CCPC Minutes 10/06/2005 R
October 6, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, October 6, 2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m., in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain
Brad Schiffer
Paul Midney
Lindy Adelstein
Kenneth Abernathy
Robert Vigliotti
Donna Reed Caron
ABSENT: Bob Murray
Russell Tuff
ALSO PRESENT:
Ray Bellows, Zoning Department
Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
-,--
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6,2005, 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---INBlVlDUALS-- SELEC'fED--TO- SPEAK--ON- BEHALF---OP---AN- ----
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 17,2005, SPECIAL LDC MEETING; AUGUST 18,2005, REGULAR
MEETING; SEPTEMBER 1,2005, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 13,2005, REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: CU-2003-AR-3573, Independent Haitian Church of God, represented by Kelly Smith of
Davidson Engineering, Inc., requesting a Conditional Use in the RMF-6 zoning district as provided for within
Table 2 of Section 2.04.03 per Land Development Code (LDC) for expansion of an existing church. The
2.03:l:: acre property to be considered for the conditional use is located at 3709 Guilford Road, Lot 5 and
Lot 6, Block A, Guilford Acres, in Section 13, Township 50, Range 25, Collier County Florida.
(Coordinator: Michael Bosi)
1
-~<' ^-'-~---'-"---"~-'- "..-~".,,, -,,-,---'-'-- .----
B. Petition: DRlABN-2004-AR-6251, Collier Development Corporation (CDq represented by George
Varnadoe, of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, requesting abandonment of a Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) for the CDC DRI approved in DR! Development Order 86-2, approved on November
] 0, ] 986 because the proposed changes to the PUD will reduce the project below the applicable criteria for a
DR!. The property is located south of Thomasson Drive, south and west of U.S. 41, north and west of
the Wentworth PUD, and east of the Nap]es Bay Intercoastal Waterway. The property is in Sections 23,
24, 25, 26 and 36, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and Section] 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2,41 6.08:l:: acres. COMPANION TO PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6126 _
Sabal Bay PUD (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
C. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6126, WCI Communities, Inc., and CDC Land Investments, Inc.,
represented by Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. and Robert J.
Mulhere, AICP, of RWA, Inc., requesting a rezone from the Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Agricultural-Special Treatment area (A-ST) and Agricu]tura] (A) zoning districts to the Mixed Use
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district, for a project to be known as the Sabal Bay PUD. A
portion of the site is currently known as the CDC PUD or Collier DR!. The proposed project will include a
residential component consisting of a maximum of ],999 varied housing type units and golf course,
commercial uses, recreation/village center uses, and public facility uses, preserve areas and rights-of-way.
The property is located south of Thomasson Drive, south and west of U.S. 41, north and west of the
Wentworth PUD, and east of the Naples Bay Intercoastal Waterway. The property is in Sections 23, 24, 25,
26 and 36, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and Section] 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, CoIIier
County, F]orida, consisting of2,4 I 6. 0 8:l:: acres. COMPANION TO DRIABN-2004-AR-6251 (Coordinator:
Kay Deselem)
D. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-6906, James J. Fields, contract purchaser, represented by William Hoover of
Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., is requesting: a rezone from the Residential Multi-Family-6
(RMF-6) with a Bayshore Mixed Used District-Residential (BMUD-R2) zoning district to the
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Cirrus
Pointe PUD, to allow for a multi-family project of up to ] 08 residential units; and, consideration and
approval of an affordable housing density bonus agreement authorizing the developer to utilize affordable
housing bonus density units (in the amount of 78 units at 7.89 bonus density units per acre) in the
development of this project for low-income residents that will include a maximum of 32 units designated as
Affordable Housing units. The subject property, consisting of 9.92 acres, is located at the northeast corner
of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, in Section ]4, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, CoIIier
County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
E. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6084, Waterways Joint Venture IV, represented by Dwight H. Nadeau, of
RWA, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone
from Rural Agricultural (A) and Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a project to be known as Bristol Pines RPUD to amend the
existing PUD document and master plan for a residential subdivision to add land and units to allow for a
maximum number of 292 residential units and recreational amenities. The project density is proposed to
be 6.85 units per acre subject to the approval of the companion Affordable Housing Density Bonus
Agreement, authorizing the developer to utilize affordable housing bonus density units (in the amount of 12]
units at 3.0 bonus density units per acre) in the development of this project for low-income residents that will
include a maximum of 29 units designated as affordable housing units. The project consists of 42.61 acres
and is generally located at 14750 Collier Boulevard on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR-95]),
approximately] mile south of Immokalee Road (CR-846). Access to serve the project is proposed to be from
Tree Farm Road in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Kay Deselem) CONTINUED FROM 8/] 8/05
2
.
F. Petition: PUDA-2005-AR-7557, Empire Developers Group LLC, represented by Laura Spurgeon, of
Johnson Engineering, Inc., is requesting an amendment to the HD Development Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Document and Master Plan by: revising the minimum single-family lot area from 12,000 and 6,000
square feet to 9,000 square feet; revising the minimum interior lot width from 85 feet and 55 feet to 60 feet;
revising the minimum corner lot width from 95 feet and 65 feet to 65 feet; the project ownership; removing
attached and single-family dwelling units as permitted uses; and, adding additional landscape requirements on
the north side of the PUD. The subject property, consisting of 46.64 acres, is located north of Immokalee
Road, east of Olde Cypress Boulevard, on the south side of Treeline Drive, in Section 21, Township 48
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams)
G. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-6422, The Lutgert Companies, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q.
Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., and George Varnadoe, of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson,
requesting a rezone from the (A) Agricultural zoning district to the PUD zoning district for the Mercato
PUD. The proposed use is for a mixed-use development with retail, office, restaurant, hotel and multiple
family uses. The design of the project is intended to center around a traditional main street design with a
maximum of 395,000 square feet of retail floor space, 100,000 square feet of office space, and a maximum of
80 hotel units is permitted within the 27.7-acre Mixed Use tract and 175 residential dwelling units on a 10.67
acre Residential Tract resulting in a density of 3.3 units per acre. The property, consisting of 53 acres, is
located at the Northeast corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Tamiami Trail North, in Section 34,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
9. OLD BUSINESS
]0. NEW BUSINESS
11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
]3. ADJOURN
IO-6-0S/CCPC AgendalRB/sp
3
,.~- ---,~-"".~."~-,,,",..,.__._. ._-- _____...._._____e..__
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. It's 8:30. We'd like to
get the meeting going.
If you'd all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Roll call.
Commissioner Murray is not here.
Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Midney is not here.
Commissioner Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Abernathy?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And new Commissioner Russell Tuff is
__ can't be here today. By the time he was appointed, he had a meeting
commitment that he couldn't break and so he will miss our first day.
And I'm here, as hopefully she recognizes.
Next item is addenda to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I notice that the agenda
today does not include an item for election of new officers of this
planning commission. I propose to add that as item 7 A on our agenda.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Cannot be done. It's got to be
item one. Nobody here has a position. Positions are all elected for
one year. The one year is up. There is nobody here that -- no officers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I don't think I agree
Page 2
---
October 6, 2005
with that, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about doing it next?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Go ahead, do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay, just do it after we get done
with the addenda?
Brad, did you have an addenda to the agenda?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have two items I'd like to add
for new business.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, you're picking a short agenda to do
that to, but okay. What are your --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we can--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are your items?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If we're tired, we can dump
them. Don't worry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to mention what they are?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll wait. Do I have to?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. We've got to let the public
know what you want to talk about.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. One is the -- or one's
going to take -- one is the -- I was just going to question that
certification course we took to see if anybody got any certificates, and
the other thing is a question about the liaison appointment from the
planning commission as to the disaster recovery task force.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And those will be on lOA and B
then in the order in which you stated. Any other comments for the
agenda?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve the
addenda to the agenda?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded.
Page 3
-
October 6, 2005
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine.
Next item on the agenda will be 3A, elections.
Mr. Abernathy?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, consistent
with our practice in the last few years, I propose to nominate a slate of
officers rather than have head-to-head elections for each of the three
positions.
Furtherance of that, I would nominate Mr. Strain, who I've
considered to be the acting chairman, as the chairman for the year to
come, Mr. Adelstein as the vice chairman and Ms. Caron as the --
Mrs. Caron as the secretary.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We need a second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion's made. And a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A second by Mr. Schiffer.
And by the way, let the record show that Mr. Midney has showed
up.
Now discussion? Any discussion on the slate of officers
recommended?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No other motion, no other
Page 4
.'~'.,-
October 6, 2005
nomInees.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Call for the vote. All those in
favor of the slate announced?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Abernathy.
Appreciate it.
Try to move forward.
Planning commission absences? Our next meeting, I believe, is
Friday next week at one o'clock to continue with the LDC hearing that
started in, I don't know, maybe August or September. It's been a
while. Is everybody here going to be at that meeting?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What's the date on that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's the 24th, is it not, Ray? No,
it's not next week. It's the week after. I'm sorry.
MR. BELLOWS: That would be the 21st.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 21st, so it's the week after.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not the 2 --
MR. BELLOWS: Next week is the 14th, and the week after is
the 21 st.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But the meeting is the 28th,
LDC meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I'm trying to get to.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The 28th.
Page 5
---- "'-.--.--
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 28th, okay.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: From one to six here.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: One o'clock.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What time?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: One o'clock.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One o'clock. The next meeting of the
regular planning commission is on the 20th. Everybody okay with
those dates? Okay. Looks like we'll have quorums then.
Approval of the minutes. We have in our packages August --
August 17th, August 18th, and September 1 st. Are there any
recommendations, changes, suggestions?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: On August 18th on page 32,
apparently I used a word that the reporter wasn't familiar with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-oh.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: See if I can find it. I was
trying to describe myself as a curmudgeon, to which nobody objected,
and it came out a gramudgeon (sic). Well--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an age-related thing.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I may be one of those too,
but it hasn't made its way to the dictionary yet. So curmudgeon,
C-U-R-M-U-D-G-E-O-N.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I object to you having to be referred to
as that. How's that?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other changes to any of
those agenda?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot--
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Move we approve them as
amended.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
Page 6
---
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. Ray, the BCC report from
September 13th?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The board approved -- the Board of
Zoning Appeals approved the variance for the roads variance that's in
Twin Eagles. The vote was 4-1.
The BZA also approved the conditional use AR-6700. That was
group housing, private school conditional use, and that was approved
5-0.
The Sonoma Oaks PUD, that motion failed 3-2.
And the MAC PUD was approved 4-1.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What was the issue in
Sonoma Oaks? I don't remember the name.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nagel-Craig industrial-- what used to
be the industrial park.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, Nagel-Craig.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, the roads one, how
did it leave our -- what was our recommendation on the roads; do you
remember?
MR. BELLOWS: I believe that was a recommendation for
denial.
Page 7
---;;'- . ~--
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought, and the BCC
approved it?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And our recommendation on MAC was
also for denial?
MR. BELLOWS: Denial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And BCC approved it?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just wanted to see how
consistent we are with them.
Chairman's report, since that just happened, I don't have one this
week, but I can assure you in the weeks to come -- other than one
comment, Ray, and I think that you're probably aware of it, the staff
has been trying to send us numerous messages by electron e-mail. I
have no problem with that. But if you're going to do that, would you
please procure new computers, printers, and materials for each one of
the planning commissioners?
MR. BELLOWS: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Otherwise let us know when the
hard copies are available.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: One or two pages is one
thing, but --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I understand.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Somebody tried to -- the
whole new LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll go right into our first
advertised public hearing. And those -- and this first one is petition
CU-2003-AR-3573.
For those people wishing to participate in this, please rise to be
.
sworn In.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any disclosures
Page 8
-"-","'...,,-,..."" "-",---
October 6, 2005
on this item? No disclosures?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. I spoke to Kelly Smith
about some information that I wanted to be included in the record and
she promised to provide.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. SMITH: And I do have that information.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's nothing about the merits
of this case.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Smith, it's all yours.
MS. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. Good morning. My name is
Kelly Smith. I'm with Davidson Engineering. And I'm here this
morning on behalf of the Independent Haitian Church of God,
Incorporated, in their request for a conditional use and also a parking
reduction.
The subject property is 2.03 acres and is located on the north side
of Guilford Road, approximately 575 feet west of U.S. 41. The
property is zoned RMF -6 and is developed with the existing church.
The church is seeking a conditional use for the expansion of the
existing church and customary accessory uses. The proposed
expansion includes a 3,828 square foot addition to the existing
sanctuary and a separate 3,426 foot -- square foot building to serve as
a fellowship hall and classroom.
The site plan for this project was approved through the site
development plan review process by county staff, obviously subject to
the approval of the conditional use, and that was required because of
the request for the parking reduction.
The SDP is compliant with the landscape buffer requirements,
including the Type B buffer with masonry wall on the north and west
property lines.
Also as part of this project we're requesting a parking reduction
of one parking space for every four seats for the additional seats
proposed within the sanctuary. That is an allowance in the land
Page 9
------.. ---
October 6, 2005
development code for churches through expansion if there is a
hardship associated with that increased parking.
In this case the church has three passenger vans and a
45-passenger bus that they use to provide transportation to their
congregation. That constitutes, approximately 25 percent of their -- of
their expanded congregation will have transportation other than their
own privately-owned vehicles, and that is the reason that they're
requesting the parking reduction.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Kelly?
MS. SMITH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What's going to happen
when these people move up the economic food chain, so to speak, and
get their own cars?
MS. SMITH: Well, that's certainly a concern that the church will
have to take a look at.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Seems like this is putting it
-- making it pretty tight as it is.
MS. SMITH: The church, as you'll see in the staffs report, will
be required to continue to operate and provide that transportation.
And the church will have to be in a position to let their parishioners
know that parking is limited, and they will have to utilize that --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They'll come get them
instead of letting them drive, okay.
MS. KELLY: I think that pretty much wraps up what I had to
say. Pastor Eric is here from the church if you have any other
questions from him. Otherwise, I'll be happy to answer questions
myself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from members of the
panel?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kelly, on your project
summary, you itemize all the different things.
Page 10
-.--""'" --
October 6, 2005
MS. KELLY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you have a negative area.
MS. KELLY: There's an existing -- there are two existing houses
on this property. One of them, which is approximately 18 -- 150 (sic)
square feet will actually be removed as part of the expansion. So
that's --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in other words, if you add
that -- if you add those columns up, will you get the number at the
bottom? In other words, I can certainly understand it being removed,
but it's replaced by something else.
MS. KELL Y: The numbers do add up. That was just simply
shown to be an -- a removal. The area where the house is now is
going to be parking area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So there'll be -- okay.
See this is the actual site?
MS. KELLY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
Kelly, I have a few questions I'd like to walk through with you.
One is on the staff report, but I'll wait till Mr. Bosi comes up, because
I think he probably can answer the staff report easier than you can.
Your hours of operation -- I know this is in a neighborhood, part
of which is residential. What will be the hours of operation of the
church?
MS. KELL Y: I'm going to ask Pastor Eric to speak about that
since it's a part of the actual church operation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sir, if you'd like to come up to
the mike and please identify yourself when you do for the court
reporter. Thank you.
P ASTOR ERIC: Yeah. Hours on Sunday --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell us your name, please.
P ASTOR ERIC: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Pastor Eric. I'm a
Page 11
-
October 6, 2005
pastor of Independent Haitian Church of God.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
PASTOR ERIC: Yes, sir. We got -- on Sunday, we got service
from 9:00 to 11 :30.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what was your daily, your
weekly --
PASTOR ERIC: Okay. Sunday, Wednesday and Friday night.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you do any evening services at all?
PASTOR ERIC: Yes, we do evening services. Sunday evening.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Till?
PASTOR ERIC: Six to eight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Sunday you'll go from
approximately nine in the morning till eight at night?
PASTOR ERIC: No. We start in the morning at 9:00 to 11:30.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
PASTOR ERIC: And then come back again six to eight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
PASTOR ERIC: Friday night.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you work the week, your activities--
PASTOR ERIC: Okay. Wednesday, seven to nine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's in the morning?
P ASTOR ERIC: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the evening?
P ASTOR ERIC: In the afternoon, yeah, evening.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
PASTOR ERIC: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kelly, in the traffic report that was
provided --
MS. KELLY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it indicated that U.S. 41 in that
location has a level of service of F.
MS. KELL Y: (Nods head.)
Page 12
, -'-~---'-- -
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where -- I must be not understanding
where this is then. I thought U. S. 41 is in pretty good shape unless
you get east of 951. Is this one east of 951 ?
MS. KELL Y: No, sir. This is west of 951. It is --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's one intersection west of
Lake Avalon.
MS. KELL Y: Yes, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And that's a failed level of
service in that area? Because that's under a TCMA. I was wondering
if that was the right designation for that level of service for that road
system, so --
MS. KELL Y: It's actually within the TCEA --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: EA.
MS. KELL Y: -- area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll ask Mr. Scott to address it. He could
probably clarify how that level of service is established.
The last couple questions I have, there's a -- you, I guess, are
volunteering to put a block wall where the chain link fence is now; is
that correct?
MS. KELLY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you don't mind that being a
stipulation?
MS. KELLY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to upgrade the landscaping
as well?
MS. KELLY: Yes, we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there some document that says
to what extent you're updating the landscaping?
MS. KELLY: Well, we'll have to comply with the land
development code. And the site development plan has already been
reviewed, so that's a part of the site development plan review process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your upgrading is not above
Page 13
--,--. -~,._-
October 6, 2005
the code, you're just going to upgrade it to be consistent with the
code?
MS. KELLY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was where I was going to
go.
As far as hours of operation, hearing what the pastor said about
his needs for time frames, you have a statement in -- or the staff put a
statement in their staff report that I wasn't quite understanding, and it
-- that's what led me to try to ask about the hours of operation. I'll
read the sentence to you. Maybe you'll know what it means so you
can help me with the hours of operation.
MS. KELLY: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's talking on page 5 of 10, and actually
starts about the traffic impact statement in the second paragraph. But
then it says in the middle, just past where it references the LDC, it
says, the secondary uses are intended to be utilized by the patrons
during no service hours or as support functions to the primary
attraction or service, therefore, the secondary square footage not
intended within the parking calculation.
Do you have secondary uses that are going to be on this site that
are going to have hours of operation that are inconsistent with the
churches?
MS. KELL Y: I'll have to check with the pastor on that. The
secondary uses will be the fellowship hall and the classroom area.
And the transportation -- the transportation impact statement, the TIS,
that use code only takes into account the square footage of the actual
church buildings and doesn't require additional consideration for the
secondary uses, and I think that's what Mr. Bosi was referring to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My concern is in neighborhoods,
as we have had churches come in before, when we go into secondary
uses, there's a concern about the impacts in the evenings on the
residences. I don't know about if anybody's objecting to this or not.
Page 14
_"""_'_N
October 6, 2005
MS. KELLY: Nobody has objected to my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was where I was going to
go during the public hearing, see if anybody had concerns over that.
That's the last question I had. Thank you.
MS. KELLY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any more questions?
MS. KELLY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bosi, you got a presentation?
MR. BOSI: Good morning, planning commission members.
Mike Bosi, zoning and land development review. I'll try to keep my
presentation concise.
The conditional use is an urbanized area by the growth
management plan. A conditional use for a church is a customary use
within the urbanized area; therefore, it's consistent with the growth
management plan.
I note on the parking reduction, that is not a separate petition, but
it is -- it's a provision that's provided for within the parking section of
the land development code that says this parking reduction is
applicable to only existing churches that could prove a hardship, and
that has to be established, or the determination of whether the parking
reduction can be approved is determined by the planning commission
and the Board of County Commissioners' review of the site
development plan that was accompanied by the staff report.
One of the things I wanted to point out that I felt was part of the
neighborhood information meeting that was a short page-and-a-half
summary was provided within your staff report package, the concerns
of the residents that did show up at the neighborhood information
meeting was the aesthetics. What was the aesthetics of the existing
facility?
And to highlight what their primary concern was -- and we
believe with approval and with the improvements shown within the
site development plan that accompanies this, the aesthetics will be
Page 15
---. "' ----~"_. --.-...-
October 6, 2005
taken care of.
And one of the primary concerns was existing conditions. The
existing fence that sits around the church, the residents felt that it
really didn't add to the neighborhood. With the improvements with
the landscape buffers that are going to be imposed by the site
development plan, the masonry wall will be to the north and to the
west where the property abuts a multi-family -- residential
multi-family six zoning district and a mobile home park and a trailer--
a TTR V zoning district to the north.
A couple other site photos looking at the front of the church -- it
doesn't want to open. Technology seems to be failing.
Well, the point being is the aesthetics aspect of the -- of the
overall look and the overall feel of the church will be greatly
improved with the request.
I did receive within the past week one -- and it's not an objection
to the proposal, but it was an e-mail from a John Rossetti from
Guilford Road. And basically his concerns, a better landscape plan
and maintenance than is currently in place would be more desirable to
the neighborhood.
And his secondary -- his secondary concern -- and I've spoken
with transportation briefly about it, and Mr. Scott may want to address
it. He said -- and I will pass out this e-mail. He says, I believe a right
turn lane added to Guilford Road would greatly ease this condition
should be -- and should be made a requirement in granting approval of
this conditional use.
And what the condition he was saying is, due to the fact that
there was three churches located on the dead-end street, Guilford
Road, and that they all have services held on Sunday morning, traffic
at that comer of Guilford Road and State Road 41 sometimes has
multiple light changes to exit the neighborhood, meaning it takes
maybe one or two or three light changes to get out when all the
churches are letting out on a Sunday -- on a Sunday afternoon or a
Page 16
",,"--"-_.-. .-<.----
October 6, 2005
Sunday morning.
And he wanted at least the contemplation of the potential of
adding a right-hand turn lane. And I will pass out that -- I'll pass out
this e-mail right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Would that be the end of your presentation at this point?
MR. BOSI: Yes, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a question for him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Bosi, Mr. Adelstein has a
question.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This is just a technical
question. How did we get a statement from the Board of Zoning
Appeals? I thought before they could be brought into this, the Collier
-- the planning commission has to find three items that make it
possible for them to have received the information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is -- there's an existing conditional
use on the property.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They would have already approved that.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. But this new one isn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the new one -- I don't think they've
heard the new one, have they?
MR. BOSI: No, they haven't.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh. I assumed when you
came -- when we got it that late that it had been the one that had been
a new one. I couldn't figure out where it came from. Thank you.
MR. BOSI: I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the
planning commission of Mr. Bosi?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then, Mr. Scott, do you have a
Page 1 7
,----.. ~--"~,--_., ,-.---
October 6, 2005
moment?
Thank you, Mike.
MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Don Scott, transportation
planning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, can you explain the level of
service F designation on U. S. 41 in that area?
MR. SCOTT: It's based on the -- in the concurrency
management system, we have banked trips in there too, so essentially
there's negative 49 trips on that segment right now based on the
concurrency system. Three hundred eighty of those are the bank trips
for developments that haven't put them on the system yet, but we have
those banked for their trips to add on the system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they were to -- if this were to be
approved and add the additional traffic that they will add to the
system, will it take away from that 380, or is that 380 vested?
MR. SCOTT: That 380 is vested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So those -- that's not going to
affect them in any way?
MR. SCOTT: Right, exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Being in TCME, does that -- doesn't that
spread out the level of service throughout a wider area?
MR. SCOTT: No. TCMA is the -- you're thinking about the
average when we talked about this in Golden Gate City on Golden
Gate Parkway. TCEA is an exception area. It's more of when you're
looking at like redevelopment in an area, that you're not trying to stop
redevelopment from happening. You have an exception for
concurrency. We have -- in the other side of the averaging side is you
have parallel roads that you can take. Obviously in this area out to the
west you don't have any parallel alternatives for a roadway system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the calculations that you have to do
to look at concurrency, there are -- yeah, certain thresholds that if you
meet, even de minimis, cannot be allowed. I think that's 110 percent
Page 18
,---~ .-"-'" .~-~"~-,~ -"--,
October 6, 2005
of operational. Are -- will this -- is the level of service F above the
110 in this location?
MR. SCOTT: Not right now, no, it isn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the last question is,
someone brought up the issue of a right turn lane on the Guilford
Road. What's your thoughts on that?
MR. SCOTT: Just haven't really -- you know, I haven't looked
out in the field because you just raised that this morning. But judging
on your 60 feet of right-of-way there, unless there is some type of
utility problems and stuff, we probably could put a right turn lane in
there at that little cushion, obviously with FDOT approval, since U.S.
41 's a state road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any
questions?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. If the point of the TCEA is
to not prevent, obviously, things from being redeveloped, it's also not
to worsen the situation by adding to?
MR. SCOTT: It's--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Correct?
MR. SCOTT: Well, you're trying to minimize what you add to
it. Obviously that's why you look at -- there's TCEA requirements just
like there's TCMA requirements. Try to get more walking trips, more
HOV, more of that.
This development fits into that, since, you know, part of what
they're talking about with reduced parking is buses and things like
that. So we did talk to them previously, the applicant about some
sidewalks, some other issues that would help -- you know, help with __
lessen car trips essentially.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Are sidewalks part of this?
MR. SCOTT: What we had talked -- I know for the planning
commission we had talked about trying to do TCA and TCMA
Page 19
--- - -------","-"
October 6, 2005
requirements at the PUD level. We've been dealing with this one for
quite a while. So that was before that. We said at that point we'd deal
with that during site planning, but --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nothing else? Oh, anybody
else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Don.
Kelly, I have a couple concluding comments before we go into
public comments, if any.
You want to -- go ahead. No, I'll go after you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, it's probably not for
Kelly. It's probably for the pastor again. I just want to be clear about
the hours of operation. It would seem to me that if you're only going
to use this new expanded hall for a couple of days, from what I got,
that you'll be using it Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday from nine to 11
and in the evenings only on Sunday and Wednesday?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's not quite right.
MS. SMITH: While the pastor's coming up, I would like to point
out that there are sidewalks as part of the site development plan.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
PASTOR ERIC: Sir, we talking about --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I'm sorry. You have to say your
name one more time, sorry.
P ASTOR ERIC: I'm sorry, again. My name is Pastor Eric.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
PASTOR ERIC: I'm part of Independent Haitian Church of God.
In fellowship hour, we might have additional service on
fellowship hall, because on Sunday morning we got our worship
service. I gave you a schedule for worship service. And then in the
afternoon we might have another activity for the youth, activities for __
so I don't --
Page 20
'---. ~-<.~,--.." ,,~,-~"~",. ---
October 6, 2005
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
PASTOR ERIC: So I do not have a schedule yet for that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I would assume that you're going
to be using both the parish hall and the new hall for activities on
Sunday between nine and 11, whether it's Sunday school or whatever?
PASTOR ERIC: Okay. Sunday school, we start at nine o'clock
to 9:45.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
PASTOR ERIC: After that, everybody going to be in the
fellowship hall.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But my interest is in the
evening hours that this new facility is going to be used.
PASTOR ERIC: Yes, it might be, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. But not just on Sundays
or Wednesday, correct?
PASTOR ERIC: No, no, because we might use it on Wednesday
nights. We might be taking a study Bible (sic) we got at the fellow __
at the building, worship building service. We might put them in
fellowship hall. We might have some kind of other classes, but we not
schedule that yet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you have any objection if there
was a restriction on your hours of operation that they would occur no
later than 10 o'clock at night and not before six o'clock in the
morning?
PASTOR ERIC: I understand that, because we got it all from
Tallahassee, they give us all the detail how we -- how we supposed to
operate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But with those hours, if you weren't
allowed to operate from 10 o'clock at night till six in the morning,
would that bother you at all or would that be okay? Would that
interfere with any of your activities?
Page 21
~----~.- -_.~ _.~-~_.- - '.--
October 6, 2005
P ASTOR ERIC: No, I have to wait, because I have to ask for
permit to do. If I have to do something like that, I have to ask for the
permit to do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to suggest, Commissioner
Caron, if we restrict the late evening hours, that would probably solve
the problem --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in regards to operation.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You brought up the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one quick thing.
Wouldn't he want exceptions for Christmas Eve, maybe New Year's
Eve, stuff like that? I know churches tend to gather their people at
that time.
PASTOR ERIC: Yes. And on that, like New Year's Eve, sir, we
always using from 8 to 12.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
P ASTOR ERIC: Because after that, then everybody go home.
But we do that only one time a year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if there was the exceptions
for national holidays, that would take care of it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- thank you, sir. I think that's all
we have.
PASTOR ERIC: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kelly?
MS. SMITH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The idea of a turn lane. I know that is a
cost issue, but it seems to be one that would improve the situation in
the area. With a level of service F, anything that's done there would
certainly help. Do you see a reason why that's not doable?
Page 22
_._.~" -.---....-.-.,-." _0..____. .,.---
October 6, 2005
MS. SMITH: My only concern, obviously, is financial. You
know, the church is -- obviously has a financial consideration that they
would have to look at. And without knowing what the exact
specifications are for that turn lane and what the costs would be, I
can't really give you a good indication of any commitment.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There are two other
churches on the street.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they all could contribute. Yeah,
you might want to get with your neighbors and see if they all would
contribute to help that. That's a good point, commissioner Abernathy.
Any other questions of applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have two registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: Ifboth could come up. The first one is Robert
Lenahan, followed by Butch Morgan.
MR. LENAHAN: Good morning. I'm Robert Lenahan. I'm here
to speak for myself but also to speak for my neighbors.
I've lived in the neighborhood for three years. And in the course
of those three years, the neighborhood is emerging. It's really -- it's
turning very nice.
The only bad areas on our street have been the Haitian church
and their immediate neighbor. They just recently, in the last four
months, started to mow the lawn. And they have that fence that they
showed up there. It's a nonconforming fence, chain link fence, at the
front of the property.
And I've called -- I've called code enforcement six times for it to
ask if they would address it, and I was told that because they're
foreigners, they didn't understand. I was told that it was near
Christmas, and that was a bad time to address it. And then the other
two times I got no response.
Page 23
- -~,._-_....._._.,,"- - ,-..---.".--.....- -~--
October 6, 2005
But everybody else in the neighborhood -- I just got a building
permit for a shed, and believe me, they took me completely within
inches of where I could place that.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you live on Guilford
Road?
MR. LENAHAN: I live on Guilford Road. That property that
they're going to tear down -- since they bought that two years ago -- in
the front of the building, they've had dangling, nonworking Christmas
lights. One broken bicycle has sat out there for two years. They have
a broken basketball backboard that's just untended.
And in the time that they've started to mow the lawn, I think this
is about six months, they have a large riding mower that has the grass
grown around it now.
And as far as their social responsibility, the place up until they
had their other -- their other hearing, is the place was constantly in
disrepair.
We have three churches on the street, and two of them are
impeccable, and the Haitian church has continually been just an
eyesore on our street.
There's a property immediately next to the property that they
have, which I understand is controlled by the Haitian church people,
and that can best be described as a slum.
We have -- whenever the garbage is done, if there's broken glass,
that broken glass stays there till it washes away. Papers -- there are
things that just sit on their property actually for months at a time. No
one addresses it. Code enforcement doesn't seem to cover for the
Haitian church, and I don't understand that.
We have a street that's 25 feet wide. It has a 30-mile-an-hour
speed limit on it with no sidewalks. It's a cul-de-sac, and it's
constantly used as a raceway. And when the people are coming to
church on Sunday, there must be some stipulation that if you're late
you don't go to Heaven, because they go like hell. It's just -- I don't
Page 24
-- ~._--"
October 6, 2005
understand it.
You know, the entire property on Sundays is completely covered
with cars. And if they have a reduction in car spaces, I don't
understand where they're going to put all the cars for the additional
building. The entire property on a Sunday morning is completely
covered.
And aesthetics of the church building, that's not the problem. It's
the maintenance. It's the absolute disregard for the neighborhood. It's
the lack of social consciousness that bothers me the most.
I mean, it's been filthy since I've been there for three years. And
only recently when they started to develop this project did they make
any attempt to cut the lawn, and even that's a half-hearted effort, in my
opinion, if you compare it to the other two churches on the street.
It's just been a really discouraging situation. And when they say
they want to expand it, I mean, this non-code fence that they have in
the front there, that thing is an ugly chain link fence all the way at the
front of the property, and code enforcement won't make them take it
down. They won't make them clean up. I don't understand how they
end up with no social responsibilities at all.
It really is discouraging to me. And I think if they expand it, I
certainly hope it doesn't turn into just a larger mess, which is really
what I'm afraid of.
I'm desperately afraid that these people in that church who have
shown no neighborhood responsibility, no civic responsibility, no
basic care to their property until they wanted to come up with
something so they could expand this operation -- I mean, had they not
done that, I think we would have had a continuing problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to start wrapping up, sir.
We have five minutes.
MR. LENAHAN: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just--
MR. SCHIFFER: Mark?
Page 25
-,.,,~ ._--~-
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There might be a question here.
Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sir, look at the thing on the
screen there. When you say the neighbor property, do you mean the
one that's within that big square, or do you mean the one that's to the
left of that?
MR. LENAHAN: The blighted area, Guilford Road, is -- I'll
point it out, from here to here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then when you say
that the parking lot's covered with cars, you mean the square they're
showing there or just the right-hand side of that?
MR. LENAHAN: All of this property all around here. They
park on all of it. They park on the grass, they park in the front, they
park everywhere.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He's got to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could -- I'm sorry, but we cannot
hear you --
MR. LENAHAN: Oh, I'm sorry. The entire area under subject
site to be expanded is completely covered with cars on a Sunday
morning, the grass, the parking lot, the driveways, everywhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of this
gentleman?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker.
Thank you, sir.
MR. BELLOWS: Butch Morgan?
MR. MORGAN: Yes. My name's Ewart Butch Morgan. I'm the
president of Guilford Acres Homeowners' Association. I think
everything that -- most of the stuff that I've brought out has already
been expounded on.
I just want to bring you up to speed on the fact that we accepted
these churches on our block when they came in. We did not -- we
Page 26
-~,~< --,-
October 6, 2005
wanted them. I mean, we have no problem with having churches or --
in the neighborhoods.
The two churches that are there keep them themselves nice. I
mean, they're a nice place, they're nice people. The Haitian church,
we expected the same way. We didn't oppose it.
What happened is that they didn't become very good neighbors.
And what we're worried about is that they're getting a bigger building,
and what was said, is going to be a bigger mess. Okay.
We're also concerned with the hours of operation, we're
concerned that they may open up day cares there, the busing in and
out could become schools. We don't know exactly what they're going
to do here. But if they don't understand what they can do and what
they can't do, it's like the fence, I guess they can get away with it. So
the secondary uses is one of them.
The other thing, of course, is the landscaping, and they may put
landscaping in, they may remove that fence, but it still comes down to
how they're going to take care of this problem. They just haven't been
good neighbors.
You ride down there and you see their broken down riding red
lawn mower right inside the fence, like three foot, you know. Very
pretty to look at when you're driving through your neighborhood
every day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Is there any question?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is there any other speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kelly, do you have any final comments?
MS. SMITH: Yes. Thank you.
Just wanted to make a couple comments in response to the public
comments. First, the chain link fence that has been referenced will be
Page 27
~--_.__.,'" ---
October 6, 2005
removed, and as a part of the site development plan, as we've
discussed, will be replaced with a masonry wall.
And the landscape buffer requirements both in front of and
behind that wall will be enhan -- will be brought up to code. So the
concern over the look of that fence is something that will be addressed
through the expansion of the church.
Another issue with the parking, I believe that the expansion and
the proposed improvements on the site will help to address the parking
concerns. You know, the property next door that the congregation is
apparently using for parking is not a developed parking. And so when
you have people parking in an area that doesn't have striping or
driveways, you know, it obviously tends to not look very neat.
And, thirdly, with response to secondary uses such as a preschool
or day care, it's my understanding that that would require a separate
conditional use hearing. So if the church has any plans for a preschool
or day care, which I'm not aware that they do, they would have to go
back before this public hearing process to have that approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of Kelly?
Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Kelly, the neighbors were talking
about chain link in the front, and that is not proposed to be a wall at
this point, right? It's just --
MS. SMITH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the back and the side?
MS. SMITH: That's correct. Just the back and the side. But the
chain link fence along the front will have to be removed, I believe.
We can't have a fence in the front yard, the fence will be removed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a response to Ms. --
MR. BOSI: Within the site development plan that's been
reviewed by staff, that existing chain link fence that borders the
southern property, which would be the front of the property, that's to
be removed. And I believe it's to be replaced by a type D landscape
Page 28
--- -"-
October 6, 2005
buffer with hedge and a tree every 30 feet. That is part of the
requirements of the site development plan -- that fence -- if this site
development plan is approved, that fence has to go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And a landscape buffer is only as good
as the maintenance that's used to keep it alive and trimmed and
planted.
MR. BOSI: Correct. With the site development plan, they are
required to show the irrigation of the system, which I'm not sure if that
currently exists in the facility today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other
questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public
hearing.
Is there amotion?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I move that
CU-2003-AR-3573 be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to staff
recommendations and recommendations of the county planning
commISSIon.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I second it.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made, and seconded by Mr.
Midney.
Discussion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm not familiar with this
particular church, but in Immokalee I am with the Haitian
congregations, and I can vouch for the fact that buses are a major part
of how people get to church. And I'm sure that it would be similar in
this case.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? My own
Page 29
<..~-,-~..., -0.-
October 6, 2005
comments are that in the beginning of this meeting, hearing no
opposition or seeing none in my documents, I thought this wouldn't be
bad. Hearing what the neighborhoods had to say, which I would say is
credible testimony, in the relationship of how this place is maintained
in relationship to the rest of the neighborhood, I'm very disappointed
in it.
And as far as I'm concerned, until they show they can be good
neighbors, they can wait to get a continual use. So I will be voting no
on this motion.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I concur. I had thought there was
no problem with it either. But if they are not being good neighbors,
then I don't see why expansion is a good idea.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, Kelly, do you want to
withdraw it or go forward with a negative?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we haven't got the vote yet.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Assuming that could
happen.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We haven't voted yet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, obviously, I think the
pastor realizes the danger of not taking care of his property. I mean,
maybe this close scare might cause him to realize how important it is
to be a good neighbor, and I don't see any reason to push him back and
make him come back again.
I mean, if the only issue -- I mean, these are -- the problems they
have are real problems and I have concern over, but there's a cure in
this application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's an old saying, fool me
once, shame on you. Fool me twice, something like that. I would
rather see this addressed before an approval. But Ms. Student?
Page 30
.._._~ ..-._.-.......__._-~ --
October 6, 2005
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, Marjorie Student-Stirling, for
the record, assistant county attorney. I just need to remind the
commission that there are four criteria for the granting of conditional
use that are in your finding of fact sheet, so -- and, you know, one of
those reasons needs to be stated as a reason for your vote, should it not
carry .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it is a reason that could be
mitigated by his proper maintenance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion been made.
After discussion, all those in favor of the motion to approve,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
Would you please raise your hands? Four in favor.
All those against, same all?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Raises hand.)
Three against. Motion passes, 4-3.
Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We need the forms done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You all have a form, please pass
them to, today, Ms. Caron.
MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. BELLOWS: Before we proceed to the next item, I've been
asked to forward a rec -- or consideration to you to amend the agenda
to move up the Bristol Pines PUD. The property owner has a conflict
in schedule. Has to be on jury duty on the east coast and would like to
Page 3 1
_....."._._,~~_. .-'"-
October 6, 2005
be moved up ahead of -- on the next item on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm -- Richard, don't you represent
the second item on the agenda?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the third. The second -- I've
already talked to whoever's -- I mean, Mr. Varnadoe, who's the second
-- represents the second item, and since I represent the third item,
we're okay with that.
Actually my client is on a jury, and the judge said that he had to
be back by three o'clock. So my concern is that Sabal Bay could put
us to the point, at least lunch hour, and he might not be able to be here
while the item is heard.
I did speak to the judge yesterday, and she asked me to predict
when this would be heard, and I told her I wasn't able to make that
prediction. And so she only gave him until three o'clock to get back to
the east coast.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only concern is that a lot of people
have seen this agenda, and they know that Sabal Bay was coming up
second or third, and that would be a lengthy discussion. I'm not sure
that the public that would want to address Bristol Pines is here,
thinking that it might be after lunch, as a lot of people have in other
Issues.
I would certainly look for any --
MR. MIDNEY: I would like to move that we change the agenda
as Rich has suggested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a motion been made. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded.
Discussion?
I usually don't have a problem with it, especially if it's in the
Page 32
,~_... "~~"--"._, --.-
October 6, 2005
beginning of the meeting. At this point I'm concerned that there are
going to be public here who may not be here till this afternoon
because this would normally be on a later time in the day, so I
wouldn't be in favor of changing the agenda.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of changing the
agenda, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Raise your hands. That's four in favor.
Those against changing the agenda?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Three against. Agenda's changed.
Bristol Pines is next.
Richard, let me go through the routine on this one. This is
petition PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6084, Waterways Joint Venture IV, also
known as Bristol Pines.
All those willing -- wishing to speak on this matter, please rise to
be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, Richard. It's all yours.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. And thank you
for your moving of this item up.
This is the Bristol Pines PUD. It's essentially a second phase of
an existing PUD. On the visualizer is the location map. The project is
approximately a mile south of Immokalee Road. It's on Collier
Boulevard, on the east side of Collier Boulevard. It's adjacent to
Page 33
.,-.... .--..--
October 6, 2005
Warm Springs PUD, which was formerly known as the Nicaea
Academy. We're also neighbors to Vanderbilt Country Club.
We have been working with the residents of Vanderbilt Country
Club to make sure that they're comfortable with the development
standards within our PUD. And we believe that they are comfortable.
I don't think they'll be here in opposition. We have agreed to a
wall and other concessions to make sure that we're compatible with
the Vanderbilt Country Club.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I hate to interrupt you. I forgot
to ask for disclosures.
All those in the commission, have you had any discussion? I
have. I have discussed this project with Richard and went over the
issues that I will be going over shortly in this meeting. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I also had a conversation with
Richard.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three of us. Thank you.
Sorry, Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Not a problem.
The first phase of the PUD is 22.77 acres. Let me go ahead and
put the graph up. That's an aerial of the property. The first phase,
which was approved as the phase adjacent to Collier Boulevard, it's
22.77 acres. It was approve for 159 dwelling units, of which 16 of
those units were -- served the low income category, and that is under
the affordable housing guidelines, 60 percent or less of the median
Income.
So the first phase was approved using an affordable density
bonus agreement. The density on that phase is basically seven units
per acre. The base density in this area is four units. To increase that
you have to go through the affordable housing density bonus. I
believe you have in your possession the affordable housing density
agreement that goes along with that petition.
Page 34
.--
October 6, 2005
The second phase is to add approximately 19.83 acres, for a total
of 133 more dwelling units. Of those 133 new dwelling units, 13
would serve the low income category of affordable housing.
The overall -- which means that of the bonus units, 24 --
approximately 24 percent of them will be affordable housing units
serving the low income category. They'll all be three bedroom units
serving that important need.
You've seen this before. It's -- the staff report is complete. We
went to the EAC. The EAC recommended unanimously to approve
this project.
We have been working with the county on transportation issues.
We have an agreement with the county to build Tree Farm Road, a
portion of Tree Farm Road. We also -- we are obligated under the
PUD to fund the design up to $150,000 for the extension of Tree Farm
Road to Massey. So we have been working with the county on
transportation issues.
Weare consistent with the county's concurrency management
system and all other aspects of the growth management plan. Weare
requesting that the CCPC follow staffs recommendation to approve
the -- recommend approval of the PUD, except for one -- one issue.
Staff is recommending denial of the deviation that we're
requesting, that we don't have to go through both the plat process and
the site development plan process.
This is a town home concept where you own the dirt below the
unit. It's not a new concept. You've seen it at Summit Place and other
locations. The plat and the SDP serve the same process as far as
reviewing the engineering and making sure everything's in place.
F or Summit Place they agreed that we didn't need to go through
the duplicative process and that we also -- and now they're saying that
they believe that they're going to fix the LDC so we don't need to
address this issue.
Unfortunately there was an earlier cycle of the LDC where they
Page 35
.~--,-"'....- ~_._-
October 6, 2005
were going to attempt to fix the problem as well. That was withdrawn
from that cycle. If we knew that this thing was going to get fixed in
the LDC, we'd say fine, we agree with staff to pull it out. But we don't
know that that's going to happen. It has been approved in the past.
There's really no reason to have two processes dealing the same issue.
So we're requesting that you recommend approval with our deviation
to that issue.
I've got to add one other thing. The EAC, when they approved
the petition, they had one condition that the developer install a 30-inch
elliptical pipe under the project roadway to allow for small animals to
have access to each of the two preserves on the site, and this will be
added to the PUD prior to the BCC hearing.
With that, that concludes my presentation, and we're available to
answer any questions you may have on the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of
Richard?
Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, obviously by the site
plan, it's going to interconnect to a property to the east. I assume that's
where they're going to have it.
Why would the roadways -- would you want to reduce those
roadways to 50 feet? I mean, certainly they do slow it down, I
understand that. But how much development is going to occur to the
east of this that would connect to these roadways?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe that we are -- are we going
to connect? We're not providing for interconnection for properties to
the east.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So those dead-end roads
are just to connect to these townhouses?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. There's not going to be an
interconnection. And the 50-foot road width is a standard deviation
for private roads in Collier County. I mean, we're still going to
Page 36
'-~_.". -.._-
October 6, 2005
address all our utility issues and other issues related to that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of
Richard?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, I have a handful. So first
of all, I received one other document or e-mail from Mr. John
Welikins (phonetic), who is in the Vanderbilt Country Club. He
brought up two points that were -- I guess were mentioned in the
public information meeting. One was that there would be -- the
developer agreed to construct a concrete wall at a minimum six feet in
height. On the record, are you still --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- willing to do that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other was that the developer will
not be using any cyclone fencing on the project.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I believe we had committed to that
during the first phase of the PUD as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I wanted -- this is a new phase,
so I wanted --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to reemphasize.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a transportation issue, which is
typical for the area. We know that the six -laning of Vanderbilt Beach
Road, six-laning of951, and improvements on Immokalee won't be
completed until the end of '07, and other proj ects that you brought
forward, we've asked you to defer COs until that time. For the new
units that you're requesting here today, do you have any objection
Page 37
----
October 6, 2005
deferring their COs until October of '07 as we have done on other
projects in that area?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, in this particular case, we
can't accommodate that request. We can talk about phasing per
month. We -- in order to accommodate that, we would literally have to
stop development of the site, wait several months, and restart the
process.
We already -- we're consistent with the concurrency management
plan. This improvement is scheduled to move forward, and it will go
forward.
We have -- we have paid for the construction of a portion of Tree
Farm Road and are paying for the design of the further interconnection
of Tree Farm Road to Massey, which is going to create another bypass
road between Immokalee Road and 951. So we're already part of the
solution and are resolving these issues.
We can agree to 20 units a month starting January 1, but we
would need to ration it that way so we don't have to stop production of
the homes. And with that means the labor force goes away, and we'd
have to come back with -- you know, try to recruit those people again
to work for us. And that's the reason we can't agree to a blanket "no
units" but we can phase 20 a month.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty a month in January, starting in
January of '07?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. For the new units, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I -- yeah. The other PUD's
in place.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just want to make sure I didn't say
anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We should have done the same thing on
the other one, but that got by.
Utility department. And I'm -- I guess I'll find out who from the
utility department can answer this question. I'm not sure, you might
Page 38
- - --_._~~-- '-'-
October 6, 2005
have the answer, Richard. I mentioned it to you at our meeting.
The utility review brought up an issue that a 24- inch water
transmission line exists, but the sewer availability and placement of a
16- inch line along Collier Boulevard has to be done, and they don't
believe they're going to have that in place until as late as 2008. Can
you shed some light on that issue?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't know the specifics, but we
do know that until there's sewer service there, that we -- they may end
up with a phasing schedule that you had originally asked for. But we
believe that hopefully the sewer line's going to be there sooner than
that, but we know that that's a possibility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The LDC amendment that was
going to be made to take care of this thing, the staff had indicated that
it's going to be next amendment cycle. I know you briefly mentioned
it. Do you have any more information on that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe they're shooting for November.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of this year?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Of this year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they can't even get -- we've not
even been through cycle 2-A, so I don't know how that's going to
happen.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. We're not real confident that that's
going to happen with the schedule that we need to keep going.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, if that amendment does get
through by the time you're submitting for this particular proj ect, which
you've just told me you need the units starting in January of '07, would
you be -- submitting when for that? Would this amendment possibly
be passed by then, be through the system?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we tried to get into the system
sooner than the amendment passing. And that's why we would be --
you know, we would get caught up in that timing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The units are for sale only, is
Page 39
-.......-- '---_.._,,-.. --
October 6, 2005
that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was stated at the information
meeting?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your PUD document, Roman
numeral II-V is the page. It's item 3.10.E, or 2.10.E, I'm sorry.
MR. YOVANOVICH: 2.10.E?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Talking about a sales facility in the
clubhouse, no more than a third of the gross floor area. Would you
mind putting a not to exceed square footage on that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, we're comfortable,
Commissioner, in just deleting, using the clubhouse sales center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So E can be stricken?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next page, Richard, 2.15, you've got a
preserve that's going to be partially into an FPL easement. Is that
what that's basically trying to say?
You have a -- part of your preserve has something to do with an
FPL easement; does it not?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And that FPL easement's been
vacated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was my question. So
you've already deleted it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. We've taken care of that issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page Roman numeral III-III, it's
subnotes to your development standards table. Your note number one,
location of structures proposed adjacent to the lake shall have no
setback in the lake maintenance easement. The way that reads, it
would require you to put them all in the easement. I'm sure you'd like
Page 40
----
October 6, 2005
some flexibility in that. Wouldn't you want to use the word may
there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The number -- subnote three
talks about for compatibility with the existing single-family residence.
You're going to provide single-story residential structures located
adjacent to the residence that's already there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell me what adjacent is?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually, Commissioner, since you
and I had a chance to discuss this, that property is going to be acquired
by the Jewish Federation, and that single-family structure's going to go
away, so we believe that that will become a non-issue.
But the way we described it before was basically, if you look a
line of sight directly across from that single-family home, that would
be determined to be adjacent, not the entire single -- not the entire
parcel on which the single-family home is located.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, I know you always
provide us with good facts. In that case, if this is unnecessary,
wouldn't you want to put something in here that provides the fact that
if this is -- if that single-family residence is removed, this would no
longer apply?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can -- I thought that was understood,
but if we need to clarify that, we can certainly do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number six refers to a modular
concrete wall. I think we talked about that. Modular kind of limits
you, considering that the Vanderbilt Country Club indicated concrete
or block. I think a structural wall made of some cementitious material
would probably be acceptable.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I discussed that, and we're fine with
the footnote as is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Page 41
".~-- '-~-'._...,-" '---
October 6, 2005
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I've got something in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rich, you know, I
sometimes criticize you for trying to slide through with a five-foot
side yard setback. I want to congratulate you on your seven and a half
foot setback. That's where I think we all ought to go. Since Habitat
for Humanity is already there, I don't know why the rest can't follow.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. Rich, you have already
complied with the requirements of affordable housing. I'm with that.
And I also realize that that is acceptable, what you have done. I'm in a
position right now where I am looking at affordable housing in a
situation where you had 1 71 units you could use if there was no
affordable housing.
With your -- with your bonus for your client, you're now getting
266 units. It is, in my mind, that affordable housing should have a
little bit more density for the affordable housing people. It is my
understanding -- and I'm going to try to push this on every single one
of these -- that it should be a 70/30 percentage. Seventy percent to the
developer, that's excellent. Thirty percent for the people who we're
trying to find homes for, schoolteachers, doctors -- not doctors, but
nurses, and those alike are not being able to find them.
And if we don't put a push to this, we're going to have a situation
where affordable housing will accomplish nothing.
Now, it's only fair here to look at this thing from a point of view
of saying, affordable housing is put on here to help the people who
need affordable housing. I don't think we're trying to say, give us a
50/50 split. That's ridiculous. But I do believe that a 70/30 split is one
that gives you what you needed, and that basically would do the job.
And it will allow the people who really need affordable housing
to also achieve their need. And under the basis that we have it now,
Page 42
~',- ---
October 6, 2005
I'm sorry, I really can't vote for this particular situation because I feel
very strongly that we have to make a change here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I appreciate that, Mr. Adelstein.
And, you know, the land development code has specific requirements
of what you have to do to get the density bonus. My client has availed
itself of that process.
There's not a rush of developers out there saying, we want to do
affordable housing under the existing incentive program to do
affordable housing. If the Board of County Commissioners wants to
change the incentive program through an adoption of a change to the
land development code, we understand that, and we'll live with
whatever the change is. But the existing rules specifically allow for
this percentage. And we're doing three bedroom units.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm not getting to that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're doing the percentage required. If
we don't -- if we don't provide these units, you'll lose an opportunity
for these additional units -- 13 units to serve as affordable housing.
Other -- I mean, there's not a whole lot of people asking you,
please let me have this bonus as an incentive to make my proj ect
work. So I would respectfully request that we apply the rules that are
in place today, and that we're not in a position to increase that number
to what you would like from a policy standpoint. We need to stay
with what the land development code says and what the affordable
housing density agreement that we presented to you says.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It could be, of course, a
problem when these things get to a point where we're not getting
enough of them that they literally let it stop, leaving your client with
something like 171 units instead of the 266.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Again. I'm sorry. I'll take that
out of the issue, and I appreciate what you've said.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that the land development code
Page 43
---.~._..- _.~~-,,--""<. --
October 6, 2005
has addressed affordable housing, and maybe it does need to be
revised, and that's something that hopefully the BCC will look at with
staff if they so feel to direct that.
Right now I -- you know, the land development code does
provide incentives that allow this to even happen as it is today, so --
and I think that every project ought to have some application to
affordable housing.
Now with that said, any there other questions of Richard? If not,
we'll go on to staff report.
(No response.)
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I'm a principal planner with the department of zoning
and land development review.
You've received the staff report and supplemental staff report that
go along with that. And I think at this point we were down to just one
issue as far as, staff is recommending approval of the petition, and the
only thing that's contentious at this point is the one deviation.
And in the staff report -- the original staff report that you
received, I believe on page 9 of that staff report, staff did explain what
our position was on that, and we did explain the difference between
deviation one being requested as part of this petition and how it was
addressed through the Golden Gate Fire District PUD and the Summit
Place PUD, and set forth the differences in those two petitions versus
this petition and why we supported it in that petition and we're not
supporting it in this petition.
One of the main issues that's been determined is that it is a
process. It is not a requirement that's a measurable type thing like a
setback or something like that that you can normally deviate or vary
from.
The deviation process was not designed to sidestep or eliminate
or get rid of any kind of a process that's in the land development code.
That's not what it's designed to do. It's designed to give design
Page 44
..--. -"."-
October 6, 2005
flexibility that can enhance a project without having to go through the
variance procedure and having to prove hardship.
However, in this case by trying to get rid of an SDP process, it's a
process deviation, which is not appropriate in staffs opinion. And,
like I said, we did go into the details as to why we believed it was
appropriate at that time for Summit Place and Golden Gate Fire
Station, and we have since reevaluated that and determined it's no
longer appropriate, especially in this case.
Given the fact that they're now not going to be building in phase
II until 2007, I would hope that we can have the amendment approved
in a timely enough fashion that they could benefit by the amendment.
And it seems as though the amendment may be approved because
we're seeing more and more requests to do this type of development in
Collier County, whereby you have fee simple within one building.
The LDC originally didn't address it because we didn't have that
issue. Now we do, so we're trying to be responsive to that need and
change the LDC. We think it's appropriate for this petitioner to wait
until that's done, since they don't have units on the ground, they don't
have sales contracts pending, and they did in the other two instances.
So given that discussion, I mean, that's basically where we stand.
The only thing I would ask, if you do go along with the
transportation condition that you had spoke of regarding phase II and
when they do the other units and the certificates of occupancy, I
looked quickly at the site plan, and I don't see where the site plan
clearly shows phase I or phase II, and I think we need to change that
master plan to clearly delineate where that rule or that requirement
would be applicable so that anybody coming in later might understand
where you can go and where you can't go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way they phrased it is that
they would be able to do 20 units CO'd a month, not necessarily for
phasing, just 20 units a month. I don't --
MS. DESELEM: I thought they were saying beginning of
Page 45
.-~_. ------
October 6, 2005
January of 2007 though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. DESELEM: So that's for the entire project, not just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just the new section that's being
added.
MS. DESELEM: So that would be phase II, as I understand --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I see.
MS. DESELEM: -- phase II to be. But it's not shown as phase I
and phase lIon the master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that can be taken care of very
easily.
MS. DESELEM: Yes. And I just wanted to offer to you that in
regards to your affordable housing discussion, the board did adopt a
resolution, and it's resolution 2005-21 that now does have more
stringent criteria, and it's based on how many units overall are
proposed and how many units as a percentage have to be provided.
This project came in prior to that ordinance being adopted, and so
it has less than what would be required. But anything coming in now
would be required to provide more. But it's not the 30 percent that
you're seeking, but it is more.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the more?
MS. DESELEM: The more is depending upon on how many
units are proposed. If they're constructing less than 50 units, 25
percent have to be affordable. If they're constructing 50 but less than
200, it's 20 percent. If they're constructing's 200 or more, then it's 15
percent.
And to go over that in more detail, we have Cormac Giblin.
MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. Cormac Giblin,
the housing and grants manager for Collier County.
What Kay is talking about is our affordable housing expedited
permit review process. The percentages that she read off were what it
takes to qualify development to be fast tracked through the planning
Page 46
---
October 6, 2005
process.
In addition, recently the BCC did amend the LDC in terms of the
affordable housing density bonus formula and the percentages, and
that has changed lightly as well. And I think it has been shifted a little
bit more toward what Commissioner Adelstein was looking for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the current density bonus
arrangement that's in the new approved LDC be consistent with what
they're doing today?
MR. GIBLIN: No. This application was received before.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. How far off are they in
unit count?
MR. GIBLIN: It really would require an entire re-evaluation,
because what we did with the change was, we made it -- the density
bonus available to a little bit higher income level, 80 percent of
median income, whereas in the previous version, you really had to do
at least 40 percent of your development at 80 percent to even get one
unit of density bonus.
N ow we've made -- what we've done is make it, in a sense, easier
for a development to apply a densi -- an affordable density bonus at a
higher income level and kind of tightened it up on the bottom end.
This development would probably need to do about 30 percent --
or let me do the math real quick. Twenty percent affordable to still
qualify for the same bonus they're looking for today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason they don't is because
they came in at a time and submitted an earlier date?
MR. GIBLIN: This application was received before that change
was made.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Cormac.
Any other questions of staff?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I have one. The LDC amendment
that's being proposed that we may not even get to see this year, is it
Page 47
-- -'-~._'.'~> '--'""">'" ^',- ~.~-'"--
October 6, 2005
consistent with what they're asking for? I mean, what they're asking
for is a deviation. If they -- if this land development code amendment
was in place, would they need this deviation?
MS. DESELEM: Two part-question, I'll answer it. It is my
understanding, although I haven't seen the most current wording of it,
that it would implement the exact thing that they're asking for. How
it's worded specifically, I don't know.
But that's what it's designed to do to allow a person to do a
process other than SDP and the PPL so that they could -- it might have
some other process defined that would address the issue but wouldn't
require them to do both. I don't know exactly what the wording is.
But it's my understanding, it would get them where they wanted to be.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, zoning manager.
I was just talking to Mr. Nadeau, and I believe there may be an option
that solves the problem. If at such time the LDC -- approve the
deviation subj ect to an additional condition that says if the county
adopts the LDC amendment to deal with these townhomes prior to
them initiating any development order for those, then they would be
subj ect to that. Otherwise the deviations would be approved if the
county fails to proceed with the amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question of Ms. Student.
Surprise, huh?
As Kay is saying, she believes that this deviation is not -- does
not meet the intent of allowable deviations within the LDC. Do
deviations, as applied to the LDC, provide whether they're processes
or whether they're more material and more specifics --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's always been my understanding,
as Ms. Deselem said, that the deviation is a more substantive standard
in the land development code rather than one on process. That's
always been my understanding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it -- it's your understanding, but is the
code written that way, that you would interpret it that way?
Page 48
"-'~ --"--"- ,..~-
October 6, 2005
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I was -- when the issue came up, I
was searching for the language in the code. Do you have it -- can you
give me a citation, Ms. Deselem?
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. I missed the question.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Could you give me a -- I was
looking for that section on deviations in the new codes because I
anticipated this question coming up when it became an issue, and I
was look in section 10. Can you cite me to the correct section?
MS. DESELEM: I will go get it and cite it to you, if you'll give
me just a moment.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I have the code right here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, while you're looking at that, why
don't we move on and get the rest of the meeting forward. Are there
any -- there's no other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to see if there's any public
speakers.
MR. BELLOWS: We have one registered speaker. Wait a
second. No, we don't. That's the other one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He just disappeared. So you have no --
MR. BELLOWS: That was the other item. We moved this one
up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no registered speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this discussion is going to
hinge on Margie's comment. At least I'd like to know if this deviation
is applicable to all language in the LDC or just specifics. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question for Rich while
,
you re --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Didn't you begin your presentation
by saying that this project now is 24 percent affordable housing?
Page 49
-~~ '..-
October 6, 2005
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be, when you take the number
of units, 29. We're doing 29 affordable housing units, and we're
getting a bonus of 121 units.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, against the bonus.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Against the bonus. That was, I think,
what Mr. Giblin was talking about as well. It's a percentage of the
bonus.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you -- okay. Well, I didn't
understand that either. So if you get -- it's a percentage of the bonus
that's applied. So if you had 121 units, you're closer to the percentage
that Commissioner Adelstein's been trying to get to then?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. He wants that number to go to
30 percent of the bonus units become affordable versus the current __
the formula we're under.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're under -- your formula gives
you 24 percent?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're six percent off. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, we've found it in the code,
and it's actually characterized as a deviation from a master plan. You
would not find a process on the master plan, so that would support my
understanding over time, and Ms. Deselem's, that it would apply to
substantive and not procedure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps, thank you.
Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I just had a quick
question. I had to fill time there. Rich, there's no maximum length of
a building. In other words, theoretically you could build one solid
townhouse --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and go all around the thing.
Page 50
----.-
October 6, 2005
Is -- obviously the loser in that case would be the people trying to buy
the units. So, in other words, he would hurt his own neighborhood.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And we're not going to do that,
but I will tell you that we're going to be doing four-unit and six-unit
buildings.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, excellent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none -- we'll, there's no public
speakers, we'll close the public meeting. Entertain a motion.
Well --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Glad somebody will. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make a motion to forward
PUDZ-2004-AR-608 (sic), Bristol Pines PUD to the commission with
a recommendation for approval.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 6084.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's made by Commissioner
Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Midney.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Margie, is -- the bottom
line is, we cannot forward deviation one for approval?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right, because it's authorized for
deviations from the master plan, and procedures are not a part of the
master plan, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get into discussion, and I have a
list of stipulations that I might help get through the discussion.
First one is there will be no cyclone fencing. You agreed to that.
Second one is, the wall will be concrete or block or similar
cementitious material.
The COs for the proj ect, the earliest they'll be starting is January
Page 51
-"_.._0.". -.'--
October 6, 2005
of '07. They will not exceed 20 a month, and they have till sometime
in October of '07, and it doesn't matter after that point.
Strike section 2.1 O.E, which is the relationship to the sales center.
The standards table, item number one has to be changed to may
instead of shall, and the square foot for number six, I have -- number
three. I don't remember what it was, Richard. Back up.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Was that the single-family home
compatibility?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's right. Add some language to
that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: To clarify.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the effect that if single- family
home property is purchased and the home is no longer there, then this
wouldn't apply.
Number seven, approval of the deviations as requested by staff,
which means deviation number one would be denied. But, however,
staff offered a compromise on deviation number one that I think ought
to be considered in part of this stipulation.
And, Ray, could you repeat that compromise just for the record?
MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure it's applicable given the county --
assistant county attorney's statement about deviations from procedure.
That still would be a procedural deviation that we not would be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's staffs opinion, then I'm not
willing to move forward with it and I'll leave it as a denial for
stipulation number -- deviation number one, and that the proj ect could
be split into two phases on the master plan. Phase I would be the
existing PUD as today, and phase II would be the new section that's
come in for today's approval.
Any other comments from the commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I just have a comment on
the schedule. I mean, where does that leave the ability to continue
construction?
Page 52
--- ^".._..._----~""- .....""-
October 6, 2005
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we'll do that, we'll just end up
paying for two processes that do the same thing. It will slow us down
because it's -- you know, it's a cumbersome process to do the same
thing.
What I would request, if possible -- this is really a policy
decision for the Board of County Commissioners to ultimately decide
whether they agree with the county attorney or not. I appreciate the
comments that were going to support that. But if there's any support
for the fact that it really doesn't make any sense to go through the
same process twice, maybe that will be useful information to the
Board of County Commissioners when they consider -- consider this
petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I, for one, have no concern, no
problem with stating that it would be nice not to have to go through
the same process twice, but --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree with that. I can't see
any reason --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as changing my mind in staffs
deviation, I don't think there's been enough evidence to show that that
should be done. So that --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, with those stipulations, does the
motion maker accept those?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker and the second accepts.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Page 53
,~-^ .-..,,----.....- --
October 6, 2005
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? No one's opposed.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oop. One opposition. Okay. Thank
you.
The next project is a rather lengthy one, or it could be rather
short, I'm not sure. So what I'd like to do is take a 10-minute break for
the court reporter. And just for the record, we will be breaking for
lunch a little early today to give the commission and others time to get
to Subway before the whole world does.
So with that, we'll take a 10 minute break till 10:03. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could all move back to your
seats. We'd like to get the meeting going again.
Margie, before we go into the next two petitions, I know they're
linked together, do you have any legal preference as to which one we
hear first? Does it matter?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think that they should go in the
order that they appear in the agenda with the DRI abandonment first __
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- and then the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we vote on them after each
presentation then, or together later on?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think it's up to you. You could
do it either way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather take them separately if that's
legally acceptable.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's -- the next petition is
DRIABN-2004-AR-6251, Collier Development Corporation, also
Page 54
-..-.",,< ~---"_. '_~~'__~'~',"..'n" '"'-"-
October 6, 2005
known at the Sabal Bay project for abandonment of their DR!.
Will all those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please
rise, be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures from the planning
commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
have to recuse myself from this -- both of these votes. I do consulting
work for WCI.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one though -- well, I'm not going to
-- okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The contract purchaser is WCI.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I had a conversation with the
transportation department.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I've had conversations with Mr.
Varnadoe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except for me, and I did have
conversations with Varnadoe and Mr. Y ovanovich on this matter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, George, it's yours, sir.
MR. V ARNADOE: Thank you. For the record, George
Varnadoe, law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson on
behalf of the petitioner, Collier Development Corporation, which
since the time of filing the petition, has changed its name to CDC
Land Investments, Inc. Same ownership entity, just changed the
name.
We're seeking abandonment of the Collier develop -- CDC
development of regional impact, commonly known as the Sabal Bay
DR!, I think, to everybody, and that's what I'll use.
Page 55
--.-- --__.v'",....._ ---
October 6, 2005
As I'm sure you know, certain proj ects are considered
developments or regional impacts because statutorily they are deemed
to have a substantial impact on the citizens of more than one county.
As DRIs, these projects are reviewed not only by the local
government, but also by the regional planning council, in this case
Southwest Florida Regional Council, and the Department of
Community Affairs.
In addition to PUD zoning in this instance, there's also a
developer -- excuse me -- a development order, a DRI development
order, issued for the proj ect.
As far as history, a DRI development order and PUD zoning was
approved for this project in 1986. It did constitute a DRI in that it had
some 4,000 dwelling units, 900 hotel rooms, a health and tennis spa,
45 holes of golf, over 1,200,000 square feet of commercial activity,
and a marina with 600 wet slips and 200 dry slips.
The development order issued by the county conditioned the start
of development upon their being a companion development order
issued by the City of Naples for that part of the project that was within
the City of Naples' jurisdiction, which was part of the marina project
and some of the resort hotels that were contemplated around the
marina proj ect.
To make a long story short, the city denied the issuance of a
development order. There were appeals taken, and litigation ensued
for a number of years.
During that time some of the land that was in the CDC DRI has
been zoned for other uses, and you can look at this map in the purple, I
guess, and blue area on the left -- the purple area's in the city, the blue
area's in the county -- that constitutes the Hamilton Harbor PUD PD,
which was approved both by the city and the county pursuant to an
interlocal government agreement by which the city took the lead on
analyzing the impacts of that project and making the approvals, and
the county later adopted a PUD which mirrored the city's PUD for that
Page 56
-~--."-_.. - --"-"-'-'''.-'.'' ." --'"~"'~---,. '--''''--'-
October 6, 2005
part of the proj ect within the county.
If you look at the green area at top left, that's the Botanical
Gardens PUD, which was approved by the city, the PUD in recent
years.
The -- as you have in your materials, the reason for abandonment
is the resulting project on the rest of the land. And the original DR! is
outlined on that map in red. The resultant DR! for that property --
excuse me. The resultant project for that property will not trigger the
thresholds for DRI so the resulting project as proposed will not
constitute a DR!; therefore, we're trying to abandon the DR!, and then
you will either approve or disapprove a PUD for the remainder of that
property.
The only development that has occurred within the CDC
boundaries pursuant to the development order was pursuant to our
preliminary development agreement between the Department of
Community Affairs and Collier Development Corporation, and the
arrow points to it. It is -- that preliminary development agreement
approved 390 dwelling units, multi-family dwelling units, 120,000
square feet of retail, and 50,000 square feet of office.
Approximately half the retail has been developed. It's Hammock
Cove Shopping Center. It's a Publix dominated shopping center in that
area. There's also, I think, a Walgreen's on u.s. 41.
There are SDPs pending for all but one other of the retail parcels,
and those properties are in third parties who are not part of this
application, although they have consented to the abandonment, and
the multi-family tract is within a week or two of seeking an SDP for
that property.
So that property is or will be in the very, very near future
developed under the -- under the preliminary development agreement,
which is consistent with the PUD that was issued for this property.
The major question I would have if I were sitting in your shoes,
because this is kind of an unusual procedure, is what about the
Page 57
--- -~-" ^-"-"-""-'" '-
October 6, 2005
commitments that were in the development order? What happens to
those as a result of the abandonment of the development order? And
there were four major commitments.
One was to realign and straighten out the Rattlesnake
Hammock/Thomasson intersection. Those of you who have been here
for a while -- I think that includes everybody up there -- remember
there was an offset of probably 150 feet between those two
intersections.
The county did not follow my advice and named that road Rattle
Tom after we straightened it out. But that was subject to developer's
contribution agreement, and that has been accomplished and that
intersection has been straightened out.
The second one was a commitment to assist with the Lely Canal
drainage, which those of you who have been around as long as Ken
Abernathy and Mark Strain and I, would remember they've had
drainage problems in Lely since I can remember. And that Lely
drainage canal comes through the property from northeast to
southwest at the present time, and they wanted some assistance with
expanding that canal and putting in control structures.
There is a companion developer's contribution agreement to the
-- to the one for the Thomasson Road/Rattlesnake Hammock
intersection that was entered into, I think, in 19 -- excuse me, in 2002
or 2003 between Collier Development Corporation and the county,
which does accomplish that mitigation. It hasn't all been carried out
yet through the permitting process, but it does guarantee that those
improvements will take place.
There was also a commitment to deed some 21 acres to the
school district, and there's correspondence in your packet as to when
that would occur. And after the development order was accomplished
and we sought to put the dedication off until we had a new PUD for
the property, the school district asked if we would also acquiesce to
the sale of an additional 10 acres so they'd have a larger site, and that's
Page 58
--. . -.- ""-_.^"._,,~,.- .'-"-
October 6, 2005
also in the correspondence, I think, that you have.
The fourth commitment was for a one-acre site for the East
Naples Fire District. This will be adjacent to the school site, and you
also have correspondence as to when that would occur.
The other commitments were general in nature more, I think,
aimed at offsetting the scope of development. Had to do with how
many acres of wetlands would be preserved or conserved, and I think
that's adequately addressed in the PUD you will see later.
Both the Department of Community Affairs and the Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council have notified the county they have
reviewed the abandonment application and have no objections to the
abandonment.
So I'm going to keep this short, and I'll respond to any questions,
because I'm sure you may have some.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the panel?
George, we met. I had mentioned I had a couple I just was
curious about. You do not have a Corps permit on this property yet?
MR. V ARNADOE: Which property, Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The DR!, because you have a listing of
exhibits and state and federal permits, and I didn't see a Corps permit
there, and I was just curious if you had gotten one or not.
MR. V ARNADOE: I don't think there was, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure that when we get to the PUD,
I'll ask the same questions, so I'll get the answer there also.
But there was a companion agreement involving the Lely area
surface water drainage improvements, and it required certain things to
be done by July 1st of2004. For example, a modified drainage design
with South Florida Water Management District was to be completed,
or designed no later than 2004. I was just curious if either that has
been done or it's carried over to the PUD.
MR. V ARNADOE: Let me check, Mr. Strain. I know there was
work being done. I don't know whether they got it finalized or not. I
Page 59
.n~,,~_
October 6, 2005
need to just -- if you'll give me just 30 seconds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, thank you.
MR. ROBAU: Good morning. My name is Emilio Robau,
RW A, Inc. I'll give you a card later. I can answer a couple of those
questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. ROBAU: We're currently in the permitting process, and
Southwest Florida Water Management District's already seen the
petition twice now, that's relative to the July 1, 2004.
We submitted prior to that, from my memory, a Corps permit.
I'm really glad to say that the county, after a long time, successfully
gained a Corps permit -- I have a copy of it back there -- for the Lely
implementation. And the project -- the balance of the development is
also in the Corps permitting process.
So I hope that answers your questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It absolutely does. Thank you. Those
were the two issues I had.
And, George, I've got one of Kay. And other than that --
MR. V ARNADOE: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one of Kay Deselem and her one
issue she brought, and I'm done. Thank you, sir.
MR. V ARNADOE: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
eN 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. V ARNADOE: Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem,
principal planner with zoning and land development review.
You do have the staff report, brief as it may be, and staff is
recommending approval of the abandonment of the DRI.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've just got a scriveners issue, Kay.
MS. DESELEM: Okay.
Page 60
~^-----"'-'" ."-,.~...--" "~ ",.,.,,----,~_.~ ---
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your ordinance that was included if
you look at section two.
MS. DESELEM: Okay. Hang on. I don't have a copy. Margie?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, there was an ordinance,
resolution number 04 called abandonment of the CDC DR!. I know
now why you used the 12 lakes regional impact as an example. It's
actually section two under abandonment approved. We're abandoning
the 12 lakes proj ect again, so we just wanted to correct that.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I remember that was another similar
situation to what we have here today.
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only point I had to ask.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you very much for pointing that out.
We will correct that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have called you earlier, but it
came out last night. So I would have woke you up at midnight if I had
to.
Okay. Any other questions of Kay? Mr. Varnadoe?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None?
Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers have registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll close the public
hearing. Is there amotion?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-6126 (sic) be
allowed to abandon the project as they have requested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's made and seconded.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 61
---.-----.-----..---- --~....=.~-^.- .~-,.~ ---
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No opposition. Motion passes
unanimously. Thank you.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just want to note that there was
one recusal because of the conflict.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved -- so noted, thank you.
Okay. The next item on the agenda is a companion item, petition
PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6126. WCI Communities, Inc., and CDC Land
Investments, and this is also known as proj ect, Sabal Bay.
All those wishing to testify, please rise, be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Almost everybody in the
field.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures from planning
commission?
Well, looks like I've got quite a few. I mean, talked to Mr.
Varnadoe, talked to Mr. Yovanovich, Mr. Realstone, Wayne Arnold,
the architect -- oh, no, Wayne Arnold's on another project. Sorry.
Same players, different project. That's it. Okay.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I also have one with Mr.
Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ed, it's all yours.
Page 62
---' ~-~..-.._-
October 6, 2005
MR. GRIFFITH: Great. Thank you. Good morning,
Commission. My name is Ed Griffith. I am with WCI Communities,
and I'm vice-president in the home building. This project is a petition
that is a co-application of both WCI Communities and Collier
Enterprises.
We have Collier Enterprises representatives here, of course, and
then we have all our consultants because we want to be sure
absolutely that we're going to answer every and all of your questions.
It's been a long time really since WCI has been back into the
Naples/Collier County area with a master plan community. The last
one, really, that we ever did -- that we did was like 1992, I believe,
which was Pelican Marsh. It was a 2,200-acre development, and we
have since only been back in doing much smaller communities.
But I can tell you that this is a property that we're very interested
in, we're very excited, really, and really looking forward to be back in
here to provide you all, the county and everyone else in the area, to
benefit of bringing you this quality kind of development that we think
it is, and that I'm sure that you all will agree.
We just went through yesterday with the EAC, and we had
extensive conversation. We've covered a lot of things with them. And
I'm pleased to say that we got a unanimous vote of recommendation
for approval.
So with that said, I just wanted to make a very short introduction.
And we want to start off really with Rich Y ovanovich, and then we
have a couple others that are going to talk after him and give you an
overview, and, you know, we'll just go from there. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. Again, for the record,
Rich Y ovanovich. I won't repeat what Mr. Varnadoe said in his
rundown of the project history. I had originally planned on going
through that, but he covered that very well.
What you have before you today is a new PUD for
Page 63
--- --
October 6, 2005
approximately 2,400 acres. It includes the PDA area that Mr.
Varnadoe discussed as part of his overview.
The project density is being reduced from the 4,000 residential
units that were originally within the DRI to 1,766 dwelling units. The
over a million square feet of commercial is being reduced to
essentially 260,000 square feet, 180,000 retail and 80,000 square feet
of office. I'm sorry.
When I said 1,766, I meant to say 1,999.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to correct you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Four thousand units went down to 1,999.
No problem. Sorry, Ed -- went down to 1,999 units, and the million
square feet went down to no more than 200,000 square feet of retail
and 60,000 square feet of office. The hotel units were reduced from
the 900 to 250.
Now, we cannot build all of the 1,999 units, all of the retail and
office, and all of the hotel units. We specifically have limited
ourselves in the PUD document to be below the DRI threshold. So we
would have to reduce -- for example, if we wanted to do the 200,000
square feet of retail, we would have to reduce some of that -- some of
the residential units to make sure we do not trigger the DRI threshold
which says you can't exceed 160 percent of the thresholds of three or
more different uses.
So the PUD document is very clear. These are upside numbers
that we can do, so you would know we'd never be more than those
numbers. We can't achieve all of those upside numbers as we go
through the process.
There are -- there's roughly 87,000 square feet of existing retail
uses in the PDA area. I think George pointed out that there's contracts
on several other parcels.
WCI is under contract to purchase the balance of the project.
There are some vested units from a transportation concurrency
standpoint, and that's where the number 1,766 comes into play. The
Page 64
~.'M___'_ -".__.~"-,_..~. '-'''~--
October 6, 2005
Developer Contribution Agreement for the realignment of Rattlesnake
and Thomasson addresses that, and we have a COA for 1,766
residential units at this time.
The commercial that's already there, obviously, is built and is not
subject to transportation concurrency.
The PUD document is consistent with all of the elements of
comprehensive plan. As Ed mentioned, we had a very long and
detailed discussion about the environmental -- the environmental
portion of the project and what the EAC deals with.
We actually got applause from the chairman after we got done
with our presentation because it was clear that we went above and
beyond what's necessary in protecting the environment in dealing with
water quality issues.
The proj ect, as you can see from your staff report and from what
George has said and what I've said to date, to this point, is a
tremendous reduction from what was originally approved in 1986. It
also really is the culmination of the resolution of the litigation that
ensued for the many, many years as a result of that project.
We've worked closely with the Conservancy, Florida Wildlife,
Collier Audubon, and have met with and dealt with Rookery Bay to
make sure that we've addressed all the issues that were raised in that
litigation. The PUD actually implements, you know, the settlements
that were reached with all of those agencies, including dealing with
the Department of Community Affairs and addressing the DRI issues.
Bob Mulhere will take you through a detailed analysis and
presentation of the master plan. After Bob speaks, the rest of the
consultants can answer any questions you may have regarding the
project, but it may be helpful if we let Bob go through his presentation
before we start to get into more specific questions. Otherwise, if you'd
rather ask questions now, feel free, but if we can have Bob make his
presentation, it may answer a lot of questions.
And with that, we hope at the end of the day, you'll follow the
Page 65
---~ .~_.~. --
October 6, 2005
EAC's lead and recommend approval to the Board of County
Commissioners of the project. It's clearly a very, very upscale and
nice proj ect for the East Naples area and one that is a tremendous
reduction in the original proposed development for the area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Richard. One of the -- one
point I'd like to make in my disclosure, I did talk to Bob Mulhere as
well. And all the comments and items that I talked to all those people
about will be brought up again today at this meeting. I will bring them
up in my question period, so thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere
from -- with RW A, Incorporated, here on behalf ofWCI. I'm going to
try not to be repetitive because of the nature of the previous petition.
And, of course, Richard's comments -- a lot of what I said -- intended
to say to introduce the proj ect has already been said.
Just pointing to the aerial here, the property location -- is this on?
Yeah, okay. The property location is clearly depicted here. I just
wanted to show you that, you know, Thomasson Drive runs here, the
new Thomasson goes this way, and of course, this is the developed
shopping right in there, the East Tamiami Trial, and Bayshore Drive.
Over here you can clearly see the intercoastal waterway, and
Wentworth PUD is here, and to the south the property -- which is off
the screen so move it up a little bit -- is bounded by Rookery Bay.
I'm going to put this exhibit on here that we had on previously. I
just wanted to briefly go over -- I think this exhibit depicts clearly
what was originally part of the DRI and PUD, which is outlined in red.
The yellow hatched area is the area that is proposed to be zoned both
from PUD and from ago and ago ST, which are these parcels here.
The green color is a portion of the property that was originally in
the PUD and DRI, is taken out, and actually is Botanical Gardens.
And the -- oh, I don't -- it looks purple to me, but my wife always
says I'm color blind. But anyway, that -- this area here is Hamilton
Harbor, the portion that's located within the city, and the blue part of
Page 66
--- .,",.,~....~-~_...,." .---- ~"-
October 6, 2005
the original DR! -- was part of the Hamilton Harbor area that was
located within the county, that -- those are the areas that are not part of
the proposal that's before you today.
In terms of the zoning, I indicated that the two parcels that we're
adding are ago and ago ST. The balance is PUD. The comprehensive
plan designation, this property's in the urban area. The maximum
density that's allowable is three dwelling units per acre.
The gross density, when you subtract out the commercial acreage
is 1.26 units per acre, and that's the gross density that we're requesting
on the 1,999 units.
I think both George and Rich went over the differences between
the DRI and the PUD, so I will not repeat those.
I do want to talk a little bit about the native preservation. I'll put
up another exhibit here. This exhibit depicts the 1986 master plan
colorized using the same colors for the types of land uses and also
depicts the present PUD master plan.
We have a number of experts here that can talk to environmental
issues. And as questions come up, certainly they would be better to
speak to the issues. I only want to give you a general overview.
The proj ect has been very carefully planned to avoid the most
important natural resources and the most significant habitat areas
where listed species occur. And we have created habitat areas that did
not previously exist in a number of areas to protect those natural
resources as habitat areas for listed species.
There's significantly more natural area of preserve in this plan
than in this plan, even when you consider or subtract the additional
acreage.
In exact numbers, we're required to preserve is 25 percent of the
project's naturally occurring native vegetation. Translates to about
560 acres. Weare actually preserving 56 percent, or 1,256 acres, plus
or minus, and that's significantly higher numbered than previously was
required.
Page 67
--- ----.--- --
October 6, 2005
Of course, the state and federal requirements are considerably
more stringent today than they were in 1986 when this was originally
approved.
It was already mentioned that the EAC unanimously
recommended approval, and I think it was an exceptionally good
hearing. There was a significant amount of discussion. We got into
great detail relative to the natural resource issues, but also the water
quality issues. We're going well above and beyond what would
typically be required.
But I wanted to go back to the aerial and point out -- which I
think you can see -- the main Lely Canal runs through the property.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Where was that again?
MR. MULHERE: It's -- let me zoom in a little bit. That might --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. I thought I saw it.
MR. MULHERE: Oops. That's out. You can see that running
here.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I'm with you.
MR. MULHERE: We're going -- the county has been pursuing
for about 15 years the permitting of that. And the significance of that
is that it's a regionally significant facility in that it takes water from a
very large geographic area.
Weare going to be the ones with the county permitting it to
actually construct it, and we will be making significant improvements
to make that function more naturally and appear more naturally. And
I won't get into the details. If you have specific questions, Emilio
Robau is much more qualified to answer those questions, and he is
here.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, let me ask a fairly
base-line question. Does it eventually empty into the estuary down
there?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, after --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rookery Bay?
Page 68
-_.;~_.- ~,---,-~.. ..,..~ _..,,~-
October 6,2005
MR. MULHERE: Yes, through spreader.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's all freshwater going
into there; is that right?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. And I -- I mean, we can give
you --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's been accounted --
taken into account?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
County staff has conducted a thorough review, all of the various
departments and agencies, and they are recommending approval. I did
want to show you the master plan briefly, since you've seen the
colorized version.
But, again, we've taken great care in planning this project to
avoid the areas of significant natural resource value.
There are a couple of issues that I do wish to discuss with you
related to the deviations that we've requested, and I guess I'll get right
to those.
In the staff report, starting on page 7 of 12, at the bottom of the
pages the deviation requests are listed and the staff recommendation is
also listed.
Deviation one, staff is recommending approval for; deviation
two, staff is recommending approval of; and deviation three, staff is
recommending approval.
Deviation four was a request to allow fence heights not to exceed
nine feet, fence and berm in combination. Staff has recommended
approval with the condition that the height not exceed eight feet, and
we can accept staffs recommendation on that one.
Deviation five was a request to allow a maximum of two ground
or wall entrance signs up to 60 square feet at the entrance of each of
the individual residential tracts. I think the important thing to note
here -- this is a very large project, obviously, master plan community.
These signs would not be visible to the general public. These signs
Page 69
""-"---'"" ^ ~._~.__._, M ---- u~___
October 6, 2005
would be internalized to the development.
This type of deviation has been approved in a number of other
PUDs, particularly Wentworth PUD, which is immediately adjacent
us, had deviations approved that allowed for actually more signage
internal and external than we are requesting.
Specifically within the Wentworth PUD, two entrance signs were
allowed at each subdivision entrance, similar to what we're requesting,
with a maximum of 120 square feet for each sign face, a maximum of
240 square feet of total sign faces in entrances.
So we don't think what we're asking for is unreasonable. It's
going to be designed to be very attractive, as is always the case with
WCI. And I have some photos that I want to put on the visualizer to
maybe give you a better understanding of what we're talking about.
These are some examples. I'm sorry that--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use that mike. There you
go.
MR. MULHERE: I have, by the way, pages and pages of these,
so I won't go through all of them. I just want to give you some
examples. But these are examples of some project entrance signs.
These were taken at Pelican Marsh. I think you can see that
they're very attractive. The landscaping is exceptionally well done. I
just want to put a few other examples up there.
The deviation that we're requesting would allow us to develop
these types of signs with architectural embellishments. Weare limited
at to what we can put on the signs. We're not asking for any deviation
in terms of what we can put on there. There are not going to be garish
billboard type signs. They just are larger because of the scale of the
project, and it seems appropriate. Again, they're internalized and not
seen by the general public.
The second deviation next --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
Page 70
'-" .-.".----...' '--'-
October 6, 2005
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not internal to that project.
MR. MULHERE: Well, that one may not be. I have both the
external signs and the internal signs. I'll show you some more of the
internal signs. Here's one, for example.
And actually the next deviation deals with the external signs, and
I'll get to that.
Deviation six, requested deviation to allow entrance signs up to
120 square feet allowing for two ground signs at each project entrance
on u.S. 41, Thomasson, and Bayshore. Again, this is not atypical.
Such deviation has been granted in numerous PUDs. And this exhibit
that I had on just before is an example of those types of signs. I have
some other external signs here. Just give me one minute.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When you said Thomasson
and Bayshore, you're not talking about that intersection? You're
talking about 41 and Thomasson, and 41 and Bayshore?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct, yeah.
That may be a little bit hard to see, but there is a sign on that
wall.
These two signs would not be -- these two deviations would not
in any way be injurious to the public. As I said, they'll be
architecturally designed, very attractive and integrated with
landscaping. They are slightly larger than what's allowed in the land
development code, but there is a process to request that. We can see
really no valid reason not to approve that. As I said, it's been
approved in many other PUDs.
The frontage on U. S. 41 is very -- we do have a significant
amount of frontage on U.S. 41, but 41 is, you know, a six-lane
roadway with fairly high speeds and, you know, to have appropriate
size of signage which will be in scale with the project and with the
frontage and arterial roadway there seems to make really very good
sense.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You don't have any property
Page 71
~_w .._"", -0-
October 6, 2005
at Bayshore and 41, do you?
MR. MULHERE: No. No.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So where you going to put
it?
MR. MULHERE: No. So we won't be putting a sign there, right.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Took a long time to get
around to that.
MR. MULHERE: The next deviation that I would like to discuss
with you is number seven and -- on page 9 of 12, and this deviation
that we requested seeks relief from parking requirements set forth in
the land development code to allow parking for uses and structures
constructed in the recreational village center, which I'll show you on
the master plan, is fully internalized to the site, right here.
Weare not far along enough in our planning to know exactly
what we might want there; however, it seems appropriate to allow for
a signage plan to be submitted to the county and that that signage plan
would account for a rationale behind any reduction or increase or any
variances from the sign code within that village center. Again, it's
fully internalized. That's what we were requesting. At the time we
develop the town center, we may create a master signage plan for that.
We would submit it to the county with a rationale.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on number seven?
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I may be--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number seven's talking about parking--
MR. MULHERE: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- deviations.
MR. MULHERE: I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Let's go to number seven.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where we were, wasn't it?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Because I think there was no objection
to the other one. I apologize.
Page 72
--.,... ._."-----_.~ "..~--
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Number seven is a similar request,
however, in the village center to allow a variation in parking. And,
again, in that case, we would be allowed to -- we would present to the
county a rationale for any reduction in parking primarily based on
shared parking with uses located within the village center.
And again, there's really no rationale for requiring additional
parking if it's not necessary. We don't know at this time whether we
would request that. But if we were able to co-locate a number of uses
in the village center, which does allow for a mixture of uses, including
residential and commercial and hotel, we may wish to have a
reduction in the number of spaces that are typically required, so that's
what we were asking for.
The staff cites the section 4.05.02.K.3, which is an application to
request from the Board of Zoning Appeals a parking exemption. And
we would -- we think there's a difference between the two of those.
We're not going to ask for a park exemption. We're going to ask for a
different parking ratio based on some demonstration that it's
appropriate.
We're not in a position at this point to create that. All we're
asking for is the opportunity to do that, and allow professional staff,
including transportation services and planning services, to review that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, before you leave that one, we ran
into similar issue of criteria in the recent Bayshore overlay. They
wanted some deviations or requests to change their parking standards,
but they offered no criteria to do so, yet they wanted staff to be able to
make that determination. I think staffs predicament is, on what do
they base that determination?
If you're asking for a 75 percent reduction, why is that any
different than if you're asking for a 25 percent? So I think if you
could come up with some criteria towards that, it might solve the
problem.
Page 73
----." "._.,.,-""-,_."_.".,~ --
October 6, 2005
MR. MULHERE: I agree. What we said was -- you know, I'm
going to read this. Deviation seven seeks relief from the standards set
forth in the LDC to allow parking for uses and structures within the
rec. vehicle center to be reduced, should such a reduction be deemed
warranted through the development and submission of a shared
parking analysis submitted with the SDP application, parking
requirements shall be determined utilizing the modal splits and
parking demands for various uses recognized by the Institute of
Traffic Engineers, ITE, as well as Urban Land Institute or other
sources and studies.
The analysis shall demonstrate the number of parking spaces
available to more than one use or function recognizing the required
parking area will vary depending on multiple functions or uses in
close proximity, which are unlikely to require the same space -- spaces
at the same time.
Shared parking analysis and methodology shall be determined
and agreed upon by Collier -- by Collier County transportation staff
and the developer during the SDP preapplication meeting.
So I think we provided a significant basis for a professional
determination that would -- methodology of which would be agreed
upon prior to the submission of the SDP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you think of any maximum
percentage cap that you would be requested to go to so that there's
always a -- there's always a drop-dead point?
MR. MULHERE: I can't see a situation where we'd request a
reduction below 25 percent, a reduction below that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was thinking that, okay. That's
what I was trying to get to. That does help, so --
MR. MULHERE: Okay. The last deviation -- and I apologize
for the signage deviation. I had too much discussion on that one, I just
missed my place.
Deviation number eight was recommended for approval by the
Page 74
--~.." ^'.------,.-.----'." ."'_'.,m. ._.,--~-- .~---
October 6, 2005
staff, and so obviously, we're fine with that. That was just an
architectural condition that already exists out there in the developed
shopping center.
In conclusion -- obviously we're available for questions. As was
already stated, we think we've done an exceptionally goodjob of
designing this large master plan community. We think it's going to be
very beneficial to the community, the area, the neighborhood.
We did have a neighborhood information meeting held on
November 4,2004. There were about 40 individuals there. The
information related to that is contained in your staff report.
We've already given you the EAC recommendation and, of
course, the staff is recommending approval.
So for the most part, there's a lot of agreement on this petition.
There were just the three deviations that were questioned that we feel
are appropriate.
And I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Did I understand you to say
that the Hammock Bay Shopping Center is not being conveyed with --
as part of the purchase?
MR. MULHERE: That is correct. That's being retained.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I see that the price point on this is
about $750,000. Is this project planning to do anything to address
affordable housing in this county?
MR. MULHERE: You know, that's a question I'm going to defer
to, it looks like, Mr. Y ovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: As you heard from, you know, my earlier
comments and George's comments, you know, this project has really
gone above and beyond regarding taking in the community
considerations and issues of the like.
We've come through and we're reducing the density to less than
half. The intensity of commercial is being reduced tremendously.
We're going above and beyond with regard to water quality and other
Page 75
-_.,~.. --~,"'- "---"- _..-- -
October 6, 2005
issues like that.
So we believe that, based on the merits of the proj ect, that it
should stand as is. With that being said, we have -- we have
considered the issue of affordable housing, and I'm going to turn it
over to Mr. Griffin -- Griffith from weI to go ahead and address that
issue for you.
MR. GRIFFITH: Thank you. Well, I mean, as we all know,
affordable housing is a very, very complex situation, and we all realize
that it's an issue. And it's just not an issue in Collier County, I mean,
it's an issue all over. And also it's something that we need to do
something about.
And, you know, WCI is definitely wanting to do something about
affordable housing, and we have been. We've been trying to do things
as what we can do, considering what there is out there available to try
to solve it.
But what we do is not solving the whole -- the whole problem of
affordable housing, and there really is a lot more to it.
You know, we are -- I'm going to tell you what we can do with
this community, but I also can tell you that, you know, what my offer
is, it's not the panacea to the solution to this problem. But, you know,
in our community I think for -- and we have an idea of the way the
trend is going and so on and so forth -- I think $1,000 per unit as a
contribution towards something -- I don't know exactly what that
would be, and maybe we need to discuss that more.
And, of course, commercial is a part of this just like residential.
Fifty cents a square foot, say, on retail. You know, we are willing to
make that contribution towards affordable housing issues.
And if you do the math -- again, it was mentioned before, I mean,
WCI and Collier Enterprises were co-applicants on this. We're going
to end up with the rights for developing only 1,609 units, and we have
a 10-acre parcel for commercial, and, you know, I can commit to that.
Our company can commit to that.
Page 76
."'__0_ --
October 6, 2005
And, you know, I think that's, you know, very reasonable. And
under the consideration of, yes, money. Money can help, but again,
money is not the panacea. This is something that goes so deep, and
our company is very active in being involved in a lot of committees
and working with people on how to try to solve this.
We've been doing this for years. We've got to get there. And I
don't think just collecting contributions is going to solve it. We need
to work together, and, I mean, we'll be more than willing to work with
you all. You just let us know.
But we've got to get somewhere beyond this to where there's a
level playing field, and there's got to be fairness and there's got to be
equitability in this thing.
But, you know, if we don't do anything else but just try and
collect the funds, it will never get solved. And it's an issue that goes
way past before we were born. I mean, this is a deep societal kind of
thing. So we need to work on this. We can't give up.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree with your comments and I
appreciate the spirit in which you've said them, and we're also hearing
a lot about this now with the reconstruction of New Orleans, and
fairness and equity too.
And I'm just going to bring in a little history. I appreciate what
you said about this has been going on for a long time. My grandfather
told me a story about where he comes from in Northwest Missouri.
And he said that during reconstruction when the people who lived
there no longer could have slaves, they made a law or made something
pass that all black people had to leave the county.
During those days and actually for 100 years, the only safe place,
if a black person got stuck in that county after nightfall, the only place
he could be safe was in the county jail.
And at least in those days they were open in saying that we just
didn't need you, we don't want you. Here in this day and age, we're
saying we want the cheap labor, but, you know, you're going to have
Page 77
.._.~.- H.^._....~__~.n"._ ---..--... --
October 6, 2005
to live somewhere else. Not in terms of a law, but just in terms of a
practical matter, that there's nothing that people can afford except out
in Immokalee or in other counties. And I agree with you, we have to
do something about it.
MR. GRIFFITH: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: More than just collecting money.
The collecting money is certainly a positive step, but we have to do
more than that.
MR. GRIFFITH: It's a very complex problem.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
MR. GRIFFITH: And I mean, I don't know -- I've not heard of --
I mean, if you add it all up, I think a million six is a substantial amount
of contribution to the situation.
You know, I don't know what precedence we may be setting, but
I mean, I think we've got to figure something out here of where
everybody understands what it is they're going to be making the
contribution.
The other thing -- and this is my opinion, and I firmly believe, it's
not the developers coming in with new developments that are
responsible for trying to solve a problem that goes so far back. It will
never happen. There ain't enough money in that kind of industry to
solve it.
It's everybody's problem. It's everybody's problem that employs
people in those income ranges. So that means those are -- all the
people that have that need to come to the table, and they need to deal
with this and work with this. And it's not just you all and us
developers. That is not the way to get this done.
So you want us involved, we'll get involved, you just let us know.
But this is my offer, and I hope you all will accept it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I appreciate the tone that this sets
for today, and I do thank you and WCI. That's an awfully good move
to make for this county.
Page 78
----,-,~"". ..0..-..,'_....-.-.'.. '.-'-
October 6, 2005
And Mr. Abernathy, you had something to say?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It occurred to me that every
time Habitat for Humanity comes in here, they decry the
ever-increasing cost of land. That's their biggest problem.
MR. GRIFFITH: That is one of the problems for everybody,
including us. I mean, you know, this is not Habitat for Humanity, but
it's more of a problem for Habitat for Humanity, absolutely. But it's a
-- it's one of the factors. It's one of the drivers that is making this very
difficult.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What about gifting lands to
Habitat for Humanity instead of dollars?
MR. GRIFFITH: Gifting -- you mean buy land and gift it to
them?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I figured you might
have some in your pocket.
MR. GRIFFITH: Well--
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I mean, I'll leave that to
you.
MR. GRIFFITH: Right, right. And again, you know, money can
buy land and, you know, it can be used by those to build affordable
housing, and they truly are a niche in the industry. I mean, there's
affordable housing builders out there that know how to do this. And
I've met with them, and their complaints are the same.
We can build this stuff, we just can't get the land cheap enough to
be able to justify the business side of it to do it. And so they need
help. They want to build it. They just need help to be able to do that.
I would say that --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, there must be people
around who have land whose cost basis stretches back 10 or 15 years.
MR. GRIFFITH: Well, you're absolutely right, but I can tell you
that today when they tell you how much they want to sell it for, I don't
know that there's any kind of proportionate thing in regards to what
Page 79
_0_'""" _ .___"_~m'"" .........,-...-..."..-.'. ,.,-
October 6, 2005
the basis of the land is. If they've owned it for 100 years or if they've
owned it for only five years, the marketplace price is what it is today.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But it's a different
proposition for them than for you to go out and buy it?
MR. GRIFFITH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe the zoo property would
work perfectly. And Ed -- and I was going to get into the affordable
housing issue as well as the meeting went on, but since it's brought up
now, I just want to make sure -- because I make notes, and at the end
of the meeting hopefully we'll discuss all the stipulations.
MR. GRIFFITH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're volunteering 1,000 per unit?
MR. GRIFFITH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And fifty cents for the commercial.
MR. GRIFFITH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming, since none of the units
are commercial that are in the already ongoing PDA--
MR. GRIFFITH: Correct, or any of the other units beyond the
1,609. We would not have any ability or authority to be able to do
that. We can't do that. We can only do what we have the right to
build, and that's 1,609 units and whatever's on that 10 acres of
commercial that we have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. That's what I'm referring
to.
MR. GRIFFITH: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a mechanism in which the
county has a trust fund that is maintained to handle this kind of
money. Would you have any objection to it being earmarked to that
trust fund for affordable housing or workforce or gap housing,
whatever you want to call it, up to a range of not to exceed 120
percent of the median income?
MR. GRIFFITH: We don't really care -- I'm looking towards
Page 80
,,-~'-' -~-- _'''^'U__"".,_.__' "--
October 6, 2005
your help to find a way of where this money can go to really do
something beneficial and get something accomplished. That's one of
our concerns.
You know, we make this offer, we want it to be the value that it
is that we're donating this. We want it to go somewhere where it's
really going to make a difference. We don't want it to end up in some
account or some fund that, you know, gets unused, gets lost and now
nobody knows what happened to that money.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, later today maybe Cormac--
because this is -- we've got a long meeting today. But at some point --
MR. GRIFFITH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when staff gets involved, we can--
MR. GRIFFITH: Okay. Well, you have our commitment on
that, we want to work with you, but we want to be just absolutely sure
that this money is going to the affordable housing cause, and it's going
to get something done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would assume you'd tie it to
closing of the units and CO of commercial?
MR. GRIFFITH: Yes, absolutely, that would -- closing of the
units, and you know, that's when the business of that would be taken
care of, that contribution. Absolutely, Mark.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You mentioned something about
10 acres though. What--
MR. GRIFFITH: And what we will have the rights to build in
this development that really is a Collier Enterprise and a WCI
development, they're retaining a certain amount of land which is in the
PDA, and they have so much commercial acreage in there.
The portion that we have, you know, we're not really commercial
developers, but we're residential developers and golf developers, but
we have 10 acres with ours. So that 10 acres being within our
property, you know, what I'm saying is, I'm accepting responsibility
for that and the number of units, 1,609, that we have.
Page 81
-'-'- ^"'^_~"._"~m'__ .~--
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. GRIFFITH: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: That 10 acres is located where I'm going to
put the arrow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're moving it all over. So it's in the
preserve?
MR. MULHERE: No. Right there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: CO-3, right?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I've got another question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Abernathy.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bob Mulhere?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If I read this -- these
documents correctly, you're opting not to use county water and sewer;
is that right?
MR. MULHERE: No.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No? I don't know where I
got that then. Must have come to me in a dream.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, is your presentation -- at this point
would you prefer to go into questions from this panel?
MR. MULHERE: I think that's where we're at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I've got quite a few just for
clarifications and details, but I'm not sure if the other members would
like to go first. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are we having county
presentation first or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess either way. We've -- in the past
we've asked the applicant and then got county up. So I think by the
applicant's statements, we might get through the -- yeah, get through
with the applicant and then we might get through the county like we
Page 82
-,...- .'--'~'-'"- ._._-.,._e__ --
October 6, 2005
always have, Paul.
Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start out with the -- I'm going to
have to go in the order that stuff was provided to me in my packet,
because it seems the simplest way to get through, and it's a large
proj ect --
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so it's going to take a little bit of time.
In the very first proj ect site map that was provided to me -- and it
was basically an aerial outlined in red -- you have a hole in the
doughnut.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a -- from what I see in some
other diagrams you showed, there is an access to that hole in the
doughnut. Is that access way wide enough to accommodate any future
needs for the density that could be placed south of that -- into that
area?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I don't know if I can answer that
question in terms of not knowing what might be requested when they
come in in terms of density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what it is? Do you know
what that -- I see you have an access way in red shown in this
particular map. In the one I have it didn't have it.
Do you know what the width of that opening roadway is? Is it to
a county standard width?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is, 60 foot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there utility easements on both
sides that are provided by you? Are they on your property? Are they
on somebody else's property?
MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure of that question. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's important that that get
Page 83
-- ""---,~,~.., ._-". ----
October 6, 2005
addressed so that whoever owns that property that's not addressed in
this PUD has adequate access to whatever density they put on that in
the future that they would come in and ask for.
MR. ROBAU: Yes. Emilio Robau again, RWA, Inc. That's a
standard 60-foot right-of-way, and it would be used for access for that
hole in the doughnut --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ROBAU: -- which is a piece of property that's not included
in this proj ect. I don't believe it has the standard 10- foot utility
easements on each side. It's a two-lane swale design. It currently
accesses a street of a variety of manufactured homes and so on and so
forth. And I think that answers all your questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think as we go along, to
simplify the process, instead of me getting the rest of my answers later
on when I call Don Scott up, if you don't mind him interjecting some
viewpoint at this point, we can settle this one issue and move on to the
next.
MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, this access to the -- on part of the
property that is not part of the PUD, I just heard it's 60 feet. Is that, in
your opinion, adequate enough to service whatever comes out of that
area in the south?
MR. SCOTT: Yes. That's our standard width for local roads
around the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, as far as 10-foot utility
easements on each side, do you know if they exist right now?
MR. SCOTT: I don't know if they exist or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'm going to go back to--
you're going to need those, aren't you, should anything be developed
south of that?
MR. SCOTT: I mean, there's a possibility we could get utilities
within there, too. It would be nice to have the 10-foot easements,
Page 84
-~.... ..__..~~-,...,. "".~---,,,.._-,."..._,. ~--"'-
October 6, 2005
obviously.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that. And so my next question
to Bob or Emilio, whoever, would you have any objection to allowing
the 10- foot utility easements on each side of that entrance road, should
they be needed in the future?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If that's the question, we don't have any
obj ection to the 10- foot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure we got there.
Okay.
MR. MULHERE: That's the extension of Bayshore.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is.
The concurrency issue involving roads, you're vested because of
a Collier County contribution agreement that's already in place and
completed; is that true?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. That's the developer
contribution agreement we discussed, and the improvements were
made and the required cash payments were made, and we have a
certificate of public facility adequacy for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, in your PUD -- and I guess
it just -- it's almost a follow-up to the question that Richard just
answered. The Collier County contribution agreement was apparently
for 1,766 acres -- or units, and you only have 1,609. So did the rest
apply to the PDA? And how does that 233 or the additional units that
bring you up to 1,999 fit into that equation?
MR. MULHERE: They're not subject to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not subject to it?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the excess over 1,609 applies
to what portion of the proj ect?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The number, 1,999, you take out the 390
that's in the PDA area, that's how you come to our 1,609. The 1,766
includes the 390. So you --
Page 85
,__._m_._ ---.'-. ,..................-..-. ----
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- subtract out 390 from that, there's
going to be a shortfall of 233 units that we will be subject to
concurrency on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that comes out of your 1,609?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the way you're looking at it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, rather than me waste time
and be redundant, this PUD has a lot of the same kind of language that
we've talked about. I know you're working on a draft cleanup that was
going to happen soon. So you're still working on that, I take it?
MR. BELLOWS: I'm nearly done though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Bob, I notice that the nine-foot fence or wall height is in the
PUD. I'm assuming now that the deviation has been agreed to --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by you, that you're going to change
the PUD or staff will change it to take that nine foot out?
MR. MULHERE: We'll change it. We presume between now
and the board hearing, there'll be other need to amend it. But yes,
we'll change that down to eight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice the other deviations that staff
denied are in the PUD as well.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depending on the outcome of to day's
meeting, or whatever comes out of that, it will be changed?
MR. MULHERE: Today's and the board's, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You've also got a provision here
to allow assisted living facilities. Was that going to be -- if they are
used, are they going to be on a one-to-one ratio for your density
counts?
Page 86
,_._~--,.,. """-
October 6, 2005
MR. MULHERE: They'd be subject to the provisions of the
LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Since you're silent on it -- in
your development table, you talk about various setbacks, ALF, which
you just answered. I'm trying to find -- I had a couple questions, but
you may have already addressed them.
MR. MULHERE: I'm getting to that, Commissioner Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you already addressed
them. You covered Mr. Abernathy's six feet. I saw that right off the
bat, so.
MR. MULHERE: Well, that's the minimum he'll accept.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One question, the common
architectural theme is an element in here for your reduction of
setbacks between buildings?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that consistent with the process in the
LDC today?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's not a deviation you're look for by
putting it in here; you're basically restating what -- that you're going to
be consistent with the methodology in the LDC?
MR. MULHERE: Correct. Restating it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: I think it's just important to have it on that
table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. I'm trying to get to the -- most
of your PUD isn't where my questions are going to be, so. Under your
water management section 8.6(B), it's on page 8-3 --
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're talking about some design
guidelines, and I've seen something here I haven't heard before, and
maybe you can explain to me what it is. The analysis of
Page 87
--~_."'".- ."..._-"'-~..,,- . ~.._-_.._-~.,_._. -"'---""~'. --
October 6, 2005
predevelopment pollutant loading and post-development pollutant
loading in general accordance with the Harvey Harper methodology. I
haven't heard that referred to before.
MR. MULHERE: I've got to go to the expert.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I haven't seen it, so I don't know
what it is. And I also know that I'm going to be getting to soon a
three-page letter from the Rookery Bay people, and they addressed
pollutants, and I want to know if this is consistent with what they're
trying to say in their letter.
MR. ROBAU: Emilio again. The Harvey Harper methodology
is a way of handling water quality pre- versus post-conditions. And
basically there's some matrixes available that, according to what kind
of land use you have in the existing condition, which in this case is
undeveloped vacant land, or it could be, for instance, cattle grazing
land, which would have a higher factor of loading on the water bodies.
So it allows you to estimate what pollutant loadings would come
from the existing condition, and the thought pattern is that you can't
exceed, and you have to do better than that in the post-condition. And
the post-condition has several different land use categories and several
different water quality type of constituents that would go into the
system.
It was developed by a gentleman named Harvey Harper who, I
believe is a Ph.D., has a firm out of Orlando. And I think the federal
agencies like it, some -- most of them do, to do this type of analysis.
It's not currently accepted by all agencies and all environmental
interveners, et cetera. But for lack of a better term, I think it's the best
consensus methodology that we have today. And staff wanted us to
speak to that, and we did. And I've actually run two different versions
of it. And it's a wet detention based analysis tool is what it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does South Florida accept it as a
standard, or do they have a different standard than that offers?
MR. ROBAU: Well, South Florida, you know, they have their
Page 88
~---,," ~'''.--'",._--._-,- -..---
October 6, 2005
whole basis of review and their whole state methodology to address
water quality and water quantity impacts.
South Florida, the way it's -- I'm just telling you how it happens
today in real time. They accept the Harvey Harper, and they just kind
of pass it along. I don't think they do a whole bunch of review. It's
just another example of a reasonable assurance that they use in order
to grant their permit instruments, and the feds use it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This being in the PUD, does it override
any criteria that the county may have in place?
MR. ROBAU: No, not at all. This -- you know, this is above
and beyond type of scenario. The county typically relies on the state
permitting procedures and their laws and the expertise that the state
provides for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Emilio.
Bob, under your additional comments, 8.9, I found this to be an
interesting one. A, the developer shall provide a minimum of one
playground for use by residents and their guests meeting ASTM
design guidelines. Well, that's kind of like dropped in the middle.
What spurred that?
MR. MULHERE: It's a standard comment these days from parks
and recreation. They want to insure that internal to a development,
that there be a play area set aside for the children and guests of the
development. We were going -- we were going -- I'm sure we'll do
that. I'm sure we'll exceed that. It's a minimum standard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as far as parks go, what is your
acreage dedicated to parks in this PUD?
MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure that we have an answer to that
question at this point in time. We know what the open space is and
we know what the preserves are. Some of the preserves will be used
for passive recreation. As we go forward a little bit further, we'll
know -- we'll know what kind of --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is going to be past lunchtime.
Page 89
, ""~...-.-- ~. -.,,-..-"-. ,._~-
October 6, 2005
Would you take a look and come back with a number? Because
here's what I'm suggesting. The DRI that you're abandoning, or has
been abandoned or that will be abandoned, had 5 point acres -- 5.4
acres of park.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's a number that works for you--
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as we can get something in
writing of what it would be.
MR. MULHERE: I think we could come up with a minimum
and go from there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: The same thing with the other stipulation, that
was also parks and recreation, B.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. I mean, that one is even
stranger, so I'm not even going to get into it.
As far as the recommendations from the EAC, you don't have
any problems with their recommendations? There was listed one, two
-- there were five recommendations.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. We concurred with those
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I noticed -- and maybe
something didn't get done properly. In the listing disclosures that you
provided to the county in regards to the corporations involved in this,
none of the officers or stockholders, individuals, were listed. You list
-- well, one case you did. But in some of them you just listed the
company. If there are people involved, shouldn't those have been
listed?
MR. MULHERE: I'm going to have to refer to Rich or Ed.
MR. GRIFFITH: I'm not sure what document you're talking
about, Mark. Is this just something we submitted to identify --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The PUD amendment application.
Page 90
".-.,. ~'.^,._-
October 6, 2005
MR. GRIFFITH: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You listed Collier Development
Corporation as being one of the --
MR. GRIFFITH: Co-aps.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- owned corporations, but you failed to
list the stockholders and officers. I'm suggesting -- there's a whole
series of these. There's five or six of them. Track H. Development,
Inc., that one does have a name.
MR. GRIFFITH: Is it required to list all of the stockholders and
so forth for a 3,500 employee company?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know.
MR. GRIFFITH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just telling you what it says. And I
didn't find it here, but you may want to --
MR. GRIFFITH: I'm a stockholder, if you want to put my name
on it, I'm satisfied.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't apply --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, why don't you tell me
what you're trying to say so I can understand it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was trying to -- I know he was a little
concerned about -- obviously WCI doesn't have to disclose that since
it's a publicly traded company. You're concerned about the Collier --
the references to the various Collier entities and who are the specific
shareholders.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't need them for this meeting,
but I think they're part of the record.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll clarify that. We'll get you that
information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. And I don't need it, I just
think you ought to include it in the package in the next level up.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll do that before -- we'll get that to the
county before the BCC.
Page 91
..-.. .'_m_
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one landowner that I didn't find
listed, Collier Land Development, Inc. There's other entities with
those names, but not listed as the title of ownership with the Collier
County appraiser's office. You may want to clear that up.
As far as your environmental issues go, Robert, I got a -- or Bob,
I got a detailed letter here from Rookery Bay that was sent to the
Corps of Engineers on March 10, 2004. It has a series of things that
Rookery Bay's concerned about. Some of them I know are being
cleared up. I would just like a confirmation from someone in your --
in your -- whoever you're representing to walk through these and let
me know if they've been addressed if they have the letter.
MR. PASSARELLA: For the record, Ken Passarella with
Passarella & Associates.
Commissioner, I want to make sure I'm looking at the correct
letter here. This is the March 10, 2004, letter directed to the district
engineer of the Corps of Engineers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, from Gary Litton.
MR. PASSARELLA: From Gary Litton, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. PASSARELLA: And it is a total of four pages?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. PASSARELLA: Okay, all right. To go through this real
quick, we have reviewed this letter, and we don't have any concerns
with most of their comments and incorporating their comments into
this approval.
There were though, however, two issues that we would like to
discuss and that we don't necessarily agree with Rookery Bay on, and
we'd like to go through those, if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would focus on it.
MR. PASSARELLA: Okay. The condition -- the comments in
particular are on that letter, comment number 5 on page 3, and that
comment is referring to gopher tortoise and the gopher tortoise survey
Page 92
--'-- -.---..-.,-'.. -~----
October 6, 2005
on the property.
And not to go through in great detail different gopher tortoise
sampling techniques and how they are done, I'll try to summarize this
real quick.
It appears that the Rookery Bay staffs concern is that they would
like to have an actual capture of the tortoises on site and then marking
of those tortoises. They feel that would provide a better estimate of
the gopher tortoise population on the property.
What we have done on the property is survey transects
identifying gopher tortoise burrows on the property, and counting
activity and inactive gopher tortoise burrows. And based on that,
using a conversion factor to determine the number of gopher tortoises
on the property.
Now, while they say that that methodology is not as accurate as
actually capturing tortoises on site, they are correct in that statement.
Actually capturing all the tortoises on site and counting them would be
a more accurate way of doing that. But given the history of doing
survey methodologies the way we've done them over past several
years as well as looking at data after populations have been surveyed,
using the methodology we have, we have actually developed actual
conversion factors that are specific to Southwest Florida, Lee and
Collier County. Those conversion factors were used in our analysis
for determining the gopher tortoise population on the site.
So while we may get a better count using their methodology,
we're not going to get a significantly better count using their
methodology. Our numbers are going to be very close to what their
numbers would be using their methodology.
Having said that, using their methodology would also cause quite
a bit of disturbance to the habitats in order to do this. In order to go
out and capture those tortoises, we'd actually have to dig holes, place
buckets, capture the tortoises, mark them, and that would result in a lot
of disturbance to the native habitats, the areas we're trying to protect,
Page 93
~.__.., ....-.-.-- 00",. .___ .---
October 6, 2005
as well as the species we're trying to protect.
So I think the methodology we've employed is appropriate for
what we're doing here. And--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I notice you did quite an
exhaustive study on the property.
MR. PASSARELLA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have it here. It's a separate three-ring
binder about four inches thick.
MR. PASSARELLA: Yes, we have. And--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see a problem with the sampling
methods that you used --
MR. PASSARELLA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the transects you used. That is
customary, that is standard. EAC has used it. EAC has not had an
issue with it. I don't know of any other environmental groups that
have had, nor did I see anything from staff questioning it, so I don't
have a problem with it --
MR. PASSARELLA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that's kind of why I wanted to
walk through this letter to make sure that if there were issues like that
that they came out at the meeting.
MR. PASSARELLA: Yeah. That is -- that is one of the issues.
We have a second issue, and that issue is -- I believe it's number seven
in their letter, on page 3 at the bottom there. And I will let Ed Griffith
discuss that issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the deeding of the property in the
form of a conservation easement?
MR. GRIFFITH: Yes. We met extensively with Rookery Bay,
Gary Litton, and his staff. We did a lot of discussion of all the things
that we were going to do, and really this letter is a reflection of all
those things that we talked about and agreed to working in partnership,
them helping us, us including them in education outreach in the
Page 94
--,." ~ ......,_._,____w"..- '._~
October 6, 2005
community for the residents, so on and so forth.
So, I mean, this letter is a reflection of those things that we
discussed, with the exception of, in seven, deeding the land to them.
That was something we didn't discuss.
We're not going to commit to that for the reason that, the land is
going to remain in the ownership of the homeowners, but there is
going to be a conservation easement that is going to blanket the entire
preserve that's in perpetuity, it's going to have all the conditions in it
that -- we've been talking to the Conservancy about that, and we did
talk to Rookery, you know, back when we met.
And it's also a conservation easement that's granted to the South
Florida Water Management District, you know, in their favor and also
to the Corps of Engineers and also to the county.
So we have a lot of people watching over this, that it's a piece of
property that nobody can do anything with other than what's allowed.
But everything that is not allowed and what's required is all spelled
out in that conservation easement.
So we're accomplishing the intent of what everybody has got
concerns about. So, you know, we're meeting that. It's just, the only
difference is, we're not going to deed that over to Rookery Bay. And
we don't see a need to, obviously.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the Conservancy is involved?
MR. GRIFFITH: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they -- is the easement in the name
of -- like is the Conservancy part of the entities in the easement
language?
MR. GRIFFITH: No. It's not going to be granted to them, but
there's language in there that makes them a part of, in the involvement
in working with the community and with the conditions, the allowance
for them to participate, and, you know, be a help in being assured that,
you know, that it's being followed through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you have any objection to
Page 95
_"_'~"H". _....-,_.._.,-~----_.- -
October 6, 2005
adding Rookery Bay to that same location that you have the
Conservancy in?
MR. GRIFFITH: As part of that in the same way that we did
with the Conservancy?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. GRIFFITH: Not at all, not at all. I just -- we're not going to
deed the property to them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That answers my question.
MR. GRIFFITH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. About the
prescribed fire, will you be doing prescribed fire on your preserve?
MR. GRIFFITH: Yes. We will be doing prescribed burns.
There's also other alternatives. And within the community -- and
there's experts out there that do these sort of things. So there may be
selective areas where you just don't want necessarily to do a
prescribed burn right next to a, you know, residential area. And you
use your other alternatives that are available to be able to take care of
that same thing.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How close can you burn to
residences?
MR. GRIFFITH: I'm going to have to refer to our -- Ken.
MR. PASSARELLA: We -- on other projects in the county,
there are folks that do this. It's kind of a specialty. There are folks
that do this prescribed burning, and we've seen them burn, you know,
within 10 feet of a house, a prescribed burning.
Now, we don't -- something that we would necessarily
recommend in certain circumstances, but those experts at the time felt
that that was something they could do.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Will you be trapping feral
nuisance and domestic animals within your preserve that are, you
know, nuisance animals?
MR. PASSARELLA: Yes. That will be part of our management
Page 96
~-".- ",--,-,,-,----.-'-- ----
October 6, 2005
plan.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What about under two in this
letter, in paragraph -- in the second paragraph, the last sentence, it
says, consequently, we believe that the proposed project has not
provided reasonable assurance of compliance with water quality
criteria relating to the protection of existent ambient water quality? Is
that something which you've negotiated and resolved with them?
MR. PASSARELLA: Yeah. This letter was a March 10, 2004,
letter, and this application has come quite a distance since then, and a
lot of these issues have been resolved through South Florida Water
Management District permitting.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, did you get access to the
actual minutes of the October 5th EAC meeting and any stipulations
which they may have put on?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have an EAC meeting.
MR. MULHERE: It was yesterday. I can tell you what -- the
one continue in addition to the staff recommendations condition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes. Before you go too far. You
know, that's an interesting question. I was -- asked you if you had any
problems with the EAC meeting stipulations, and you didn't. I have in
my report that I received last week recommendations --
MR. MULHERE: I think that's from staff. I'm assuming that's
from staff, and I assumed that was your question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says meeting of October 5,
2005.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it hadn't occurred yet, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did I get that?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I was wondering, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right here it says October 5, 2005.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what the staffhas
prepared for that meeting.
MR. BELLOWS: That's a copy of the EAC staff--
Page 97
""",>,-~,.,-, "--~---".-~ "'~----
October 6, 2005
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What I would like to know is
some summary of the meeting itself, and maybe that was why I asked
if county staff could give us that, also any stipulations that they may
or may not have added.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as they're up. That's the
remainder of the questions that I have. So, Bob, I'm done with your
crew.
Any other questions from the panel?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, then, Kay, it's your turn.
MS. DESELEM: If it's beneficial to you, Steve Lenberger is
here, and he can do that synopsis first if you'd like, for the EAC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be fine.
MS. DESELEM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, Ray, while Steve's coming
up, is there any -- how many public speakers do we have on this
issue?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Steve
Lenberger, environmental services department.
The EAC approved the project with staff stipulations in the EAC
staff report. They did add one stipulation, and which we worded after
the meeting. I'll read it to you, if you'd like. Gopher tortoise relocation
shall be monitored by an independent, nongovernmental party to
determine the success of the establishment of gopher tortoises with the
proposed gopher tortoise preserves. A copy of the report shall be
provided to the environmental services department staff upon
completion of the monitoring report.
They'd also suggested that the study could possibly be done by a
grad student or some sort of research at the university.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
Page 98
--'~".-'- _..-..~ _m_.., ".._-----"~.. --._-
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From WCI's viewpoint, was there any
objection to that additional stipulation?
MR. PASSARELLA: Not having seen this language before--
again, Ken Passarella. I can tell you what my recollection of the
stipulation was, is that they thought that the -- EAC board thought that
this would be a good opportunity to do a study on gopher tortoises and
how gopher tortoises preserves are working, how well they're
working, how well they're not working, how the tortoise population is
reacting to relocations, and they thought this proj ect, since we were
proposing such significant preserve areas, this would be a good
opportunity to have some sort of study done on that. And, in fact,
they even said this would be a good study for FGCU students.
And that was our understanding of it, that we would work with
FGCU or another university and have some sort of study done on the
preserves to show how well these preserves are working for -- as far as
the relocation and maintaining a population of gopher tortoises.
The gopher tortoise relocation shall be monitored by an
independent nongovernmental party. I mean, that may be okay, but
that's not what I got out of the EAC recommendation yesterday, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: If I could just add to that. I think really, as
Ken said, my recollection of the motion was that it would be really
more after the relocation had occurred to monitor the welfare,
well-being of the tortoises to determine how well the relocation -- you
know, what effect it had on their population, whether it was working
or not working. That was really the intent of what they had --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you all don't have any problem
with adding that in, so -- right? We'll just include it as part of our
stipulations if we so desire?
MR. MULHERE: We don't have any problem -- we agreed to
the EAC stipulation. I think it's not what it's written here though, so
we'll have to work the wording out. It really was to bring in some
Page 99
--.' ^.~,.-......,-~,.,...- --
October 6, 2005
independent educational entity to monitor after the relocation, the
success of the program.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Kay, are you done with your presentation?
MS. DESELEM: No, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, if you're going to let
Steve do it all.
MS. DESELEM: I'm getting -- going two different directions.
For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner with zoning.
I think they're still wording -- working on the wording.
Unfortunately, we just did it yesterday, so we haven't had a chance to
discuss the wording.
What Steve had was the proposed wording from staff, and we
had not had an opportunity yet to discuss it with the petitioner. So
they're going over it now, and hopefully we can come to some
agreement before you all adjourn or vote.
You do have the staff report. It is a 12-page report with
attachments. And you've heard the presentation. Staff is
recommending approval, as noted.
The only areas of disagreement are, again, the deviations. We
have recommended approval of deviations one, two, three, and eight,
and a partial recommendation of approval for four. But as the
petitioner has revised it now, we are in complete agreement with
number four, so that leaves deviation five, six, and seven.
Five and six deal with signs, and deviation seven deals with
parking. So I'll basically reiterate and, perhaps, expound a bit on what
was discussed by the petitioner, if I may.
On deviation number five, the petitioner gave you many
examples of samples of what these were to look like. Unfortunately,
staff did not have these to review. They're just illustrative. We don't
know what they mean. I mean, they're showing you pictures of what
it might look like, but I'm not certain that they're committing to any
Page 100
".,,-,~-,,""',.~--~- -..---.--
October 6, 2005
particular standard by those, and so we do have some concerns about
that.
You know, he made references to more landscaping. More than
what? You know, they're going to be nice because, but we don't have
all those becauses to make those determinations.
And that kind of begs the question from earlier when this was
approved as a PUD where they were going to present a sign package
for staff to review. That seems more consistent with what they're
proposing to you. They're showing you what they may look like, and
that's what staff needs to know. We don't want to just give approval of
something we don't know what it's going to look like. If we can't see
it, we don't have any way to evaluate it.
And deviation number six, they talked about arterial roadways.
And I note that Bayshore Drive in the location that this site does have
access, they are proposing to have access points onto that area, and it's
a 60- foot wide road. So I wonder if, in fact, they need larger signs at
that location.
Because it talks about the entrance on U.S. 41, Thomasson Drive,
and Bayshore, not necessarily those intersections, but the entrances on
those roadways. So just because they don't have any kind of an
intersection access at Bayshore and 41, they do have signs proposed
on Bayshore, so I wanted to clarify that.
And they're talking about architecturally designed. We don't
know exactly what that means. Again, we haven't seen anything. And
it sounds more likely that a plan proposed that staff can review might
be appropriate. Without any detail, we don't know what's being
proposed other than they want to put in more than what the code
allows.
And, you know, if arterial roadways are such an issue, which is
basically what they're saying, because it's an arterial roadway they
need more signage, then, perhaps, it's more appropriate then to
consider amendments to the sign portion of the LDC rather than just
Page 101
-.,,-^.--. ..--
October 6, 2005
deal with it on a case by case basis for this petitioner.
And, again, they talked of the safety issue when they gave us the
rationale for their deviation for the sign, and staff was not aware of
any inherent safety problems with the sign requirements of the county.
Basically what it seems to allow to the county staff is larger signs
in more locations, and we are not convinced that that's not necessarily
appropriate. It may be, but based on the information we had to
review, we can't make that determination and support it; therefore, we
are recommending denial of deviation five and deviation number six.
And deviation seven related to the parking, as noted by the
applicant, they do have an opportunity to have a shared agreement
accepted by the county. He said it's -- you know, that particular
section that staff cited has to do with exemptions, but part of the
exemption references shared parking agreements. It gives you an
exemption from the requirements if you have a shared parking
agreement.
They talk in the PUD document and in the justification about the
information they're going to provide. Well, basically, at this point
staff looks at it from the point there's no harm, no foul, so there's no
problem yet because they haven't exhausted the potential to get some
variance or deviation or exemption by using this shared parking
allowance within the code.
And staff is hesitant to give an approval now without having that
information based on, they are going to give it to us. You know, that
begs the question, if staff doesn't have adequate information or if we
disagree with the information, the deviation's already been granted.
And the board didn't have the ability to review it at all.
So it seems premature at this point to grant a deviation from the
parking without having adequate information to review.
With that, I have no further information. I can answer any
questions you have, and there's transportation staff, there's housing
staff.
Page 102
..-,---- "'-
October 6, 2005
I know you did speak of an additional deviation -- or I'm sorry,
an additional condition regarding a requirement for housing,
affordable housing. We might need to narrow that down a little bit
when you make the actual recommendation if you include that
condition so that you can understand what it is they're doing and how
they're doing it and who's doing it and all that kind of stuff.
Other than that, I don't have anything further. I'm open to any
questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we ask you questions, I want to
ask the panel, we had talked about breaking early. I mean, I can keep
going. It don't matter to me. But we can -- it's going to probably take
30 minutes to an hour to finish this up. There's no public speakers, but
I know some of you have questions of transportation and maybe of
Kay.
What's the vote of the board? Do you want to continue to finish
this one up and then go to lunch, or you'd rather break for lunch early?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If you're going to try to get
lunch here, you better take it early.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do it now, get it over with.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The request was to do it early.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do it early. Okay.
Kay, we had announced earlier we were going to try to break
around now for lunch. We got your presentation. After lunch we'll
come back and ask any questions that we have of you and anybody
else. And I know I have some more environmental issues just to touch
on. So we'll break right now and be back at 12:45.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
(A lunch recess was taken and proceedings continued at 12:45 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's 12:45. We'll bring this
meeting back to order. Thank you, Ray.
Page 103
--- .._---~_.- -'-"-'---~" "-',--- ._,---
October 6, 2005
And, Kay, I think we left off with you and you were done and looking
for questions; right?
MS. DESELEM: I was done, but now I have some changes to
make.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course.
MR. ABERNATHY: Naturally.
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal
Planner. During the break staff and the applicant had an opportunity
to meet and discuss the deviations. And we have basically come to an
agreement on the signed deviations. And we will-- staff will accept
their deviation. We no longer have any objection to it. And on the
deviation for the parking, the applicant has agreed to limit it to no
more than a 25 percent reduction. And with that limitation staff will
agree to that as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all deviations with that stipulation,
then, are acceptable to staff?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great.
MS. CARON: I have a question. Why was it that staff changed
their mind on the sign issue?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MS. DESELEM: Well--
MS. CARON: Besides the fact in looking more persuasive.
MS. DESELEM: Yes. In looking over the Wentworth issue that
was raised by the petitioner and they had received a sizable increase in
the signs above and beyond what this particular petitioner is
requesting, staff looked at it again and deemed that it would be
appropriate for this project since they are close together. This is a
large proj ect. And most of the signs that they're talking about are
internal that staff would support the sign deviations.
MS. CARON: All right. Do we know why Wentworth got the
sign deviations they got or --
Page 104
--. _._---- ..... --,-------- "'''-
October 6, 2005
MS. DESELEM: No. I didn't have an opportunity to go through and
research what the rationale was for approving those for Wentworth.
MR. MULHERE: If I could just add one other additional
comment. The other thing we discussed was, it wasn't probably clear
until we reread it together a few times. We're only asking for a
deviation from the size in both of those occasions. All the other
requirements of the code, architectural standards, design standards,
everything else applies. Because we talked a lot about what they
would look like. Well, they're still regulated by the same standards as
everybody else.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of
Kay?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that there's some transportation
questions and I have a couple of last minute environmental questions.
So, Mr. Scott, are you available to participate?
MR. SCOTT: For you, always.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, this is for Commissioner
Adelstein, so thank you.
MR. SCOTT: For him?
MR. ADELSTEIN: Don, I just want to make sure that I'm
accurate in this. As of now, Sabal Bay has -- has already been
approved for 1,766 units; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Now, do those units have to be used up
before they can apply for the 233?
MR. SCOTT: That's what -- this goes back. Wernet quite a
while ago and they had come in and asked if they could do the 233
first. We never did get a final answer on that, but that -- essentially
what we would like is to use the 1,766 first, then the 233 later on.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Well, it would seem that that's what they
already have and until they run out of that, they have what they need.
Page 105
.._-"",--.,." ...-.-
October 6, 2005
MR. SCOTT: Right.
MR. ADELSTEIN: So, therefore, the idea of running 233
should be done when they're close to losing -- finishing with the
1,766.
MR. SCOTT: And this has come up with other developments in
the area, not specifically here, but some other areas where people
want to save the vesting side of it and come up first.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Well, I understand that. So would I, but
that's not the way business should be run. There are other people out
there who may need it too and if they already have that much vesting,
and that 1,766 is a big set of vesting.
MR. SCOTT: As far as I know in talking to the impact fee
office, there isn't specifically something written that says you have to
do it that way, but I think that's our preference.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. That's what I want to make sure that
was your preference. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, if they wanted to come in and buy
-- if they wanted -- if they submitted an STP for 233 units, could they
not pay their COAs for those 233s separately or would you say that
233 has to come off the 1,766? That's what -- another way of looking
at it, but-
MR. SCOTT: That's another way of looking at it and I see that's
probably where they're coming from. What we're looking at is trying
to use the 1,766 first and then when you use all what -- what you've
already paid for, then get into the 233.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they're willing to pay the
additional fees for 233 and you get the money earlier, is anybody
harmed by that?
MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious. I'mjust trying to
figure out where the -- where the issue is.
MR. SCOTT: Well, the philosophy is that you -- is right now as
Page 106
^-"'- ._.,-----..~..,.- "-'- ..---
October 6, 2005
we stand, say you improve it, they're still subject to concurrency.
Should it be concurrency right now or concurrency in the
future? Now, either way we might be -- obviously, the growth
management bill might change something and they might be better
off in the future than they are now too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're not subject to concurrency
for the 1,766 that you've already vested.
MR. SCOTT: For the 233 I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, for the 233 so-
MR. SCOTT: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'm wondering why -- how you
would legally restrict them from asking -- from paying--
MR. SCOTT: I'm not sure I can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 233 units worth of CO As. I don't--
MR. SCOTT: I'm not sure I can, but that's -- I mean, that's our
preference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, but I just was curious.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. I didn't understand it. I think I
do a little bit better now. Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else of Mr. Scott?
MR. ADELSTEIN: No. I just -- I just want to understand that
my feeling is that I've been told for a long -- since I've been on this
Collier Planning Commission that 41 is failing. 41 is failing. And in
the near future it's going to fail.
I looked at this thing from a point of view that we've got out here
1,766 units that can be developed and developed now. The idea of
taking the 233 off also, I understand where they're coming from, but it
would seem most logical to me and more -- more righteous to me that
the idea is use what you have when you need it. Just get it. Get what
you can. The 233 is back on.
Page 107
"-.-
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somebody from the applicants' side
want to comment on that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, obviously, we can't -- we can't
agree to that. I mean, we need the flexibility to follow the process
that we can follow right now. Why -- why are we being singled out to
have to give up the right to come in and ask for these units by going
through the normal process and going ahead and building those 233
units right now? We need that -- it's part of our -- you know, our
business plan on what we're going to develop and we -- we have
reduced. If you look at this project and all the things that we are doing
for the good of reducing density, the increased water, the increased
water protection, environmental protection, the affordable housing
agreements that we reached today, I mean, this project's doing a lot of
things.
Now to say to it there's the potential that it may not get those 233
units because you want to delay when we can use this, we don't know
what's going to happen in the future, Mr. Adelstein, and we need to
have the ability to control our -- our -- our project and our -- and our
-- and our destiny. And if we want to buy those 233 units now and
then use this 1,766 later, we should be allowed to do that.
MR. ADELSTEIN: The answer is, you have a legal right to do
it. I'm not taking it away from you. I'm just saying to that in this
situation it seemed as a logical statement that you would have to use
-- and, again, I'm not -- I didn't know that you couldn't -- that you
could do it the other way, that you had to use what you had before
you bought more.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. No. We -- we don't know if
we're going to go after those 233 now. But if we do, we're subject to
concurrency and we're going to have to make some improvements.
There are some strategies that we have to deal with in the TCEA and
we're -- we're prepared to deal with those for those units.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I'm trying to explain that in some -- in this
Page 108
---'-~'- _.._~o...--_.._... "--~-
October 6, 2005
case I'm a little bit ignorant in the idea-
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
MR. ADELSTEIN: -- because I've never seen this before.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Well, this is the first.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Well, it probably won't be my last.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Scott, when you figure in the
impacts and the vesting applications on the roadway that's already
there, if they were to come in for the 233, would you be looking at it
as though the 1,766 is already in place?
MR. SCOTT: Well, it essentially is in the concurrency system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was asking. So you do
take that into account so the 233 is not going to hamper the 1,766
whether it was done today or tomorrow?
MR. SCOTT: Right. Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at.
Thank you. Any other -- I have some questions, though, of the --
Emilio and the water management issue, if you don't mind, Emilio.
The report that was provided by Mr. Passarella indicated some water
management techniques that will be beneficial to the project. I want
your assurance that that's what's being used. I'll read them both to
you. One says, Control -- I mean, The treatment -- the treated storm
water will be discharged into the wetlands as far upstream as possible.
Is that consistent with the design that you're initiating?
MR. ROBAU: Correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then also, Control
elevations for the storm water management system will be established
based on the elevations of the biological indicators of wetland -- of
wetland water levels. Is that also how you're -
MR. ROBAU: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- setting your controls?
MR. ROBAU: Yes. We raised them a couple of times pursuant
to district and the college's request, yes.
Page 109
-.-----.--.'. ."-
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I had. Thank you.
MR. MIDNEY: I have a question for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Emilio, there's one more.
MR. MIDNEY: You state in the report that your plan is superior
to the -- for the Lely canal is superior to the county's plan. Could you
elaborate on that?
MR. ROBAU: Well, I think -- I hate to use the word "superior"
because I think the county did a fine job over the past 15 years and
getting it through regulatory process and -- but I think what we're
doing -- I like the word "enhanced" a little better.
MR. MIDNEY: Okay.
MR. ROBAU: And it's -- it comes into play and the county had
a more engineered design, for lack of a better term. It looked a little
bit more like an engineer did it. You know, a zig-zag thing. We--
we kind of -- because we had more boots on the ground, we had to
do a little bit more investigation and a little -- you know, we had more
detail. We kind of adjusted some of the banks to -- to better match
some of the natural conditions out there. And we also just made it fit
better with what was -- was out there and we're going to do some
lateral shelf plantings also that were originally planned. But WCI
uses those things as an opportunity to amenitize the beauty of their
developments. And they typically do a little bit more than a standard
county facility would -- would do.
MR. MIDNEY: Thank you.
MR. ROBAU: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- any other questions
from other staff members? I have one more and I think I'm finished
and that's Cormac Giblin. I notice he's in the back of the room.
MS. CARON: While Cormac gets up here I have one.
Throughout the PUD document it talks about zone type. Do you want
to put in the actual height as well?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We would have no objection to that.
Page 110
-~.", ---_.~- "."---_.. .'"---
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Cormac.
MR. GIBLIN: Hi.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you've been here and you heard
today the contributions offered by WCI in regards to affordable
housing which is really nice and it works well. I wanted to make sure
the -- how it -- where it would -- where that money is to go and the
kind of programs it would be used for. And could you just elaborate
on the record how that would apply.
MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Just to -- for the record, Cormac Giblin,
housing development manager. From what I've heard the
contribution is to be $1,000 for every residential unit and $0.50 per
square foot for commercial buildings. That money is to -- or should
be deposited into the county's Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be
used for affordable and work force housing purposes for -- it could
be used for land acquisition, down payment assistance, fee deferrals.
It would be our preference that it be used for more physical
improvements rather than soft costs. But the county is very
experienced at maintaining an Affordable Housing Trust Fund as we
have for many years.
And we have multiple mechanisms from which to disburse the
money.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to know the
mechanism for that to happen. And, Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Joe Schmitt for the record, administrator,
Community Development, Environmental Services Division.
Cormac, would you state on the record, though we want to make sure
we have it, a certificate of occupancy rather than at closing. I have
no visibility when a closing takes place other than I would have to
monitor through -- through the property appraiser's office. So it
would probably have to be at CO or some element thereof if that -- if
that's the only way I could take it. So if that --
MR. GIBLIN: It would either -- two -- there are logical places.
Page III
--..-,--.. '-"---",-.--- .---- -.--
October 6, 2005
Either at issuance of building permit when the -- when the majority of
the fees are paid for each unit or at CO which would be the final
sign-off by the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think CO would be a closer time and
point -
MR. GIBLIN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that the financial impact would be
lessened to the developer. Because he'd be getting his closings
occurring and right within -- usually within 30 days of his CO so...
MR. SCHMITT: That would be acceptable to the developer, I
think, because that way I would be able to flag it. Otherwise, then I
have to query -- not that it's a problem, but it's more problematic. I
would have to -- I'd have to be alerted through the property
appraiser's office or some other type of -- or the tax collector's office.
And I think it would be easier, quite honestly, for Cormac to do
it at CO.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sure does straighten it out. I
appreciate you saying that. That does help. Is there any -- any
problem with that with WCI?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It actually does create a little bit of a
problem for us when you're talking about a multi -- multi-family
building. There are a lot of units that -- well, the building will get
CO'd, but maybe not necessarily the units will be complete and ready
to close on. There is a mechanism in place, obviously.
What we'll -- we have to report to you annually how many units
have closed or are being built. We have no problem reporting that
information to you and providing that information. It could be part of
the PUD monitoring obligation. I mean, we know we have to pay it
at closing and we'll let you -- we'll do that. Or if there's some other
mechanism that you would like that we can report to you estimated,
you know, closings so you can -- you can be aware.
I mean, we can provide that information to you, but there's a
Page 112
^--_.,,,-,, .. -.-.----..-. ---
October 6, 2005
PUD monitoring report already in place.
MR. SCHMITT: All right. I appreciate that and I think you're
correct. That may be problematic for you-all. I just need to work
with -- I will -- we'll leave it at closing. What I need to do, though, is
work between Cormac and probably with -- with Mr. Y ovanovich,
figure out a mechanism so that we can be alerted at closing. And I
think -- I think as long as we place the onus on the property developer
for that, we -- we will live with that. So that -- I think we can -- we
can work with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I assume, then, by
the time it gets to the BCC if there's some mechanism--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you can report that too.
MR. SCHMITT: We'll sort it out and I'll work with Rich to
figure out how we would trigger that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That'll work fine.
MR. SCHMITT: I -- I -- now that I -- I think that is a legitimate
concern as far as with both the high-rises.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions
that this panel has of anyone?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Ray, do we have any
public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is -- I want to -- just for the
record I received an e-mail late last night from a gentleman and his
wife, the Phelps.
They live on Cottage Grove Avenue. They're writing the e-mail
about some obj ection they have to another proj ect, but they also
stated they object to this project because of its traffic impacts. I'm not
sure they understood that it was a 4,000 unit project reduced down to
1,766, but they didn't want to see another 2,000 units added to that
Page 113
-,,,.....".......-- - .,._".__.,~--,,-_..-._.~ -,,,----^-- ----
October 6, 2005
area. I'm just saying that for the record. So everybody knows it was
sent to Ms. Murray on October 4th, 2005. So it wasn't mailed -- in
our packet at this point.
MS. CARON: I got that same e-mail and I put it with the other
--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, there's no public speakers.
And now this meeting -- I'll call this meeting closed, public
hearing closed and we'll look for a recommendation.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-6152 be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval
subj ect to the staff recommendations and the recommendations of the
County Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion has been made and seconded.
Discussion.
MS. CARON: BAC recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a list of stipulations. Want me
to read them off?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, please. With the modifications to the
deviations that we agreed to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to go through all that.
The first one -- the first stipulation would be that they agree to
the EAC stipulations both that are in our packet and the ones that
were stipulated yesterday apparently that we haven't seen. That the
staff recommendations, as Mr. Adelstein said, will be agreed to.
That Deviations 1 through 6 are accepted as presented. That
Deviation 7 is accepted with a caveat that the reduction would not
exceed 25 percent.
That the contribution offered by the developer will be accepted
for affordable housing of $1,000 a unit and $0.50 a square foot for
commercial. For all units and commercial except that which is
Page 114
--....,... --"'"'_._..,...~ .--.--,.... -"-
October 6, 2005
already approved in the EDA. That the money would go into the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund monitored by Collier County. And
would go in at the time of closing of the residential or seal of the
commercial or any other mechanism worked out between now and the
BCC time between Mr. Schmitt and the applicant.
That the applicant will provide a 10- foot utility easement on
each side of Thomasson Drive where it goes into that hole in the
doughnut piece that we talked about during the meeting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Bayshore, you mean?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bayshore. I'm sorry. Yeah, Bayshore
Drive.
That the letter from Rookery Bay dated 3/10/04 and the request
provided by Rookery Bay will be accepted by the applicant with the
exception of Request No.5 and No.7. And No.7, it talks about the
conservation lands and how they'll be deeded, instead of deeded
Rookery Bay will be named in the same level of capacity that the
Conservancy is in regards to the conservation easement.
And then the last one is that all the -- all the references to zone
type will also have equal references to actual height in the PUD
document.
Did I miss anything?
MR. ADELSTEIN: No. No. They're all there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Did you mean retail, not
commercial?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Retail. I'm sorry. Retail.
MR. MULHERE: And, Mr. Strain, I just -- there was one. You
said Deviations 1 through 7 made -- 1 through 6 made the change to
7. There was a Deviation 8 that was accepted by staff as well, but
since you didn't mention it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you pointed out Deviation 8 as
staff recommended.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I -- and I just wanted to make sure
Page 115
--- ,-"....- -"--'-
October 6, 2005
for the record that WCI's commitment was for the 1,609 units that
they're acquiring and the commercial property that they're acquiring
and-
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said that in a different manner by
excepting out the density and the commercial property that's in the
PDA, but I understand where you're going. I think we're both saying
the same thing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't hear that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If nobody has anything else I'll
call for the -- I'll call for the vote.
All those in favor?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody opposed?
(No response.)
(Mr. Schiffer not present for vote.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Motion passes unanimously.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Just I want to note again for the
record that there was one refusal on the basis of conflict of interest.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms. Student, for reminding
me of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, we still have a
meeting to continue, so if you have time to talk, please take it out in
the hall. I appreciate it. Back in order.
The next petition is Petition PUDZ-2004-AR-6906, James M.
Fields, and it's a rezone of multi-family in the Bayshore area. All
Page 116
~m -"-'"-"",,",,-"""-~- "~'.'---^'" ,.--".--
October 6, 2005
those people wishing to participate in this, please raise your hand, rise
and be sworn in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Disclosures from the Planning Commission.
MR. SCHIFFER: I am. I've got an e-mail from Patrick and
Kathleen Phelps.
MR. ABERNATHY: Same with me.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I had a meeting -- a discussion with Mr.
Y ovanovich.
MR. MIDNEY: I with Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had a discussion with Mr.
Y ovanovich and I have the same e-mail we talked about earlier.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I also have the e-mail, also.
MS. CARON: E-mail.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing that, let's move forward. Mr.
Y ovanovich, it's all yours.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Good afternoon. For the record,
Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
I have Jim Fields here with me who has a contract to purchase
the property; Bill Hoover, the planner on the project as well as the
engineer; and Kim with Boyland (phonetic). She's here to answer any
environmental questions you may have. This property is roughly a
little less than ten-acre parcel at the corner of Bayshore and
Thomasson -- yeah, Bayshore and Thomasson.
This is the northeast corner. The existing zoning is RMF-6.
We're requesting a rezone to a planned unit development. This is
a project that is requesting a density bonus to address, you know, the
work force housing issue. And we are requesting an overall proj ect
density of 108 units per acre which equates to roughly 10.9 units per
acre. The base density would be three units. And the -- so we're
requesting an additional eight units under the matrix. We're
Page 11 7
-~._...." .."."~-----,-_.._",... _,w,..__ --~-,-
October 6, 2005
addressing -- as I said we're going to provide 22 units that address low
and ten that address very low. Of the additional 78 units, 32 units
will be affordable. I think my math is that's pretty close to 40
percent.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Forty-one percent
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Forty-one percent, Mr. Adelstein.
MR. ADELSTEIN: And I tell you I have not had that come
before -
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the project is set up where the
maximum height will be 40 feet which is three habitable floors over
one parking. I'll just quickly put the master plan up. Close enough.
MR. BELLOWS: It's upside down.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Flip it, please. You will see that we
basically have -- on Bayshore we have where our preserve area starts.
So there's a nice buffering from Bayshore.
The entrance will be off of Thomasson as you can see. And
there's also a setback to the -- and I don't -- I think that's to the east.
There's a drainage easement and a -- and a landscape buffer. So
there's a setback of a minimum of 65 feet from the adjoining property
line. The project obviously is consistent with the comprehensive plan
regarding density and all other elements.
Your staff -- your environmental staff and planning staff are
recommending approval. And we -- we request that you follow their
recommendation. We do have one point of disagreement with the
parks and recreation staff. They are requesting that we provide a
playground area on the property.
The site's rather small. And to meet, you know, the goal of
providing additional work force housing, we can't accommodate that.
And we don't really think we need to accommodate that because
right across the street from us is a park for people with children to go
and play -- play at. So it really shouldn't be a big inconvenience for
-- for -- for the children to go have a playground. It's right across the
Page 118
.' ,~~~-",~..._,.,,-.~, -". -- --~.. . -" - _.,,,--
October 6, 2005
street. So with that your staff report's pretty complete. And if you
have any specific questions of me or the rest of the members of the
team, we'll be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron.
MS. CARON: Is this proj ect located in the coastal high hazard
area?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, it is. And it's one of the specific--
affordable housing is one of the specific density bonus provisions that
is permitted in the coastal high hazard area.
MS. CARON: Absolutely. However, I'm not sure it makes
sense for us to be giving bonuses of -- of this amount. What sense
does it make to be shoving people who can't afford housing into a
high hazard area? I think if everybody just takes a look at what
happened in Katrina and Rita, we need to rethink our policy here in
the coastal high hazard area. We need to get it back down to where
the commission had said they wanted to go, which was in the coastal
high hazard area that it was a limit of four units an acre, period.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the commission also said regarding
the Bayshore overlay that they recognize that there would be
provisions for going -- increasing density to 12 units per acre in other
areas which is also within the coastal high hazard area.
MS. CARON: Well, we're working on that overlay now and I
think -- you know, it's something that we need to be thinking about.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I appreciate that. But right now
with the way the comprehensive -- that thought process occurred and
they specifically discussed the Bayshore area being an area that we
would allow these increased -- these increased densities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the warranty deed that was
included with this package had a -- it seemed to have come from the
Botanical Gardens, Inc. Is that where this property was once a part
of?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know the answer to that question,
Page 119
"---, ,-..-....-.--.- ".,., ".~-'","--_.._-,.- "."-.. -,~._-~,. --
October 6, 2005
Mr. Strain, and I -- I -- I forgot to get the answer for you.
MR. ABERNATHY: Harvey Capnick (phonetic) bought that
from the Botanical Garden back in -- whatever the date was -- '90,
'92.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then the reason I'm asking the
question is we just reviewed the Bayshore overlay. The Bayshore
overlay had a density pool of 388 units that were created by the
Botanical Gardens.
MR. ABERNATHY: Not over there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to find out if this
isn't part of that.
MR. ABERNATHY: On the other side of the street.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Abernathy.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing, I'd like to complement the
engineer/planner Mr. Hoover. This is probably the least problematic
document I have read in the four years I've been on the Planning
Commission as far as how you presented it and put it together. So
you really did a nice job. I'm not saying I always agree with
everything, but I think you laid it out really well and I can't -- I tried
to find -- punch a bunch of holes in it, but I didn't find anything
wrong. So any other comments? Go ahead.
MR. SCHIFFER: And it's on the percent of open space. It's
shown on the plan to be 59 percent. Shouldn't that be 60?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If that's -- yes. It should be 60 percent.
MR. SCHIFFER: And then maybe this next question's the cure.
The -- there's a right of way there that's necessary for the north
turn onto Bayshore Drive that's right now an easement. Could you
dedicate that to the county? That would probably bring you in to 60
percent. And also the county's never going to give up that right of
way. It's on the south--
Page 120
-- --"".".~.~ ..-....,"----..- ---
October 6, 2005
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't see that far.
MR. SCHIFFER: -- southwest corner. There's an easement
across the property.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, I don't know that we can
do that right now, but if we can, we will. I would like to -- to look
into that a little bit further. Otherwise, we'll meet the 60 percent
requirement.
MR. SCHIFFER: If you give that, you might -- that might bring
you down.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It might. But right now, I don't know.
Bill, can we do that? Okay. Well, again, I don't know. Ifwe -- if we
-- if that's the way we have to get there, we will. Otherwise, we'll
meet the 60 percent by -- by making sure we meet the number.
MR. SCHIFFER: I do have some questions that are really on the
calculation of the housing, affordable housing, so I'll wait, I think.
Well, Cormac, he's here. So I guess should we wait?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's make sure we're done with
Richard. Mr. Adelstein -- Mr. Abernathy, you had a question.
MR. ABERNATHY: Rich, you got 60 percent open area. Is
this not going to be condo-ized?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, these are for-sale units.
MR. ABERNATHY: But -- and the whole project will be a
condominium?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It'll be a condominium, yes, sir.
MR. ABERNATHY: Well, it looks like those people could
figure out where to put a playground once they're-
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if they want to do it -- if they want
to do it later, sure. But right now I didn't want it to be an obligation
on us as the developer.
MR. ABERNATHY: I quite agree with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Richard?
(No response.)
Page 121
--,...- ....- ..,~.._. 'u.c_~_~._,"_~;_ "~~'.n~___..-_______' --
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, you had a question? Do you want to
let staff do their report first?
MR. SCHIFFER: I can wait till it comes up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay. Boy, you're here a lot
today, Kay.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record it's Kay
Deselem, Principal Planner with the Zoning and Land Development
Review. You do have the staff report in front of you. And staff is
recommending that this proj ect be found consistent with the growth
management plan. And we are recommending approval of it.
And there are no deviations so I needn't go into any discussion
about deviations. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to
answer them; otherwise, we have other staff persons here to answer
other questions if you have them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions for staff?
MR. SCHIFFER: Cormac.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, Cormac, you're next
up. Thank you, Kay.
MR. SCHIFFER: Cormac, and it's really just the math. What
they're looking for, they have ten units claiming that's 10 percent, but
it's actually less than 10 percent. So what I'd kind of like to do is to
get the numbers to be where they want them to be, could we take one
off of the 60 percent and add one to the 50 percent?
MR. GIBLIN: Right. Right now they're proposing ten units at
50 percent of median income. Again, Cormac Giblin, housing
manager for the record.
That actually only works out to 9.25 percent.
MR. SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. GIBLIN: And it takes 10 percent to get-
MR. SCHIFFER: And our system doesn't have a way to prorate
below a number. In other words, we -- obviously, if it was above 10
percent we could prorate it according to the -- to the code. But since
Page 122
.'-.- -.., ._-,._....,--~~~..,..,,~". "-"-"~_.-
October 6, 2005
we can't go down below, can't we just flip one and one?
MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHIFFER: Then it works good.
MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHIFFER: That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the panel?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray -- well, first of all, I assume
that concludes the staffs presentation?
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have two registered speakers, if
they both would come up. The first one is David Jackson followed by
Patrick Phelps.
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, executive director of the
Bayshore Redevelopment Agency. An item that isn't included on this
is that it's supported by the CRA that's in the area and this is
encompassed in that and it's been an ongoing project, long before I
came here. However, it's been reviewed by the advisory board and
they support it. Also, which is not in the part of your documents, is
that the owner and developer has agreed to partner with the Bayshore
MSTU and the CRA to do a street scape project along the borders of
their property from Thomasson to the end of the area there.
They'll partner in cost and partner in giving up some of the land
and area to put in an urban section in there. And it'll be a three-way
split in the cost to give it for the residents and for the area to include
that bus stop that's there and do some landscaping; trees, lights,
curbing and sidewalk to be similar to what's on the Bayshore Drive
right now. It's part -- a continuing of that project.
MR. ABERNATHY: You're talking about Thomasson from
Bayshore east to the end of the property?
MR. JACKSON: Correct, for the length. It's about 1,056 feet
Page 123
_._--._--~- ~.",.."'..,,-~, .-._."'~ --_._-
October 6, 2005
somewhere, almost 1,100 feet to partner with that. To give us some
of the land, give us an opportunity and the three-way partnership on
the cost. So it'll be an enhancement to the neighborhood. And the
maintenance will all be done by the Bayshore MSTU at no cost to the
county.
MR. ABERNATHY: It's Dell's project? Is Dell a part of the
CRA?
MR. JACKSON: Yes. That's a different subject, different time.
MR. ABERNATHY: He's not street -- street scaping his side of
the street?
MR. JACKSON: Not--
MR. ABERNATHY: Not yet?
MR. JACKSON: Not yet. It depends. I mean, that's a different
subject, a different time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker,
please.
MR. PHELPS: Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Patrick
Phelps. I live at 2954 Cottage Grove A venue. I've lived there for a
little over 20 years and I've seen a lot of zoning changes and whatever
in the area, but we thought that that area as it's developed now would
not become a real high-density area because of it being so close to the
ocean and everything.
And that was part of the reason that there was a low-income
housing unit that was going to go in at one time where Botanical
Gardens is. And that was one of the reasons it didn't go through was
because of the coastal evacuation and everything else. What we'd like
to see is -- there's a lot of land there that's open. And like this, it's
zoned, you know, three units per acre.
What it is is it's going to become four times that throughout that
whole area unless there's something that says there's only so much
that can go in here or every proj ect is going to be this. Because every
project is this. The one before it, that's just over the Botanical
Page 124
-- .. ......." _d~'>'- --- --
October 6, 2005
Gardens or whatever there's being built. And I'd also like to see in
Collier County where this affordable housing becomes a permanent
fixture on the deeds so it always stays affordable housing.
Not for some affordable when they move in, then three years
down the road they sell it. So there's always going to be affordable
housing here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Cormac, the gentleman's
last comment concerning how affordable housing stays in place, that
it goes -- buys into the program that's being discussed here today, can
you explain how that is addressed?
MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Each one of these units will be deed
restricted to be bought and owner occupied by a low-income home
buyer. That deed restriction runs for 15 years. If during that 15 years
the owner decides to sell to someone else who is not low income,
there is a financial penalty that they must pay an amount equal to 50
percent of any profit they make on the unit to the county. The county
then will take that money and put it in the Affordable Housing Trust
Fund and hopefully use it to create another or a replacement
affordable unit with those proceeds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Thank you.
MR. ABERNATHY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a moment.
MR. ABERNATHY: What percentage of affordable units that --
that are in the inventory now or were in the inventory have been sold
by the owners?
MR. GIBLIN: This program has been in existence by the county
since about 1991. To date we have run about 9,000 units through this
scenario. Granted, a lot of them have been rental apartments, but
there have been a fair amount of owner-occupied units. And to date
not one has been resold and been applied with the penalty. It's-
MR. ABERNATHY: Do you have a way of tracking them?
Page 125
'-'-'. . - .._,...,.~--....."",,,- ..-...~..._.- -- .---
October 6, 2005
MR. GIBLIN: We do through the monitoring reports and the
deed restriction itself would come up on any sale.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Cormac.
MR. SCHIFFER: It's not for Cormac.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I have one question for you.
The gentleman -- Mr. Jackson stated that there's been some
verbal agreement worked out on some improvements. I need to get
those in the format of a stipulation so that it's attached to the PUD.
Do you have any problem with that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have a simple way of
stating it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I would suggest that at the time of
motion depending on what it is, a generic stipulation is added so that
this gets cleaned up in some kind of stipulation before it gets to the
BCC.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be -- that would be fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any -- go ahead, Brad.
MR. SCHIFFER: Rich, I have one more concern and that's the
boundary line right of way. Right now it's set up where we can build
buildings 15 feet off of Thomasson which is essentially on the edge of
the buffer.
Again, it goes back that if that's the back of a house, people open
the back door and barbecue grill's in the buffer. So can we increase
that to 25 feet just to keep more -- I mean, 15 foot, these are
residential properties further to the east and they have a much greater
setback than 15 feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe we can. I think we're -- in
order to be able to fit everything on the site and provide -- provide the
level of housing we want to provide, we're not going to be able to
shift it. Hang on one second.
Page 126
--.. ----=-""""""'"'--~-,.._,~"... ">^,-,".- -~"'-~--
October 6, 2005
MR. SCHIFFER: Ray, while they're doing that, could you --
what is the setback for the properties that are further down
Thomasson Drive? What setback -- for residential, what setback do
they have off of the right of way? I don't think they're as low as 15,
do you?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's subject to the PUD documents so...
MR. SCHIFFER: These look like platted lots.
MR. BELLOWS: They're platted lots?
MR. SCHIFFER: To the east.
MR. BELLOWS: It depends on what they're zoned. It's subject
to the zoning district setbacks.
MR. SCHIFFER: But do you know of any other residential
front setback that's 25 feet?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're actually -- what we're -- what
we're building is a product that's three stories over one of parking so
we're required to be 25 feet.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. So everything along Thomasson will
be the three-story product which has a 25-
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Yes. So they won't be coming out
into the buffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll be up in the air so they won't
have a backyard. There's parking on the first floor.
MR. SCHIFFER: I mean, I just don't want to see barbecue-
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear -- I hear what you're saying. And
I think we take care of that by the product we're bringing in.
MR. SCHIFFER: So you've got 10 feet of backyard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What have you got against barbecues
anyway?
MR. BELLOWS: It's buffers. It's barbecuing in the buffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: There's also a Type D buffer along
Thomasson for ground level things such as barbecues that would be
Page 127
- '.~,,,,,. -_..~ ---
October 6, 2005
behind the buffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHIFFER: But it should not be on buffer land, I think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, did you have something
else?
MR. SCHIFFER: That's it. I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Brad or Ray,
that was all of the public speakers; right?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. Public hearing is closed.
Entertain a motion.
MR. ABERNATHY: I move that AR-6906 be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval
subject to staff recommendations and the recommendation of the
County Planning Commission.
MR. SCHIFFER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion.
MR. SCHIFFER: I'd like to add one thing, Mark. I see no
reason why we can't -- we've given them the units, why we can't get
the dedication of that right of way on the southwest corner. We could
define it on the plat book today if you want.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a note, a stipulation that I was
going to suggest that too.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's the right-of-way area on the
southwest corner of the property as Stipulation No.1. That will be
dedicated to the county at no cost. Stipulation No.2, that the
playground referenced by the Parks Department is not recommended.
And then No.3 -- go ahead, Margie. I'm sorry.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: As to the right-of-way dedication,
when would that occur?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would -- well, I mean, the time of
Page 128
-~.~.., -.,- --~"",.~". ..,,"....v<_ -." --- .-..-
October 6, 2005
that -- this is an STP project; right? Are they in for STP at this point,
Ray or Joe or anybody?
MR. BELLOWS: Not that I know of.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Time ofSTP?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: STP approval or application?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the last stipulation would be
that the applicant will work out the agreement with the CRA for the
improvements along Bayshore and Thomasson before the BCC
hearing. That's all I -- Ms. Caron?
MS. CARON: I just would like it to be on record that I will not
be voting for this. I do not think it is correct for us to be putting this
many units in the coastal high hazard area. And everybody should be
well aware that the affordable density bonus is not a given. It's
something that's requested. So, first of all, they don't have to get this
many to begin with despite the overlay. They're not part of the
overlay so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other -- any other
comments from the committee?
MR. SCHIFFER: None. No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll call for the vote. All those
in favor of the motion with the stipulation -- oh, first of all, does the
motion-maker accept the stipulations?
MR. ADELSTEIN: I accept them.
MR. SCHIFFER: The second does also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor of the
motion?
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
Page 129
--....".".,.,--,-., "'''''n~''.'_' o__~".,_..." ".""...,......~_._'_.____.....,-- ~.- --'--'-
October 6, 2005
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed?
MS. CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron, of course. Okay.
Motion passes six to one.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Strain, we need a separate vote
for the density vote agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, glad you told me. I didn't know
that. That's the -- is there a motion to recommend approval of the
density bonus agreement that's been --
MR. ABERNATHY: So moved.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made seconded by
Commissioner Vigliotti. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. All those in favor?
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed?
MS. CARON: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Motion passes six to one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item E on the agenda was the Bristol
Pines. That was moved to -- for those of you in the audience who
may not have caught it, it was moved to the earlier part of the agenda
and has been completed. So now we would be on Item F. That would
be Petition PUDA-2005-AR-7557. It's Empire Developers Group
with the HD Development Planned Unit Development north of
Immokalee Road.
MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, I'm sorry. Remember that condition
Page 130
'---'~>'- .",-,,_._,., ... . ~^.._.m . .,-~"",...-- _~"__H -._-
October 6, 2005
we made and they were going to change one unit into bonus. Do you
think that made it through with our motion or not?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't stipulate it, but I'm sure
Cormac addressed to it. Cormac picked it up.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, let's go on with the petition at
hand. All those that are going to be testifying in this petition please
rise and raise your right hand.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures by the
Planning Commission? Anybody have any disclosures other than
me? I had talked to Attorney Tony Pires about some of the issues
involving landscaping buffers on this project. And Commissioner
Caron?
MS. CARON: Same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ma'am, it's yours.
MS. SPURGEON: Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Laura
Spurgeon. I'm a senior planner with Johnson Engineering here in
Naples.
I'm here today representing Empire Developers Group. With me
is Bill Slavich of Empire Developers Group, Neil Dorrill, the project
manager, Attorney David Bryant and proj ect engineer, Larry Harris,
if we need to ask them to answer any questions. The project we're
working on is a 46-acre site north of Immokalee Road bounded by the
Olde Cypress Development that exists.
What it is is an improved PUD. The HD Development PUD was
approved by Ordinance 0330 in June of 2003. That original rezone
from an agricultural to HD Development PUD provides for 104
dwelling units across the 46-acre site yielding about 2.23 dwelling
units per acre. Since Empire Developers Group acquired the property
Page 131
--,.<, '---'._'-"'--'-'-- <.... ~O._, ~._--
October 6, 2005
following that -- or general PUD zoning, they are requesting a minor
amendment to the PUD document to change two development
standards, that is the lot width and the lot area. Specifically, the
current PUD provides for 85-foot-wide lots on a northern tract of the
single-family area and 12,000 square foot lots there. We are
requesting 65 -- 60-foot-wide lots and 9,000 square foot lots on that
north -- northern part of the site.
The southern part of the site was already zoned for 55-foot-wide
lots and 6,000 square feet in area. Weare upping that to the
60-foot-wide lots and 9,000 square feet in size to create a consistent
development standard across the entire site. As noted in the staff
report, we have responded to some concerns that were raised at our
neighborhood information meeting.
Specifically we are applying for a district approval to allow large
trucks and earth moving equipment to access the site during
construction through the Cocohatchee Canal right of way to ease
some of the traffic impacts during construction. And, also, an
enhanced buffer plan has been included in our PUD amendment
package to address aesthetics and compatibility along the north
property line. We had discussions with concerned neighbors this
morning and we're going to reaffirm that the north -- northern buffer
will exist as it's shown in our PUD materials.
Specifically we will also document agreements and discussions
that have been held already with the Olde Cypress Development
entity, stock development that portion where we share boundary with
Olde Cypress along the north line.
There will be cooperation so that an acceptable boundary across
10 feet of our property plus any additional room that there is between
our property and a cart path on 0 Ide Cypress property up to a
dimension of 20 feet total will be a cooperative effort to form a
cohesive buffer that will satisfy the neighbors in Olde Cypress as
well as our developer of our site. We appreciate the staffs
Page 132
-,.,-- ~M_..._~'""",_ ~-~.,- -~,--- .".."~..'^ .~.-.-
October 6, 2005
recommendation for approval. We're available for any questions that
you may have. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we'll have a few, at least I
do. Brad.
MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'll start off. There's 71 lots shown in
that area --
MS. SPURGEON: Correct.
MS. SCHIFFER: -- and they'll all be single family?
MS. SPURGEON: Correct.
MR. SCHIFFER: So what you're kind of saying is Tract 3 will
have 33 units on it and I calculated a density of 23 1/2 units per acre.
What's going to happen there?
MS. SPURGEON: Tract 3 is not part of this request. We're
only requesting the specific changes to the lot width and lot area.
You're right. The total units allowed on HD Development PUD in
total is 104. And our plan would only yield 71 in the single-family
tracts but there's no intention for development on this multi-family
tract at this time.
MR. SCHIFFER: But the prior platting, how many lots were --
how many units were not in Tract 3 on the prior plan? And we've
never seen the prior plat in our package so...
MS. SPURGEON: Right. The prior PUD approval was just
subject to a master plan, a bubble diagram, that didn't allot where
those -- where those actual units would go. Bill Slavich is mentioning
that in engineering plans to follow the original master plan, 73 lots
would have been yielded from that single-family area.
MR. SCHIFFER: So my question is: Why do you need 33 extra
units to be placed on that Lot No.3? I mean, Lot No.3 is in here
because it gets the remainder of the density.
MR. BRYANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr.
Chairman, I'm David Bryant. One thing I'd like to share with the
commissioners is we're not asking for anything on that smaller parcel,
Page 133
-_.._,..~ -_._.,-"-"~.~,,,,,~ .... '. 0'_' _,."~"._,_..__ _.___ ... n.__.____, ..--
October 6, 2005
you want to call it an out parcel. All we're asking today is for the
larger parcel. And what we're doing is we're reducing density on that
parcel.
And I think the board has seen today many times where people
have been asking for bonuses to increase their density. This is a
novel situation in where a developer, because of the product that he
wants to place on that, which is a quality product, he is reducing the
density to the parcel that is the subj ect of the amendment today.
Which is, like I said, a novel situation in Collier County.
MR. SCHIFFER: But the point I'm making, though, is that the
remainder of your density will be allowed to be built on Tract 3. So,
therefore, we do see that density brings it up on the other site unless
you want to just back away some densities. I mean, you know, it's
hard to do this PUD and not consider Tract 3 if Tract 3 gets the
remainder of the density.
MR. BRYANT: I appreciate that, but we're not linking these
two developments. And by the comments you're making, you're
linking those two together. And we're not asking for anything on that
particular out parcel. And if we were ever going to do anything on
that, we would have to come back to this board and the BCC to be
able to do what we may want to do and may not. Because it's a very
small parcel. And I can share with you right now, there's never going
to be any intention to do residential on that out parcel because of
where it's geographically located and where it's situated.
MR. SCHIFFER: But yet you're -- the PUD we're reviewing
describes that as a multi-family site, has development standards for it.
So, essentially, approval of this would allow you to build on that
site.
MR. BRYANT: Well-
MR. SCHIFFER: You may have access -- I mean, there's, like--
the access is some, you know, jumbo areas going across the
neighboring lot but -- so rather than discuss that, but --
Page 134
,,-- --.- ---' ~;.,...,<~,..",.,... .........* -,"',"'--.~.~-' ,....- ~.,,^ .~,.-
October 6, 2005
MR. BRYANT: And I appreciate that and I think those are very
wise comments; however, we don't have at this time, and Mr. Slavich
can speak to this, there is no desire to do any kind of multi - family on
that particular out parcel. And, like I said, the key issue here today is
the amendment of the larger site where we are reducing the density
that we could build today if we wanted to start building.
But we believe that this product and the -- by reducing the
density, increasing the green space, making the lake more attractive,
putting in the buffer that exceeds what the county has requested or is
requiring, and trying to make this particular parcel very attractive to
the remaining residents and parcels in Olde Cypress.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the 104 units that you're asking
for include any units that would be applied to that multi-family
parcel? Isn't that kind of where you're going?
MR. SCHIFFER: And it's the remainder of the density. They're
USIng -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're only requesting 104
today.
MR. SCHIFFER: And they have 71 single-family lots. So
doing the math, the rest of it's on the other parcel unless I'm -- I'm
missing something here. But you've answered it the same a couple of
times so I'm fine with that answer. I'll discuss it with Heidi.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, sir. With the total number of lots
on that large parcel is that we intend to build is 71.
MR. SCHIFFER: Correct.
MR. BRYANT: Yes.
MR. SCHIFFER: And I'm not worried about that at all. And I
appreciate everything you said about that.
MR. BRY ANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think what you're getting at he's
going to put essentially 33 units on --
MR. SCHIFFER: He's got stuff in his back pocket that -- the --
Page 135
--..-- ~.,-- "~.~" - .'''-
October 6, 2005
let me ask about the building type. These are 71 lots. Do you think
you'll be building one product 71 times to -- because Collier's starting
to look like a zipper from a satellite.
MR. SLA VICH: Bill Slavich, Empire Developers. We plan on
building one -- four different product types.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. SLA VICH: Ranging from 2,200 square feet to 3,000.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Thank you. I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got a series of questions.
Does anybody on the panel want to go first?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The argument that you've come
forward with here today is that you're averaging development
standards for a minimum lot width and lot size. I want the -- not that
I'm opposed to the width that you're suggesting, but I'm not finding
that you're averaging because you have lot widths now at 85 feet and
55 feet.
The average of that is 70, not 60. So just for the record, I don't
think you're averaging lot widths. I think you're reducing lot widths
overall which will end up giving you more units. So with that point
there's another argument or another issue that says, The applicant has
agreed to route the traffic they're using for construction through
South Florida -- South Florida Water Management District easement
on the south side of the property if accept -- acceptable to district.
Who owns that property? I mean, you're talking about the property
that's shown in the arrows if I'm not mistaken; is that correct?
MS. SPURGEON: That's the Cocohatchee Canal maintenance
easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you see the arrows on the lower
right-hand corner? Is that your egress? Okay. Where would you be
coming in with the construction traffic?
MS. SPURGEON: On the Cocohatchee Canal maintenance
Page 136
,---~,. ..~....,._-_.".__... ,-- .......~. ....." -..,~,.,,~... "~',......."-,,,,;;,---,-^'- ~_'_H .---
October 6, 2005
easement. It's labeled on the southwest part of the diagram.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See the dark arrows that are
there?
MS. SPURGEON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- what are they there for?
MS. SPURGEON: That's the southeast section. And that's--
that was the existing diagram in the HD Development PUD showing
access to that multi-family parcel that's not subject to any
development plans at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why are they here?
MS. SPURGEON: Because that's already in an ordinance when
they adopted the HD Development PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're producing a new
ordinance today; right? You're going forward with-
MS. SPURGEON: We're doing an amendment, a straight
through and underline amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you're not going to need
those black arrows on this new one because you're not going to use
that access route; is that right?
MR. BRYANT: And, Mr. Chairman, we could not use that
access for the particular site because the slough is between the
property and that piece of property. I mean, there's no way you could
even get there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. And what I'm trying
to do is, why are they -- let's just not -- why do we have them on the
plan?
MR. BRYANT: It's like Laura said, they're there because that's
part of the approved ordinance and it was in the ordinance as the
Board of County Commissioners approved it. Why they put them
there, I have no idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BRYANT: This is the area back over on this side if you
Page 137
"->,-", ~~._- -",-,---,.-,,--'-.'-."'-' '~._""._--- -~""--
October 6, 2005
want to -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start a simpler way. Do you have
a plan that you can put in the overhead that reflects what you're trying
to do at this -- today's meeting?
MS. SPURGEON: Okay. The one on the overhead was the
Exhibit A to the PUD document, the master plan. Now I'll show you
the conceptual site plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That Exhibit A you talked about is the
master plan to the old PUD, not the new one; right?
MS. SPURGEON: No. This is the new -- the new master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess maybe I'm not understanding.
The black arrows were needed on the old master plan because they
were part of the ordinance. You're coming with a new master plan,
you tell me you don't need -- you can't go through that area anyway.
So my question's, why are you indicating that they're on the plan?
MS. SPURGEON: That -- that is actually -- I'll put up the old
ordinance, the adopted master plan. That's the layout that was
adopted. And what we're doing is we're changing the design of the
single- family tracts on the west section of the property. So I'll put
that up at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. SPURGEON: That's the master plan. And I'll put up the
conceptual site plan so that you see the lot layout.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to get, but I can't
get there and trying to figure that out.
MR. SLA VICH: I can help you out. The access question-
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. SLA VICH: I mean --
MR. ADELSTEIN: It's like two ships passing in the night.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excuse me, can you use the
microphone, please.
MR. SLA VICH: Immokalee Road essentially comes down the
Page 138
'-~. ~-.,~.- --''',-,-,_....-~..._.~~ _.._-~.._. --.--~-
October 6, 2005
bottom of the TV, Treeline Drive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SLA VICH: The access would be from right off Treeline
Drive through the backside of the driving range that currently Stock
has, Stock Development which we have an agreement with, would tie
into the easement -- was it the Cocohatchee Canal easement? So it
would be coming in from the west side of the property on the
Cocohatchee Canal easement into essentially this cul-de-sac area
where the heavy equipment's coming.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to get
to.
MR. SCHIFFER: Just one. Isn't that Olde Cypress that comes
off of Immokalee?
MR. SLA VICH: I believe it's Treeline Drive that comes off
Immokalee and eventually turns into Olde Cypress Drive after it's
through the gatehouse.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. SLA VICH: Is that -- Olde Cypress Drive -- it's Olde
Cypress. Well, I live in there and I should know that, but it's Olde
Cypress Drive and then turns to Treeline past the grass. So we would
be coming off Immokalee Road, off Olde Cypress Drive across the
backside of the driving range which we have an agreement with Stock
Development on already onto the maintenance easement for the
canal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that resolves my question
of the arrows. Thank you.
MR. SLA VICH: The arrows had nothing to do with that. Sorry
about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That's why I couldn't get to it.
MR. SCHIFFER: But, Mark, just before we leave the arrows --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. SCHIFFER: Are the arrows supposed to give us the
Page 139
.~- --,-.- ~..,- ~_._.,.- -"-,,.,..~ -'-
October 6, 2005
impression that there's access to that third tract from the east?
MR. SLA VICH: There is access through the east to that third
tract. Currently right now it comes past, and forgive me, it's either a
gas station that's across from the high school. Currently right next to
that tract is being developed some commercial property and there's a
storage facility -- storage warehouse right behind it. So there is
access to that Tract 3 through that commercial -- as a matter of fact,
you'll see you can see it right there on the overhead now.
MR. SCHIFFER: So there is -- whoever owns Tract 3 has made
arrangements to pick up off that cul-de-sac and have access or--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is access -- there is an access
agreement for Tract 3 with the prior landholder of the commercial
piece of property. Yes, sir.
MR. SCHIFFER: Thank you. I'm sorry, Mark. Back on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's quite all right. I don't know
who wants to take this next question, but I notice in the staff report
that the price point for your homes are $750,000. Is that a correct
statement?
MR. SLA VICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How many of those are going to
be affordable or work force or gap?
MR. BRYANT: They're all going to be priced at 750 and above.
There aren't any set aside for any work force or affordable
housing in this particular project that we're doing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you -- with a project like this that's
going to generate service-people needs, you're not proposing to do
anything for work-force housing?
MR. BRYANT: We have not been required nor have we offered
to do that because we don't think this site is appropriate for that. We
don't think that this particular product in this particular development
is appropriate for interspersing, if you would, work force or
Page 140
,.- ~._<_.., "'-"~-"",,, o,"~.,_ ....- ,,,"~- ..._.~-
October 6, 2005
affordable housing in this and we're not required to. We're not
required to by our existing PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, whether you're not required
to, you're right, but a lot of people recognize it as an issue that should
be addressed and--
MR. BRYANT: And I think it's an excellent issue and I was
really happy to see how this board's been handling it throughout the
day. But this particular project we don't believe would be adaptable
to doing something. The next project we look at, we will definitely
look at those issues and we appreciate the board's comments too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What part of doing something don't you
think applies to your proj ect?
MR. BRY ANT: We don't think that -- because, one, we're not
required to. And, two, because we have an accepted -- an already
approved PUD by the Board of County Commissioners that does not
require that. That's not an issue that's before the board here today. It
isn't an issue for the county. And we believe that we've approached it
appropriately for this particular site for this particular time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, some may disagree with you on
that point.
MR. BRY ANT: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: PUD document, I don't know who
wants to discuss that on page 9. You have a D-2. I found some -- a
crossed-out section in D-2, but I also found an underlined section that
was crossed out. And I'm wondering if that is by mistake or is that
correct? You're talking about a 20- foot Type D buffer adjacent to
Treeline Drive. And first it said 10. Then it was written in 20. Then
it was underlined, so it was new. And then the whole thing was
crossed out. Are you -- what is the intention along Treeline Drive
based on No.2?
MS. SPURGEON: The intention was change the approved
10-foot buffer to a 20-foot Type D-2 buffer. And that should be the
Page 141
<"- M..__,. ---~ --~~;,~",. -~.~ ...",.-.--
October 6, 2005
ultimate language, the 20- foot Type D buffer along Treeline Drive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the cross -- the fact that the
strike-through went through the 20-foot is an error. Okay.
MS. SPURGEON: Okay.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, Assistant County Attorney Patrick
White, under D-2 as well I think you also have to recognize that
perhaps the strike-through through the words, Foot Type D in buffer
adjacent to Treeline, may need to be removed as well. And I'd ask
that the applicant's agent confirm that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To add it back in?
MR. WHITE: To add it back in. That the strike-through would
be removed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that consistent with what your
understanding is?
MS. SPURGEON: That still accomplishes the same intentions
we had for a 20- foot buffer along Treeline. I think the -- the reason
that the last minute some underlines and strike- throughs got
overlapped was because we added that landscape plan exhibit to be
more specific what the buffer would be along Treeline. So we have
the 20- foot Type D buffer designation that will apply there enhanced
by a landscape planting plan that the neighbors found acceptable to
meet their needs along the northern property line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 20-foot buffer that you're speaking
of is along the entire boundary of the north property line on your side
of the property line. Is that--
MS. SPURGEON: The 20-foot buffer extends along the
Treeline Drive frontage. It goes to a 10- foot buffer beyond the
Treeline Drive frontage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's a --
MS. SPURGEON: Yeah. Minimum 10 feet on our property.
And that's where the condition that we will provide documentation
that any extension beyond our property line to enhance that buffer
Page 142
"~-,--, ".--,---" -" ~--'-- .... ..-....-.- ---
October 6, 2005
beyond our ten feet onto 0 Ide Cypress property as already discussed
and arranged with meetings with Stock Development. The buffer will
be extended in cooperation with Stock Development to the point of
the cart path or at least to a maximum of 20 feet total beyond the 10
feet on -- on our property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean a minimum of 20 feet total,
don't you?
MS. SPURGEON: Well, yeah. Where the cart path is within 5
feet of our property, we'll have 15 feet. We won't have the minimum
20. It will be a maximum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure there's going to be more
discussion on that before the meeting's over so we'll see how it gels
out.
The parcel that you have immediately to the west of this proj ect,
who owns that?
MS. SPURGEON: Empire Developers Group.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the plan for that since it's going
to be contiguous to this PUD?
MS. SPURGEON: Do you want to speak to the-
MR. BRYANT: I believe that -- Mr. Chairman, I believe that
we'd look at that almost in a conceptual type analysis because it's not
part of this particular project. So it would not be something that
would be linked to this at this time. And we're only looking at the
amendment to the PUD that has already been approved by the Board
of County Commissioners. That -- that parcel -- nothing has been
done with that as far as getting it approved by the board or bringing it
to this particular board. So we're only looking at this one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have a conceptual plan for it?
MR. BRY ANT: I don't have one with me, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe before the day's over we'll find
one. I don't have any other questions on this -- at this particular time.
Anybody else?
Page 143
~--'_.~ ~,,~.- .- "_...~~._~_,'" .. .. h ,,........, -.,,,", ~~-". -_."-..~-
October 6, 2005
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Heidi, would you
like to present the staffs report, please.
MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. Heidi Williams, principal
planner, zoning and land development review. This project came
before staff as -- as an amendment to the development standards and
the master plan for Tract A and Tract B. Upon review it was found
to be consistent with the growth management plan, no new impacts to
wetlands or wildlife were anticipated from an amendment of this
type, so there was no review by the EAC. Environmental staffhas
found it to be consistent. The zoning review finds that the requested
amendment are appropriate to provide a unified development pattern.
Additionally, the applicant, as stated earlier, has worked with
neighbors to address their concerns. One of those concerns is
additional landscaping along the northern PUD boundary.
The Land Development Code requires a 20- foot Type D
landscape buffer along Treeline Drive and that is due to residential
abutting a roadway. The LDC requirement for residential against
residential is a 10- foot Type A buffer between which would result in
one tree every 30 feet where there are homes adjacent to the golf
course at Olde Cypress. This was not acceptable to the residents in
that area. And what has been put on the record already is that there is
an enhanced planting plan that increases the one-tree requirement.
Unfortunately, the applicant feels constrained by the lake
maintenance easement.
They -- they have stated that the 10 feet on their property, the
width will be maintained as required by the Land Development
Code. It will be then supplemented by the planting plan so that there
is additional material which increases the effect of a landscape buffer.
This is acceptable to staff in that it is an enhancement of the
Land Development Code and it responds to neighbors' concerns.
Transportation staff has just mentioned to me that there is an
Page 144
-_.~---_...,_.. "_O_"~'__ ---' -~'-
October 6, 2005
anticipated green way along the north side of Immokalee Road. That
if a construction access is granted along that canal easement, it could
be utilized as part of the green way once construction activity is
completed.
They would request that that be allowed. To address your
concerns about the additional density, the extra 30 units that could
then be attempted to be placed on the multi-family tract, the PUD
does not designate densities for one tract over another. They simply
refer to the development standards of the lot width. There are 30
units left over. I think it's highly unlikely that all 30 of those units
could be placed when you look at the development standards. There
are setbacks that must be met. There's a maximum height of three
stories.
When you look at parking requirements and everything like that,
it's pretty unlikely they could have that many units on there. I think
this sets up a situation where there's just a number of unused units in
this development. To try and answer your concern about the arrows
on the master plan, those were on there to designate the ingress/egress
points with the previous PUD zoning. The arrow that is shown on the
northwest side of the site is for the access to Tracts A and B. The
PUD document clearly states there shall be no access to Treeline
Drive for development on tract -- the multi-family tract.
That access is -- to that site is to be granted through the
commercial that is located east of the property. When it comes to the
language in the PUD documents on page 9, we've had many revisions
of this document. I think that we do need to clean up the language
when it -- to clarify not only to refer to the Exhibit C for the enhanced
planting, but also to confirm the minimum widths required for this
project especially along the north. I would also like to put on the
record that from the time that you were provided your packet, we
have coordinated with legal staff to update the LDC citations from
the old notations to the new codification numbers. Section 5.8.S
Page 145
"....-.. _.,.,,- M"'."~_' .~,---- .~-- -,--
October 6, 2005
language on the construction entrance has been modified slightly so
that it is not only limited to the heavy equipment using that
construction access. I think that concludes my presentation. If you
have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions, Brad -- Mr. Schiffer?
MR. SCHIFFER: Heidi, I'm still concerned about Tract 3
because it's there. I mean, we pretend it's not, but it's there. Can--
would you have a problem if we reduce that down? I mean, you're
saying that nobody could build something at 33 units per acre, but--
or, actually, 24 1/2 units per acre. And I'm an architect and I can
imagine some ugly stuff at 24 1/2 units per acre. So since they only
want 71 lots I think reading between the lines is that they're intending
to go commercial in that area anyway and come back.
Can't we just throw those units away and then Don Scott doesn't
have to worry about phantom cars and stuff like that or...
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, frankly, this is a strike-through
underline amendment so I don't think that we have the ability to open
up other parts of the document from what the applicant is proposing
to amend. They do have unified control of that parcel. I'm not sure if
that would be something they'd be willing to do, but as staff reviews
this project, we were limited in what we could -- we could review on
this project.
MR. SCHIFFER: But I don't see how this would be limited.
Because if you reduce the density in one area, obviously, it goes up in
the remaining areas. So essentially what we do here effects that, so
that is part of this deal so...
MS. WILLIAMS: And, again, the PUD document does not spell
out a maximum density on any tract.
MR. SCHIFFER: Correct. That's exactly why there's a
problem. If it did spell out a maximum density on Tract 3, I'd be
quiet. But, anyway, I do think we have to address that. The other
thing is there any concern -- all of this traffic is going to go into the
Page 146
--.,.- -- ._. .._..._._="""".,,~ ..~ .....__w____ __. ----
October 6, 2005
Treeline Road, I guess they call it, or Olde Cypress Boulevard it looks
like on this. Much like the Quail Creek project, we have everything
coming into one stem road. I mean, you quote community character
plan, but I think the community character plan describes this as what
we don't want to do. And that's where we have all this traffic on one
road. It's backing up. I mean, is anybody worried about all of this
traffic joining the other traffic and coming down Olde Cypress?
MS. WILLIAMS: When staff reviewed this petition, it was not
seen as an increase in already anticipated traffic. No additional units
were requested. And, therefore, we don't -- we haven't viewed this as
an increase to traffic on the road.
MR. SCHIFFER: That's good. I accept. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm
through. If Mark -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Heidi. Is there any other
transportation? I don't know. You got your question answered so
you're not --
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, I think so. I think, again -- you know,
and Heidi quotes the community character plan, but this is actually
exactly what it's not saying. What it is saying is that they want this
in connection with Immokalee Road. And we're, once again, like we
looked at Quail Creek, we have everything into one road. This Olde
Cypress Road is right next to -- we have roads running side by side
next to the -- I think it's Longwood or Long-something-or-other, but
I'm done with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question of
transportation and maybe Heidi has said enough or Don Scott could
allude to more. What's the issue on the green way that Transportation
seems -- and I'll be interested in because it hadn't come up before in
this area that I know of.
MR. SCOTT: Actually, it's part of the design bill. We're
Page 147
_. -,,-- -'"'*.'" """"",,- ~---,--
October 6, 2005
looking at building a green way on the north side of the canal there.
So actually I believe we could work together with them with -- with
the Water Management District, so whatever improvements they do
are there for what we can use for the green way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just in case you can't work together
with them because say they sell the property or something like that, is
there something that can be helped along with that process as a
stipulation?
MR. SCOTT: Let's see. I would believe what improvements are
done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, think about it. I'll ask you the
question again.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have some public speakers and let's
get through those.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll come back to it. Ray, how
many public speakers do we have?
MR. BELLOWS: We have two registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: The first is Gene Mayberry followed by Tony
Pires.
MR. MAYBERRY: I'm going to waive my speaking time.
MR. BELLOWS: Tony Pires.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning
Commission, Tony Pires for the record representing some property
owners on Treeline Drive who have had the opportunity to work with
the staff and also with the developer and the developer's
representatives to address the issues that have been at the forefront of
the minds of the residents and the existing Olde Cypress PUD to the
north along Treeline Drive.
And I believe we have come to a resolution of those issues
Page 148
-~_. . -- _.~..~.,. -........... -._,-
October 6, 2005
today. But I think it would be helpful to have in greater detail the
nature of that resolution so that there's no misunderstanding and that it
can be incorporated into the PUD. And I can be corrected by Mr.
Bryant or Ms. Spurgeon if I make any misstatement, but my
understanding is -- if I could use the -- is this one working, yes -- the
visualizer that the portion of Treeline Drive with -- where my clients
live is in this area. And the concern is with regards to the buffering
along the northern boundary.
The discussions centered upon the nature or scope, extent of that
new buffering by virtue of the PUD amendment. And the agreements
as I understand it and we want to clarify it for the record, be part of
the record, part of the PUD, is that there would be a minimum
20- foot landscape buffer along the northern portion.
There are some site constraints on this side because of the
proposed lake as proposed as part of the water management feature
and the lake maintenance easement, but the developer of this project
has had discussions, as I understand it, with the developer/controller
of the golf course to the north of Olde Cypress.
Okay. That would have the agreement entered into between that
property owner of this strip here, the golf course, for the placement of
landscape materials and also additional berming. There is a
permanent berm that's required under the existing master plan along
the HD Development northern boundary. And the golf cart (sic) has
an elevation a bit higher than the surrounding properties. So the
concept would be that in this area here to the extent possible, make
one berm out of it so you don't have a little dip and then landscape
and vegetation plantings would occur in this area.
And that would be a minimum of 20 feet consistent with the
massings and the type of vegetation as indicated on Exhibit C. In
order to achieve that, as I understand it, there would need to be that
agreement. That would need to be in place before the county
commission heard this particular item. Additionally, with regards to
Page 149
___r~ _no. .~_ ;--.,-- ,.......,'.""- 'e_^__ . ~'.--^.._._-.- ---
October 6, 2005
the document itself, a number of cleanup items, I believe, need to
occur. Exhibit A to the proposed master plan in your agenda packet
under portion east of the entry to this particular proj ect calls for a
10-foot Type A buffer. The proposed buffering along the northern
portion that we're talking about with the 20 feet of landscape
plantings, with the one berm being created with part of the plantings
being on the golf course side is the north property line, it would be
more than 10 feet.
It would not be a Type A buffer. And, therefore, we need to
make sure Exhibit A is consistent with Exhibit C which is the
landscape planting in the enhanced landscape planting plan as well as
being consistent with the language in proposed Section D-3 at page 9
of the PUD. So those are the type of items that need to be clarified to
make sure that what we understand the deal is, that there is no
misunderstanding when everybody walks away and when the PUD is
finally adopted so that we don't have any issues down the road and
people are getting confused as to what the arrangement is.
But I think that's important to be agreed upon on the record and
made part of this particular PUD or any approval that you may
recommend to the Board of County Commission that that be
conditions of approval. As a result based upon the understanding as to
this enhanced landscape buffer along the northern portion
particularly east of that curve on Treeline adjacent to the golf course
and partially on the golf course, a creation of one berm, I'll call it, by
filling in the spots at certain areas, and minimum of 20 foot of
landscape vegetation and buffer, my clients are amenable and
recommend approval of this PUD amendment to the Planning
Commission and will do so to the County Commission.
And, once again, an agreement needs to be entered between the
owner of the property to the north. And I believe that needs to be a
recordable instrument that would run in favor of the property to the
south as well as to the -- my clients for enforceability purposes and
Page 150
--- -.,"-<..-..--..,-..---...'.-'......' ~,--,-- w_"._
October 6, 2005
that needs to be entered into prior to the County Commission hearing.
Hopefully that would occur.
MR. ABERNATHY: Did you bring a draft of that with you?
MR. PIRES: No, sir. We sort of hammered that out today,
Commissioner Abernathy. We've had some interesting--
MR. ABERNATHY: You knew that's what you were going to
ask.
MR. PIRES: Well, we didn't have an opportunity after working
on it this morning so I apologize for that.
MR. ABERNATHY: Okay.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony--
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how much of the property is
improved at this point for this proj ect?
MR. PIRES: On the HD Development site?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. PIRES: To my knowledge, I could be corrected, none of it
is improved to my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the lake that is the prohibition to the
landscape buffer being on their property line south of there -- 20 feet
south of their property line doesn't exist.
MR. PIRES: To my know ledge that does not exist. That is
correct. But my understanding -- I'm not speaking for the applicant,
but I'm sure they will address the issue with regards to site constraints
because of the flow way and lot layout and the South Florida Water
Management District requirements for the 20- foot LME, Lake
Maintenance Easement, along the northern portion that creates a tight
squeeze.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Plus you move the lake 20 feet south.
MR. PIRES: They may -- you may wish to ask them that. We
had that discussion because I raised that issue with them. Also with
Page 151
~".."...,.,..-,_.'.. -- ...._.~_..'.,- _..._<_e.'...._ -,~. '.~.--.,-
October 6, 2005
regards to probably trying to change the contour of the lake and see if
they can excavate additional depths to get whatever fill they need
and contour it along the northern portion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: But, once again, we have worked on an
arrangement that my clients are comfortable with and we appreciate
the efforts that have been made by the developer to listen to the
concerns of the existing community.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have an arrangement worked out,
but you don't have any document? You're just verbal; right?
MR. PIRES: Once again, it's all subject to all these being detailed
prior to the county commission, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll have to ask the
applicant if they agree with your statements --
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to get the -- at least the equipment
door on this. Thank you, Tony.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Tony. One thing that we would
disagree with and I appreciate his presentation. It's been -- he was
very kind and gracious today to meet with us and try to hammer out
an agreement that we all can agree on which is what we wanted to
come to this board with. However, we did not agree to a minimum
20 foot over the -- it would be the eastern end of the buffer.
We agree there will be 20 feet along Treeline which is consistent
with the county's LDC requirements. However, the extension of that
buffer will be 10 feet. That's the minimum we're talking about along
the eastern side. However, we are going to work with the Stock
Development Company to try to enhance that buffer. And if there is
Page 152
,~,-- ~. "_..<..",_. ,^,"-'. --
October 6, 2005
enough space there, because there are some constraints with the cart
path being there and with the elevation changes over the site, that we
can't build a buffer and a berm that would throw all the water and
flood the golf course or throw it back. So we want to work with Stock
to try to enhance those plantings. And that's why -- where is that?
Why we made -- that's why we had this golf course buffer plan
designed so we could show the members of the community how
committed we are to making it look really nice for them and for our
potential clients also.
And that's why we're enhancing it and we're doing more. And if
you look at the staff report it specifically says that the applicant is
exceeding the county's requirements. Because as we sit here today
under the old plan, if we just abandon this and went and built all the
units we could build, which would be more under the old plan, there
is no buffering requirement along the golf course. So we're giving
something that we don't have to give in that particular area.
And we believe we worked very diligently with the residents and
we appreciate the input that they've had to try to reach an agreement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Tony, before you walk
away, does their issue in restricting that eastern extension of
landscape to 10 feet only have an impact on you?
MR. PIRES: Yes. And I guess the question is, we were -- we
understood that they already had sort of an understanding with Stock
Development about additional plantings and enhancement north of
the property line. That's my understanding. And that wouldn't be any
difficulty to obtain that. I recognize David is correct. I recognize
along the western portion a portion of the golf cart path comes very
close to the property line. It's not encroaching a little bit onto this HD
Development site but then it kind of curves up to the north.
So there might be an opportunity, once again, to have a wider
space there. And I think the scale of that also reflects a 15- to 20-foot
Page 153
-"" --~ ' ~....," ""- _.".m.' ..~~-
October 6, 2005
buffer in the area along the golf course. We recognize the golf cart
constraint along the western portion may encroach, but my clients are
still wishing to have and want to have the 20- foot landscape buffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Tony. I have a
follow-up with Don Scott.
MR. ABERNATHY: He wants to speak now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You may speak.
MR. ABERNATHY: He waived.
MR. MA YBERRY: My name -- for the record, I'm sorry, my
name is Gene Mayberry. And I'm representing or speaking for the
residents at Olde Cypress. And with the discussions this morning or
this afternoon, they're absolutely correct. We have had extensive
dialogues with Empire as well as the county staff.
I think where we came from or where we came to by lunchtime
today is a conceptual agreement on the buffer, but we do not have the
definitive details on a piece of paper. And what we're suggesting is
we move forward with approval today, but prior to meeting with the
county commissioners that we have a definitive buffer plan which ties
to some of the dialogue that Tony gave you earlier.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Don, in regards -- I'd
like to talk to Don Scott. Don, with regards to your green way, is
there any right of way or access easement or anything you need in
order to get that instituted?
MR. SCOTT: I don't think so. I think based on requirement, I
think what we need to do is coordinate those so they don't pay twice
essentially for what would be a requirement for sidewalks and bike
lanes in front of them. And just raise it from that issue. And since
there's some time before the board meeting, we'll have some
discussions on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good enough. Thank you, Don. Any
other questions? Yes, sir.
MR. BRYANT: If I might, Mr. Chairman.
Page 154
-_. "_.-.~"~",,,~' ~.. ~ -".'- ~-
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. BRY ANT: Any assistance we can provide to the county to
help them facilitate that green way plan, I'm sure that my clients
would be more than glad to because they believe that that's an
important asset to the community also. One thing I'd like to refer to
and in all due respect to Mr. Mayberry's comments, I would submit to
the board he does represent the residents out at Olde Cypress.
I have a letter here and I want to make it part of the record that
was written on September the 15th, 2005, by Michael Didio
(phonetic), if I pronounce that correct, who is present here today who
is president of the board of directors of the Olde Cypress
Homeowners Association. And it specifically says -- and I'd like if
you would indulge me to read this into the record I would greatly
appreciate it.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. BRYANT: (As read): We are in agreement with your
letter of September the 6th, 2005, relating to the two types of buffers
to be installed at Vita Tuscana at Olde Cypress. That's the name of
the project. We agree that the developer will install two types of
buffers along the north property line.
An enhanced 500- foot buffer along Treeline Drive will be
installed based on the design prepared by Outside Productions which
you see on the board. The remaining 900- foot buffer will be built in
accordance with county standards and will be a Type D buffer.
The only other stipulation we have is the buffers will be installed
at the same time as the roads -- roads and curbs. We have no problem
with that. We would like to have a copy of the amended PUD before
it is submitted to the county showing the two types of buffers. And
I'll make sure that they get that. As long as Empire Builders satisfies
these commitments, the board of directors will support the PUD
amendment that is pending before Collier County.
Page 155
-,,_.,..,- "'_""~-""~--~'_"",-~~---'''''''~'-'''''-''--''--'''-'.....~, ...- ~-"'~-'- .---.....,.,"...- --
October 6, 2005
And if I could give this to Mr. Bellows, I'd like it part of the
record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for indulging me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Ray, are there any
other speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll close the public
hearing. Is there a recommendation from the board?
MR. ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-7557 be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of
approval subj ect to staff recommendations and the recommendation
of the County Planning Commission.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion. Go ahead, Paul.
MR. MIDNEY: I'm dismayed that with over 100 units with a
price tag above three-quarters of a million dollars each that the
developer is unwilling to do anything to address affordable housing
needs that this project will create.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer.
MR. SCHIFFER: And, you know, I still have a problem with
that density on the Lot 3. One thing I wouldn't mind doing is why
doesn't -- it might be a perfect spot to do affordable housing.
Why don't we leave Lot 3? Now, Olde Cypress, don't panic. It's
way on the other side of the -- of the thing. It's way out by the road.
It's coming off a commercial. It's kind of a beautiful area. This work
force housing or something could be built there. There'd be beautiful
views and the preserve. A little bit of noise from Immokalee, but a
good designer could weed that out. So I don't like the idea of letting
it go forward with the density that's remaining on that site.
And no matter how you say it, it is remaining on that site. The
nice thing would be is there might be something they could market
for work force housing rather than what they have plans. I don't think
we should -- you know, and that site is part of this application
Page 156
--"-,..~ ._--",,-,.,.,-. ---"-,,~.._.,,.~. .._~-
October 6, 2005
because it's the remainder of the density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? I have a
couple comments that I think that with the-
MR. SCHIFFER: They may want to respond to that, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. SLA VICH: Mr. Strain, just make a comment. As a
developer in talking about affordable housing, I'm the past president
of the Florida Home Builders Association three years ago. So I have
a very big concern for affordable housing. I have two sons. One's a
senior at Naples High School. The other's a senior at Clemson
University. He wants to come back here and get in the building
business and work. And my issue is with all the other people's issues.
Where are they going to live because of the price of housing in
Collier County, Lee County and Southwest Florida? This community
was already approved for 104 units. If we're going to 71, whatever
happens with Tract C and you can go look at 1.2 acres. I don't know
how many affordable housing units you could actually have with
parking and everything else on that site. But work -- you know, work
force housing is very much an issue in this county. It's an issue in
the state of Florida. It has always been on the agenda of the Florida
Home Builders. It is always on the agenda of the Collier County
Building Industry Association. I'm a past president of CBIA in 1999.
So I share everybody's concern with affordable housing.
The community originally was approved, was going to have
more expensive houses. Actually, I guess, now at 750 it would
probably be a little less expensive if you look at housing in Olde
Cypress that currently is selling above 2 million. So, you know, for
the record we are in favor of affordable housing. And I personally am
in favor of affordable housing. So I don't want that to be on the record
that either Empire Developers or Empire Builders is not in favor of
affordable housing because we have worked very hard over the last
ten years on affordable housing issues in this state and in this county.
Page 157
.- ."-.~.- .--..... ,.~-" ---_.- --
October 6, 2005
So thank you.
MR. SCHIFFER: But -- and here's where the rubber meets the
road is we have a situation with these lots. They are if you look at the
standards set for them, you have 42 feet. They're very small
minimums, 651 bedroom, this would be a good location to do
something. So--
MR. SLA VICH: And I wouldn't rule that out. Earlier you were
making -- someone was going to make the comment, I'm not sure
who it was, that we eliminate all the density. My immediate question
to our attorney was if you eliminate all the density, then you could
never come back for affordable housing.
He also made the comment about commercial. Obviously,
according to some of the -- depending on how you interpret the
development codes because it is adjacent to a commercial piece,
could it go commercial? That would be something that we could
address at another meeting. We don't intend to build three story
multi-family on 1.2 acres. I currently live on Treeline Drive. My
house would be pretty much directly behind a three-story
condominium building.
And I can assure you as the landowner that I wouldn't do that for
the property values in Olde Cypress nor for my own. So I don't
actually think you could actually get that many units on there and add
parking to it. To address the affordable housing issue, is that
something that we could come back at a later date? Is there a
possibility for that? Yes, sir, there is. I can't commit to that today
because I'm only one of three owners. I have two partners to that.
But I wouldn't want you to take the density away, because if, in
fact, we came back and did do affordable housing, then you're right.
That might be a good piece. Obviously, Olde Cypress would have to
agree to that too so...
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the way -- when you walk out
of here today, you'll have the ability to do that. There's nothing that
Page 158
,-,--'''-"' ",,-~..."._..,,--,_._...-.~._,,~..'---'"-' ~+.._-- "'-
October 6, 2005
would stop you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, this is a discussion period for a
motion. I'd like to --
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, I'm trying to -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- minimize testimony and--
MR. SCHIFFER: The reason I'm having this now is I'd like to
get something to do with this density in the motion.
MR. ABERNATHY: Should have done that before we closed
the public hearing.
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, I did during the public hearing too.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'd also like to
point out the limited scope of this particular--
MR. ABERNATHY: I was going to say, this is all very
interesting, but it's not in play.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get on with the motion which
doesn't really involve more testimony. As I was going to get into this,
I'm concerned that there are some issues here that are still unknown.
I'm worried about transportation. I feel that this is inconsistent with
policy -- with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the transportation element. I
haven't seen where it's consistent with Policy 5.4 of the land -- future
Land Development Code. And I feel it's inconsistent with the LDC in
Section 4.07.02DG. For that reason I'd be voting no on this proposal.
So any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion signify
by saying "aye."
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to do that by raise of the
hands. I have one, two for the motion.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I -- go ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor of the motion
Page 159
-~,. '-"~'-""'- ....~.~-, ...",-~-,.,-_...,,,. ....--
October 6, 2005
to recommend approval please signify by raising your hand; one, two.
Motion has failed. All those in denial; five. Motion fails two to five.
Is there any other motion?
MR. ABERNATHY: There needs to be a motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what I'm asking for.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'm -
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, you can make
another motion of a different density or a reduction of units or -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm asking. I'm sorry,
Patrick.
MR. WHITE: If everybody else is comfortable with what
you-all have just done, that's fine. But I thought the motion was to
deny.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion was to recommend
approval.
MR. SCHMITT: The motion was to recommend approval.
What I saw was two for and five against.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two for and five against, right. Okay.
Very good. Okay. Now, is there another motion?
MR. SCHIFFER: You want another motion? I'll make another
motion
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. I make a motion to approve or send
Petition PUDA-2005-AR-7557 with the conditions that Mark put on
it, with the additional conditions Tract 3 be dedicated to at least work
force housing.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Can't do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I can't say you can't do that
when we have discussion. Is there a second to the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion doesn't have a second, doesn't
go. Okay. Is there another motion? Mr. Adelstein.
Page 160
__.'..m'_~ ,,,,_ _,._._.,. ._"..._ -....."'.-.- ...._""'~., ~._...~ ---
October 6, 2005
MR. AELSTEIN: I move that AR-7557 be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation--
recommendation of denial.
MR. MIDNEY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded.
MR. BELLOWS: What's the criteria, please, of the denial?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Inconsistent with -- well, there's
consistency with -- inconsistency with Transportation Policy 5.1, 5.2,
Future Land Use Element 5.4, Planned Development Code
4.07.02DG, I'm assuming.
MR. ABERNATHY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that accepted by the motion-maker?
MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the second. Any discussion on
the matter?
MR. SCHMITT: Just -- for the record, just understand this is a
PUD amendment that -- that already has existing zoning. And I just
want to make sure that your -- that the basis of your motion is
predicated on that.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what happens is it falls back to
the existing zoning -
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if the BCC doesn't take it and go in a
different direction.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's made and discussed.
All those in favor signify by raising your hand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Raised hand.)
MR. MIDNEY: (Raised hand.)
MR. ADELSTEIN: (Raised hand.)
MS. CARON: (Raised hand.)
Page 161
'-..-.---<-- -.,.. -'.----
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that four? Four in favor. All those
against?
MR. SCHIFFER: (Raised hand.)
MR. VIGLIOTTI: (Raised hand.)
MR. ABERNATHY: (Raised hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three against. Motion passes four to
three. Thank you. We'll take a ten-minute break for the court
reporter.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll call the meeting back to order.
We have one final application today. I'm not sure what that is. I
don't even know anymore. Petition PUDZ-2004-AR-6422. Will all
those wishing to have testimony on this matter please rise and raise
your right hand.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on part of the
Planning Commission.
MR. SCHIFFER: I'll go first. I had an e-mail from Barbara
Bateman. And Wayne and I just waiting kind of discussed it in the
foyer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any others?
MS. CARON: I met with Mr. Varnadoe and Mr. -- and Wayne
Arnold.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had -- Wayne Arnold.
MS. CARON: Wayne Arnold. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I met with Mr. Varnadoe, Mr.
Y ovanovich, Wayne Arnold and their architect and I apologize, I
forgot the gentleman's name. And we discussed a variety of issues
that will be rediscussed at today's meeting. Okay. Mr. Varnadoe, it's
all yours. Thank you.
MR. V ARNADOE: Thank you. For the record, George
Varnadoe of the law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson.
Page 162
.,-"...... ,,- ._,.-,^._._",.~~.. _._, -" ---
October 6, 2005
And it may not -- it may be the last project you hear today, but
it's also going to be one of the best you hear in a long time.
Here today representing the Mercato, LLP, and the residents at
the Mercato seeking rezoning for a (inaudible) project named
Mercato. Although the names are different than what was on the
application, the underlying entities are the same. The beneficial
interest owners are members of the Barron Collier family and Scott
Lutgert. They have formed separate entities. One, to develop the
commercial retaining ownership to that and leasing.
And, one, for the residential. That's the reason for the two
entities. Also here today to answer questions or address the CCPC
will be Wayne Arnold, the project planner, and he'll be talking in
some detail about the elements of the plan we think that -- that you
should hear about. Jim Carr with Agnoli, Barber & Brundage,
they're the engineers on the proj ect. Angelo Carrussi (phonetic) of
Cooper Carry (phonetic) which are architects from Atlanta and very
experienced in these mixed-use projects. Reed Jarvey; Vaness
Haylor, he's our traffic consultant. And Stewart Miller of
WilsonMiller who was our environmental consultant on the project.
The project's located in Activity Center 5 of the northeast corner
of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 41. It is approximately 53 acres in
size and is -- surrounds on the north and east of the Fifth Third Bank
building, the Walgreen's there and approximately a two-acre parcel
which I think is in for an STP for an office building.
In turn, this project, as you can see from the underlying area
along this site plan that's on the visualizer, is in turn boarded by
Pelican Marsh on the north and east. Pelican Marsh PUD DR! and on
the west by US 41 and on the south by Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Activity Center 5 is a mixed-use activity center. And if you read the
comp plan it says that these mixed-use activity centers are intended to
be mixed use in character. Very few of them are, but it's -- that's
what the intent was. The project also qualifies as a master plan
Page 163
~,...^._..,-_. ._.,,,,," .._.~~.- --
October 6, 2005
mixed-use activity center in that the applicants own more than 51
percent of the quadrant in which they're located.
That simply means they have some flexibility in where things
are located, whether they're within the activity center or without as
long as they control 51 percent or more of the activity center
quadrant. It's also located within the Northwest Traffic Congestion
Management Area, TCMA. And the project has been deemed
consistent with Policy 5.7 of the transportation element. And staff
has deemed it consistent with the future land use element of the
growth management plan. By virtue of its location within the TCMA,
proportionate share payments should be made in addition to impact
fees.
And I'd like to address what the proportionate share payments
are going to be targeted for later on in the presentation. I don't want
to get away from the project yet, but at the end I'd like to go back and
address that. Before I turn it over to Wayne, I'd like to address a few
items. Number one, as you can see from the aerial this is strictly an
infill project. It's surrounded on all sides by development and two
six -lane roads. Number two, it really as far as I know gives us the last
chance to have a true mixed-use project in one of our activity centers
in the urban area. Three, the theme is a traditional -- what I'll call a
traditional urban main street concept with pedestrian orientation and
residential units located above the retail in some of the buildings on
the main street. We also have as you can sell (sic) from the
visualizer a separate residential tract which Wayne will talk about.
We have a connection with both Vanderbilt Beach Road and US
41 that will provide interconnectivity between those two roads. An
alternative to that intersection, albeit at slow speed. This is not going
to be a high-speed bypass like we have at Airport Road and Pine
Ridge on the northwest quadrant. Our traffic consultant tells us that we
will meet warrants when this is built out for traffic signals at both
those locations. The location on US 41, our main entrance lines up
Page 164
~--,.,.,_..- ..~.,.., .....,.'"..-- .>-"'~""".'--', ...,',,-. "0-- ----
October 6, 2005
with 91 st Street. And that is the street that FDOT in their six laning
plans has designated as a full-access intersection. And while I'm
talking about interconnectivity let me say a few things for the record.
We have shown a potential interconnection in the northwest
portion of the project which is adjacent to Egrets Walk in Pelican
Marsh. That's a pedestrian -- potential pedestrian crossing --
connection, excuse me. And a -- you can see here we have shown a
potential -- potential pedestrian and/or vehicular access into Pelican
Marsh. I want to state for the record that these are potential
interconnections. Whether these are ever built or ever connected is
strictly up to the Pelican Marsh community as far as we're concerned.
We have put them on the plan. If they want to interconnect, we
are willing to pay for the interconnection and remain there. But it's
strictly up to the Pelican Marsh community. I know they've had some
discussion and I think some are in favor and some are opposed. And
it's my hope that once they see their project built, that they'll decide
they do want to interconnect. But I wanted to put that on the record
because I know that Tony Pires was here from the CD D. And I think
that was one of the stipulations they wanted on the record.
We have met with most everyone in the vicinity of this project
on several occasions particularly Egrets Walk which is the
condominium project immediately to our north and Grand Isle which
is the project on the lake immediately to our east. I'm pleased that we
have letters of support from both those entities which I have provided
to the Planning Commission. I intend to put a copy of each of those
in the record. We met with the Pelican Marsh CDD. We met with the
Pelican Marsh Master Property Owners Association.
We have met with the owner of -- of the two-acre --
approximately two-acre parcel to our south in the activity center.
And we have met with the owners of the Fifth Third Bank. We also
met with the Pine Ridge Property Owners Association. We have
really tried to reach out to these people and I think it's paid off in that
Page 165
'_0"" '_""'-"'~ ,-
October 6, 2005
we have letters of support from our two nearest neighbors. And
we've tried to mirror their proj ects or provide significant buffers
between us and them. And you can see we have letters of support
from those entities. I'd also like to discuss for just a minute
conversations that we've had with the CDD manager and attorney
regarding water management. The Pelican Marsh property and the
Mercato property were owned by Barron Collier. Barron Collier sold
the property to back then it was Westinghouse for Pelican Marsh.
One of the provisos of the contract was that the resulting project
would accommodate the runoff, if you would, from what is now the
Mercato property. Their permit states that. We have a Water
Management District permit that allows us to discharge into their
lakes. In meetings with the neighbors early on there was some
concerns about the adequacy of the system to accommodate our
drainage in addition to theirs. I think perfectly valid concerns. We've
had our engineers look at it. The CDD engineers have looked at it.
The Water Management District has looked at it again.
Everybody seems comfortable that it will work. The CDD has made
one request of us and that is that we enter into an agreement with
them, a formal agreement that they would operate and maintain our
system along with theirs once we have designed and built it. So
there'd be one entity responsible for the operation and maintenance of
the two systems and that would be a CDD quasi-governmental entity.
We think that's a great idea. We have traded graphs back and
forth. We plan to have an agreement finalized prior to the BCC
meeting. In the event we don't have it by then, we will agree to an
appropriate stipulation in that regard. But I trust we will have that
done by that time. One last issue I'd like to address is we heard the
discussion on affordable housing that has occurred here today. We
had met with Mr. Strain before this. We've talked to other members of
the community. As you remember, we were very proactive in Ave
Maria in addressing affordable housing. We know that the --
Page 166
_.'_, "'N"~~" .- _.-," ----~. -. ....._,.-......_~-~_. ~.~,--~--
October 6, 2005
particularly the retail component of this will have an impact on
affordable housing along with the residential to a certain extent.
We'd like to say that to fully mitigate our impacts on affordable
housing, we would go along with what WCI had previously agreed to
and that is $0.50 per square foot on the retail payable at time of CO,
$1,000 a unit in residential payable at time of closing. And our
reasons are the same as theirs. We've got two multi-story buildings in
the mixed-use component. They're going to have up to four floors of
residential above retail. Those buildings will be CO'd at one time. So
it would be a lot better if we could do that at the time of closing. I
think Mr. Schmitt's agreed that that's appropriate and we'll work with
staff to come up with some easily monitored program for making sure
those are paid. Unless you have questions on me, I'd like to turn it
over to Wayne. Let him go through the project and then either he or I
or anybody else in our team would be -- be ready to answer questions
you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question, George, but I'll wait
until everybody finishes so that they may have answered some. And I
want to thank you and your applicant for the generosity in regards to
the affordable housing. That's a lot of help and it will certainly set a
good tone for the county.
MR. V ARNADOE: As you know from our discussions with
you, we think this will fully mitigate our impacts and we appreciate
you bringing it to us so that we could have a chance to be proactive as
opposed to reactive on this issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold. I'm with Q.
Grady Minor & Associates, professional land planner. I'm going to
replace George's exhibit here. That is our actual PUD conceptual
master plan for the project. And as you can see it's a little more
specific than many plans you see for proj ects of this scale. But I
thought it was important to note that a site development plan has been
Page 167
--.'~"~ "..,.~---'.- . ~-,.'...,.~---~....,._,-,,-,_..~---
October 6, 2005
submitted by the Lutgert Companies for this project, that it is really
the basis for the rendering that George had on the visualizer
previously. And I will go back to that exhibit as well, but I just
wanted to talk from the conceptual master plan shortly. As George
said, this is a fully integrated mixed-use project. It's unique to us in
the sense that we have a "main street themed" project, a very urban
model. We have two mixed-use buildings on main street that will
house residential units above retail.
We also have a standalone residential component that's accessed
through main street and that is a standalone. And that really goes to
discussions that we had early, early on with our neighbors of Pelican
Marsh trying to address issues of compatibility and wanting to be the
good neighbor. So you will find as we go through the presentation
that we've made development standards and commitments on that
standalone residential component that will assure the compatibility
that they have requested and that they have now supported by the
letters that George had handed out to you. Again, we think this is
unique in many regards. And as you-all are aware and you've heard it
before, our Land Development Code is really a suburban model.
Most of the development we see is -- is geared toward strip shopping
centers and -- and the like. It's something that you would -- not a
uniquely designed proj ect. In looking at the Land Development Code,
I know that Mr. Strain had noted in our conversation that we
didn't really have a long list of deviations, yet it certainly appears that
we are deviating from the typical code in many respects. And, yes,
we are.
And that's why the Exhibit D to the PUD document is a
document called our design guidelines. And -- and rather than for me
to cast it in really a negative position of saying these are deviations
from the code, we looked at it from a more positive approach that
these are the design standards that we are intending to build to.
Because the nuances of our project really don't fit the model of the
Page 168
-,..,~,-," ~"-<-"-- .'-"-
October 6, 2005
Land Development Code or even the listing of deviations. I know that
Mr. Strain also pointed out that there are a few items in our PUD
document that -- that really are deviations that weren't placed in the
design guidelines booklet. I re-reviewed the PUD document.
I agreed with him and I'll go over those near the end of my
presentation just to make sure I didn't miss something and maybe talk
about where we could relocate those to make it more clear what our
intent is.
So, again, I think the key to our proj ect and really distinguishing
it from another is, one, it's -- the design that you see of the main
street, but, two, is the design guidelines document. Because the PUD
document itself, it has all the basics of all the other PUDs that you
see and has a designated area for mixed-use area which is primarily
the commercial and the integrated residential.
And then we have a stand-alone area for residential. And then in
our PUD document we have development standards and a schedule
of uses for each of those. But the design guidelines document is where
sort of the rubber hits the road here. And it primarily deals with
exceptions to the typical code with respect to landscaping, signage
and in some respects just some of the -- the architectural standards of
the code.
And in -- before I get into the design guidelines, I did want to
walk the Planning Commission through the plan if I could just to
make sure that there's an understanding of what our key components
are. And I thought I would do that using the more rendered drawing.
I can do it either with the aerial in the background if it helps for
orientation purposes or I have a stand-alone-slightly-larger exhibit
that I can talk from, but I'll start with the aerial.
With that on the visualizer, would it be inconvenient for me to
use the large board exhibit here and just talk from that rather than try
to click and point?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, Wayne.
Page 169
~",". ,'.'..----- -.,-... --"'--.---."'--" ,-. ~,"--, .,- ...~" -- ,-,-~"------,,_.,-
October 6, 2005
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Just for project orientation as
George already mentioned, we're at the intersection largely of
Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 41. Grand Isle component and the
Pelican Marsh community, Egrets Walk, Pelican Marsh, the Fifth
Third Bank building is in its own shadow here.
We also have the Walgreen's building and then the former Villa
Pescatore site that has been recently demolished and a site
development plan has been filed with Collier County for a project
called Canopy Place. It's an approximately 60,000 square foot,
75-foot-tall office building. To the west of us is also property in the
activity center, but that's really a shopping center.
And then, of course, the access point connection is at 91 st. I
know that Mr. Schiffer mentioned the e-mail that he had seen from
Mrs. Bateman and Mr. Bellows, forwarded to me that e-mail
yesterday afternoon late, so I did see that, and -- and we're certainly
prepared to respond to that if you have questions. If I could I'd just
sort of take you through the project maybe coming in from Vanderbilt
Beach Road. And what we have at our southernmost area is really a
stand-alone office component.
We have one and a second office building that anchors the first
building of main street. We do have a parking deck that lies behind
the tier of the main street buildings. Behind it is our preservation
area, of course, the lake and then Vanderbilt Beach Road. I'll get into
a little more specifics about the design of that parking deck as I go
into the design guidelines. But as you progress north you come to a
roundabout. And that really is the first major component of what is
our main street.
That also is our primary access point into our stand-alone
residential community. That also then serves the potential
interconnect over to Pelican Marsh that Mr. Varnadoe had already
mentioned.
As you progress on to the northwest we have retail buildings and
Page 170
---- --,', ~,--- _. -"-"-
October 6, 2005
we've also labeled on this rendered drawing mixed-use buildings.
These two buildings are designed to be our integrated mixed-use
buildings. We're planning for four living levels above retail. And I'll
get into some building height information shortly. Across from those
we have other retail areas, but you can also note that these are broken
up into gridded blocks much like a typical main street would be. So
the pedestrian experience which this is designed to be has crossings
and blocks and we have on-street parking. The other thing that we've
done, we've pushed the landscaping out away from the building
perimeter like you would normally find at a shopping center.
We pushed it out to the -- to the edge between the parking area
and the pedestrian way. So we have this distinct area that's our street
scape. And if you -- you -- if you read some of that discussion in the
design guidelines, you found some references to our street scape area.
The other feature that we have is a large plaza green. We don't
have specific designs for that at this point in time, but we are looking
at that as a -- sort of an open space on main street. It would be more
of an active and passive recreational area where it would be a
gathering spot for folks. And it would be an opportunity to just, you
know, sit and relax and watch -- watch the traffic, watch all the other
people. And as you keep moving north you also move on past other
retail and office buildings.
We do have an interconnection which I'll talk about a little bit
more lately if we need to, but it's -- this really serves the existing
frontage road that interconnects with the rest of the activity center.
Weare -- we are moving the access point that presently is there
northward about 170 feet. That allows for proper throw distance and
a better access point to there. It also serves and comes into main
street. It also has an opportunity to come into our parking deck. As
we move on forward this really is probably the only building that I
would classify as a big box type store. It's designed for whole foods,
an organic food store.
Page 171
b_.. '''-,- j 1>46... ,,-<- __M'~_'_.__._" .""--..... '.--.-
October 6, 2005
They have signed the intent to come forward. That's somewhere
between a 40 and 50,000 square foot footprint that faces US 41. And
it's really the only orientation we have on 41 as a front door. What we
have said, and it's in the design guidelines more emphatically, but the
intent really was that the buildings that faced US 41, Vanderbilt
Beach Road were not deviating or excepting ourselves from the
architectural standards for those facades. We fully intend to meet or
exceed those. What we have asked for are deviations from some of
the rear ins and outs on these buildings that are required in your
architectural standards and some of that landscaping component. And
I can walk through any of those exhibits that are part of the
design guidelines, but there are several exhibits that have evolved out
of the numerous staff discussions we've had to -- to be more specific
on how we are treating these key components. One of the things I
wanted to point out, we have an interface between our mixed-use area
and our own residential component that is roughly here.
We're proposing that to have an integrated up to 10- foot-high
wall with landscaping. We have some details of that. We have a
stand-alone parking deck that serves the residential users with some
ground-level parking for retail users.
You can see that we're also looking at the opportunity to have an
amenity level on top of that parking deck. One of the staff questions
that came about was, Well, we know that those are your own
residences that you're close to, but can you please tell us how you're
going to shield this parking garage from these residential users? So
you'll find another series of exhibits and references throughout the
design guideline materials that talk about adding some different
levels of landscaping along through here and within our parking field
to help shield that building from view as well as having our own
landscape wall. I'd like to talk a little bit too about our -- our
neighbors at Pelican Marsh.
We have oriented a residential component immediately adjacent
Page 1 72
--" _,~,_w~." .' '~"'~-_._-'-'-'-'.'" _ ..u.""...._.,.....__ ""- '---.-
October 6, 2005
to our neighbors, primarily at Egrets Walk, although we have some
residents at Sweetbay that we have also spoke with -- spoken with
this morning. They were here earlier and were satisfied with our
response. Apparently, they left after we had our conversation. But we
talked about the idea that we were having an eight-foot-high wall that
would have a trailing vine of some sort on the backside of that, but it
would be a decorative precast wall. They -- and you may hear from
Mr. Pires, but they have embarked on their own security system in the
Pelican Marsh community and they have security fencing in place.
We will also be placing fencing. It will be up to them if they
want to continue with theirs, but we certainly are providing our own
for -- for our own security as well as security for them. They don't
want people somehow moving from our community into their gated
community and we fully understand that. We committed in our
document to a maximum height of two stories for the residential
buildings near the Pelican Marsh community. We also have
committed to a 50-foot setback for those buildings. And as I think
the letters evidence, that communities were supportive of that.
(Static noise over microphone system.)
MR. ARNOLD: Should I keep talking through that?
MR. SCHMITT: That's somebody -- obviously somebody's
phone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not mine.
MR. ARNOLD: One of the other things I wanted to talk about
briefly, we have -- the project when you look at it, it doesn't look like
a lot of other projects. It is very urban. What we're doing -- the issue
came up early, early on and I don't want to dwell on it, but we have
talked about drainage with -- with our neighbors and amongst
ourselves and you heard Mr. Varnadoe's reference to the CDD
possible management of our water management system. But I just
wanted to at least spend a couple minutes tal king about that. And
this preservation area that we have that's adjacent to the Fifth Third
Page 173
,,----- .,..,_...~~--_.,",-- J _"",.,-_." ~'''-''-- ~-
October 6, 2005
side and the future Canopy Place building, those are wetlands.
Weare intending to utilize the wetland system as well as some
recreated wetlands and the lake. It's about, I think, eight and a half
acres of total green and lake area in this area, for part of our water
management system. We have storage vaults under pavement and
buildings discharging into the wetland system. It then in turn
discharges out into the lake system as designed into the Pelican
Marsh community. This area adjacent to the Grand Isle community is
an upland preserve.
We have accommodated a larger area up here at the request of
staff and the Grand Isle residents. We also have a single gopher
tortoise burrow that happens to be located in this upland area that we
are preserving. If I could I'll try to walk you through some of the
design guidelines briefly just to orient you to a couple things and then
I'd like to maybe clarify a couple things for the record that needed to
be cleaned up. One of the things that I wanted to just briefly talk
about with the design guidelines document is the fact that we have a
set of designs that talk about signage. And I think we know that main
street signage needs to be different than suburban signage.
When somebody's driving up US 41, the signage needs to be
brought lower and needs to be able to proj ect out. We're trying to
allow each tenant to make it feel like this is a main street. This -- this
is not designed to look like one large Mediterranean building that just
happens to have a lot of tenants. It's designed to -- to try to be a main
street. And that means that each tenant can have a unique aspect to
their design with an overall standard that -- that will be addressed
through our design guidelines.
We spent a lot of time with Keith Scamehorn on your staff as
well as Mike Sawyer and Nancy Siemion and Ray Bellows and
Carolina Valera to address many of these issues. And I think that the
design guidelines document and the accompanying exhibits that were
developed is sort of the -- I think the one aspect of this project that
Page 174
_...---, -""""~~"-'-'--'" .___-_"0. __"'_ "-'~~ "----
October 6, 2005
brought all of us together. We learned a lot, I think, going through
the site development plan and the various renderings and the
evolutions of this plan to get a document that we hope assures you
that we're going to build what we have said in our exhibits that we're
going to build. The design guidelines document has, as we said, the
deviations, if you will, from the code.
And, again, Ray may comment on that later, but I think that the
buy-in early on from staff on down was the fact that this was a more
positive approach. You saw something similar to this with Ave
Maria, the town core area where they had their own standards. We
built from that. I can't say that we utilized their standards, but we
have our own that worked for the Mercato. Angelo with Cooper
Carry, the project architect, has reviewed those too and believes that
the design guidelines will carry forth the intent of the mixed-use main
street type project that we have for you.
A couple things that I wanted to talk about and I don't want to
dwell on things that -- that are not an issue to me, but I know they're
important considerations for you and that is that we have building
heights established. And, of course, the question is zone height,
actual height. You know, that Mr. Strain had that question and we
had our project architect looking at that yesterday trying to identify
what those numbers were. And if I could for the record just go ahead
and indicate that and get that out of the way, I'd like to do that.
The PUD established commercial building heights in our
mixed-use area of 55 feet. That is the zoned height. And, Angelo,
correct me if I'm wrong, but the number I wrote down from our
meeting yesterday was that the actual height above grade for those
buildings that were 55 feet would be a maximum of 63 feet. That
included 65 -- I'm sorry, 65 -- 65 feet. And that would include the
appurtenances. And let me run back over here.
This is a rendering of sort of a view looking down main street.
And you get the idea that there are varied building heights. Some of
Page 175
--." "'-'-",- +..~-
October 6, 2005
these buildings have architectural components. Some of them as you
can see are living and work levels, but they are varied heights. I
don't want there to be an impression that each of these buildings
become a tunnel of 65 feet. But you get the idea here that the idea is
that we have varied heights throughout as well as different key
components. The mixed-use buildings are actually the two tallest
buildings that we have. We're trying to accommodate the four living
levels over one level of retail. We had indicated those to be four
living levels over retail, 63- feet-zoned height.
The actual height of those, Angelo, I believe is 72 feet is what
we said is our height. And I guess there were a couple things that --
excuse me? There were a few things that came up yesterday. And
one of the comments that Mr. Strain had made and I mentioned
earlier was the deviations that there seemed to be some stray
references to deviations that didn't make it in the deviation section of
our PUD document which is Section 2.17.
We actually have three deviations generally related to
transportation. Two of those are in the Transportation Condition
section. One is in the Sidewalk section of our PUD document. And if
I could just talk about those and get those on the record. If necessary
we can certainly move those into different areas of the PUD
document, but I didn't know if I needed to justify it, but the sidewalk
deviation --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, we might be able to cut it
short.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure that the
deviations that weren't part of the Schedule D -
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- were noted. And I wanted Ray to
actually acknowledge that he's reviewed those and they're okay.
Because normally, Ray, you know we're used to seeing them done in
Page 176
._~<,., ~.._.._. --,>,.....~--~' "..,_.~..-.-"_. 'V.~__
October 6, 2005
a different format and it wasn't the case this time.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I've reviewed those with the applicant
and with our specialist on staff. This has been an ongoing process
with the petitioner actually doing site visits with them and looking at
the development standards and massaging them as we go. And
sometimes we get a little too close with the project and think certain
things are going to be covered -- be covered in the design standards.
And as these things are massaged and reiterations, it was studied and
approved, but didn't really get reflected and I'm glad you pointed it
out so we can get it actually noted in the document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think that's what--
Wayne, basically if you just state the -- I think you said three or four.
Ray, as long as he doesn't have an objection, then that'll just get
it on the record pretty clean.
MR. BELLOWS: The petitioner has discussed them with me
after discussions with you and we -- I am in agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: If you would like me to just briefly note what
they are so everybody understands?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would, yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: One I mentioned we asked for a deviation for
not providing a sidewalk along US 41 north of our project entrance.
There is no sidewalk connecting to Pelican Marsh on that side of
the roadway and with a signalized intersection, there is a sidewalk
west of US 41. I think staff is -- is concurring that that is okay. The
other was regarding access management policy, a deviation to allow
for future signal at Vanderbilt Beach Road entrance.
The other was providing a one-time payment of money in lieu of
doing an annual traffic count. We would pay for the county to install
a traffic count station for our project.
MR. BELLOWS: Affirmative count.
Page 1 77
..-..... -~...~,..,.....~'^*._",.-.- _._~"'---",--'""'-'-- --...--- .-
October 6, 2005
MR. ARNOLD: Affirmative count.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
MR. VARNADOE: I'll wrap up just very briefly. Mr. Chairman,
in talking with you yesterday you -- you noticed that we did not have
a real conversion factor in the event we build the 80 rooms of hotel.
The PUD says it will come off of office and square footage.
Well, you know, hotels are measured in rooms, not in square -- square
feet. We asked Reed to look at what a -- No.1, it should come off
retail and not office. I'd like to make that change. But, No.2, we
asked Reed to say from a traffic perspective what would be a
trade-off. And he said, Somewhere between 11 and 15,000 square
feet of retail for an 80-room hotel. What we would propose makes it
very simple, if we do a hotel, whatever size, we would delete 25,000
square feet of retail and that would be our proposal to the Planning
Commission. And one last thing I'd like to cover and that's the
TCMA.
Our proj ected transportation impact fees in this proj ect if we
build everything would be approximately $6 million. Our 15 percent
proportionate share, which is what we calculated, would be some
$900,000. In working with the transportation staff we want to do
some things in this immediate area that would help traffic. And in
priority there are additional left turn lanes both north and south on
Vanderbilt Beach Road. So you're coming on Vanderbilt Beach Road
east to west -- from east to west you would have additional two --
you'd have two turn lanes going south.
Coming up Vanderbilt Beach Road to the east you'd have two
turn lanes going north. The second thing is the implementation of a
scoot program centered around that BBR US 41 intersection. And
going at least one signal in each direction, both north, east, south, and
west, so you have real-time control of those signals so that you
maximize the green time. In reading a little bit about it on the
Page 178
-..._--,- "."=.u. _ '.,"~,'_"""" -_.'~.,'-'"~. ._~-
October 6, 2005
Internet last night I find out that up to 15 percent improvement in
traffic flow is possible through the scoot. So we are very, very
interested in that and we're going to use funds to, as I said, go at least
one signal out in each direction and, of course, and the BBR US 41
intersection. The third thing we -- we think is an approximation
because we don't know exactly what the turn lanes are going to cost.
Scoot, we do. Turn lanes, we don't. We think we'll have
approximately $300,000 left over -- I shouldn't say left over -- in
addition to those two improvements.
And we have talked to CAT about buying another bus for their
program because they need another bus on their red line which
basically goes up and down US 41. If there are any additional monies
left over, they would be targeted for CAT to help with their ongoing
operation of that system. So I just thought it would be interesting for
you to know that we have worked with them so we can make some
improvements that would help the traffic flow in that immediate area.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, we'll close our presentation and
respond to questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you very much. Brad.
MR. SCHIFFER: And, Wayne, these are kind of for you. One
is the -- in the yard requirements, the development standards, page
3-3. And it's --
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
MR. SCHIFFER: The yard, Requirement A-I, which is 25 feet.
The neighbors up there don't like tall buildings close to the road.
So essentially what is that small building, again, that you have on 41
just north of the preserve?
MR. ARNOLD: We don't have a specific tenant for that
building. Is the question whether or not that would be a 55-foot-tall
building, for instance?
MR. SCHIFFER: I mean, it could. I mean, would you have a
problem taking the setbacks and putting them more to what we have
Page 179
"--.- -,...,-,~-,~.,.. ,. ""~". .... ,...."...'< ---
October 6, 2005
in C-4 which would be in our case the way you worded would be -- it
would be 25 feet plus 1 foot for every 1 foot above 25 feet. That
would prevent the buildings getting too close to Vanderbilt and 41. I
don't think your design has anything that would be hit by that, but --
MR. V ARNADOE: We are a little further along than that when
-- when these were done. That building we could limit to 35 feet in
height. It's going to be a one-story structure.
MR. SCHIFFER: And it'll be 25 feet from the road?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes. Well, from the right of way not--
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, from the right of way, yeah. All
setbacks. Okay. I still think it could go back a little further.
Twenty- five feet is very close. Is there a reason you want to get it
that close or --
MR. ARNOLD: I think if I could respond to that. I mean, that's
a fairly typical setback for any of our commercial districts than what
you would find throughout other activity centers. And keep in mind
that I think when you look at Granada Shops, for example, there are
some placements of structures closer to US 41 that to me work.
We've got a 20-foot-wide landscape buffer here. It is an urban
setting. I think we would propose to keep it at the 25 feet with the
limitation on 35 feet height for that building.
MR. SCHIFFER: Then what is that building going to be, then?
I mean, since you know the height, you probably know the building.
MR. VARNADOE: We -- right now that is proposed to be a
one-story restaurant building.
MR. SCHIFFER: All right. I mean, I still think you should
move it back. But would you have a problem -- I mean, nothing else
in your proj ect would be affected by what I said. And the reason as a
concern is -- for example, you guys could walk out the door and sell
Page 180
--",'.~ ,..--""- . -,'., -,",- ~_..-
October 6, 2005
this project to somebody else or the remodeling of this project,
whatever rules we come up with today would be the rules we'll be
going by. So would you have a problem putting a setback of
anything greater than 25 feet of one to one like we have in --
MR. ARNOLD: So you're saying for a 35-foot-tall building we
would have a 35-foot setback?
MR. SCHIFFER: You would have a 35-foot setback.
MR. V ARNADOE: Let me talk to the --
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. And here's what I'm -- you know, 15
years down the road, somebody could come along here and say,
Look, we can put a building right along this 41 property line above
the parking and put a 63-foot-high building 25 feet from the road.
MR. ARNOLD: Are -- are there any -- maybe you've got an
answer? Okay. I was going to say we could move on and come back
to that.
MR. V ARNADOE: Mr. Schiffer, we'd agree to do 1 foot for 1
foot so that if it's a 25-foot-tall building, we'll be 25 feet back. If it's
35, we'll be 35 feet back.
MR. SCHIFFER: That's the same thing so that's good.
MR. V ARNADOE: Is that acceptable?
MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's fine.
MR. V ARNADOE: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Is that a minimum 25 that we go one to one?
One to one. Okay.
MR. SCHIFFER: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. I've got a few. Ifit's okay with
the panel, I'll go -- move forward. George or Wayne or whoever, the
AC meeting, are you satisfied with the stipulations from the AC unit?
MR. V ARNADOE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're okay with that?
MR. VARNADOE: We had unanimous approval by the AC and
Page 181
-""-~.., ~--_..,. ~"'~'-""'''--'''-'"'' "__m__
October 6, 2005
we're -- we're very satisfied with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the PUD under Section 2.8, common
area maintenance, I know that we spoke about this. You've got a
CDD that might be maintaining some of your property. So you might
want to add that as one of the entities allowed to be for common area
maintenance. And, Ray, do I need to list all these or can you just --
someone take all these down or do you want me to list them as all
stipulations?
MR. BELLOWS: I've been taking notes so I don't know if you
want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I've got my notes if we need to
compare later, but I'd rather not hinder so many things in stipulations
just --
MR. BELLOWS: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Section 2.9, landscaping
buffers, I think we talked yesterday, No. C, the fences and walls being
subj ect to the height limitations for the principal residential
structures, we can strike that one, that entire paragraph. Is that still --
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. V ARNADOE: That's appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under deviations you have a Deviation
section titled 2.17. In several places within the Deviation section you
reference the Department of Zoning Land Development Review
director has the authority. And really it's -- and we've been
consistent in other PUDs that it would be the county manager or his
designee. Do you have any problem with that?
MR. V ARNADOE: No, sir. I think that's an appropriate
change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We already talked about the
zoned actual height. 6.5 water management B and we may have
talked about this yesterday. I just forgot the answer so I'm going to
Page 182
__.'C -.'"""' -..-.--'- --_.._-,--
October 6, 2005
bring it up again. An excavation permit may be required for the
proposed lakes. I think it is required and I'm just -- does it matter?
MR. V ARNADOE: When we drafted this, we didn't know
whether we were actually going to have lakes or just -- so yes. The
answer is shall be required.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then on your master plan
there's two little areas that I can't -- actually three. If you have -- can
your master plan be put on the overhead?
MR. VARNADOE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look over to the lower right-hand
side where the entrance road is and you go up a little bit you'll see a
blank white double line. That one. And there's one above it. About
another inch up the page there's another one above it there. If you go
to the lake that's over to the left between the parking deck and the
property to the south, there's a similar -- to the end of that lake. Are
those RCP? Or I'm assuming they're reinforced concrete pipe in the
ground. They're for drainage pipe; right?
MR. V ARNADOE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way you've got it here, you don't--
it doesn't look like it's part of your preserve area, but I can't imagine
you would just leave an open, dug-up trench. You're going to replant
that with something, aren't you?
MR. VARNADOE: We're going to replant it with native
vegetation. The reason for that was when we were doing the
calculation for the preserve, the environmental staff didn't think it was
appropriate for us to use those areas as part of our preserve. And I for
one think that's -- there was a wrong, wrong recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're intending to replant them with
native species typical to the preserve environment and they're going
to be functioning just like the rest of the preserve does. You won't be
able to tell them apart, if I'm not mistaken?
Page 183
-----_.--. .' "_.k__.'~_" -_..._....~"'----,._".. - ~-_._--_., --""---"'-'"
October 6, 2005
MR. V ARNADOE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, as far as I'm concerned,
they ought to be counted as part of your preserve area. Not that it
makes a difference, because you got what you need, but at least I
would like to see that.
MR. VARNADOE: Well, I certainly would like to do that and
I'll tell you why. We have talked with the folks in the -- in the rest of
the activity center, particularly the Canopy Place, and they had asked
us to entertain the idea of a boardwalk through that wetland area so
that office workers could come over to enjoy the restaurants and other
facilities at -- without having to go almost out to the street and along
the sidewalk there. We had told them that we would participate in that
on a 50 percent from them, 50 percent from us as far as cost if we
could have enough we could still maintain our -- enough of our
preserve so we weren't -- because staff said, If you do that, then that
comes out of your preserve also. So I think your recommendation
would certainly help us accomplish that purpose, Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. The last question I
have is, you talk about your building architectural standards, and I
won't refer you to the place right now, of being effective 250 feet if
they're -- 200 feet from US 41 or Vanderbilt Beach Road, you comply
with the LDC and getting to wrapping that parking garage. I think
yesterday you showed me a plan where you intended to partially wrap
the parking garage. I just want to make sure that applies.
MR. VARNADOE: That is in the design standards as one of the
exhibits to that. And, yes, we are committed to that. And he's
referring to the one that faces Vanderbilt Beach Road is behind the
preserve. It'll be buffered by the preserve but we also agreed to do
some additional landscaping up against that parking structure to help
break it up and hide it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the questions I have. Is
there any other questions from the commission?
Page 184
~"....._...---- ~-,- .--~,,,,,,,""." .,.--...-".. '.---
October 6, 2005
MR. MIDNEY: I have one--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. MIDNEY: -- for staff. I notice on the -- on the roads that
the following improvements were identified as being needed in order
to mitigate 2010 projected on-site traffic. You've got triple left-hand
lanes and dual right-hand lanes at the 41 and Pine Ridge Road
intersection. And at the Immokalee -- 41 and Immokalee Road, triple
left-turn lanes. When you get to triple lanes and double lanes on the
same road in one direction, is that getting a little bit past the safe --
safety? It seems like you've just got too much going on on one road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I betcha if there was a way to stop it,
transportation would love to know how to do that.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott again.
MS. CARON: We actually have triples at certain locations like
Airport and Radio, Logan and Pine Ridge right now. I'm probably
missing one somewhere. Anyway, we do look at the safety issues.
And those two locations, though, obviously, there's some
right-of-way issues to be able to develop those in the future, but
particularly the Immokalee. That is a demand in the future.
Hopefully some of that with Livingston east/west might be -- might
be lessened. Having that left -- you know, essentially having a way to
cut across beyond that, but we are putting more triple lefts in. It's
seen as -- you know, as definitely more economical than, say, an
overpass. But you do usually get -- when you get into triples you get
into the type of volumes that you look at flyovers in certain places
too.
MR. MIDNEY: Is that considered safe?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. Yes. There are situations that aren't, but
they're actually working pretty well in the areas that we've got right
now. Some of them are a little short to try to get into, but in some of
the utilization and some lanes are worse than others. You try to get --
it'd be nice if it was split evenly across the three, but people tend to --
Page 185
~__H"" ...~ ... --- .n'_.__",~_._.._,,_,,"_,~~ "-
October 6, 2005
to go to one way -- one direction or another depending on where
they're trying to get on. Like, Logan and Pine Ridge, people are more
in the right lane because they're essentially trying to get to -- onto 175
which is, what, a mile later or whatever. But right now we're not
having any particular problems at those locations where we have
them.
MR. MIDNEY: And I have a question about the sidewalks also.
Just because the neighbor is not having a sidewalk on that side of 41 ,
does that excuse this proj ect which is starting from scratch to not
have to build a sidewalk?
MR. SCOTT: It doesn't make sense to build it north of there, but
we don't agree and I've raised this with Ray. We believe they should
pay in lieu where we can use that for sidewalks in the same district to
essentially serve as the same public.
MR. MIDNEY: Because as a pedestrian and as a cyclist, when I
think of walking along a road like 41, I definitely would want a
sidewalk there. It's too scary otherwise.
MR. SCOTT: Well, and some of that, essentially those
decisions were made in the past and that's why we look at payment in
lieu if we ever get to a point where we would put it in in the future if
something changes, then we have the money to do that.
MR. MIDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, did you have any staff
report? I mean, you basically kept us up-to-date as we've been going
along, but it's up to you.
MR. BELLOWS: No. Just a very short note I'd like to make
that we held the neighborhood information meeting and that the
residents -- it was well attended and the residents had a couple
concerns. One was the overall drainage system. I think the petitioner
went into great detail explaining how that ties into the overall
draining system. And that really I think relieved a lot of their
concerns.
Page 186
____"__...,,....,,""..0 .h_____~. -
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: And I also wanted to point out that this
process was very unique in that we had a developer who had a more
finished product in mind and was able to come forward with plans
and participate in a cooperative effort with staff to bring enough
specific information to allow us to adopt design guidelines. So we had
site visits through Fifth A venue to look at design criterias of existing
structures and try and determine what's appropriate for a theme
project like this. And it was quite a unique process. And I'd like to
thank the applicant and petitioner for cooperating and meeting with
staff when we had questions and concerns in order to get a proj ect
that we felt that we could support in front of the Planning
Commission today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. Is there any public
speakers?
MR. SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, one--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, go ahead.
MR. SCHIFFER: Just one more thing for Wayne. Wayne, could
you answer the Barbara Bateman letter? Remember you mentioned in
your presentation you'd respond to that.
MR. VARNADOE: We just got that yesterday. But as I went
through in my presentation, that 91 st Street, which is what she's
talking about --
MR. SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. VARNADOE: -- is the street. You know, when FDOT did
the sixth -- FDOT did the six laning, they came up with a master plan
as to where the full access intersections were going to be, which ones
were going to be closed off, which one would be directional. And
that's one that they had determined is going to be the full-access
intersection. If you look at that street on the west side, I think one of
the reasons they picked that is that on the west side going -- going
west from the south side, you've got the backside of Pavilion
Page 187
,.----.. -,."._._,~--.~.~ _"~""__U'_'__ ",,--
October 6, 2005
Shopping Center so you don't have curb cuts coming out like you do
on all the rest of the streets in Naples Park.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer?
MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah.
MR. V ARNADOE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, do we have any
public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We have three registered -- excuse me,
three speakers. The first one is A.J. Lagara followed by Ray
Cadwallender.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- can you say his name again?
MR. BELLOWS: Cadwallender.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's here? Any -- nobody's come up
to the plate so far.
MR. BELLOWS: And the last one is Anthony Pires.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have nothing to say? Oh, I'm
S. ?
sorry. lr.
MR. LAGARA: My name is A.J. Lagara.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They just called your name. I don't
think you heard them.
MR. LAGARA: Well, I got here kind of late so I didn't know
what was going on. I live on 91 st A venue --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, then you weren't sworn in earlier
then, were you?
MR. LAGARA: No, I wasn't. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you raise your right hand, please.
MR. LAGARA: Can I let the other people talk first and then put
me toward the end so I can --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got to swear in. You're up
here right now.
MR. LAGARA: Okay.
Page 188
'-'" _'C___"""- w _, ~ ~ .---
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just get you sworn in. You mind
raising your right hand?
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. LAGARA: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. LAGARA: As I said, I got here just a little bit late. I was
delayed so I didn't see the first -- last half hour. My concern with this
is the traffic and the idea of putting a street -- a through street
opposite 91 st A venue. I live on 91 st A venue. And my concern is
that traffic -- there's going to be a lot of through traffic going through
there.
A couple of months ago I talked to someone in Mr. Scott's
office. And I was under the impression that the road coming out on
41 would have been coming opposite 92nd, not 91st. And that's sort
of like allayed my concerns. Then I just heard that -- today that the
roadway coming off -- coming into 41 is going to be opposite 91 st.
So I'm very concerned about traffic, through traffic. If that's the
case for -- for 91 st, if we -- we have a street there that has a lot of
families and a lot of people who are concerned that our street not turn
into another 99th A venue which is opposite Pelican Marsh where a
lot of through traffic has come through. And I'm a little bit surprised
because, like I said, my impression from Mr. Scott's office, I talked
to a fellow Alan El'Urfali over there.
And his -- this is a couple of months ago. His -- his inclinations
to me were that they were going to get the development to be
opposite 92nd, come out opposite 92nd, not 91 st. So I'm a little bit
unprepared today for a presentation. And I'm very concerned because
we need -- if that -- if it is going opposite 91 st, we need some kind of
control that would block traffic or prevent through traffic from going
from 91 st, from 41 all the way to Vanderbilt Drive. And that would
be a perfect -- my street now is being used as a cut through for
people who are going to the Vanderbilt Beach access.
Page 189
,--,--.. .~-~.----.,-~ " --....,.-'...._-""<~ .. "-""._..--,,,- -~--
October 6, 2005
They get off of 41 instead of going down Vanderbilt Beach
Road. They get off at 41 at 91 st, cut all the way through to
Vanderbilt Drive, make a quick left and then a quick right and they're
back. They're right on Vanderbilt Beach Road to public beach
access. And I'm very concerned about that through traffic. And if--
like I said, my impression was it was going to be opposite 92nd. If
it's going to be opposite -- but if it's going to opposite 91st, then I'd
like to see some kind of traffic control measure, a diverter or
whatever.
We were promised this about ten years ago by the transportation
department that there would be some kind of a diverter at 91 st and 8th
Street so traffic wouldn't go -- make a straight beeline to Vanderbilt
Drive and that never -- that never happened. Because they said, Well,
the traffic at the time didn't produce that type of thing or there wasn't
enough at the time. This was ten years ago. And so I'd like to have a
little consideration by the board about traffic and through traffic
going through. Maybe you could answer me, I got here a little late,
why it was -- it's opposite 91st instead of my impression was it was
going to be opposite 92nd?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we certainly can ask
transportation to comment. Thank you.
MR. LAGARA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for your time, sir.
MR. LAGARA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Scott, could you follow up on that
with a question I have on it or Allen? I don't care, whichever one of
you guys wants to join in this.
MR. SCOTT: I figured since you raised Allen's name that he
could respond to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just said his name. Don, what I've got
to ask you is, first of all, 91 st right now looks like it's a right in/right
out; is that correct?
Page 190
_._"""",,~,,~,.. -~.~"-,~_.",.",,,... ,".,-"'.......__._~.._-_.-"- "-
October 6, 2005
MR. SCOTT: I believe so, yes. That's a directional. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, because our diagram that was just
shown -- okay. If it's directional --
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you make it a right in/right out
by putting like a little diamond so that people coming through
couldn't go straight down there?
MR. SCOTT: I think we can look at that. I hate to answer it
right away and say that it's definitely going to be a problem, but I
don't see why we can't look at that. I can't speak for what happened --
was said ten years ago from transportation. I wasn't really there at
the time. But I've had a lot of -- actually, a lot of conversations with a
bunch of different streets up there about traffic coming in there and
I'm trying to deal with that right now. I think there's a way that we
can do that to try to keep the straight through. And then if anybody's
coming, either we can look at it from anybody that wanted to go
through would essentially access the way they're doing it right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you take a look at it between
now and the BCC meeting?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. We'll do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't think that was going to
be too hard of a problem to accomplish so thank you. Any other
questions?
MR. SCHIFFER: And Reed Jarvey maybe could answer this, is
-- could you come up and tell us how many people would you figure
would go down 91 st?
(N oise from microphone system.)
MR. BELLOWS: It was him.
(Laughter. )
MR. V ARNADOE: Don't you guys have a deputy in here
somewhere?
MR. JARVEY: Sorry. I won't be able to tell you anything then.
Page 191
.,-'~- _.~--~,-, _~'_'._"_""_"'_"__W' .._'_,__~".v.>, -.....-
October 6, 2005
MR. SCHIFFER: The question is: In your study how much
traffic did you have?
MR. JARVEY: Actually, we -- we have not done that level
study for the zoning standpoint. We'll be doing that when we do the
plans which are at the STP level which we're in the process of. So we
don't have a lot of -- we don't have shown interaction. We're looking
more at the global impacts of the project verus the specific of that
intersection.
MR. SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you.
MR. JARVEY: Reed Jarvey.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe, Ray, Tony Pires is next. The
other gentleman I know has -- I believe has left, Ray Cadwallender.
MR. BELLOWS: Anthony Pires followed by Ray Cadwaller
(phonetic) if he's here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I don't see him here. I don't
know.
MR. PIRES: Tony Pires, for the record, Woodward, Pires &
Lombardo representing as district counsel the Pelican Marsh
Community Development District. And I want to confirm what Mr.
Varnadoe stated during the course of his presentation that there had
been discussions between the developer and the district with regards
to the district entering into an agreement to maintain the water
management facilities on the Mercato site as the water discharges into
the Pelican Marsh water management system. It's a mutual beneficial
arrangement that we appreciate. It was initiated by the district
manager, Mr. Dorrill. We appreciate the developer being amenable
to that. And as Mr. Varnadoe indicated, we are working on that. If
we don't have that agreement by the time of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting, which I believe we will because we've been
going back and forth, then that will part of a stipulation in the PUD.
And I also agree with the concept as to the potential pedestrian
Page 192
-- "~._--'-- """""--""""""'---' -'"'--'
October 6, 2005
access at the northwest corner and the potential pedestrian and
vehicular access will occur if the district requests it and it will be at
the expense of the developer. And we want to thank the developer for
working with the district on behalf of the district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tony. Any further
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Ray, no other speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No more speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing. I'll entertain
a motion.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-6422 be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of
approval subj ect to staff recommendations and the recommendations
of the County Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Vigliotti.
Discussion.
MR. MIDNEY: About the sidewalk issue, what are we going to
do about that or what are we recommending be done?
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, Paul, I live real close to that area. I
can't see what a sidewalk on 41 would give us. There's really nothing
to go. I mean --
MR. MIDNEY: What about the funds --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Varnadoe--
MS. CARON: The funds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Varnadoe may have exclusions.
MR. VARNADOE: I was remiss in not responding to the staff.
We have no problem with the payment in lieu of a sidewalk on that,
Mr. Midney.
MR. MIDNEY: Thank you.
Page 193
-...." _H~,___~~."_...,_~.. ..'"-
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I kind of thought you were going to say
that.
MR. V ARNADOE: How did you know?
MR. ADELSTEIN: He reads minds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else before I -- I'll
read off the stipulations --
MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and comments from the panel. The
first one, the EAC stipulations will be accepted; that because of the
AC stipulations we find that it's consistent with the CCME Policy
6.1.1 (7); that the applicants' contribution to affordable housing will
be the same and similar -- same conditions that WCI contribution
works for and that's $1,000 per development unit and $0.50 -- that's
$1,000 per development unit on closing; $0.50 per square foot on the
retail at the time of CO to be paid to the Collier County Affordable
Housing Trust Fund and it'll fully mitigate their affordable housing
commitment; that the zone type for commercial will be 55 and the
actual will be 65; zone type for the mixed use will be 63 and the
actual will be 72. And should they do a hotel, it will be -- square
footage of the hotel will reduce the -- any size hotel will reduce the
retail component by 25,000 square feet.
MS. CARON: I thought it was 80 rooms or less.
MR. V ARNADOE: No, ma'am. The -- Reed Jarvey tells us that
if we did an 80-room hotel, we'd have about the same traffic impacts
as between eleven and fifteen thousand square feet of retail. So we
said, Let's be very safe. Give us almost twice that and agree to
25,000, whether we do 80 rooms or 40 rooms or whatever we do.
Make it very simple.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- there's a building at the north
end of the preserve along 41. The building setback will be
determined on a one-to-one ratio with it's height from the 41 right of
Page 194
---="'~".."- >---,-_.'~. '. --
October 6, 2005
way; that the drainage easements that are shown on the plan through
the preserves will be replanted and recreated. And once they are --
with wetland species that are comparable to the surrounding preserve
area. And once they are they can be included as part of the preserve
acreage.
MR. V ARNADOE: Mr. Strain, the two that go on the east side
of the project are actually through upland preserve. So we can say
native species that will be fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And through the native species
recreate, replanted with surrounding material and be accepted as part
of the preserve areas. The traffic control issue for 91 st Street is a --
some possible mitigation there will be looked at by traffic with a
report to the BCC by the time this gets before them; that there will be
a sidewalk payment in lieu of for the sidewalk that was to go along
US 41 north. That's all I had written down.
MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
MR. SCHIFFER: One thing I think I'd like with the setback, it's
not just for the building. I think what should be is the setback should
be one foot for one foot of height, not to be less than 25 feet on 41
and Vanderbilt. While that building is a concern, someone could
come in in the future, build over these parking lots and be right up
against the road. So, again, this is not just for this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure on Vanderbilt, we
didn't discuss that during the hearing so I'm not sure how that fits into
the picture.
MR. SCHIFFER: That's -- when I discussed it, I discussed that
section of the development that was precisely there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I--
MR. V ARNADOE: That does not work on Vanderbilt. That's an
office building that's -- I think that's a four-story office building. The
Page 195
-,-~..- .._'"~---~_.- ~--~.-.. --
October 6, 2005
one you brought up on 41, I thought we had agreement on a
one- for-one setback from the right of way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I read out.
MR. SCHIFFER: What I was agreeing -- what I was discussing
was a section of the development standards which -- let me go find it.
So -- so the intent is on Vanderbilt there'll be a four-story building 25
feet back from the road right of way? It's on page 3-3. It would be--
what we're working is 3.5(A)(1). And, Mark, aren't I right to be
concerned that whatever we come up with here today would be what
people could use if they redeveloped this site?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever we come up with today is
going to stay with the property.
MR. SCHIFFER: This is the genetic code for this site so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would want to make sure whatever we
come up with is consistent, for example, of the new buildings right to
the west as well. And that we're not asking this developer to produce
something that's worse or more strenuous than what's already there.
And I don't know what that is so I don't know if that even applies.
MR. BELLOWS: The setback as denoted on the master plan is
going to be at least 40 or 50 feet.
MR. V ARNADOE: I think if you look at the Fifth Third
building and the height of that and look at what we're doing, I think
we're getting a little bit nit-picky, Mr. Schiffer. We have a very nice
plan.
MR. SCHIFFER: (Inaudible.)
MR. V ARNADOE: I'm sorry?
MR. SCHIFFER: The Fifth Third is right on the C4 setback.
That is exactly -- what it is, this is less than that. This is 25 feet.
Fifth Third is 50 feet and one to one for any height over 50.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifth Third is about 100 feet high, too,
if I'm not mistaken.
MR. SCHIFFER: That would be 100 feet high and that's a 75
Page 196
-,.,."---"".~.,,," ' --~ ...~~.... ....,,----".'."..- _"_~m -
October 6, 2005
foot --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at the line between the
office building they're proposing and Fifth Third, I mean, the road
curves a little bit, but the frontage for a lower building, Brad, I mean,
I don't know --
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, then they'd have no trouble meeting
what I'm saying because it would be well above that height
restriction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at this point I guess it's the
panels' consideration. I personally on this particular location -- I
agree with you on the 41 location. On this one, I don't see the need to
get into that so...
MR. SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is the guy can build a --
if it's pure office up to a 63- foot-high building, 25 feet off the road
right of way? That's what we would be leaving it at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
MR. SCHIFFER: If it's further back than the Fifth Third
building which is 75 feet, then it will not be an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne or George, I know if you're
working on this, we need to get a response.
MR. ARNOLD: We are. We're looking at our -- our site plan to
determine what our physical building setback is from that property
line.
MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, while they're doing that, could you
repeat the hotel-to-office-space conversion, again?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they build a hotel, the square footage
of the -- the fact that they build a hotel will reduce the commercial
component by 25,000 square feet.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Is that retail or office?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think commercial component,
they can -- they can use it however. Because they're going to reduce it
so...
Page 197
.W._" ..,-~"-'- .-.---.-..,., .",.~"'- ,.,-.~.~.-
October 6, 2005
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I thought it made a difference. Okay.
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, commercial can be anything. It could be
a restaurant. It could be retail. It could be an office.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But ifit takes 25,000 off the site, that's
almost double what it would have done had it not been applied that
way so...
MR. ARNOLD: If I might get back to the setback question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: We could agree to that office building off
Vanderbilt Beach Road could not be less than 40 feet from the
property line back to 25?
MR. SCHIFFER: So what 3.5(A)(1) will read is 25 feet or one
foot for every foot of height not less than 25 feet?
MR. ARNOLD: That's for the US 41. I think what -- I'd rather
distinguish the two streets. Because I think what -- what we have is
essentially a four-story office building that -- that we would like to be
around 40 feet. It might be a little more, but a safe answer for me
today is a 40- foot setback from Vanderbilt Beach Road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the way it would read is US
41 is on a one-to-one ratio with a height not less -- not less than 25
feet. And Vanderbilt Beach Road -- no, that's 41. Vanderbilt Beach
Road would be not -- simply not less than 40.
MR. ARNOLD: Forty feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for your project?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay?
MR. SCHIFFER: It's getting closer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that is -- that rounds off
the stipulations. Did anybody else have any -okay. All in favor of
the motion to recommend approval based on those stipulations -- oh,
first of all, does motion-maker accept the stipulations?
Page 198
--- -~---",.__...~,,-.~-",. -"~'~' " ".'.' _.0_-' ._,,~--
October 6, 2005
MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does the second?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All in favor of the motion?
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I think we have -- this is
the right project in the right place so...
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. We appreciate that very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like it.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Nice presentation. We have a couple of
items yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know. We're getting there. The
old business, we don't have anything that I know of. It's not on here.
New business, Commissioner Schiffer added two items, certification
course.
MR. SCHIFFER: First one, did anybody ever get anything from
that?
MR. ADELSTEIN: I would say no.
MR. SCHIFFER: We're supposed to become certified--
MR. ADELSTEIN: From that letter, yes.
MR. SCHIFFER: I've e-mailed that -- was it Joan Boyles?
Nothing came back from that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray?
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm sorry. I've e-mailed Joan Boyles
and nothing has come back so...
Page 199
-'--......-..'---...~'- . ,,-',,-, ..- ~._.." -._-
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're trying to get acknowledgment
of a course they took for a certification and they can't get it. If you
could ask someone that was in charge of that to follow up.
MR. BELLOWS: I'll be glad to. That was -- if you could tell
me the course again.
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, we don't have numbers. We don't have
anything.
MR. BELLOWS: CCPC training.
MR. ADELSTEIN: A training class. The two-day training
class.
MR. BELLOWS: I remember that one. I just wanted to make
sure I got the title right. We'll get you your confirmation receipt and
--
MR. SCHIFFER: Just curious.
MR. BELLOWS: And if there's a diploma, I'll make sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, there was another -- you had
another item?
MR. SCHIFFER: What it is is there's -- in studying the laws of
Collier County, there is a Disaster Recovery Task Force which is
made up of a group of people, one of which is a liaison from the
planning counsel, the Planning Commission. And having lived
through a hurricane and the disaster of trying to pick it back up, I'd
like to throw my hat in for that liaison position.
The way the ordinance reads is that the board shall appoint the
person and then he has to be ratified by the commission so...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with someone like
you volunteering for something like that. Go right ahead.
MR. ADELSTEIN: I will second the motion.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I'll second, third it.
MR. ADELSTEIN: And, Ray, could you--
MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me, I just want to make a clarification
Page 200
....--.'.- 0' ,.,~___,__.~_~~~,_ <~, ".---,'_"._"_._.m.'_"' -"--, ..-
October 6, 2005
with the county attorney. Does that need to be a vote by the Planning
Commission or is it just a voluntary basis by any --
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I don't have the ordinance in front
of me, Ray.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Why don't we just vote?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to say, why don't we
just vote on it --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. And then we'll--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that way it's done in the most
precise way it can be. I make a motion that Brad represent us with
the committee that he's asking about.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Vigliotti. Everybody in
favor.
MR. SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MIDNEY: Aye.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye.
MR. ABERNATHY: Aye.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
MS. CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
MR. SCHIFFER: And, Ray, let me just give you the ordinance.
It's Section 382920 or small parentheses B. You'll find out how
we're elected.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we have reached the
public comment. It doesn't look like anybody's interested in
commenting today. So with that I guess we adjourn. I don't think we
need a motion.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Motion to adjourn.
MR. ABERNATHY: Don't need one.
Page 201
'-"'--'---' -"--~"'-~'<----~- -..-- ---"...
October 6, 2005
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3 :45 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, RPR, AND CAROLYN 1.
FORD, RPR.
Page 202
.---,<,."-,..,,. .._.._.....,,~~...' ._'"_.~.. "-'-.'---