creek with 291 single-family homes on 640 acres, it's less than one unit per acre. If I do that calculation for Longshore with 566 on 346 acres, it comes out to 1.97. The Meadows and the Village are now legally put together into one community. When I do that calculation for the Village, I get 1.9. Now, the applicant has been saying that he can blend the densities, and he can take his higher densities and blend them with the lower densities of the Village in order to come up with a number that makes this work. We -- our analysis says the only way you can blend density is if you have unified ownership, number one, or you've got an environmental sensitive land. That doesn't seem to exist in this. It seems to us this proposal is incompatible with both the growth management plan and the land development code, and I can't find any wording in there that talks about the feeling that you get, as they are talking about the feeling that you get when you look at it. Now, a concern about traffic. WilsonMiller did a very, very good job, very thorough job, made a point in their calculation that there was going to be more traffic with commercial, as they said, maybe 40 percent, than with residential, but there were unanswered questions as we read that material. The first point that we want to bring up is that the existing commercial zoning, its primary access as described by the traffic impact analysis, is on Commercial Drive, as compared to the residential site plan, which has the primary access on Valewood Drive. Now, somebody mentioned that commercial will be going in the opposite direction, and that would be going in and out of Commercial Page 102 ._-- -"', .. 11 .- .~""-'-'-'" September 1, 2005 Drive, where the Valewood for residential would create a substantial problem on our traffic light, and we didn't feel that was adequately addressed in that analysis. So we contacted a company in Tampa, Gray Calhoun and Associates. By the way, they're doing the automation of the traffic lights right now for Collier County. And I said to them, you're not doing a very good job, because they're not working. They said, well, they're not done -- we're not done yet, he said. We've got a lot more work to do. Anyway, it's a very credible organization. And we asked them to use the Institute of Traffic Engineers' trip generation study to estimate the impact of this project over and above existing residential traffic. And what they've calculated with that ITE trip study is at 10 units per acre there would be an additional 1,255 cars per day over and above the existing residential. Now, the proposal -- this has been a moving target in our discussion with the developer -- at nine units per acre, that number is 1,150 additional cars per day. I found an interesting comment here in the community character plan, it essentially says, Collier County's made up of pods of isolated developments, and we are clearly one of those, with limited mobility, and it's primarily the cause of traffic congestion. We think that over time Immokalee Road will get just ever increasingly more congested. The residential build-out study said the majority of the population, when it's built out, over 55 percent would be east of 951, and they're going to be using Immokalee and creating a problem. And then when you add in these two retail stores adding thousands of cars, we are very concerned. That picture was taken yesterday at about a quarter of eight. Now, that's off season. We're not in compliance now with the concurrency management rules. And even with the development of adding additional lanes, we are very concerned about the impact at our Page 103 .0 "M___M___ '""~..,~..~,..,,-,.- September 1, 2005 light. Now, from all this, it's our conclusion -- we don't do this for a living like you do. It's our conclusion that the road system is the limiting factor. It sure looks like the road system ought to control densities. And we have read that the density bonus is discretionary. We've also read that it requires compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, which we would argue it doesn't. We would urge you to apply your discretion to this situation, and we think it makes good sense. In summary, we don't think it complies with the goals and obj ectives of the growth management plan. We think it would create a traffic problem for us that's unacceptable. We think we're looking at the perfect storm, gridlock and delays and backups, and we think the impact of all of this will be on our property values. We have a very large number of letters. In fact, we have -- we're ready to submit right now an additional 360 letters, for the record, whoever's supposed to take those. That produces 1,082 people that have signed supporting our position. And I'd ask now if anybody in the room that supports the position, please stand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker is Hal Rosen, followed by John Wooldridge. MR. ROSEN: I'll defer to Mr. Wooldridge. MR. WOOLDRIDGE: Thank you for hearing us. I am the president of the Quail Creek property owners' association. And as Mr. Shafto presented a statement for both the country club and the property owners, I just want to say that obviously the property owners are in full agreement with the presentation that was presented, and I won't waste any more of your time. Page 104 September 1,2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Don Stone, followed by Dr. Robert Ackles. MR. STONE: I withdraw my request to speak in view of the last two speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Dr. Robert Ackles, followed by Terry Schindler (sic). DR. ACKLES: Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Bob Ackles. I'm a homeowner and resident at Quail Village. And during August, another resident and homeowner, Dick Molten, and I sent letters out and a questionnaire out and requested that those who agreed with the questionnaire should return it to us. The questionnaire stated as follows: I am opposed to the rezoning of Quail II PUD to multi-family residential permitting 260 residential units, 12 units per acre in three- and four-story buildings. The developer's proposal is clearly not compatible with the three communities serviced by Valewood Drive and would significantly increase the traffic congestion at Valewood and Immokalee intersection. I support Quail Creek Country Club and the Quail Creek Estates Homeowners' Association's position that a maximum of six units per acre, limiting the building height to two stories, a minimum unit size is 1,600 square feet, aesthetic landscape buffers on Valewood Drive and adjacent to off-site traffic controls would be more in keeping with the surrounding residential communities and minimize the impact on current traffic conditions. In response to this questionnaire, we have received from Quail Village 211 affirmative answers. We have 285 residents, so this amounts to 80 percent of the residents. Page 105 --.---- September 1,2005 Now, some may say that Quail Village is adding the Willows, and they'll be under our aegis, but it's impossible to survey those people because the Willows consist of a vacant lot and a few cement blocks right at the present time. So I think 80 percent is pretty significant, plus the fact, if the Willows were present and this development was going to go in right across the street from them, I submit that possibly the same percentage, 80 percent, would vote against this development. So thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MS. BELLOWS: Terry Schneider, to be followed by Robert G. Myers, and if Mr. Myers could come up and be ready to speak right after. MR. SCHNEIDER: My name is Terry Schneider, and I'm a resident of Quail Creek Village and a member of Quail Creek Country Club. I was sent several petitions during the summer to Kentucky and signed the petitions in the affirmative. The neighbors, my neighbors, asked me to support the density of six versus 12. Subsequently, I didn't realize that the commercial -- the property is already zoned commercial. I believe that if the -- there's not some accommodation between all the parties, that the property can be developed -- will be developed commercial, possibly. I think a more compatible use for the property would be residential, and I hope some accommodation can be made. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Robert Myers, followed by Marilyn VonSeggern, if she can also come up and be ready to speak. MR. MYERS: Good morning. My name is Bob Myers. I'm Page 106 ._._~...-.._<~--,_.,,,.., .-···.-.'·P_-'-- .~.._~._,...__......_. September 1, 2005 president of Quail Village. Quail Village is both a residential community, and we own a golf club. You heard all kind of numbers this morning, and probably that's the nature of your role. Our board represents 1,000 plus people. I'm including husbands and wives, both our residents and our golf member community in that number. The four communities that are here represented this morning represent about 4,000 members, both husbands and wives, so it's a substantial number of concerned citizens. Heidi Williams mentioned the -- in her staff report and referred to it at the information meeting that was conducted in early July last month -- in that meeting where there was lots of discussion, there were 85 people out of 4,000 that attended that meeting, and there was a reference made that one of the residents was going to circulate petitions, and you have received hundreds and hundreds of petitions. Our board supports the application as it currently stands. We-- we are concerned about the density question because there could potentially be an economic impact if that density were lower on the developer, and it then could revert back to its current status of a commercial development, as was discussed earlier on. We're not in support of the six or seven density. Weare in support of the PUD application as has been presented. We all have concerns about traffic. We all have a legitimate concern about the impact on our real estate values. And, again, just to close out, our board unanimously has voted for support of the application that has been applied. So we're representing the 800 folks that have not signed petitions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. MS. VonSEGGERN: My name is Marilyn VonSeggern. I live at 11011 Linnet Lane, Longshore Lake, Naples. My husband and I own a home in Longshore Lake that directly abuts the eastern border of the Page 107 _._.~"_.,,.._.__.,_,,__n~.'____·'··"'''·''__ September 1, 2005 proposed Valewood Village. Among all the parties presenting information to you today, I believe our family and our neighbors have the most to lose or gain by your decision, and several of my neighbors are here. All those people that didn't stand up are my neighbors. My husband and I are here to urge you to recommend the rezoning change from commercial to residential as requested by the applicant, JED of Southwest Florida. With upscale residential communities on three sides of the proposed Valewood Village, residential zoning is more compatible than commercial. Under this rezoning, JED Development has agreed to several concessions, and I'm not going to repeat them because you heard them prior. We have no such guarantees with commercial development. If Valewood Village is granted the ability to be a gated community, we will also have added security on the eastern perimeter of Longshore Lake. With apologies to Mr. D'Jamoos, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. The nit-picking over which traffic study is correct or whether eight or nine, or six or nine units per acre is better is quite insignificant compared to the negative impact unrestricted commercial development could have. I have pictures that I took over at the Strand and Carlton Lakes. And I'm sorry I didn't have a PowerPoint presentation to show you what it looks like to have a three-story office building with no setbacks. Weare talking about the quality of life we have in Longshore, the property value of our homes, and the importance of having good neighbors. In my view increased traffic is a non-issue. No matter what is built, traffic will increase on Valewood. Noone knows for sure what that will be. Valewood is not the issue. Immokalee Road is the issue. Page 108 September 1, 2005 Other communities such as Quail Village, Quail Creek Estates, and Quail Creek County Club have been invited to provide input on this petition. Some of those groups have opposed the request as it stands. They are pushing for density undoable by the developer, which will result in a default to commercial zoning. I think you will agree with me that 90 percent of the impact of this development will be felt by Longshore Lake residents. Quail Village will be affected by the view from their homes, but at a distance. The boards of directors of both Longshore Lake and Quail Village support the rezoning request. I believe the needs of these two entities far outweigh other communities in the area. Maybe if I were a member of Quail Creek Country Club, the only thing I would worry about would be the traffic. I don't think I would though. I think I would consider the total effect on my neighbors. Quail Creek is a remote development from this project. I hope you will weigh the impact from the most affected, not just those who drive by. I urge you to recommend approval of this petition to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: William VonSeggern, followed by James Kirk, and if he could be ready at the podium, too. MR. VonSEGGERN: My name is William Arthur VonSeggern. I live at 11011 Linnet Lane, Naples, 34119. I would like to note that my address -- by my address you notice that my wife and I live on the western border of Longshore, directly abutting the parcel under consideration for this zoning change request. I would like you to envision in your minds the view from our lanai as we sit outside in the evening looking west in approximately the year 2009. If the property is developed commercially, we would Page 109 September 1, 2005 be looking at a brick structure 50 feet tall, lighted all night long by sodium vapor lights; we would smell the odor from the dumpsters and the byproducts of various industries; we would have the vermin and other things of nature that would come across into our property from the commercial. We would feel insecure since it's possible for people in the ungated commercial property to leap the wall onto our property and thus bypass our security gate system; we would be hearing the sounds of garbage trucks in the wee hours of the morning, the voices of patrons leaving a restaurant at 11 or 12 o'clock at night saying goodbye to each other, and the sound of delivery trucks coming to resupply the stores. If the property is zoned residential, we would be looking at a brick structure 35 feet tall, lighted all night with shielded, ordinary street lights. The only odor we might endure would be from an occasional barbecue. We would have the security of knowing that the security gates in the community would act as a second level of protection for us; we would be hearing the wonderful sound of silence, with the exception of an occasional car door closing as residents come home from an evening out. From someone who loves to sit outside in the evening, my wife and I feel that residential is the best choice for our neighborhood. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: James Kirk, followed by Robert Lewan. MR. KIRK: Hi. My name is Jim Kirk, and I'm the vice-president of the Board of Directors for Longshore Lake. Longshore, as you mayor may not know, is a middle-class community, teachers, firemen, policemen, small business owners, civil servants, retirees, and several young professional families. Traffic in season is unbearable for all of us. Traffic out of season Page 110 ,-~..._._-~" , .~".."-----~-- September 1, 2005 is very -- is just tolerable; however, no one can say for sure if commercial or residential zoning will produce more or less traffic. We all worry about getting in and out of the community in order to go to work, to shop, keep doctors' appointments, and run errands. Quail Creek Country Club members and residents of Quail Creek community seem to have, as their only concern, traffic. They have many members for the country club, and they have a smaller community than we do, and they are stuck in traffic just as we are. They first were against the rezoning, and, in fact, sent out a petition to all the members of Quail Village and to their members and to their employees and to their country club people. Then two weeks later they changed their mind and they sent out another petition to the same people opposing the -- I'm sorry -- favoring the new proposal, but at six units an acre instead of what was then proposed. They are as informed as we are that the developer at six units an acre will resort back to commercial. We've been told that, and we believe it. We don't have their resources to hire a high-priced law firm to present you with a fancy PowerPoint presentation. We also don't have the resources to hire an outside traffic expert to represent us. We are, however, the only community -- and I want to stress this. Weare the only community that is coming before you that is directly affected by this rezoning. If you look at what's on the screen now, Longshore Lake abuts with 24 houses backed up to what could be four- and five-story commercial buildings. That's 24 families. And across the street from those families, you'll notice there's another 20 to 30 houses that will look across the street to that commercial property. These are the families that have to live with whatever is built here. They're our residents, and they are, as I said, the only residents whose property values and quality of life will be directly affected by what is built on this property. Page 111 --~.'- September 1,2005 On their behalf, our board has worked with Mr. D'Jamoos to minimize the effects on these residents. He's agreed to just about everything we have presented to him; buffering between the property, paying for the flow of water into our lakes and helping with our lake maintenance, paying for the landscaping and upkeep on Valewood Drive, and keeping the buildings that abut our property at no higher than two stories. Our residents have told us that they much prefer this than having commercial property next to them. We feel the quality of life and property values of our middle-class working families and our retirees is worth much more of your evaluations than the complaints of our affluent neighbors and country club members who may spend a few extra minutes in their autos. F or those reasons, the residents in Longshore, who I am -- excuse me -- who I am representing today, request that you grant this rezoning. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Robert Lewan -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, did you have a question? MR. BELLOWS: -- followed by -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I did. MR. BELLOWS: -- Richard Brinson (sic), and if Mr. Brinson could be -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me. Mr. Schiffer, did you have a question for the last speaker? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did. Just a curiosity, which came first, the PUD or Longshore Lakes? I mean, it looks like this vacant lot -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That was already answered. It was the PUD. Page 112 September 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So these people in Longshore Lakes knew what was there when they bought into Longshore Lakes? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know if they knew, but the PUD for Quail Creek was approved prior to the Longshore Lakes projects. MR. KIRK: I've lived in -- excuse me. I've lived in Longshore Lake for 13 years. Almost 14 years ago we bought our lot. At the time we bought and at the time many of these people that abut that property bought it was zoned commercial, but it was zoned for assisted living and nursing home, and that's what they were told was going to be built in there. That was the original zoning, or that's what we were told when we all bought. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the PUD it's classified as commercial with those two uses allowed within there. So do you think you weren't told that it was commercial or -- MR. KIRK: We were told it was commercial, but it was commercial for an assisted living facility and a nursing home, and that was changed later on. Mr. Hardy changed it, and I'm not sure at what point, or had it changed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sir, let me clarify. In the PUD that was approved back in, I think it was '92, section 3.3Al, it says, permitted principal uses and structures, commercial uses as listed in the C- 3 commercial intermediate district. Then it does go on to sayan ACLF could be there. But all the uses in C-3 were already in the PUD back when that was originally signed in. MR. KIRK: Okay. So all the uses were available, but it was stated when these people moved in. Because I know the question has come up, well, they should have known something was going in there when they moved in. They did, but they were all told it was going to be, at most, a nursing home with an assisted living facility. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Page 113 ._.o_~.___ September 1, 2005 Next speaker, please. MR. BERENSON: Good afternoon, almost afternoon. I'm Richard Berenson. I live in Quail Creek Estates. I thank you for your dedication and concentration. It was most impressive. We had a neighborhood information meeting, but it didn't include any of the specifics that have been talked about today, and so many of our residents who attended that meeting are not aware of all these nuances that have taken place today and new discussions. I think there should be a new neighborhood meeting to make everybody aware of the discussions today. Furthermore, a point that was brought up earlier in the prior application had to do with school buses, and that was never discussed. And those kind of buses will certainly increase the problem to Valewood Drive entrance and exits. Also not mentioned is the substantial danger to the aging population of Quail Creek Estates and the other Quail properties. Emergency trucks will be totally unable to get into and out of Valewood Drive to assist any resident in the need of emergency vehicles. It is horrid as you see and as you observed on the pictures. And in season it will be worse, and this will present a clear and present danger to the people who are residents at Quail Creek. I also suggest that Executive Drive be considered as the main entrance and exit for this project of an additional 21 acres. And lastly, anything that you do should be totally delayed until Immokalee is finished. Immokalee is a mess now and it's going to be worse as the construction -- and we are in the third phase, so it will be another year or two before this part is fixed. And we need -- we need that extra time for the entrance and exit to service us so that -- you should delay this until the road is complete in our area east and west of us. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir? Sir? CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a question for you. Page 114 September 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. You mentioned about emergency vehicles being unable to access, and I would like you to clarify that for me. I'm not clear on that. MR. BERENSON: If you increase traffic to the point that we discussed, it will be more difficult for emergency vehicles to gain access and exit. With the line of traffic that you saw, they can't jump over the cars that are lined up every day. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's what you meant, okay. Thank you. MR. BERENSON: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Robert Lewan, followed by Garry Larkin (sic). MR. LEWAN: Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns in support of the rezoning request of JED of Southwest Florida from commercial to residential. My name is Robert Lewan, and I am the Board President for Longshore Lake Foundation. As a complex directly abutting the 21.7 -acre parcel of land under discussion, our community from the outset favored residential over commercial. This was concurred by our Board of Directors vote on June the 19th, 2005. Concessions were negotiated with the developer that have now become part of the PUD. First of all, we support the rezoning request. Secondly, we support the density of nine units per acre. This is a reduction from the developer's original request of 12 units per acre. Unfortunately, this has become an issue with our neighbors to the north, Quail Creek. They favor a lower density of six units per acre. We attempted to reach an agreement of eight units per acre, a figure they broached us with on July the 20th and then rejected at a meeting on August the 29th. As of yesterday afternoon, we still had sought to be unified on Page 115 September 1, 2005 the rezoning request to no avail. The developer has maintained all along, and all parties were informed, that a figure of six units per acre would not be economically acceptable and he would revert to commercial. Weare aware of the traffic problems that may occur but believe residential would be a better neighbor than commercial. Of the planning commission's information, the Longshore Lake community residents homes exceed the combined Quail Creek communities, and we are the most affected by what is developed on this parcel of land, whereas Quail Creek is approximately a mile away from the forthcoming development. To support our stand, we have our people -- if they would please stand. These are just some of the people, including well over 200 petitions that we presently have here, and several hundred back at the office that has to be tabulated per resident. Your concurrence to the JED rezoning request as presented would be most appreciated by the people involved. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Garry Lakin, and followed by Frank Barickman. MR. LAKIN: Thank you. My name is Garry Lakin, and I live at Quail Creek Estates, excuse me. I have four points that have not been mentioned to date. One is it was mentioned by the petitioner that he would be allowed to have 16 units per acre if he went to residential, that was allowed under the zoning codes in Collier County. I believe a careful reading of the zoning codes and also reference to the second evaluation and appraisal report in Collier County would indicate the opposite of that. F or example, in the EAR report, it is mentioned that in conversion to commercial zoning, new development that involves the Page 116 --~~'-'-'--"-"'-'--'--"---.- September 1, 2005 conversion of vested commercial developments may receive an application -- allocation, pardon me -- of 16 units per acres for every one acre -- 16 units per acre for every one acre of commercial zoning being converted, but then it says, this bonus does not apply to new development within the mixed use activity centers or interchange activity centers. And we've heard testimony before today that this PUDA is -- lies within those activity centers and the interchange activity center, so I don't think that 16 units is feasible or allowed under the zoning. Number two item that the developer said -- pardon me. They talked about access on Valewood Drive being permitted, and Mr. Strand (sic) mentioned that that wasn't his reading, and nor is it my reading. Under the Quail II 2 PUD, the original PUD, section 4, general development commitments, part 4.1 D provides that space shall be reserved to permit a future minor street connection between Valewood and lands to the east and goes on from there. It is clear in the original PUD that the only access point for this property would be a minor access point. The major access points should be at Executive Drive and Commercial, which solves a lot of problems for whatever is developed in this site if that access point is at the southeast comer of the development that slides the traffic over there, and that's been mentioned. Two other points that have been mentioned today, and one is that the Longshore residents have testified, or some residents have testified, that they oppose commercial. This was commercial. It always has been commercial. They knew when they bought it, it was commercial. It's -- what the problem here is, at the initial -- initial neighborhood meeting, the developer stood up before us and said, you really don't want commercial because, and then he went through these threats of lights all night and garbage containers. He ignored the parts Page 117 -------- September 1, 2005 of the zoning codes that prohibit such interferences. But he put the scare in the people who are adjoining the property. They don't want to see that, and so they are justifiably afraid of what the developer threatened he would do if the development went commercial. And my last point is that the board's presidents of Longshore and the Village testified in opposition apparently to what I think is a majority of the petitions from the residents. So you have -- I believe there is a divided constituency at best, and perhaps the board is out of touch with the constituents. That's a possibility. In any event, I hope that a compromise is reached, and I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, sir. I think Mr. Strain had a question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. It's actually a follow-up to staff on his first concern involving the GMP. Could you clarify that. It involves the density bonuses. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I have the memorandum from Jean Jourdan, who's with comprehensive planning, and basically the density rating system applies to the PUD overall. It allows for conversion of commercial, not commercial within an activity center, but commercial zoning. This is a PUD with commercial zoning, so, therefore, that is eligible to be calculated towards conversion of commercial in that provision of the land development code. So it does apply. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do activity centers allow a conversion of commercial to residential? MR. BELLOWS: The provision is for commercial zoning. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In a PUD. Is it for anywhere in an activity center? MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't necessarily have to be in an activity center. It can be commercial outside of an activity center. Page 118 ">,,~--_...,-"-~_. ,. _,_~,o·"....._·~.,......-,._._ September 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can it be in an activity center if it was not in the PUD? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. There are provisions in the land -- or in the growth management plan that allow for PUD commercial outside of activity centers. There are certain criteria they have to meet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Inside. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The reason this is -- I'm trying to ask is because if this gentleman's hit on an issue, I just want to make sure it's clarified for the record. You have an activity center. Within the activity center you have a commercial piece. Let's say it's 21.74 acres, not relating to this one. And you wanted to convert that to residential. It's in the activity center; it's not part of the PUD. Could you convert that to residential? MR. BELLOWS: You would have to go through the zoning. It does allow for -- the growth management plan does allow for residential, so you can convert it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think that's what -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's a yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- I'm trying to find out. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sorry for putting you on the spot, but I wanted to get it clarified. MR. BELLOWS: That's all right. I just wanted to understand your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait. Isn't the intent of that for isolated commercial properties? I mean, we discussed that in great length at the workshop. We decided to get rid of it because it was something that didn't make sense with the smart growth. It was just that if you had an isolated piece of commercial property out there somewhere, you could turn that in and ask for 16 units an acre or -- I still don't see how -- MR. BELLOWS: That was the intent of the original creation of Page 119 September 1, 2005 that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, this is next to commercial property. I mean, this isn't an isolated parcel. MR. BELLOWS: The codes don't make that distinction though, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your presentation. MR. LAKIN: One other point. You're mentioning, if I may -- that -- one other premise that's been mentioned here before, and it was mentioned briefly in the presentation by Bob Shafto, and that is the right of this developer to come in and claim unified ownership of his PUD, his 21 acres, so he can see if he can get his property rezoned without the consent of the owners of the rest of the PUD, yet he wants density spread over the whole PUD. You have a situation in the Collier County code that, in my mind, is inconsistent, it has not been challenged legally in court, there's no case law, there's no rulings, there's no definitions, it's ambiguous, and there's a right of people, neighbors and homeowners' associations, to challenge this, if the developer has the right to go -- to have the definition go his way both times. For purposes of unified ownership, he talks about the small PUD, 21 acres. For purposes of blending the density, he can talk about the 194 units. There's that inconsistency, and I think that at some point the Collier County board is going to be challenged on that ambiguity in the code. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe before he leaves, he did bring up another good point, Ray that you could answer. Is the original access to this PUD, isn't there only one access point on the original PUD to the commercial, and that's to Executive Drive? In the documents we've been getting, which are really pretty Page 120 September 1, 2005 crude documents, it does show all the access points, and it only shows one allowed down on Executive Drive, right? MR. BELLOWS: I think Heidi has the master plan and can take a look. MS. WILLIAMS: Heidi Williams, Zoning and Land Development Review. In your staff report, there are two master plans. One is the original adopted master plan, and that does not indicate where the access points must be located. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The original one? MS. WILLIAMS: The original one does not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I take exception. It shows the location of Longshore Lake, it shows the location of all the access points, and it shows this one down at what ultimately became Executive Drive as the only access point for the commercial. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have the original PUD, if you'd like a copy. And I think you're right. The original master plan doesn't show the access points attached to the PUD. Is that the one you're referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the documents we got on this are probably the worst documents we've ever gotten, yet, this is a pretty critical issue. But I do think it -- I mean, what little it shows, it does show the access points, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain has the original PUD, and he's going to put the map on the overhead scanner so we can all view it. And that's it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's the access point. MS. WILLIAMS: Which access are you referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That little black mark coming In. What do you think that is? I mean-- MS. WILLIAMS: Right there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. No, no, no, no. Page 121 September 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Down at the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Move to Immokalee. There you go. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Lower left. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then if you go up, it shows you the access to the other development. It shows you the roads. I mean, what little it shows, it shows access points. MS. WILLIAMS: That is the current location of part -- a portion of Executive Drive. Certainly the connection to Immokalee Road where the short north/south portion that is termed Commercial Drive is not shown, the remainder of Executive Drive is not shown. I don't believe there's anything in the PUD text or master plan that limits access to Executive Drive for this commercial portion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we get these documents that are pretty crudely, borderline vend (sic) diagrams, and they show very little but usually what they do show is the access. So in other words, in the future we should not pay attention to these marks? MS. WILLIAMS: I believe when the master plan is a little unclear, we defer to the text in the PUD document, which does not limit access to Valewood from this property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the following issue -- it looks like there's been some subdivision along Valewood, it's all commercial adjoining this property, so this isn't an isolated piece of commercial. It looks like when that was subdivided it cut off that access; is that right? Or if you look at the site map we were given in our packets, it's the only document I have. It wouldn't be in an aerial unless -- MS. WILLIAMS: There has been subdivision of the commercial property. There are parcels on the south side of Executive Drive. The master plan -- the original master plan shows the stub out of Executive Drive. You can see that it curves to the north -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Page 122 ...._"___.",..'_._~.M'_'.___" September 1, 2005 MS. WILLIAMS: -- and then wraps back down to the south. The properties south of that Executive Drive have been subdivided and developed in a commercial fashion. They do access onto Executive Drive. The properties on the north side of Executive Drive are -- some are site planned and some are not. At this time their access point is on Executive Drive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See what I mean? The way this was subdivided, Executive Drive's access to this property, looked like it was cut off, the subdivision, or there may be unity in that parcel with the parcel above or something, but anyway. MS. WILLIAMS: One portion of the subject site, if taken on as one parcel as separated by proper -- the property appraiser's office, is not adjoining to Executive Drive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to see what -- since you're the one that -- MR. LAKIN: I'm sorry. I have a map. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have to go to the-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Go to the podium and use the overhead, then everybody in the public and all of us can see it, too. Please restate your name for the record, please. MR. LAKIN: Yes. My name is Garry Lakin. And I would like to say that the map that is now being shown to you, I believe I got off the Internet as a copy of the PUD, I'll call Quail II. And you can see that the lower south edge, you can see the way it is today with commercial on both sides of Executive Drive and the main access point at that southeast Commercial and Executive Drive, as -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. LAKIN: And then there's an access point also on Valewood. And my understanding, according to the master -- the PUD, the original PUD, is the access point on Valewood is supposed to be minor and the main access is at the southeast comer at Page 123 -,,""-,--,~- .-" ._-~,-""",--,., ~,., September 1, 2005 Commercial and Executive Drive. Now that's not a map I made up. I believe I got it off the Internet, and it's a copy of what exists. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the same. That's what we have, too, but -- and the poignant point I want to make is that the access off of Valewood is new to this application. It wasn't available in the prior PUD. MR. LAKIN: That could be. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, it's not in the prior PUD. This is the new PUD that's on the screen. MS. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Schiffer, staffs interpretation of access to this site does not prohibit access from Valewood. The reference in the PUD document in section 4.2 is -- does reference lands to the east, and that has been interpreted as access point for Longshore Lake and is not limiting on the development of this 21.7 -acre parcel under consideration today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I kind of agree that that's what that means, but I also think in the exhibit, the intent of the exhibit was to limit where the access was to this commercial property. We could argue that forever. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Very good. Before the next speaker begins, Ray, how many speakers do we have, including the one currently at the podium? MR. BELLOWS: Looks like I have four. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Tell you what, first thing I want to do is commend everybody in the public because there's obviously strong disagreement, and everybody has been very respectful. And one of the things that county can use more of is people who can disagree without being disagreeable. So you're to be commended for that because it's been my experience that people were not always civil in expressing their opinions, so thank you very much. And we will continue that theme. But right now, in favor of our court reporter who's been keeping Page 124 September 1, 2005 track of us for two hours without a break, we're going to take a 10-minute break, then resume with our next speaker. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Call the planning commission back to order, please. If everybody would retake their seats. Whatever the outcome, we've got a good process going, so we're going to stick with it. We're in the final round of our registered speakers. Next speaker, please, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Frank Barickman, followed by Gary Wrage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, before we do that, can't we discuss what's on the screen, which is the issue of the 16 unit density? MR. BELLOWS: It's up to -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that a presentation by staff? Is it somebody making a presentation, or can we -- MR. BELLOWS: I don't think there's any presentation. We don't have -- unfortunately we didn't know this issue, and I don't have a compo planner up here, but -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Let's pull that off the screen so we don't distract our attention from the speakers, and we'll address that as soon as we complete our registered speakers. Thank you. Y "? es, SIr. MR. BARICKMAN: My name is Frank Barickman. I live at 11035 Linnet Lane in Naples. I live in Longshore Lake. I've lived there for over 12 years. My residence will abut the new development, whatever it may be, in this area. I feel very strongly that it should be residential. I feel that the developer has -- we've come to an agreement with the developer, and it is satisfactory. I feel that when you have on the west a very pretty golf course and on the east a very beautiful homeowners' association development, why in the world would you want a commercial right in the middle of it? Page 125 September 1,2005 So I think if I asked everyone here today -- and this question hasn't been asked -- do you want commercial in this area or do you want residential? I doubt there'd be one person here that would stand up and say that they want commercial in there. I thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Gary Wrage, followed by Meggan Davis. CHAIRMAN BUDD: In spite of the fact that Gary Wrage is the past chairman of the planning commission, we'll hear his testimony without any bias. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is he allowed to even talk here? MR. WRAGE: Gary Wrage, 11023 Linnet Lane, a 10-year resident of Longshore Lakes. In other words, you want to hear what the realtor promised me was going to go in there; is that what you're asking me? He said something about gopher tortoises, and they would never build back there. No. When I moved in there, I did my homework. I know that was commercial. And everybody stole all of my thunder. All the comments have been made that should be. I'm begging you, please, forward this to the county commission with a recommendation for approval. I want a house back there of almost any height, but I do like the idea that it's only 50 feet. I think it's a good project and a good developer, negotiated in good faith. And, by the way, I own my wall back there as part of that wall. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Meggan Davis, followed by the last speaker, Clay Brooker. MS. DAVIS: Hi. This is afternoon now. Good afternoon, and Page 126 September 1, 2005 thank you for your time. My name is Meggan Davis, and I'm a Longshore Lake resident. I've lived there for 16 years. I'm also a past President. I started the initial negotiations with D'Jamoos, JED, earlier this year. And I -- just for the record, he's met with us whenever we've asked him to meet with him. There's been a change of leadership at Longshore. He's continued to meet with them, and I think really operate in good faith. So I appreciate his cooperation on it. My comments are very succinct. Everyone who's come up has said that they prefer -- that they want residential. I mean, everyone has said. There's been concessions made on the part of Longshore, there's been concessions made on the part of JED, concessions made on the part of Quail Village, and I think that we're depending upon your advocacy and the wisdom of Solomon. It seems to be a unit number that they have -- that that is a problem. But for compatibility issues and quality of life issues, I think residential is the way to go. I support the petitioner's request. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BROOKER: Clay Brooker with the law firm of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson. We have been assisting Quail Creek Country Club with respect to this petition. I was not planning to speak but feel forced to make one very general comment. There was some representation about an offer that was made and then later withdrawal -- withdrawn. We understand that all such negotiations are confidential. We ask that the board not be biased by that particular comment. And I'll leave it at that, that there is more to the story, but I will respect the confidentiality of the negotiations. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I can tell you, it was such a passing comment, if you hadn't have reminded me about it, I wouldn't even Page 127 " ~.--_."",,*,,-,-_._,_.,, September 1, 2005 know what you were talking about. Are there any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Are there summary comments by the petitioner? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We do. I'm going to make some brief comments, then I'm going to ask Mr. Jones to come up here and address traffic issues specifically in response to some comments or, I guess, factual testimony made by Mr. Strain on traffic comments. I don't believe -- and I'll ask you, Mr. Strain, did you go back to look at the original TIS that was done for the proj ect? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I didn't have one. I was hoping transportation would have done that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. But I mean, you did make some statements that you said might be logical conclusions, but they're not based upon any facts in the record right now. So I just want to address that as those are your guesses as to what could have happened in the past and are not supported by any facts in the record right now. We need to get back to the compo plan. The compo plan today would not allow commercial development on that property. The reason commercial got to stay is because of the zoning reevaluation that occurred, and it was determined that because there were improvements that were in place already, the commercial zoning would not be taken away. Because back in 1989 when the comprehensive plan was adopted, we went to the activity center concept. And commercial in this location was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. And there's a provision in the comprehensive plan that talks about converting commercial that's in the wrong location to residential, and it allows up to 16 units per acre. And you go through a zoning reevaluation and analysis of the criteria. And if we meet the Page 128 "..,.,.",~-"-"",",-"-~-,..".;" September 1, 2005 criteria, we are entitled to be rezoned to that -- to that use. I take exception to the statement that it's discretionary . We have the ability to meet the facts. And if we factually meet the criteria, we are entitled to what we're requesting. There's no discretion. It's your job as the planning commission to evaluate the facts. We presented our case. We provided factual testimony . Your staff made factual statements. There was discussion from Quail Creek Country Club Estates -_ they're the first speaker -- about a traffic analysis. He's not provided the detailed analysis. He just provided you with an excerpt, so I don't know what the entire report says. It would be nice if he would provide the entire report so we can all look at it and see, you know, the conclusions. We have our traffic report in the record. It's been reviewed by your staff. Your staff is recommending approval. Mr. Jones will get into the details about some of the issues raised regarding traffic. It's important we have to look at the facts. We have to look at competent testimony, not testimony that's not supported by anything but statements from somebody who's telling you what another report said when we don't have that report in front of us. If we were standing here today with a 196-acre parcel that had no improvements on it and I came to you and I said, we want to do a multi-use project that has a golf course in it, that has single-family and has multi-family in it with development standards for the multi-family that says, two stories not to exceed 35 feet adjacent to our residential neighbor, two stories not to exceed 35 feet on Valewood Drive, two stor -- and three stories not to exceed 45 feet, with an overall project density of 2.9 units per acre, I feel fairly confident that that would be submitted or transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. There's nothing unusual about that type of PUD that gets presented to the planning commission all the time, and that is 100 Page 129 --.--..'^ September 1, 2005 percent consistent with the comprehensive plan that talks about a base unit density of not to exceed four units per acre. We are less than four units per acre. Internal to this project you have the Meadows, sometimes referred to as the Willows. But the Meadows project, that is 10 units per acre within the same PUD, immediately adjacent to a single-family portion of the PUD. We're asking for nine, after we've had a lot of nice discussions with Longshore Lakes, with Quail Creek Estates. We haven't reached -- we haven't reached an agreement with them and don't meet eye to eye with them on that, but we've had civil discussions. We've made our proposal, they've made their proposal, and we just respectfully disagree with what they're saying. I don't think Mr. Shafto meant that it was a moving target in a negative way. I think he meant it in the fact that we'd been negotiating and trying to figure out what everybody can live with. And we're still doing that and still -- you know, I don't want to get into confidential negotiations. But we have done nothing but been willing to speak to all of our neighbors on how this impacts them. And as you can see, we came in at 12 units per acre. We're at nine units per acre, reduced height, increased setbacks for Longshore Lakes. We have worked hard to do the best we could to make this an economically viable residential project. If we can't get more than the six units per acre that Quail Creek Estates and the country club are requesting, it will be a commercial project. And that's not a threat; that's the only zoning I have left. I only have commercial left on the property . We have to do that. So we're prepared to go forward with the commercial if we have to. I don't think that the people -- the general comments have been that they want commercial. It's a question of density. We're telling you we can't do it at six units per acre. Page 130 .." m"_____..~ .._'.;._",_..,,"~.,,"..'" September 1,2005 There's already a project in the development at 10 units per acre, so we're not asking for something that's not already within the project itself. Y .? es, SIr. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just a little confused. Before you made a point that it really can't be commercial. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is commercial. No, it can be commercial. It's C-3. That's the only zoning I have on the property today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then I didn't clearly understand what you were conveying before when you said about the '89 and the rest of it when -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct, in 1989. If I were to come to you today and I were to ask for the approval of that PUD with a C-3 zoning, you would not permit it. It would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. But it got to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it is. You have vested. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have. I've got the right to continue to go forward. So that's my point about consistency and compatibility. The comprehensive plan has already decided that I shouldn't be commercial on that site, although I -- because I had some right, I was allowed to continue to keep that. But there's a provision to encourage me to not be commercial, and that is to convert to residential. We're not asking for anything that's atypical for any other mixed-use project in Collier County, by mixed-use meaning multi-family and single-family combined together. Frequently you see the multi-family at a higher density than the approved base density. That's not unusual. That's what you do. You put the multi-family together, and it has a higher net density on that acreage, but the overall proj ect density is what the overall proj ect density is. There's been discussion about we're in an activity center. Let's Page 131 .,-,..",-,-, ,~,.,,-.,.,.,,-,,~..",.. September 1, 2005 make that real clear. We're not in an actIvIty center. We're three-quarters of a mile from an activity center. We're within a residential density band that would allow us to request an additional three units per acre. There already is, Mr. Schiffer, plenty of retail in the area. It's within three-quarters of a mile of us. I don't think that you need more commercial that close to the activity center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we just determined there's a lot more use than retail in the commercial area. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And there's office uses that can go into those other areas and have gone in those areas. You know, Pelican Strand's got offices. It's all -- it's all in the general vicinity. We have been working with the communities. We had a town hall meeting as recently -- it was Tuesday, correct? Everybody was invited to it, Quail Creek, Quail Village, Longshore Lakes, to where we talked about all these issues. The gentleman who said that, you know, he wished he would have known that we were down to nine units per acre, that was -- you know, that's been out there for quite a while with Longshore Lakes and Quail Village, and I know it's been discussed for quite a while. That's nothing new. With that I would like Gavin to get into some of the transportation issues to rebut some of the statements in the record. And with that, we'll open ourselves up to any questions you may have on our -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why don't we do your questions right now. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. Before Gavin, we've got some questions of you. Mr. Abernathy? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure, fire away. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rich, look at that section of the code that's displayed on the visualizer. The second sentence, Page 132 --- "'''-''''"~-'"'¡''"'~--~'~'<-'"^'' September 1, 2005 density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements and, emphasize and, are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus provision, and so forth. You tried to tell us that all you have to do is meet the criteria and they're entitlements, and that's clearly not what this says. If it's -- in order to read it the way you want it read, you would have to take the words density bonuses are discretionary not entitlements and strike them and just start with, they're dependent on meeting the criteria. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Abernathy, I don't agree with your interpretation of the comprehensive plan and what that says. It has always been interpreted, and the law is clear in Florida, that if you meet established criteria for a rezone request, you're entitled to the rezone. That -- you're entitled to it if you meet the criteria. You're to determine whether or not I've met the criteria. If I've met the criteria, then I think you have to vote my way. I don't think you can come to the conclusion that, Mr. Y ovanovich, your client met every one of these criteria, but I don't feel like giving it to you anyway. I don't think the law gives you that discretion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Richard, you're saying our COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It sure does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- our growth management plan MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think the -- yeah, what I'm telling you is I don't think the law in Florida will allow you to ignore the fact that I have met the criteria, and you can just say, you know what, I don't care if you met the criteria, because then there's no reason to have the criteria. There's no reason to put me through the exercise of proving that I've met all the criteria where you can just simply say, ah, we don't really care. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do you have a question, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't. Page 133 <~...---,_._;,.;'''''...<--.. September 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Other questions for Mr. Yovanovich? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Richard, do you have a copy that I could look at now from the Quail Creek -- original Quail Creek traffic impact statement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you have a copy of the original Quail Creek II impact statement I could look at? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you have a copy of the Longshore Lakes impact statement I could take a look at? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know if any of them used the capture rate for their traffic counts? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I do not know. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you know the answer to any of those questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm going to find out in a little while. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Well, we'll find out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Other questions for Mr. Yovanovich? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think your traffic engineer was going to speak to us. MR. JONES: Good afternoon. My name's Gavin Jones. I work for WilsonMiller. I am the author of the traffic impact statement that accompanied this application. When that application and impact statement was put Page 134 ~~~.._..~~.__.~,,-""" ." '~...."."_..._,--"'".~~".- September 1, 2005 together, the trip generation information in it was based just on the additional multi-family dwelling units, and at that time it was 12 units per acre, and the total number was 260. And the traffic in the analysis period was the p.m. peak hour, which was what was required by the county reviewers. And the conclusion from that amount of traffic was that the impacts on the adjacent arterials would be insignificant in all cases and di minimis in most. It was done that way in the absence of analyzing all the uses together that would be contributing traffic down Valewood Drive and the effect of internal capture and pass-by capture. It was analyzed in the absence of those things because it's quicker and easier to do it that way and because -- and because in the absence of those capture rates, it's actually a conservative estimate of the increase in traffic that would be coming from the new development, and because the conclusion was that the effects were di minimis, there didn't seem to be a need to analyze it in any other fashion. Then we went to a public workshop and discovered that there was a lot of concern about traffic. There seemed to be a focus on traffic trying to get out of Valewood Drive in the a.m. peak period, and there was an analysis done by another consultant that tried to incorporate trip capture and look at, you know, the combination of all the uses within the PUD and not just -- not just what would happen on this parcel in isolation. So I have the tools and the ability to do that kind of analysis, and I did. Used an estimate for future background traffic that included 858 multi-family dwelling units -- or I'm sorry -- single-family dwelling units, 60 multi-family dwelling units, an assumption of development on the commercial parts of the PUD that are not under discussion for rezone, and you know, could ultimately be developed commercial. What would the traffic from all of those uses be, including pass-by capture for any commercial uses including internal capture Page 135 _____,,"h September 1, 2005 between complementary uses. Set that as a base line, and then compared additional traffic from alternate proposals on the parcel under discussion today. And developing it at nine units per acre, which is what you're, you know, considering today, the traffic in the a.m. or the p.m. peak period is significantly less than you would expect to get. The increase in traffic for the entire PUD is less with nine units per acre residential than it is for a plausible combination of use under the existing C-3 zonIng. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: And I can put those numbers on the visualizer if you'd like. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I have a question. MR. JONES: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You said you were directed by staff to conduct the evaluation in the p.m. peak; is that correct? MR. JONES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What staff? Was that __ MR. JONES: That's transportation planning staff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Now that -- if I'm not mistaken, on Immokalee Road that's when everybody's pretty much going east; is that right? MR. JONES: In the p.m.? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. JONES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's on the north side, so their entry into Immokalee Road would be going -- generally going west, I would presume. I'm just fascinated that they picked that particular time. I'm not sure it has great relevance, but I'm going to ask Mr. Scott why they would do that. MR. JONES: Oh, I could answer that, save him a trip. Page 136 - ~'_·__*'·'M~_ '~-"---.,..."",,"~-'~ --.,..--- September 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, why don't you do that then. MR. JONES: Because normally in most parts of the county the p.m. peak period is the -- is the heaviest hour of the day, and so that is the chosen analysis period. I can tell you that, you know, we're here seeking a rezone at the moment. At the site development plan stage there will be an additional traffic analysis required and submitted, and it's at the discretion of staff to ask for an analysis in the a.m. peak period, and I've submitted -- you know, I've followed through applications from the rezone to the site development stage and done -- provided p.m. peak hour analysis at the rezone stage but a.m. and p.m. at the site development plan approval stage. So that's -- you know, staff has the option of doing that of seeking an analysis in the a.m. period. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm not questioning that. I'm offering the opportunity to learn more about -- all of us to learn more about the -- many people here believe that the a.m. peak is the critical factor for them, that they're going to lose opportunities to get on the roadway, et cetera. And so I wanted to get that issue out, if I could. MR. JONES: Yeah. And we didn't analyze conditions. We didn't count turns at any of the intersections in the a.m. peak period. We would do so and will do so if requested. What I did do is I did look at just the trip generation numbers coming in and out of the total PUD and how those will change under different development scenarios. And even in the a.m. peak period, the exiting traffic will be -- the change in exiting traffic in the a.m. peak period will be greater with one possible commercial mixture on that parcel versus nine units per acre residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How do you figure that out? I mean, because -- MR. JONES: Those are done using ITE trip generations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The testimony is that the Page 137 ".-~,.~."--., -··'·.____,.__'N,. September 1, 2005 traffic's in the opposite direction. So if you're adding cumulatively, you're missing the fact that they're both going different directions. In other words, the residential will join the other residential and tie up that intersection worse. The commercial will be on the other side of the road, and -- MR. JONES: I'm saying the total-- the change in the total traffic from all uses, all uses -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Added together? MR. JONES: -- commercial and residential added all together. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. JONES: As I said, started with a base line of what the future would look like with nothing on that parcel and __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But could that concept miss the point that things are going in different directions? MR. JONES: Well, no. The analysis -- I mean, the ITE trip generation numbers provide you entering and exiting numbers for the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, and I produced all of them for both the combination of all the land uses as a base line and then for what the total combination of land uses would be with the addition of either commercial or residential on this parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So your testimony is that if that was a commercial property, there would be more traffic exiting the parcel in the a.m. period than the residential would cause? MR. JONES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, where are these people coming from? Did they sleep overnight in the office? MR. JONES: No. There's a certain amount of -- there's a certain amount of deliveries that would be made to businesses in the morning, and those trucks are leaving. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's move on a second. The question is, did you think that if there was a connection between Valewood and Executive Drive probably about where they show the Page 138 ".._-~-, -,' '·"'·__''''''___n»__. September 1, 2005 access point, would that take pressure off of the other intersection? Would that be a better way for people to exit these developments? MR. JONES : Well, it will -- it will depend ultimately on the nature of the access that is provided at those intersections on Immokalee Road by the designer of the improvement. The tendency for the traffic to use the intersection will depend on whether they can make the movement they want when they get there. The designers of Immokalee Road may decide that some intersections will remain full movement and some will not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know what the answer was but-- , MR. JONES: And my answer is, I don't know what the answer is until the designers of Immokalee Road decide what those intersections are going to look like and what movements will be permitted in them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But right now the way it is, I mean, does the ability to make an eastward turn off of that Executive Drive where there's no ability at the Valewood Drive -- so if -- anybody going east out of this development now is going up, swinging around through some other project and coming on back. MR. JONES: Well, anybody that's leaving -- and we saw them leaving east when we counted turns at that intersection. So there are people that are leaving and going east. It's difficult, it's difficult. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Might be hair raising, but you don't want to raise mine. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for this speaker? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I've got some. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. -- Gavin, did you review the TIS for the Quail Creek PUD? MR. JONES: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did you review the TIS for the Page 139 "'-..----".. . ·.·n"...______..¥..__ September 1, 2005 Quail Creek II PUD? MR. JONES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did you review the TIS for the Longshore Lakes PUD? MR. JONES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know if any of those TISs that you didn't review have any references to capture rates? MR. JONES: I don't, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Your statement that a total of all the increases of the traffic for the entire PUD would be less with this going to residential? MR. JONES: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How did you conclude that if you didn't know if there was any capture rates involving the original TIS? MR. JONES: I can do those calculations and I did those calculations. I'm capable and competent to analyze a mixture of uses and the capture between them. I can put it on the visualizer if you'd like. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't care how you get about it. I'm going to ask you how you did it then. MR. JONES: Sure. This is a summary -- this is the summary table. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We can save a lot of time if you just answer my questions and you can do it from pointing on this, if you'd like. You have 360 residential units, single- family that are on Valewood Drive in the original PUD. What is your trip generation rate that you're using for the EDT for those? MR. JONES: Well, I wasn't looking at daily traffic because I wasn't aware that anyone was -- any reviewer was going to be concerned about the change in daily traffic. I focused on what typically is the concern of reviewers, which is the a.m. and p.m. peak Page 140 '--- .. "-_..~-~~- September 1, 2005 periods. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you stop wiggling that? It's difficult to read. I guess it's much more difficult. MR. JONES: So this is-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, before you go farther -- let me ask the questions, we can save some time. Transportation element provided to us by staff, the comment was, the proposed conversion to allow 260 multi-family dwellings will generate 1,446 weekday trips. Now, how does that calculation relate? Is that an a.m./p.m., or is that weekday? MR. JONES: If they said it was weekday, I assume. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm trying to compare to. That's the only source of comparison I could find. MR. JONES: Okay. I focused my analyses on the a.m. and p.m. peak periods -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. JONES: -- rather than daily traffic. And I can tell you that ITE only provides recommendations on internal and pass-by capture rates in the p.m. peak period. And so really the most accurate analysis that incorporates both pass-by capture for retail and internal capture for retail and internal capture between complementary uses is in the p.m. peak period. But the table that's on the visualizer now is for -- is for one -- you know, the future for the entire PUD in the absence of development on the parcel, it includes pass-by capture for the retail uses, includes internal capture between -- between complementary uses. All of the capture rates are based on ITE recommendations. ITE -- ITE makes recommendations on maximum capture rates by direction between pairs of uses. And I did an analysis that made sure that none of the single direction capture rates between pairs of uses exceeded the ITE maximums. So I calculated the capture rates in that fashion and produced an Page 141 ,.-.,-,.,-..--".~,..~ .",.,,,.~~-..- '~_""""""""""d'_'"""'__""'_'~"""'_'_'__ September 1, 2005 external trip total for the entire PUD and then added difference types of development on the parcel under discussion today. And __ COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's fine. I understand what you're saying. Honestly, I don't understand what you're saying. I understand what I was looking for from you, and you haven't provided it. Basically I want to know, then you did not -- you do not know what the internal -- if they used or if there were any internal capture rates used for the original TISs? MR. JONES: I don't know, no. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. JONES: I feel that, you know, you're absolutely correct, that it is the most accurate way to analyze -- analyze what's going to be happening in the future, and that's why -- that's why I did that analysis. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm -- still need to talk to Mr. Scott, because somehow I've got to find out if anybody's seen these internal -- these ghost internal capture rates, if that's what we want to call them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask you a question. The thing on the screen is, when you say background, that's what would be developed today, correct, under the current commercial zoning or __ MR. JONES: No, no, no. That's what would be -- that's what could plausibly be there in the absence of any development on the parcel. That was -- that was the starting point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This right here? MR. JONES : Yes, okay. And then I did similar -- I have similar tables that look like that, only they add either additional multi-family units to reflect the fact that the parcel is developed multi-family, but, again, look at the possible trips that can be captured between pairs of complementary uses, ensuring that none of the capture rates by direction exceed any of the ITE maximums, and then look at what the Page 142 ..- ~,~..""---,.,,.~ -'-'..",.---_. -_.....,..,~_.... September 1, 2005 new external traffic is with the addition of some development of some sort on the parcel. So I did that for -- both for nine units per acre, 196 multi-family units on the parcel, and I also did it for 230,000 square feet of commercial in the parcel, a mixture of office and retail and medical office. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do we have that study? MR. JONES: I have those numbers here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do we have that study? MR. JONES: No, you do not, no. That wasn't prepared for the __ it was prepared very late, and it was provided to staff to get their comment, and they -- and they, you know, didn't see any problems or flaws in the analysis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. JONES: It wasn't provided as part of the initial application because, as I said, it did not seem necessary. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions for Mr. Jones? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Jones, did you have any further presentation or just here to answer our questions? MR. JONES: Sure. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are not. Mr. Y ovanovich, anyone else from your team? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. And if you have other questions, we're happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We know where to find you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Rich, I just have one question. I just want to verify some information. Does the applicant actually own the property, or is it under contract? Page 143 ·___"~w" '.-.-_.,"~- .'..".-..'''.."'.........-.-.-,...."." .- "'. "._._._._>.~--"."'~-~-" September 1, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: He owns the property. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like -- can I ask Bruce one question? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bruce, with all our studies, all our smart growth stuff, all that stuff, did you ever look at and consider maybe a mixed-use thing for this? I mean -- because I could see, you know, that access drive I'm pushing for, I could see that be the main street, a little bit of retail, a little bit of commercial downtown. MR. TYSON: Great-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Residential blocking, Vale __ Longwood (sic), I mean, that would be the thing that would solve everybody's problems. MR. TYSON: It's an excellent question. And the answer is, yes, we did. As a matter of fact probably, I don't know, four or five months got absorbed into what's the best way to approach all of this. And I told you, taking a comprehensive look at that, we looked at the blank parcels of land, seeing if we could absorb those into the project, seeing if we could get some unanimity into this project that would come in off of -- off of Immokalee Road and capture some visual aspect to it that would make it to the point where it was something that was really special and could work. The reality was, and the bottom line in the long run, nobody wanted to join forces with that. They all thought it was a great concept, but, in fact, nobody wanted to play. The other side -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, who's -- excuse me a second. Who's nobody; the neighbors or-- MR. TYSON: No, the owners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 144 ---_."'~ -~._- ~'-..--->-..."" --.. -... . _.' "".............._-""......., September 1, 2005 MR. TYSON: The owners of those parcels. Remember, did you see when we had the complete subdivision that was going on along Executive Drive, one of those plans that was put out? Ray do you have that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We did, I did. Remember, that's the one I questioned why the access was -- MR. TYSON: We had to deal, or the D'Jamooses had to deal with four or five different owners. All of them thought it was a great idea, but, in essence, at the time nobody wanted to step up and say, okay, I'll join you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the testimony that you just gave Robert that he owns the whole property, why __ MR. TYSON: He does own -- well, he owns everything that you see in red. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So wouldn't this involve everything we see in red? MR. TYSON: No, not my earlier conversation just a few seconds ago. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the mixed use I was referring to, if you put a connector off of Executive Drive up into the middle of Valewood, just about where you show your access, that could be, quote, your main street of a really cute little mixed used, and the people and the residents would all be stopping there and having dinner, not that we don't want them out on the streets in our area-- MR. TYSON: We understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you know, but they wouldn't have to come out, so -- MR. TYSON: I understand completely. We've done a number-- if you can appreciate, we've done a number of look into and see what does and what doesn't work. And any time you wind up getting a proj ect that we call the mixed use, how do you wind up getting these neighbor or town centers? How do they work? Page 145 ,..~.."--'~'""---~-_.,_._--- September 1, 2005 What you saw when you were presented Ave Maria, that worked because Ave Maria is its own entity, has 5,000 acres, has something that you can control. You come into a proj ect that is relatively small of 21 acres, yes, you've got a significant acreage behind it, but the reality is, at the most we're going to have about 1,000 units, let's just say arbitrarily, that will come in ultimately up and down Valewood Drive. That is not sufficient to hold any kind of critical retail operation for any substantial amount of time. I think we could get a retail appraiser or a retail developer in here, and you could put them back in that location, and the reality is, that over time, it would probably fail, and it would probably fail because there's not enough people to sustain it. And sustainability is the big issue, and you just don't have the critical mass in order to make just one or two retail components, even though they may be only 4- or 5- or 6,000 square feet. The challenge is when you get to those low numbers, it's impossible to make it work over an extended period of time, also given the fact that much of the traffic that goes in and out of here is seasonal. You have a fair number of people now, that for -- especially from Longshore, that wind up using this on a full-time basis. But we did look at that. I mean, it's not to say that we didn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's too bad you didn't, because the developer, with all due respect, did an excellent project. I mean, they would be the ones that could pull that off. MR. TYSON: I agree completely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We really need-- MR. TYSON: I agree completely, and we tried -- very difficult to make that happen. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We really need to get back on focus. However valid that might be, that's not the petition that's here before us today. Page 146 September 1,2005 Are there other questions for staff? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just have a quick question of Don Scott. I'm sorry to belabor this point, but I want a clarification, since Mr. Y ovanovich brought it up so eloquently. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Watch yourself, Rich. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, did you review the TIS for Quail Creek, Quail Creek II or Longshore Lakes in regards to the review of this project? MR. SCOTT: The original, no. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Do you know -- MR. SCOTT: You understand, we've only existed about four years, so I don't think we'd ever have it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Do you know then if they would have relied on a capture rate? MR. SCOTT: Not sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Would it have been an assumption that that could have happened? MR. SCOTT: It could have, but, you know, if you look at history of these parcels, how they're put together, this whole thing should have been a DRI to start with. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, we've been through that before. If the -- I had talked to you about some calculations that I did from my understanding of ITE, and basically it was that you take the rate of whatever the use is in there, multiply it times the number of those uses, you get a weekly, daily -- or EDT, then a certain percentage of that can be allocated to capture rate if the developer so chooses. Is that a reasonable assumption? MR. SCOTT: Some -- yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And does the same kind of reasonable assumption apply if it's a passer-by, 10 to 15 percent? MR. SCOTT: Yeah, it can be higher depending on the type of thing, like we talked about. Page 147 -"...,--,""-..-.",-- September 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Clearly for the record there is no records that I know of that say that was done for this project. So you don't know of any? MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any further questions for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I want to ask Rich one question, if I may. This is fairly straightforward. If I maintain my position that you're not entitled to the benefits of the commercial conversion provision, that would leave you with four units base density and three for the mixed-use activity? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The residential density at seven units, yes, SIr. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can you live with seven? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I was hoping you -- that's not a simple question. Straightforward, but it's not simple. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it's a yes or no question. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, but it's not one that Rich Y ovanovich can answer right this second, but if you give me a minute to caucus. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it would make the difference on whether I vote for or against, I think. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Excuse me. Mr. Abernathy, there was discussion at one time about eight units per acre. That we can live with. I don't know that we can go all the Page 148 '"-«""'_""___'~""'A September 1, 2005 way down to seven. We probably can do -- I mean, to be honest with you, the number -- all right. I can go seven and a half, is what I was told. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. MR. YO V ANOVICH: You know, that's __ COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let's make it seven because anything beyond that relies on the conversion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: On a half an acre -- on one half a unit of . converSIon. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if you take the position you're not entitled to any -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's if you take that position. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I do. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And I've got one of the votes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know you do. I know you do. And-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: In other words, I could very easily by the time the members finish discussing this, I could very easily vote against the project, but I don't believe we're going to the commercial. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Abernathy, we -- that's fine. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Seven is fine? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fine. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So with the close of the public hearing-- MR. YO V ANOVICH: Do I get to sit down now? CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- we're looking -- we're now looking for a motion. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-7152 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations and the Page 149 ._--~~,_. ...........- September 1, 2005 recommendation of the county planning commission. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. At how many units per acre? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: At seven units per acre. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. That was a motion by Mr. Adelstein and a second by Mr. Murray. Discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have discussion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'd like to do -- I'd like to make sure that the -- and I'm having trouble finding it in the planned unit development. Hold on, please. Page 12, I'd like to make sure that where it says front yard setback, that that would be somehow clear that no buildings will be in those setbacks so we could get rid of the word front and make it yard setback, and that would include everything. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had already agreed to that earlier, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, I want that to be-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: That is incorporated in the motion. Is that okay with the motion maker? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And the second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's incorporated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's one other thing I would like to do, is I really would like to see -- and Don Scott testified that it would be available, that the Valewood Drive go all the way through the project. I know you want to gate it, but you may have to break it in two or something, so that Valewood would go through to that other access. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, the motion maker's not Page 150 -."'..."-.........-.----... .'. "-,-,-,',_ r t ~,~.,- September 1,2005 willing to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will not accept that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- receive that suggestion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, they can already go down and do -- already go down to Executive Drive to cut through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But where Executive is is right at the intersection. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, the motion maker's not willing to accept that suggestion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other recommendations, discussions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got some. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The issues where we talked about stipulations, one of them was there be no asphalt shingles, it will be a gated community; the neighborhood rec. centers will be toward the center part of the parcel; all of them will have at least two-car garages; and there was some discussion about the CO dates. No COs until the completion of the six-Ianing of Immokalee Road and the completion of the cloverleaf on I-75. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hold on, hold on, hold on. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not asking you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm just trying to hear what you're trying to say . You're going a little fast for me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Slow down a little bit. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can you go -- you lost me at the requirement that we have two -- all units have to have a two-car garage. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I heard someone -- I thought I heard Bruce say that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think we committed to every unit Page 151 ..-.,-,.--- "..,~-,-",-",,,~-, September 1, 2005 having a two-car garage. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. Yes, you did. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I though you did. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You were when we were talking about the depth of the 20, 23 feet. You said they're two garages (sic). COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I wrote it down. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Go ahead. I mean, make your motion and we'll just -- we'll see what stipulations find their way in. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The other one was the CO dates will be linked to the completion of the six-Ianing of Immokalee Road and the cloverleaf on Immokalee Road for I - 7 5. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can't agree to that. No, we can't agree to that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There was discussion about the -- and, Margie, I need your help on this. There was discussion about adding some things for helping with the maintenance of the stormwater percentages sharing. Where that isn't part of the covenants in the property with that community association there, is there any way we can link that to a stipulation? And there was like a 90-day -- like a 90-day -- leases were supposed to be limited to 90 days, no more than three times a year, and there was -- they were going to retain 20 percent of the maintenance costs for Valewood Drive. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think if the petitioner's willing, they can agree to, in the PUD document, include that in restrictive covenants, if they're willing to put a provision like that in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what they said. Are you willing to put that in? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They were on the record saying that. Page 152 -^".--,---.-- ,..-....."."'._'"'~-'~-"---_.~" '"'~"'-~"".._',~.--,_._...,'--,-- September 1,2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We've already said that we're going to do that and put that in our homeowners' association documents. They've already said that on the record. They're going to go in the homeowners' association documents. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And I can tell you, Mr. Strain, in the past this has come up in a little different scenario, but in TTRV PUD districts where the petitioner agreed in the PUD document to incorporate rental restrictions on the travel trailer/recreational vehicle units, and what they -- the PUD document said was that they were going to put restrictions in their restrictive covenants. So if they agree to do that, I think we can put it in there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if they've agreed on the record, then I don't know why they wouldn't agree to have it written in the PUD. Is that a problem? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's -- you know, Mr. Strain, is it a problem, yeah, because it's not typically included in a PUD ordinance of the government. We've committed to it, we're going to do it, and it's a commitment. We'd rather it not find its way into the PUD document. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm suggesting it as a stipulation. The panel can make its mind up. And the last one I would like to suggest is that we limit the density to 6.1 units, and the reason for that is the applicant stated a few minutes ago that they must have more than six per acre in order to make ends meet. MR. YO V ANOVICH: No. Mr. Strain, I told them that we would not accept six. We didn't come up with a number. Mr. Abernathy asked me what the number was, and it was seven. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This was before your conversation with Mr. Abernathy. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Let's go back through those things. We have suggestions by Mr. Strain that that, at the option of the Page 153 September 1, 2005 motion maker and the second, mayor may not be incorporated. As far as no asphalt shingles, Mr. Adelstein? That's in the motion and the second. That's agreed. As far as it being a gated community? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's agreed In the motion and the second. That the rec. centers will be in the middle of this development? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is in agreement with the motion and the second. That there be two-car garages with every unit? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Accepted. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That was my recollection. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Then that's in the motion and the second. That there be no COs until the six -laning of Immokalee Road is complete and the cloverleaf at I-75 is complete. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. The motion maker does not want to include that as part of this motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How about just the six-Ianing part without the cloverleaf? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Abernathy, if I may interject myself. I know it's unusual, but -- it's not unusual that I interject myself, but we already have the ability under the concurrency management system to go forward with the commercial now. Ifwe have to wait, then, you know, that doesn't work for us. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry. Mr. Adelstein does not want to Page 154 ^,,·,,~,,~~_,_O''''''''''~"''_.. September 1, 2005 incorporate that into his motion. Mr. Strain, there was something about stormwater, and I didn't pick up on it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It was just adding some provisions to the PUD they had indicated they would include in the covenants, the homeowners' docs, whatever the appropriate vehicle is, that they would take their proportionate share of the stormwater maintenance and they would provide a -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not going to let that be a deal breaker. It can go in. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Stipulation for 90-day leases, no more than three times a year, and then 20 percent of the maintenance cost of Valewood. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll take them all. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay with the motion and the second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I also asked for 6.1 units per acre. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion maker's not receptive of that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And before we vote, I need to make a statement. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Well, let's make sure we know what we're voting on. This is where -- this is the -- the making of sausage and the making of laws and ordinances is an ugly process. Ray, do you have that clearly down what we're -- MR. BELLOWS: I think between Heidi and myself. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Sir, the public hearing has been closed. Okay. Is everybody understanding of the motion we're making? Mr. Strain, you want to make a declaration before the vote? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Only because it's lengthy. Page 155 ~--~. September 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: With the stipulations that were not accepted, I do not feel that it's consistent with the GMP in section 5.4; the transportation element, 5.1 and 5.2; LDC section 4.07.02, B-1, D-3, A, B, D, F, and G; rezone findings four, five, seven, and 14; and PUD findings one, three, four, and seven. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other discussion before we call the question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER LINDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And if I'm correct, that was Ms. Caron and Mr. Strain in opposition. Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: So the motion carries, 7-2. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate your good manners in helping us get through this. And if you could clear the room quietly, we still have to work. Ladies and gentlemen, please clear the room as quickly and quietly as possible. Please leave and continue your conversations Page 156 , ~~--"."--._~.~,._-_.- September 1, 2005 outside. We have more matters to consider, and we can't work over the noise that you're creating. Thank you. F or the planning commissioners. Item of discussion. It is now 1 :20 p.m. We've been working right through our lunch. We still have two agenda items to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, please clear the room quietly. We have the LDC special cycle 2A, which has been continued from August 18th, as well as Mr. Strain's request that under old business we have a meeting on the meeting. Now, it is up to us to decide, do we want to break now for lunch or continue with our agenda items and push through as long as it may take to finish. It's up to other planning commissioners. What's your desire? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to get my lunch. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Me, too. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm leaving. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not going to be able to stay here probably past two o'clock, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Strain has a business meeting at two o'clock, so if we break now for lunch, he'll be out of further discussions. Mr. Abernathy has other obligations also that, when we break, he will not be returning. Do we still have a quorum? Everyone else still ready to return? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Perhaps we should continue further because of the fact that Mr. Strain is unavailable, and he, as we know, has many insights. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Russell, could Mark make his presentation now and then we go to lunch? Is it a long one, Mark? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I mean, mine's going to probably be lengthy, and that's -- there's a lot of issues involving Margie's rewrite, and that goes back to the Lindy declaration that we Page 157 '" ...'--~.,,-~...._-, . .~'"~,~_ - v -"_._--,..'".".""'~---,......,-".,--- September 1, 2005 talked about last time. Basically my position, and I'll state it now and then you guys can debate it later. It hasn't changed. And I like what we suggested last time, and I also believe that administratively this density can be handled through the concurrency issues. We don't need to add another layer of overview on what's already there. At the most possibly a paragraph might be added to the PUD section addressing what happens to leftover density, but we don't need to get into a document of this magnitude, I believe, and that was what I was going to express and walk through some issues, but those issues, I'm sure, aren't as overwhelming as just that statement. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, I'm confident that with Mr. Strain's diligence and eye for detail, that there's at least an hour, maybe more, of discussion, and -- if we proceed on this, and I agree with the comment made earlier, that obviously Mr. Strain is the detail-oriented one, not that everybody else doesn't have valuable comments and interaction, but I would not be enthusiastic about proceeding on that aspect of our business without his input. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Neither would 1. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And with that in mind, we've continue this from August 18th. We could continue to another date certain to gain Mr. Strain's input. Is there an inclination to proceed in that way? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would prefer that, because I would prefer to have him present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd second that. If that's a motion, I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, what we need to do -- we need some advice from the county attorneys. Can we continue this to a date certain or indefinitely, or how should we properly continue this item? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think we can continue it to a date certain. It is supposed to go to the board on September the 13th with them taking final action on September the 27th. And so I'm just --let's Page 158 .~-_._"",.,,,.~.,,-.-~-,,,,,-.,.-,,,,-,,,- September 1,2005 see. Our next planning commISSIon -- what's our next regular planning commission? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The 15th, I believe. MR. BELLOWS: The 15th, would be September 15th. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think -- I think that we can probably -- we've done that before, and then the board has -- you know, because they will have your input by the time they have the final hearing. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Since there's precedence and the county attorney's office advises us that it's legal, do we have a motion to continue -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I said that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- item 8D to our next regularly scheduled meeting of September 15th? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I so move. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Adelstein, a second by Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER LINDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: It is unanimous among the eight planning Page 159 ,---.'..--..--- September 1, 2005 commissioners present. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just want to thank all of you. I appreciate the deference in that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Last item of business, item 9, old business, discussion of the meeting on the meeting. Mr. Schmitt came up during one of the breaks and made the comment that it was a suggestion, not necessarily a good one or a bad one, but it was a suggestion. And the conversations he's heard from various planning commissioners separately and specifically to him as is legal and appropriate, is that there is not an inclination to hold a meeting before the regularly scheduled meeting. And if that's the consensus of the planning commissioners. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, do we have a -- our next meeting, do we have a big schedule, a lot of items? Because we could maybe find some time then to take -- we could isolate a couple of Issues. MR. BELLOWS: I don't have the agenda, I'm sorry. I can't tell you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There was one in the -- just one in the paper that I was able to find. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Brad, what you're proposing is to do a workshop on the meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, not a workshop. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because we can't bring the issues in the meeting up to the 15th because we've already continued them to the 21st. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it's a moot thing anyways. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. I don't know how you would do that without getting into notices we provided at the last meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unless we do have a workshop, Page 160 September 1, 2005 I guess. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So would the inclination be to meet on this item as originally scheduled with no modification or change? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that correct? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Just to clear the record, do we have a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Strain, second by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER LINDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. We will not have a meeting inside the meeting. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One more issue. Mr. Chairman, before you hit the gavel, I want to express the gratitude of this entire panel for your leadership for the past couple of years. (Applause.) Page 161 ___',·~N_··,~_·~..._ , .~'<~,.,,-_.........,-,--"._,-_...."""'- September 1,2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're going to certainly miss you and your -- I guess I should say it's a kind way and nonabrasive way of keeping everybody in line. So I certainly have appreciated what I've learned from you, and I want to thank you for all the years you've provided to the planning commission. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Echo that strongly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ditto me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, thanks. We're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:26 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRPERSON Page 162 ----_..>"..,.,..,..-._-,._~._--,,-