Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/03/2005 R November 3, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NAPLES, FLORIDA, November 3, 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 Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Development & Env. Services Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 ~-'~-~~ _.....__..__..._.'.._._h_._ AGENDA Revised II . COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3,2005, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HA VB 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 AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK. 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21, 2005, LDC MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS -OCTOBER 11, 2005, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: V A-2005-AR-7965. James and Lori Hall, represented by Diane Faas, are requesting a variance for an existing screen enclosure within the required IO-foot rear setback for an accessory structure in a RSF-3 zoning district. The applicant is seeking a 2-foot 4 inch variance from the required 10-foot set back., leaving a 8-foot 8 inch rear yard. The property to be considered for the variance is located at 112 Warwick Hills Drive, and is further described as Unit 1 Block 4 Lot 8, of Lely Golf Estates, in Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) 1 -~--._..- B. Petition: V A-2005-AR-8122. Carl and Karen Koller, as owner and agent, are requesting two after-the-fact variances in the RMF-6 (Residential Multiple- Family-6 units per acre) zoning district from the minimum required 7.5 foot side yard setback., (west boundary), to allow an 9.72 inches to 3.24 inches from the 7.5 foot side yard to 6.69 feet t07.23 feet and a two foot 6.24 inches to one foot seven inches from the 20 foot rear yard setback to 17.48 feet to 18.17 feet for the completion of a partially constructed addition to an existing single-family structure and including the existing encroachment of the existing nonconforming single family structure to the side (west) and rear yard setback requirements. The subject property is located at 610 99th Avenue North, Naples Park Unit 3, Lot 28, Block 29, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) C. Petition: RZ-2005-AR-7276. Southern Development Company, represented by Tim Hall, of Turrell & Associates, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Single-Family [RSF-4(3)] zoning district to allow a maximum of 15 single-family residential dwelling units to be developed on the subject 7.29 acres, which equates to a density of 2.1 dwelling units per acre. The property is located at 255 Price Street, in Section 4, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) D. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-7299. Community School of Naples, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to allow development of a maximum of 148 single-farnily-, two- farnily-, duplex or multi-family dwelling units in a project to be known as Manchester Square. The subject property, consisting of 36.9:t acres is located at 13275 Livingston Road, in Section 12 Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion by Comprehensive Planning staff to request the Planning Commission's involvement in the Immokalee Planning Study (to prepare revisions to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Land Development Code). B. Determine date and time for meeting to review AUIR. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 11-3-05/CCPC AgendaJRB/sp 2 ~-"_.,- November 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning, everyone. We're going to get our meeting started. I've got to ask that you first stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, but after the Pledge is over, please remaining standing for a few moments. Thank you. Whereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Less than a month ago this panel met, we had a commissioner, Ken Abernathy, present. The short time between that period and now, Ken has passed away due to a prolonged illness with cancer. Ken was special to everybody on this commission and the community at whole. His wit, his wisdom, and the unique way he had of finding the common sense solutions to the many tense meetings that we had will be sorely missed. As a lot of people know, Ken had a knack for challenging the English language. It was always a humorous moment to hear him go off on those tangents. We're going to miss that as well. Last week after the storm passed I went to see, or was going to see Ken at the hospital and I was informed by John Norman that Ken had passed away. John said something there that kind of summed up all the issues that Ken represented. Ken was simply one of the good guys, and we'll certainly all miss him dearly as he's not with us today and the future. Commissioner Adelstein, you have something you want to say. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Ken, rest in peace. You've earned it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe can have a moment of silence. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Please be seated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, we'll move into our regular agenda. The first of which I'd like to welcome our new board member, Mr. Russell Tuff. Russell comes to us with a name similar to Russell Budd who left us a short period ago, and Russell's wife's name was Katie and so is Russell Tuffs wife's name Katie, so there's a lot of commonality between the two. So, hopefully Russell Page 2 "---- November 3, 2005 will follow in Russell Budd's footsteps and do just fine. Thank you and congratulations for being here today. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now the roll call, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: We'll call the role. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Welcome. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. There's one item that needs to be added under new business and that's the discussion of the dates for scheduling the AUIR. And I believe, Mr. Schmitt, you wanted to do some general discussions of scheduling at that time as well; is that -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. For the record, Joe Schmitt, community development environmental services division administrator. I will have a calendar which I'll hand out and we can discuss dates. Because of the delays that certainly have been created throughout the county in regards to response to hurricane -- I was going to say Katrina -- Hurricane William -- Wilma, thank you -- It's been a long couple of weeks. But I want to look at some dates. The dates of upcoming Page 3 ..~.'."~- -~"'-'-_._- November 3, 2005 meetings with the planning commission, specifically dealing with A UIR and also upcoming LDC amendments that we still have to deal with, so we'll talk about that at the end of the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other addenda to the agenda? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move on to planning commission absences. And the next meeting date is the 17th? Joe, is that right? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Assuming we have a quorum everybody knows that's our regularly scheduled meeting? Okay. The approval of minutes from the September 21 st LDC meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Commissioner Schiffer to approve. Second by Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one. Thank you. Ray, the BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Because of Hurricane Wilma the items scheduled for the last board meeting will be continued to November 15th, I believe, and we'll have a report then after that. Page 4 ----~ November 3, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: All land use petitions were delayed until November 15th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Under the chairman's report, I will try each month to kind of update you on some issues that I think the planning commission start moving strong, more stronger forward with, one of those being the scheduling of this commission's issues and the agendas. The chairman will be exercising the chairman's prerogative to set the agenda. And that means that staff from now on prior to publications, the agenda needs to contact me to approve the order in which the advertised legally required items are to be put on the agenda. In regards to any other meetings or agenda items that the commission needs to have, the chairman will make those decisions, unless they can be brought to this board prior to them being needed so the board can weight in on them. And as an example, the AUIR. Another one is the issue of the Immokalee master plan that was -- we got an email that says we're going to meet with that group on Friday morning. As we all know, that's not the way to schedule this group, and from now on, the agendas will be orchestrated through me and we'll get them set up so everybody can participate in the time and know we'll have a quorum at each one. Also under the chairman's report, in order to make sure that our agendas move forward with a quorum and we have everybody we need at these meetings, I have to ask all the commissioners to bring their schedules with them to each meeting. We need to be able to respond quickly to staff and let them know dates we're going to be available. Some of us keep them electronically, but in any manner that you keep them, please try to bring them with you to each meeting. And, lastly, by next meeting, I have been preparing a package of laws and rules that pertain to this planning commission. And it was something that Brad, Commissioner Schiffer, brought up not too long ago by discussing one of the elements in the land development code. I Page 5 ~-"-- -.--.-."--. November 3, 2005 also have found laws that relate to our activities in our code of laws as well as the Florida statutes. I will be bringing those all together in a package for your review. I hope to have it completed by next meeting. My intent is to have you review that and at one meeting in the future that we have some extra time, we'll have an agenda item to discuss other options that this commission may want to seek as a result of activities maybe we didn't know we could have. So, that's all I have for the chairman's report today. After that, we'll go right into the advertised public hearings. The First petition is V A-2005-AR-7965. James and Lori Hall and it's concerning a screen enclosure variance. All those people wishing to speak on this issue, please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may be seated. Does the applicant wish to -- ma'am, the mike is yours. MS. FAAS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MS. FAAS: Let me just say briefly -- my name is Diane Faas and I'm with Faas Brothers, Inc, it's a screen enclosure company. And I'll briefly tell you how this all came about. I have been in the medical profession for 13 years and I had to resign to take care of my mother who was dying of brain cancer. So when she passed away, I slipped into her position at Faas Brothers because I was a silent partner. And the guys -- we prefab in our shop so the guys finished their job for the Hall residence, at which time -- at which time I called -- I had submitted the permit and I called the building department and they gave me a permit number, and I thought that was as good as gold so I sent the guys out to do the job. Oh, probably a day later the building department called me and said that it was denied because it was Page 6 .._-,._~....- November 3, 2005 encroaching on utilities, so, the guys had already completed the job. And what I did, they said that I would have to go and get letters of no objection and things like that. The utility easements were FP&L -- let's see, FP&L, Sprint, Comcast, and I also received a letter from George Ramsey from the Lely Civic Association. They said there was no objection -- you know, a letter of no rejection, or no objection, so we have all that. And this residence has been up since -- it's been 29 years. What we did is, their facia was rotting and the screen enclosure was loose. So we replaced it. We never changed the footprint or anything like that. And we just couldn't believe, a permit was pulled for the pool. It was pulled for the house, but it was never pulled for the screen enclosure. So, that's kind of what brought us to all this as well. And we -- it's not -- it hasn't -- it hasn't hurt anything. It hasn't been in any way -- no one has had a problem with it for 29 years. But that's kind of where we are right now. So, we're asking for a variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there questions of the applicant from the commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning. MS. FAAS: Good morning. MR. MURRAY: Just out of curiosity, if you know, there's an odd configuration according to the documents I read. Do you have any idea why that odd configuration exists? MS. FAAS: Why anybody would want to do that, it's the craziest thing. We have been in business for so many years. I mean, we've been in business 23 years in Collier County, we've never seen anybody bump something out like -- it's just, the back of it is straight and then there's a little bump out for like -- I think it's 2.4 feet or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.8. MS. FAAS: 2.8, which I have no idea. So we just, you know, Page 7 "--. ~,.,-~_.~,,,-,,,,..--- November 3, 2005 put it exactly where it was. I don't know why. MR. MURRA Y: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? I don't think there are any, ma'am. I know I've got questions of staff and they're next. Thank you. MS. FAAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BOSI: Good morning, planning commissioners. Mike Basi, zoning and land development review. In terms of the consistency with the growth management plan, the growth management plan really doesn't -- doesn't concern itself with dimensional standards, therefore, a granting of this variance or denial of this variance, would have really no relationship to the growth management plan. As Mrs. Faas had indicated there isn't -- and the planning commission had also indicated, there is an odd configuration of about 53 square feet of the -- of the southwest portion of this screen enclosure stays within the rear setback. Within this staff report I provide a number of photos illustrating the screen enclosure from the adjoining properties. I know in the printed packages that you receive that they're black and white, and a lot of times you lose a little bit -- you lose a little bit of resolution in that -- in the reproduction. On the screen, on the visualizer, I have one of the photos from the properties to the west, and this is looking back at the screen enclosure. Kind of gives you an idea of the landscape and how the -- how the existing vegetation kind of conceals the -- conceals the property. But when staff looked at everything and added everything up as to what we're bound to look at when we grant a variance, and really it's supposed to be inherent to the physical nature of lands is what's to be the motivation from a rigid zoning standpoint as to why we would grant the variance, and therefore, when we came to our recommendation, we found no inherent conditions within this property that would justify that variance. But also within that staff -- within that Page 8 .---~"._-_.,..~.-..".. .-.-. November 3, 2005 recommendation, I also did recognize that there are a number of ameliorating factors that the planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners, who can look at this in a little bit larger of a purview, could find or utilize to justify that. With that, Chairman Strain, I guess I would open myself up to any questions to be able to kind of put the pieces of the puzzle together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike -- Mike, I have a little trouble with the math. The thing is 7.8 feet off the property line but I think you're reading that as 7 feet 8 inches; aren't you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I really think the thing is it's not two feet eight in the rear setback, it's probably two foot, two inches -- two foot two and an eighth. I mean, all these numbers are really based on the fact that you think it's seven feet eight inches off of the back property line, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's really 7.8 feet, which is slightly different, but it -- MR. BOSI: I may have -- I may have confused the decimal points at one point and utilized the inches and, therefore, that's what would have caused the confusion. Maybe it's a difference of four inches. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I think we don't want to give her any more inches than we have to here. When the thing was put into the permit, it was rejected the same day or the day after. When she was saying that she called -- in other words, I'm confused as to how she can be confused. I mean, they're in the business. They know how to get permits. Did you review the permit application to see what happened there? MR. BOSI: The only thing -- the only thing, I could -- I reviewed the permit application and it was submitted and rej ected a couple days later. The only thing that I could discern from it within Page 9 November 3, 2005 my conversation with Ms. Faas was that she thought once that she was issued that number, that based upon her inexperience, thought that that constituted a necessary approval and wasn't aware that building permit approvals are not guaranteed. When you submit your building permit, they actually have to go through the review process and you have to wait for that review process to complete itself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you know when she built the thing? What's the date she actually built it? MR. BOSI: Um-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Her notice of commencement was filed on April 14th, which would be a month or so later. So, did she start it while it was in permit process, or wouldn't she be required to file a notice of commencement first? MR. BOSI: The specifics of the process for how an individual builder and notice of commencement takes place in that sequence, I'm not familiar with. What I do know is -- what I do know is that from the statements that were conveyed to me and what I've seen within the record, there was a slight lag where I guess the work could have been completed, but for more specifics of that, I would have to defer to the applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, in other words, you never looked at the permit tracking information. MR. BOSI: I looked at the application and what I was able to find was they submitted an application, and a couple days later it was rej ected based upon them not meeting the setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Is the thing still standing, by the way? Just out of curiosity. Okay. I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the commissioners? MR. MURRA Y: If I can just follow up. And it really would be a question for Ms. Faas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's not -- can we finish with Mike Page 10 _."_'''...____.._.HM~ _ --~"..~_.- November 3, 2005 first, Bob? MR. MURRA Y: Okay. I was just curious following that, is the landscaping still the same today or did that suffer? That's one of the bases you're saying is an ameliorating. MR. BOSI: Absolutely. I was out there before the storm, so, but at the time I can also tell you that there is a significant amount of landscaping. I would have to defer to Ms. Faas as to -- MR. MURRAY: Okay. I'll ask that question later, whichever the chair prefers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I actually have one more question. Is the neighbor in the rear property, in the surrounding properties, have they -- MR. BOSI: I've received no calls, no letter of correspondence indicating nonsupport or support. There's been nothing submitted other than from the Lely Civic Association, which basically supports the request for variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, do you have any reason to doubt that this cage has been in existence for 29 years? MR. BOSI: I have no -- I have no reason to doubt it, but based upon a permit never being issued, I can only assume that sometime within that 29 years, the original screen enclosure was put up. I assume that it was closer toward the date that the pool was completed, but I have no documentation to validate that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I'm asking is I know that Developmental Services is overwhelmed with work, and to have this presentation here today -- and it's going to go from us to the BCC -- has taken a lot of your time that could have been spent on issues maybe more relevant to current permitting issues coming through Developmental Services instead of one that's been in existence for 29 years. I was hoping maybe through today's outcome, staff could recommend sometime in the future where issues like this could be administratively resolved, instead of trying to go back 29 years onto Page 11 ~,._-~.,-~-"'-"~'-- - November 3, 2005 someone. I'm sure this cost the applicant money to be here today too. MR. BOSI: Ms. Faas had come to my office a couple days ago just to talk about how the procedure was going to go. And I said one of the points being is, and she had said her company has a 24-year history within the county, and she can't recall of any time of her running, or her company, her husband's company running afoul with the permit process. She basically -- I said, well, you are definitely experiencing a negative reaction to this one instance and you definitely are paying the price because of the cost associated with the variance application and the time spent within it. And yet, I agree with you, Commissioner Strain, I would defer to Commissioner Schmitt as to what we could do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope that maybe through this you guys could think of something and by the time we get to our next LDC amendment, if it's possible, suggest a solution to items like this. This just seems like an extensive waste of Government time on an issue that is 29 years old. So, with that, that's enough said. Are there any other questions of the staff? Ifnot, I'll ask Ms. Faas to step back up for one moment while Commissioner Murray can address his question of her. Thank you, Mike. MR. MURRA Y: Yes, ma'am. We're looking at the picture on the visualizer. I'm just wondering -- and that was one of the basis for amelioration. How did you and do. MS. F AAS: I spoke with Mrs. Hall and she told me -- I spoke with her a couple days ago and she said that everything was fine. She didn't have any damage. One palm frond went through the top of the screen, she said, but that was it. She didn't lose any trees or anything. She kind of felt that they were somehow, you know, sheltered by the other houses. I think she said they were a little bit larger than hers. MR. MURRA Y: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Faas, when you were in the audience you had tried to indicate you wanted to say something. Did Page 12 November 3, 2005 you have anything to add before we discuss this? MS. FAAS: I think you had just mentioned that, you know, or this gentleman mentioned that we're in the business, we should know. And yes, that's true, but the point I was trying to say is, I have never been in the business. I slid in my mother's slot after she passed away. And I always worked in the medical profession so when you -- when, like a patient would come in and you would get -- I didn't know the process, which is not, you know -- I mean, I made the error. I made the error. But like in the medical profession if you call an insurance company you get a number and that's, the patient can be seen. Well, I thought that if you called the billing department and you got that permit number, that that was good as gold. Well, obviously, I found out it is not. And I am so sorry to have, you know, inconvenienced everybody for this because it was a silly error. I didn't know the process and I apologize for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mrs. Faas, with the hurricane coming through and all the screen enclosures in Collier County, you have walked into a business at just the busiest time you could have possibly walked into one. MS. FAAS: Well, we were busy before and, oh, my word, we also have an office in Lee County, so you can imagine, we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet. Are there any other questions of the applicant or staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Ray, are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing. Is there amotion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-7965 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Page 13 ""--~'----'-"'-"'_.'_._'_." -----.-._- November 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Subject to staffs recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion made by Commissioner Adelstein for an approval. Seconded by Commissioner Murray and then discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have -- I mean, the sad thing about this is variances, especially after the fact variances, aren't romantic issues, they're essentially objective. There is no hardship. I mean, the hardship is created by someone who built a pool enclosure without a permit. So, the problem is, I'm going to have to, as much as I would like to vote for it, vote against it because it just doesn't meet the requirements of a variance. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have to say that I feel the same way. It's a real problem. The company that Ms. Faas runs is not a small company. She just told you they have offices, not only here in Naples but also in Lee County. If she didn't know the rules, the people doing the work at her company know the rules. And we've run into this before. It's a real problem. The people that should know the rules, don't know the rules. And unless we force them to follow the rules, they will never follow the rules. There is no hardship. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again I want to say it's not fair. I know she's the second screen enclosure, but the first screen enclosure was built improperly, too, so what we're really doing is saying it's no big deal if the original guys didn't get permits, that's not fair to the people who live in the county and did get permits during that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as far as I'm concerned, I've seen and heard no testimony today that has told me that after 29 years, 29 years ago, that there was a violation of any rules in place at that time. I have not seen the building codes, the building permits, land development code, or any testimony today that indicates 29 years ago Page 14 ._._.......-.-,_.~._<-_..,-~_..,---- November 3, 2005 this was a violation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, this thing was built into a utility easement. I mean, 29 years ago that utility easement exist and I'm sure there wasn't regulations allowing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't know the conditions under which these would have been allowed 29 years ago. And I can tell you having been in this county, probably longer than anybody on this panel, including 29 years ago, the rules in Collier County were a lot different than they are today and things were done a lot differently. After 29 years, I don't see any reason to be penalizing this applicant any more than they've already been penalized by the financial impact that this cost have been upon them, so I'm going to be voting in favor of the motion. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other commission -- yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Although this is Ms. Belpedio's case, I'm going to take the opportunity while she's talking to the staff to point out the distinction between what are essentially real property ownership interests, those pertaining to the encroachment into the utilities. That's an ownership property interest. And that can be resolved separately and independent but for the potential noncompliance that's the subject of this hearing. This hearing today is in reference to land development code, property development regulations and they are, although oftentimes factually related, legally they're independent. So, the ownership issue is what I'm saying can be resolved separate from, so long as you otherwise would reach a determination that this is from a property development, land development code appropriate, move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. White. I appreciate that. Mr. Adelstein, in your motion you said subject to staff recommendations. The recommendation they had was denial. So, I'm Page 15 '-_.-_.'^--'."-'''- November 3, 2005 assuming you give me -- if it's not subject to staff recommendations. And does the second Mr. Murray agree with that? MR. MURRAY: Yeah. I was in favor of the motion to allow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To allow. Okay. Any further discussion? MR. MURRAY: If I may just comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would seem to me that with commissioning the work to build ajog in a pool cage, it would be more expensive than less expensive and it would seem to me that they carried that out believing that was an appropriate act, so I think they would be penalized twice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Call for the question, all those in favor of the motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Raise your hands those opposed? Two opposed. Motion carries six to two. Thank you, Ms. Faas. Thank you, Mike. Agenda item 8B, Petition number V A-2005-AR-8122. Carl Koller and Karen Koller. Another variance involving a setback. All those that are going to be testifying today, please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing Page 16 ~~,-" November 3, 2005 but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. There's an applicant here to make a presentation? MR. KOLLER: Yes, sir. Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. KOLLER: Yes, I'm asking for a variance on my home. It was once my wife's father's, and when I returned from the Navy, he passed away and my wife and I got the house. Well, we have five children. It was a two bedroom house. We needed to expand it, so we wanted to enclose the lanai, which is located to the west of the house and the south end of the house. And all we're asking is the variance to square off the house and make two additional bedrooms to the house. It's just basically going from one point to another just making it a square on the house instead of the indention in which the lanai currently is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN okay. It seems also that in -- the request to the variance, I'm not sure how much staff filled you in on some of this, but it looks like your house was kind of out of whack with the straight lines of the property, so while you're going through this process, we're also suggesting that you clean up the other pieces of the existing home that seem to be skewed in a little -- at an angle or something, if I am not mistaken; is that right? MR. KOLLER: Yes, sir. When the survey was done on the house, apparently they did it from the front west side to the property line. And as the plans were going through that's what they were looking at. And as the process of the building was going up to the walls being put up and then having another survey done, that's when we found out from the property line to the back of the house where the new walls have been built already, that's when we found out the whole house itself was built crooked even though the house was squared off there. Come to find out the house was on the lot somewhat crooked. Page 1 7 -----,.,.,- November 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many years ago was the house built? MR. KOLLER: The home was originally built, I believe in 1975. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Did you have anything else or are you prepared for more questions, if there are any? MR. KOLLER: Any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the panel? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. I just want to, for the record, verify, you began building, but you stopped building; is that correct? You don't have a roof over it, but you may have a wall or so? Would you tell us, please? MR. KOLLER: Yes, sir. We have the walls -- from the time the plans were originally made, it was a lanai with a flat roof on it. We were going to just enclose that and keep the current flat roof on there and we're told no, we'd have to go with the standard roof on there. So, we had to tear that down and then put up the walls to it. And as the -- as the process went with the survey, they -- we had the slab laid. They said, okay, we can't do the survey. You have to have the walls up. So I said, well, you put a stop order on here originally so I can't get a survey to the wall if we don't have the wall up. And they temporarily lifted the stop order so I can put the walls up to get the survey. And I had until like the first week of February to do this. And we met the deadline. Once we did that, that's when the survey to the walls itself, which was now up, found out that we were -- the variance, we needed to put in for the variance. MR. MURRAY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the commissioners? Thank you, sir. MR. KOLLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? Page 18 -~--" November 3, 2005 MR. DeRUNTZ: Good morning. My name is Mike DeRuntz. I'm a principal planner with the Department of Zoning & Land Development Review. We do have an after the fact variance that is before us this morning. It's for a 10 by 36 addition to the existing structure. This is located at 610 90th Avenue North. It's in Naples Park. The properties are very tight in this area. And as Mr. Koller mentioned, the property was originally built in 1975. There was a building permit issued on this property. And at that time, the county did not require surveys of the structures. And as identified in the current survey, the building was skewed. And it did not meet -- even though -- and I did have copies of the building permit and the CO where it identified the requirements for the seven-and-a-half foot side setback and 20 foot rear setback. It did not meet those requirements. And so the house was authorized, Mr. Koller has mentioned this morning, to put this addition on by just squaring that opening where they had the lanai previously. They enclosed this. The permit was issued in June -- or applied for in June and issued in August and then was notified that you'd have to stop and go forward with the variance. In looking, in reviewing this application I did -- I did determine that the building was a nonconforming structure, a legal nonconforming structure that was issued. The existing structure would qualify for administrative variance under our existing codes, and that is part of the ameliorating factors, I believe, for the structure that he's trying to enclose this rear area in this 10 by 36 area. There was a fence back there, in talking with Mr. Koller, they did take some damage and a fence does no longer exist. You can see from the photograph, you can see the line, the west side line of the house there and the fence and the vegetation, and in the back this is -- you can see where he's squaring off that back area and the fence area and vegetation, but from the storm the fence is gone. Weare recommending approval. We believe that there are ameliorating factors with the existing structure being a legal nonconforming structure and, as was the fence and the Page 19 _____H~_'^'.. 0__ November 3, 2005 vegetation back there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mike, you said that this would qualify for an administrative variance? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. If he would have applied for that initially for the structure, it would, based upon the section that I referenced in the staff report, but it would not qualify for the addition because that is an after the fact. So instead of having him pay an additional fee for administrative variance, I was hoping that we could lump these two together to save Mr. Koller some additional costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, on the project description on page 410. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You make a statement at the bottom, it says that the code has been changed and that the amendment included the changes in the side and rear setback requirements. Is that -- MR. DERUNTZ: Well, it's changed from the zoning classification where they have the -- the R -- reference that up there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in other words, obviously that 18- foot setback, I mean, do you think that was a proper setback at the time the building was built? MR. DERUNTZ: No. The rear setback was a 20-foot rear setback as it refers to -- let me find this real quick. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you do give some -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. It was a -- previously the area when this was applied for was an RM -1 A zoned district. And in the specifications it references that you can -- it could go to an RS-4 for single family, residential lots. And with those, that zoning classification there, the dimensional standards would allow for, you Page 20 .,~<-_.~."._.-.._.,- November 3, 2005 know, a requirement of 20-foot for the rear, seven-and-a-half feet for the front, or for the side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is the same, the same as it is now? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. The dimensional setbacks are the same, but the zoning classification changed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it didn't -- the statement that it included the change of the sides and rear set back to the current may not be exactly precise? MR. DERUNTZ: I mean, they are the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They are the same set back. Okay. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the staff? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a question for the legal department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to do the same thing, but I'll let you have yours first. Mr. White is just anxious to answer a questions. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, he's always anxious to do that. The LDC 9.03.33.E.I, no such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered in any way to increase it as nonconformity. Is that accurate and do we have to live up to that? MR. WHITE: Well, if you're asking me is the land development code correct, yes. The second part of your question I think -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Do we have to enforce it? MR. WHITE: Well, I think that but for this application and approval, if granted, then the staff would be required to enforce it as it's stated. But what the variance is attempting to do is to very legitimate -- is to legitimize that nonconformity, so -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you. MR. WHITE: Okay. And that's why, although this may have Page 21 ~"._.~...,,,.~.,.^_,,.,W^ . ".-------,- _....... -,,~- ...__.~_"o>__,_ November 3, 2005 been possibly done as an administrative variance, the desire was to bundle them together, so what you have is not a lawfully nonconforming, but rather a legal structure, up to the point where if it were destroyed greater than 50 percent, it would, for all intents and purposes be the same as if it completely complied with all then existing rules. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, I had one question. I know that in some parts of the law there's a thing called a descriptive easement. I think it basically means that if someone uses an access way for 20 years and they can prove it, they have a right to keep using it, or some theory like that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Twenty-one, by the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever. But this isn't necessarily an application of a descriptive easement because it's a habitable building. But it would seem after 30 years there's got to be some logical way that someone can rely upon the time that they've utilized the improvements in the matter that they're utilized, not to be challenged any time forever in the future. Is that -- is there some logic there? MR. WHITE: There is that jurisprudence concept, descriptive easements. There's others adverse possession. But the point of them is that the time alone that has run is only one of the elements that have to be met. Others include, for example, the person who supposedly is giving the permission, knew about it. And in many instances that can't be determined what the intent of that individual was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in that case the burden of proof falls to the applicant? MR. WHITE: Always on the requester -- on the requester. But those are matters that are, again, independent of the local Government's health, safety, welfare, police power regulations which these LDC provisions are versus the concepts that you're referring to that are again real property ownership types of matters. So although Page 22 -.,,""'.....---....'. ..,.._.W.n._.__,....M..._.___ November 3, 2005 you may be able to cure the ownership issues, you're still going to have, or Mr. Koller is still going to have an issue with the county. Unless, of course, the variance is granted and all of these things are effectively, lawfully cured. So he can go to court. He can get a circuit court judge to tell him that he has the ownership rights, but he'd still be in a place where he'd have to come before the local Government to have them fixed. I apologize if that's a bit lengthy, but it's oftentimes a blurring between real property issues that are typically a circuit court judge to determine versus ones that are the local government's power under their health, safety, welfare. COMMISSIONER CARON: Patrick? MR. WHITE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Another question. What this variance is attempting to do is to make this home legal as opposed to legally nonconforming, which it has been right along. MR. WHITE: As to the prior existing legal nonconformities, that is correct. It is also, I guess correct to say that it will make legal, what is the balance of the request. COMMISSIONER CARON: What -- is it possible, if this were to be approved, that we could stipulate that it has to remain legally nonconforming, which means that should this house be lost to greater than 50 percent, it has to come into compliance? MR. WHITE: I believe that is a condition of approval that Mr. DeRuntz has included. And it is standard, and, in fact, is one of the ones we, you know, talked about in this past week between the staff and our office as to those folks who are out there that have variances. Many, if not all of them, have just this type of a condition. If there is a greater than 50 percent loss for that property owner, of whatever structures that were covered by the variances, they're required on any rebuilding to come into compliance with today's rules. Mr. Koller's proj ect and his property would be similarly constrained by the condition that Mr. DeRuntz has included. Page 23 ._.~,~_._.~"....,-- - - -----~._._,,-..~""- November 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to go through public hearing. Thank you, Mike. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public speakers, Ray? MR BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Excuse me one second. I did pass out that letter. I had received several calls from property owners around there and they had no objection. They wanted to know what the purpose of the notice was and I explained to them what the request was for. I did receive the letter that was dated the 28th, and the individual, Veto Stallone is suggesting that the planning commission deny this request because of the small nature of the lots and I wanted to make sure that that was part of the record. MR. MURRAY: Michael, how close does Mr. Stallone live to this gentleman? MR. DeRUNTZ: He lives in Illinois. This address that I have is in Illinois. I'm not sure whether it's his summer home, or winter home is here, but I can check that and let you know later. MR. WHITE: Assuming that, as Mr. Stallone has indicated, a property owner in Naples Park, we probably can locate through property appraiser's data base, his address and give you an answer to that, but I just remind the commission that written submittals are not required to be given the same weight as live testimony. And the theory of course is that you can't swear in this letter, nor can you ask it a question, nor can the applicant, quote, cross-examine it if they choose to do so. For those reasons, although the gentleman's point should be given consideration, certainly is based in part on his Page 24 .'--'-'~-'<"~ ""-.>0_'--" .-"-"-"" ~~,--,---,+-_.-.,,--- November 3, 2005 proximity to this location. It need not be given the same weight as other testimony or evidence you have before you today. That's live. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. White. Since there's no public speakers, we'll close the public hearing and want to entertain a motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'd like to move petition V A-2005-AR-8122 with staff recommendation to the commission with a recommendation - or to the Board of Appeals the recommendation of approval. The reason why I like this one is that there is a hardship -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we get past your motion and we'll get into discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a motion-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion was seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Now, discussion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In Naples Park they do have all those side property lines are not perpendicular to the road. There's a lot of conditions like this in there where that's what causes this geometric little problem. The problems are insignificant, and they're really caused by the hardship of the platting originally not having those side setbacks perpendicular to the front. They're slightly off causing slightly off dimension problems like this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 25 ....,""_~____.o~.._.~........... .M'._ November 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Eight to zero. Thank you. The next petition is RZ-2005-AR-72676, the Briana Breeze project. All those wishing to speak in this matter, please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Please be seated. Are there any disclosures from the planning commission members? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I've spoken to Mrs. Richardson on this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any disclosures, other than the information we've all received, the petition, I believe came from staff, so I'm sure it's on record already? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll proceed with the meeting. Mr. Thornton. MR. THORNTON: Good morning. I'm Chris Thornton with Treiser, Collins & Vernon. We're at 3080 Tamiami Trail East. This morning I'm representing Southern Development Company. I'm joined today by the president of the company, Mario Curiale, as well as Tim Hall, Kara Kay and Turrell & Associates, the environmental consultants, and Joss de Lestang from Gulf Shore Engineering, the project's civil engineer. The petition as stated in the staff report seeks to rezone, approximately 7.29 acres of currently Ag zoned land to a residential Page 26 -....-...-.....^ ..- November 3, 2005 single family designation. It's a straight rezone. The applicant desired the dimensional requirement of the RSF -4 zoning district due to the lot size in that district, but due to the property's location, on the other side of the traffic congestion area, the density under the comp plan -- start with the base of four, you lose one due to traffic congestion, you're down to three. The petition was for a rezone to RSF -4 with a cap of three units per acre, which works out to approximately 22 units. In addition to that, the applicant, during the neighborhood information meeting, agreed to further limit the density on this project to a maximum of 15 units, which works out to approximately 2.1 units per acre. As I stated, the property is in the urban resident -- maybe I didn't say it. The staff report states the property is located in the urban residential fringe. It's about halfway down Price Street. If you go out the East Trail, take Price Street past Barefoot Williams and it's on the north side of Price Street, 255 Price Street. Staff report states, and the petitioner believes the application is consistent with the comprehensive plan because this property is designated in the urban residential. When the camp plan was adopted, this property was not designated as the estates for agriculture. The property was designated in the comp plan as urban residential, urban coastal fringe. As far as compatibility with adjacent uses, the properties on Price Street, although zoned Ag, have generally been developed with single family homes. The staff report states the densities on Price Street range from one unit per acre to one unit per five acres. The subject property also abuts a neighboring mobile home park to the north. It's at a significantly higher density at 61 -- six units per acre. F or the mobile home park, our property abuts to the north. Regarding traffic, our traffic study and the traffic department's comment in the staff report conclude that the impact will be negligible. It will not meet any of the thresholds that would cause any Page 27 -,_.- November 3, 2005 failing roads to further deteriorate. The primary hurdle we had in working through to get here with staff was the environmental issues. We -- this was not our preferred site plan. As we discussed at the environmental advisory council hearing, this property, prior to our client's acquisition of it, had been cleared maybe with some intent permits or something like that, but it wasn't -- the clearing that was done was not -- the county and the DEP were not pleased with the clearing that was done. The clearing that was done was done in a way that created these paths of clearing. So there was really no good way to choose a large contiguous area of 25 percent preservation requirement. That was difficult to do since it was all broken apart and cleared areas and non-cleared areas. But we redesigned the site plan, shifted some lots, shifted the lake around, and we have selected what we believe and what staff concurs to be the best and highest preservation area on the site, which is in the north, which is in the front as you can see on the top there below the light. That area was the area that staff recommended we target for the preserve area and so we have done that. At the neighborhood information meeting, the applicant agreed to three conditions, stipulations based upon some comments from some of the neighbors. One of those was from the neighbors in the mobile home park. That if the LDC allows it, that we would build a six- foot chain link fence along their property line. I guess to prevent people from walking back and forth between the properties. The other was the 15 units maximum. And the third condition was that the homes to be built would not be smaller than 1600 square feet. Petitioner is willing to do those three things agreed to during the neighborhood information meeting. Some of the comments during the neighborhood information meeting, the primary areas of obj ection had to do with -- apparently this area is a bad area for flooding during rain events. The civil engineer, Joss de Lestang, will more broadly cover that, if you'd like Page 28 <.._-"-,._---~. November 3, 2005 for him to, but the ultimate position of the applicant is that we're going to have to get all the necessary DEP water management district local permits. We will follow all the state and local rules regarding the project. And after the project is built, the flooding situation for the neighbors will be at least as good, if not better, than it is today. I think he'll tell us that it's going to be better. The other area was that the residents were concerned that -- the utilities comments in the staff report cover this. Collier County has an ordinance -- we're going to be required to bring water to our project. We can't have a well and a septic on each of these lots. So we're going to be running a water line from, I think it's from Barefoot Williams out to the subject project. Residents -- and I initially felt that that will be a benefit to the residents. They're going to get water brought out to their properties. It didn't go that way in the neighborhood meeting. I can't speak for all of them. Some of the residents expressed displeasure that they would be obligated, because there's a county ordinance that requires properties 200 feet of a water line to tap in. I'd just like to point out the water line being brought out is at the cost of the applicant. Running the line out isn't going to cost the residents. They'll have to tap in though, and I guess that would cost them some money. They'll have water bills. Not being obligated to tap into the sewer line that's coming to our property. They can keep their septics systems. The county has decided that it's a good idea to make people tap in if the water line comes that close. That's the county policy. So, we don't necessarily have a position one way or the other whether that's a good ordinance or not, but it is the law. So we just suggest that the petition does meet the comp plan. It is consistent with the surrounding uses. So we ask that you recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all, Mr. Thornton? MR. THORNTON: That's all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before you leave utilities, the Page 29 -^',- November 3, 2005 houses will be on septic tank? MR. THORNTON: These houses will not be on septic, they'll be on county sewer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, you'll be extending the sewer line also? MR. THORNTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. MURRA Y: Regarding the fence, please, what's on the visualizer, please tell me where the fence would begin and where it would end? Would it enclose the entire property? MR. THORNTON: During the neighborhood meeting, the residents of the adjacent mobile home park expressed concern about I guess people going back and forth between the projects. So the applicant agreed that if the LDC allows it, we will include a six-foot chain link fence at the northern boundary of our property, which would be here. It would be built into the landscape buffer somehow, either on a berm or behind the berm, but it will be a six-foot fence to prevent vandals or kids from going back and forth. If you don't want us to do that, you can tell us not to do that but the neighbors asked for it. We agreed to do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I won't comment on that now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one more. What's the area of the sites that you're proposing? MR. THORNTON: The sites? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Smallest would be my concern. MR. THORNTON: They would be meeting the RSF-4 zoning regulations so the lot sizes are 7500 square feet, 75 by 110. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually they're going to be-- Page 30 ---,----,,----- .,.._-~- November 3, 2005 that's the minimum size that -- you can change them. MR. THORNTON: This is a straight rezone to a residential single family 4 zoning district with a cap of three units per acre, which we further agree to limit, to back down to approximately 2.1 units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I am not mistaken and, Ray, maybe you can correct me. Straight rezone is different in regards to a PUD because with a PUD, you have certain criteria that are development standards subject specifically to the zoning district created by the PUD. In a straight rezone you come under the standard LDC applications for the rezoning district, whatever it is? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. THORNTON: I'll take this opportunity to point out in a straight rezone, a site plan such as the one we've created is not necessarily required. We did it primarily to enable us to work with the environmental review staff to reach, to kind of prove to them and to ourselves that if we get this approval that the proj ect can be done. So, the lots have been laid out. You can see where the preservation area will be. The site plan itself is only conceptual and is not binding. And I did have some concern with some of the staffs proposed conditions and stipulations as they were worded that the -- if the site plan changes at all, I don't think the project should have to come back here for a rezone to get the site plan approved because the site plan is not binding anyway, it's conceptual. But if we did go with this project, that is how it will look. In any event, when we go for a site development plan or plat, we will be obligated to comply with all of the zoning regulations, including the environmental ones at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Thornton, why didn't you go forward with a PUD where things would have been binding and stipulations and conditions could have been made subject to this particular piece of property to assure everybody that what you're showing is what's going to happen? Page 31 .__..M'''.,"^,,",,"..".._4~'_'._ ". _" -,-- November 3, 2005 MR. THORNTON: I think the applicant thought that they are set for the zoning dimensional requirements suited his needs, and he just chose that route for that reason. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on that point --I know Ray is busy, but my question is, what is a singular? I know what a PUD is, I know what a rezone is, but this is something in between, isn't it? Essentially you're saying, give me the density of RSF-2, yet give me the dimensional requirements of RSF -4, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've done that before. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Immokalee in particular I remember a proj ect had come forward like that. They want the dimensional standard of the setback and the widths that are beneficial from the four zoning, but the density requirements are of a lesser standard -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, zoning manager. It's not unusual for a developer to look at certain development standards that are suitable to the type of project environmental condition preserves, but to have -- be restricted to a lower density for either compatibility, but the comprehensive plan features land use development. So, therefore, the zoning would be as noted in the title -- the zoning district with apparent density cap. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Ray, one thing there's also buffers and fence requirements. Is that something -- MR. BELLOWS: Per the LDC. It's not a PUD where they specif their own. However, there are ability for staff to make, and the planning commission, to make recommendations that will be attached to the ordinance. That will show up on the zoning map as a reference that there are special conditions that need to be addressed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Interesting. MR. MURRA Y: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be clear in my mind, Page 32 '^~~"'"_._-< _~_,_o,~__~,.,,""","_"'._._", __.'..___ November 3, 2005 hopefully, you've indicated that they don't want to be bound, the developer doesn't want to be bound to what's shown here. What is it the developer is willing to be bound by -- what is subject to change? What is likely to change? Help me with that, if you would. MR. THORNTON: This is the site plan that is intended. And what we will be bound by is your comprehensive plan. We'll be bound by your land development code, specifically the residential single family for zoning regulations. We will be bound by all of your site development plan requirements, and then we would also be bound to any conditions and stipulations attached to this straight rezone. MR. MURRAY: Okay. Two other factors. One is, it's been asserted that this is low income housing, intended as low income housing. But you're not seeking any low income housing subsidies or anything of that sort, are you? MR. THORNTON: We do not -- we are not making any representations that there will be affordable or cap or those types of market reductions in price. The applicant does have an intent that he will be primarily -- he's doing this in part, his own personal motivation, is to have some housing for some of his children and some of his employees who live and work in Marco Island and Collier County and are having trouble finding affordable housing in the area. That doesn't mean this is going to be marketed as affordable housing. MR. MURRA Y: So he's going to sell these homes to these folks, and is he going to be the landlord? MR. THORNTON: That is undetermined. MR. MURRAY: Okay. One final question, is this the coastal high hazard area? MR. THORNTON: I believe that it -- yes, it is. MR. MURRAY: I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the documentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was getting to it. You beat me to it. MR. MURRA Y: I was just wondering if we correlate the Page 33 .-- ..---- November 3, 2005 question of affordable housing relative to that, then that's another issue we have to qualify and that's why I brought that out. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other questions of the commission of the applicant? or I'll ask a few, if I have any left. In the neighborhood meeting you talked about a chain link fence. If this motion were to succeed, chain link is not a really aesthetically pleasing element. I would assume that modular structural concrete wouldn't be a problem. MR. CURIALE: May I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you can. Just identify yourself for the record. MR. CURIALE: For the record, my name is Mario Curiale, I'm the owner and the developer of the project. What I'm trying to do, I'm trying to do something to minimize any kind of an inconvenience for the neighbors. The reason why we adopt a fact that they get a chain link fence is, by having a buffer, we would put the chain link fence in between the buffer so you will not see the fence, but you actually see the vegetation on both sides. That's the reason why the people at Tall Oaks prefer that, more so than have a structural wall separation. It does the same purpose, but the view itself would not be the same. So you wouldn't be clouded by a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if there's a solid wall, isn't there a vegetation requirement on both sides in this case or not? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, there would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In another application quite a while ago, when I've been sitting on this board, a Habitat for Humanity proj ect came forward on Green Boulevard and wanted to bring water in and! or sewer lines up the road. The residents there were concerned that they would have to pay to tie in. So Habitat for Humanity paid their fees to tie in. I'm assuming that that is something you're willing to do. Page 34 ~~_~,."~,._..~,__.'u._"___.,~_.__.." '" "'--' ._....._-"...~----- November 3,2005 MR. CURIALE: That's something we haven't got to the point yet and we haven't really come up with any kind of alternative. We haven't had any direct meetings with the utility department. And at that time we try to figure out which way be able to accommodate the visibility of the neighbors. And I will -- besides that I would like, if you can, go back to a couple questions Mr. Murray was saying, and also you were saying was the fact is, the reason why we want a straight rezone, we supply you a site plan, the site plan we do to minimize the time frame to jeopardize the staff. After we got a PUD then we got to go back in the PUD and then we got to put an STP in place and find out where all the lots are. This way here we know we have the neighbors so they want to see what it looks like. I made my judgment call to say this is the way the proj ect will look like if we get the approval. So we're not going to have -- defer from what it is. Staff work diligent with us to get to this part because we changed the plan about four or five different times with the engineer, with the staff to figure out which way was the best way to do it and to solve the problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I guess I must have misunderstood your attorney then. You're saying you're binding yourself to this site plan? MR. CURIALE: This site plan, yeah, is safe. We get the approval, this is the way it's going to look when we get done with that, yes. MR. WHITE: If I may comment on that, interrupt the proceeding just to illuminate. The staff condition is one that -- under number three, and I don't -- I'm assuming you have that today, is one that ties the site plan just to the environmental parameters. As you'll recall what Chris had said was, they met with the environmental staff and tried to work those things out so they'd be resolved by the time they got to the EAC. And I think that all of the staff proposed condition does is essentially lock down the site plans solely as to those Page 35 .OM__'~"""_'"'''~'_~'~''.''''_''' ,"~""'''_''''''..-....._.'~'_ ....._,,"-- November 3, 2005 environmental types of issues, the preserve area in particular. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I realize that but it sounds like the applicant is going a step further and binding himself to the site plan. MR. WHITE: He may be, but I'm just telling you what the limitation is that the staff has recommended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understood the difference. I just wanted to make sure. MR. CURIALE: Well, if the board is too complicated for that, I will accept as it is the way right now, because after we made a five, six different maps, we went over the environmental because we had accommodate some legal occurrence that took place long before I owned the property so I didn't know anything about it, but that fell in the guideline of the environmental issues. So when we submit the plans, they don't like that one, they don't like this one. So this one here came up with that we left almost -- I don't know, what is it, three acres? I can't see that far. It's almost three acres of vegetation to be left on one spot. So that's -- it looks like this is going to be the best place to be. We build -- the residential homes will be on the upper lanes so we're not interfere with the wetlands whatsoever. We stay away from Price Street, if there's any noise concern on the street. The majority of the homes will be all the way to the north part adjacent to Tall Oaks. So, I mean, we worked very diligently with everybody to try to get to this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You indicated, or your representative indicated that this is not affordable housing, gap housing? MR. CURIALE: This is not affordable housing by any means. These are standard residential homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you doing to the -- a-- helping the affordable housing conditions in Collier County by this project then? MR. CURIALE: Well, the bottom line here is, I really don't Page 36 '-- November 3, 2005 know if these things will follow the guidelines to that. We only got 15 homes. I really don't know what the jurisdiction is or what is the staff or the LDC recommend. If you have more than 25 units, maybe you are required to have one unit as affordable housing. I really don't know. I haven't followed up with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN okay. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Anybody? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm noticing, you have the cul-de-sac in this road there. Then there's a blue line which I assume is your property line. The yellow line is the plat line, I would assume; is that correct? MR. CURIALE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where the cul-de-sac is up there. MR. CURIALE: Okay. The cul-de-sac abuts the next property line. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's exactly where I want to go with this questions. MR. CURIALE: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: The blue line that I'm looking at on the visualizer appears -- I'm guessing, is your property line. And the yellow line is a plat line for where you want to put the homes. MR. CURIALE: I think if you -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: See a blue line there? MR. CURIALE: You got two lots in there. I am adjacent to the properties in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me get to the central core of the question without confusion. MR. CURIALE: Maybe I don't understand what you mean. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: What I'm concerned about is at Page 37 ""-,"^._."...".,~--_.._,.._".~...""- --.-.-- November 3, 2005 some time in the future, and I guess we can always take the tack that, okay, the other parties who live there, that's their problem, but if a person in a car is driving around that cul-de-sac, that light is going to be penetrating into the other area. My question is, do you have a setback with-- MR. CURIALE: It's about 25 to 30 feet from the edge of the cul-de-sac. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's what -- MR. CURIALE: Oh, yeah. That's 25 to 30 feet of the edge of the cul-de-sac. We're going to have plenty over there. No way is next door is going to have spillover lighting when a turnaround take place. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. Now, the next question that relates to that, and I'm not inclined to support a chain link fence by any stretch. But if you were intending to put some kind of a wall along the northerly boarder and leave out the edge in some portion of that other boarder, wouldn't that allow people to transit your property and vice versa? MR. CURIALE: Well, if we do walls throughout every property, before you know you're going to have a cluster place in every neighborhood. I mean, all neighborhoods don't have walls around the place. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I understand. MR. CURIALE: As I remember, I have been around quite a few years, the only time we do the wall was mostly for a commercial, you put residential to commercial. But when you start putting up walls in every piece of land, before you know it you're going to have a shoebox everywhere. I don't think it would be good scenery -- I mean, architectural mind I think. I don't think so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Curiale, I don't question that. I'm merely being responsive to what the neighbors have indicated and you've said you would comply with. They had like some kind of a separation. A chain link was chosen. I can't support a Page 38 -.-.......". , "...~--- November 3, 2005 chain link, but if you're going to put something there, it would seem that you'd want to extend it a little further in order to prevent that. I mean, it just seems -- MR. CURIALE: You said Tall Oaks property adjacent to mine, is that what you're saying? What property are you talking about now? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm talking about -- we can only reference your property. MR. CURIALE: Okay. That's it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And what I'm trying to say to you, and I'm not making myself clear, I'm trying to draw your attention, if you put a single line at the top, you leave the edges open, I'm not sure it achieves what the neighbors want to achieve. MR. CURIALE: Well, don't you think the vegetation on the property line will accommodate that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know. I hope so. MR. CURIALE: I don't know. For the neighbors, we haven't heard any neighbor talk about that yet. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes, sir. MR. CURIALE: But if they would like to say, talk about they want a privacy wall alongside their property, then maybe that's something we have yet to consider, but at this time, I haven't -- nobody ever brought that up. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you. I'm just bringing that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll be getting to the neighbors in a moment, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you. I'm finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'd like to ask the staff to make their report. Page 39 ,~--~.__.._---- November 3, 2005 MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, I'm a principal planner with the Department of Zoning & Land Development Review. I believe everybody has the staff report. And I do apologize because you did get some documents later, and partially due to Hurricane Wilma that visited us, but the EAC staff report was sent to you via email. Hopefully you all got that. The EAC did meet yesterday and discussed this petition. And because of that, we have additional conditions which have been touched upon in the applicant's presentation. I provide a copy of the proposed conditions to you this morning, and I can go over those when I get to that point. But I just wanted to briefly touch on the staff report to note that staff is recommending approval of this petition and we do believe that at 15 units per acre, it is compatible with the neighborhood, and we believe that it is consistent with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 15 per acre? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. I misspoke. Little dense, yes. Fifteen units total for the project. Yes. Thank you. I wondered why everybody was looking at me strangely. And we do believe it's consistent with the growth management plan. And as noted in the EAC staff report, they had two conditions that they recommended. The first one had to do with scoring and the quality of the wetlands when it's eventually determined through the South Florida Water Management District what those quality wetlands are and if any changes would be needed to the site plan to address that, that we could then do that as part of the platting process. But the conditions -- the first condition is the one that limits it to 15 single family dwelling units on the proj ect. The second one is the scoring for the wetlands, and this would allow summary assessment and reevaluation by the county if there are changes. Number three is the condition that has been discussed about the site plan, and Mr. White characterized it correctly, this is just to identify that that site plan was reviewed, and this addresses the environmental aspects. It's not necessarily to tie the Page 40 ..__..._~-,,~~._,,_.._.._-,--, .."~._,-"...,. .'----,--_.,'.~"-_.- November 3, 2005 development through the rezoning to that site plan. Condition four I know reiterates a requirement of the LDC, but to be consistent with the EAC staff recommendation and the EAC recommendation itself, they recommended this condition so I included it. And then the two conditions that need to be added based on the applicant's presentation and the neighborhood information meeting commitment was the chain link fence would need to be provided and I would ask that we include some time frame for that to be provided by the petitioner so it's clear that it's done in appropriate timely fashion, and the other condition would be to incorporate something about the minimum size of the units. And that's all I have. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, since the site plan is really important to this application and their ability to build it, has the fire department reviewed it? And my concern is that the cul-de-sac doesn't meet what I think are the fire codes. MS. DESELEM: As noted in the condition, this particular site plan only addresses environmental. It has not been designed, nor has it been reviewed for anything else within the LDC requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what happens when they do go to fire and fire does, you know, kind of by 20 feet increase the size of that -- you know, the cul-de-sac, what happens to this whole application? MS. DESELEM: It shouldn't affect the rezoning approvals. All it would do is to affect the design of the roadway. As long as the environmental aspects aren't changed, it shouldn't affect any of the approvals. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: For the record, just note, Commissioner Schiffer, that through the review process in the final plat -- the final plat is still a board action. It still has to go before the Page 41 --. ._._--~-"".--~--- November 3, 2005 Board of County Commissioners as a final approval. Normally those are on the summary agenda, but certainly, if it is a public process, if anybody wants to review the plat just as we did through a more recent one, Legacy Estates, then we would make it part of the public meeting and on the regular agenda. But it is a public review process and it is approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Once the staff completes its review and all the design requirements are met, it is a final review process by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only concern is we're making guarantees that this is the kind of thing that he's going to build. If there's a flaw in it that would change that, I think we should discuss that. MR BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We're not approving the attached conceptual plan. It is just for advocation and to show that the environmental conditions can be met. It is not a plan that is being adopted today. And the process is designed to go through a final plat process where the platting is sent to all the review agencies, including the fire department. They'll check to make sure the radiuses are correct and the planner -- or the petitioner will have to modify their plans to be consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I don't have my code back with me. What is the narrowest lot size about in the RSF-4. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 75 feet. MS. DESELEM: I think it's 75 feet. If I may expound on that original question that we had. And condition number three it says, the project must be developed in full compliance with all applicable county, state, and Federal regulations in effect at the time development request is submitted. And like they've said, this is only for illustrative purposes. through the neighborhood information meeting, I tried to make it clear numerous times that this is only a depiction. It may not be the final result of what's developed. The only thing that does is insure the environmental areas on site would be Page 42 ._------~-~'"._^'_.,.._._..._- ,-,.~-"~-;_.",-~. .._.~,. November 3, 2005 developed in compliance with the EAC recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The next question is, the ownership of these common areas, how is that going to happen? Are these going to be fee simple lots? If that's the case, who is going to own the preserve areas and everything? MS. DESELEM: That's beyond the scope of zoning. That would be determined as it goes to the platting process. MR. WHITE: If I may, in response to Mr. Schiffer's questions. The typical process in platting is that a homeowners' association would be formed and they would be dedicating any of the preserve areas as a tract and be responsible for maintaining that as well as any landscape buffers or other common areas, typically through a set of restrictive covenants that are required to be also recorded at/or before the plat itself is recorded. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Kay? Kay, I have one. Has this plan, or this rezone package been reviewed by the emergency operations department? The EOC. MS. DESELEM: I don't believe they're included in the rezone reVIew, no, sIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would the fact that we just are experiencing hurricanes on a more frequent basis and all the preparation for hurricanes, especially in coastal high hazard areas where this one is, are important factors, is there any way from now on we can get them to weigh in on every application coming through this board that has changes in zoning or densities? MS. DESELEM: Staff would be happy to send them the packet and let them review it if they so desire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would certainly like to hear them tell us that this county can either take or not take more density, more homes and more people in certain locations. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Commissioner, that's something Page 43 -',- "~'-"~---~_.".._~ '_'~~__'"'''''.'_''M.'_~___ November 3, 2005 certainly the emergency management office can only opine as to, from it's -- within it's authority. That is a policy decision, as you well know, that's beyond any opinion or rendering of a zoning opinion by the Emergency Management Bureau. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm not asking -- I want a practical understanding of the hurricane issues that we're prepared or not prepared for. Every department in this county provides opinions for this board. What's wrong with that one? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We do staff, and I don't know about this one, but normally we all, staffing review zoning review, go to emergency management for review. So I'm not sure if why, or if this one did or did not go. But most of them do go to emergency management for some sort of review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was my question. MR. WHITE: And the scope of that review, generally pertains to, my understanding, two concerns. One is shelter space impacts, and the other is evac route timing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's what I'm looking for, Patrick. I don't know if that's been reviewed for those items. That was my question. I don't have any other. MR. WHITE: If I could answer. I think that the RSF-4 standard that this one would otherwise be limited by for minimum lot for corner lots is 75, interiors is 70. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for the clarification. MR. WHITE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing no other questions from staff. Ray, are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have four speakers. The first speaker is Jere Hunt followed by Sue Reuter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hunt, if you would come up to the podium, and would the next person in line come up and stand behind Mr. Hunt so we can be prepared to move fast? Page 44 __n.....~_"..".<~___..--,~~_'",.~"' _._ _ ___ _.~._.,----_.,-,----_.- November 3, 2005 MR. HUNT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. HUNT: I'm Jere Hunt. I live at 135 Price Street. Price Street is, I consider it the last best place in Collier County. We all know our days are numbered there but let's not shoot ourselves this mornIng. There are about 44 property owners on Price Street, including Mr. Curiale's property. He has two parcels. I just went through the computer this morning, and there are 11 parcels that are four acres plus. There are three parcels, three acres plus. There are 16 parcels that are two acres plus. Six parcels are more than one acre, and five are more than nine-tenths of an acre. This project, if I did my math right, we're putting one house on a sixth of an acre, and to me, that's totally incompatible with the neighborhood. We have a -- people have horses, dogs, cats, animals. It's sort of a country spot in Collier County. I've got coyotes that come to my back door and eat cat food at night down there. We've got all kind of animals. As far -- and I know you're going to shoot me in the foot here for saying this -- but as far as whether this is or is not affordable housing, we've got 110 units of Habitat for Humanity right behind us. And We've done our part for affordable housing. I think that this project, I'd ask you to vote no on it. It just, in my opinion, it's totally incompatible with the street and with the neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray, and the one after this lady. MR. BELLOWS: Sue Rueter followed by -- MS. REUTER: I'm Sue Reuter. My property adjoins this land. I have a deer farm license. I have deer. I have all types of animals. When this property was sold, it was zoned agriculture. Our whole area is zoned agriculture. He bought it just a couple of years ago knowing it was zoned agriculture. To rezone it now, would be the-- would be spot zoning of the worst kind. We all have animals down Page 45 -- ,,-,"._-",,-,._-","~- -....-----..-.----- November 3, 2005 there. We have -- I have emus. I have -- I've had Llamas. I've got pot belly pigs. You know, I've got turkeys. I've got everything. I've got wood storks. African wood storks. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Sounds like Carribean Gardens. MS. REUTER: And to have somebody -- my land is fairly low. I had to build a house 11 feet in the air because of -- are these going to be built because of the wetlands? We are strictly wetlands back there. How can they even think about putting those types of houses on wetlands? I mean, we have -- we are very close -- close to Rookery Bay. With all -- you know, I just don't see this happening there. I mean, we just -- we all built out there because it is agriculture zoning. My daughter was involved with 4H, the very first 4H ever held in this County was on Radio Road. I mean, I have been there 32 years. And I don't want to see the area put like something like this. It would ruin the whole area. We're all on -- I bought -- there was -- I had, when we originally bought, there was only an acre and a quarter. Then the land behind me, which was zoned an acre and a quarter, came up for sale. They asked me if I wanted it. We bought it. So I've got two-and-a-half acres. And I abut back -- and I know what problems we already have with Tall Oaks because they built four feet higher than we are. They put so much fill in and built a lake. He wants to do the same thing, which would flood out my property completely. And it would flood out the property to the east of him. And this -- you know, think about the people in the area. I have been there for 32 years paying taxes to this county for 32 years. Don't make us suffer now. And as far as water, I don't want city water. When the hurricane came through, a lot of people on city water didn't have water. We had our wells. We had water. And we have good water down there. And I certainly don't want sewers at the cost of that. I just, I like -- we all like what we have down there. We don't want it changed and this would change it. I don't even know how the planning commission, how this even got this far that this spot zoning would come this far to Page 46 November 3, 2005 be even thought that it might pass. Because this is absolutely ridiculous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. MS. REUTER: I may have more to say after. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Pam Noe followed by Dean Bremerman. MS. NOE: Okay, guys, I'm not here to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, could you identify yourself? MS. NOE: I'm Pam Noe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. How do you spell your last name? MS. NOE: N-O-E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. NOE: I've lived here almost 40 years, in East Naples for almost 40 years. I've lived on Price Street over 15 years. My husband and I have 12-and-a-half acres. We have seven-and-a-half down on this side and we have five down where we live at our house. We have a lot to gain from this. If we wanted to change our zoning and do that, we could, you know, gain and benefit also. But we're not going to do that. We don't want to do that. I've raised a son, don't ask me how I did this, that is pro development and pro high density who lives at my house with me. And I don't want to do this. I don't want this to get passed and I wouldn't even think of changing. I want to have some green spots in Collier County. I want to have green spots on Price Street. Price Street, it's a working class neighborhood. We don't have an entourage of environmentalists, even though I could because I have an environmentalist niece. And this is very very close to my heart. This is my home. This is where I live. This is where I planted trees for which my family members have died. This is where, you know, I've taught my kids how to ride horses here and this kind of stuff. And this is against everything that we live out there for. This is a piece of property. You know, Price Street is a long Page 47 .,_.~..,~___m_. __ ,.. ..'_.__._,_._.n___ . .~~~- November 3, 2005 street on this side. On the west sides there's 19 houses. You bring in 15 more houses with 19 houses on the whole street, is what I counted. Now I don't know what's back in some of these wooded areas, but 19 houses that I know of, and you're going to bring an additional 15 houses in there? That's an impact. It's quite an impact. They're going to bring it, and they're going to fill it up. It's low back in there. It's very, very low. It's like over your boots high water when you get back in there. And it's like, you know guys, I'm not a public speaker. I'm not here to say don't do it. I'm disappointed that the county has approved it, but I knew they would because when you see the county or the state come, they're going to give you something you don't want and they're going to take away something you do want, and that's basically it. Mario says he's going to have his kids live there. I don't see his kids moving from Marco Island onto Price Street. Price Street is not some fancy neighborhood. It's just a neighborhood with working class people who want to use their gardens, they want to plant trees. They want to take a little boat out into Rookery Bay. We're not fancy people. We're not -- you know, some of us are college educated, but some of us aren't. We're service people. There's bus drivers. We don't have days that we can come and sit in these meetings and talk to you guys and beg for somebody to listen to us. We live on this street. You know, it's like, this is our homes. There's people who have been there for 40,50 years. I remember when Price Street was a dirt road. You know, I have been in Naples since the ice house was up. I don't know how many of you guys have been there since then, but it's like, it's important to us. Weare just a few people, but it's important that this not get passed because it can change our whole lifestyle, and it won't change your lifestyle. I bet none of you guys have ever even gone down Price Street. Do you even know where it is? And there are some nice houses and there's some dumpy houses, but it's our homes. Whether it's a dumpy house or it's a nice house, it's everybody home that you're going to affect by making this Page 48 ._-"..~. November 3, 2005 decision to put this high density there. We have high density all around us. We have Habitat as the back of my property right now. It's got 100 and something houses in there. We have -- you know, Hitching Post, which you can reach out and touch the next place next to you. And we have Tall Oaks, which has high density. Why does everybody is Collier County have to be high density? And why does everything in Collier County have to be concreted over and filled in so that you can't drain, you can't do anything. And, you know, we've got these environmentalists on Mario's side and everybody in this building knows that anybody who is writing a check, they're going to say what you want them to say. I've got a brother-in-law who is a traffic engineer, and he'll be the first one to say, you know, whoever is writing them the check is going to be pro for their side. And I didn't say anything here on my paper, but what I said is from my heart, and I wish to God you guys would please consider this. It's our homes. It's not -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ma'am, can you conclude your renaarks,please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, I'll bring her around if she needs to be. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Commissioner Chairman, I think we'll have to put a time limit on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have. I've been watching the clock. It's not the time limit yet. MS. NOE: I'm sorry. I've used up my time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At my discretion, ma'ana, you can finish up if you'd like. MS. NOE: I'm done. But it's just like I'm saying, please consider. This is our home where we live. And I wish to God you guys would think. And I wish -- I don't know how you make these decisions about where you're going to go and how you make the decision how you're going to vote on places you don't know anything Page 49 -----, ",.", -.-".--.-,.0-".---..,,-.'- _.~..._-~._~~_..-- November 3, 2005 about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Contrary to your beginning statement, ma'am, you are a very fine public speaker, so, thank you. Next. MR. BELLOWS: Dean Bremerman and we have some additional speakers that are lined up. Tom Zenz. MR. BREMERMAN: Hello. Thanks for this time to speak. My name is Dean Berman. I've lived on Price Street for over 15 years and in Collier County for over 50. Price Street is mostly made up of two-and-a-half to five acre lots zoned agriculture. We moved to Price Street because of the agriculture zoning. I'm afraid if Mario gets this density increase it will have a domino effect on future sales of properties on the street. I helped pass a petition that you might have in front of you of all the property owners that live on Price Street, and they're all against it. That's all I have to say. We like the way of life out there. We like the low density. We like the ability to have animals. I myself own a nursery on Price Street. I couldn't afford to pay an assessment for a water sewer line that runs in front of my property. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Tom Zenz followed by Thomas Pizzuto. MR. ZENZ: Good morning. I live right down at the end of Price Street. I'm about ten acres away from this property. Like everybody said, the density is our biggest concern. There's a lot of concerns. There's drainage, the sewers, water, et cetera, et cetera. But my biggest problem is he's going to have 15 homes on five acres basically. Fifteen rental homes which are going to be, because he states they're for his employees. When you have 15 homes, you're going to have a minimum of two cars per household. That's 30 more cars on the street racing up and down. I mean, they said the traffic -- the roads can take the traffic, yes, but the neighborhood can't. That doubles our cars right now with 30 more cars. I have been in the Page 50 ~~-,,,.-,,,. - -,~.--..,"'--" "'~'-'~".-'~'--",~- .~-,.~~,-~.-~.,,----~.~, .--.--,,- November 3, 2005 rental business for about 21 years now, and you figure, with 15 homes being rentals, which they will be, there will be a minimum of five to six people per household. Five to six people with 15 homes, you're talking 75 to 90 people on five acres. That is a lot of people on five acres. That's a lot of people on 20 acres. I mean, is he going to live there and control his tenants and take care of the people? What about the noise, the trash? If you know anything about Price Street, we're next to Rookery Bay. We have 50,000 acres of nothing but preserve. You make one noise out there, it echoes the whole street. Like a lot of the neighbors have said, we moved out there for one reason, it was zoned agriculture. Less density, less congestion. The nice private -- you can have a nursery, you can have a horse. I mean, if you go down the street and you see the houses -- I've been out there 18 years. There are some old houses that have been there for 40, 50 years. But as the neighborhood is being changed, new people are buying the old houses, remodeling them. The square footage has gone up considerably. These houses he's going to build are 1600 square feet he says, and that's probably including the garage, which is a single car garage, so where are all the cars going to park? You see the cul-de-sac? I mean, you know there's at least two cars per household. I mean, they're going to be parking all over the cul-de-sac and if there's a fire -- as one of the gentleman said, they can't get through there. I mean, it's just ridiculous. Like I said, it's zoned agriculture, it should stay agriculture. He's not conforming with the neighborhood, he's going to devastate the neighborhood. Everything he's doing is nothing but for himself. It doesn't benefit any of us. It's all for greed. And it's all it is. Unfortunately this county has gotten that way. All these developers come in here, and they don't care, they're just going to build where they want to build because they don't live there. It's not to my benefit. I mean, they don't care about the neighborhood. As I said, half of us have been out there for 15,20 years or longer and It's really sad that if this gets approved what he'll do to our neighborhood. Page 51 '^"," "...._~,., ,.O"_".,."....~_."'_,,,_._,~,. ._,.,---"..,--_..,"--,-,,..~,,.- November 3, 2005 I mean, if this stays agriculture, I can see it ten years from down the road, this could be a Pine Ridge on the south end. It's a very unique area. It's agriculture. I mean, it's close to things. I mean, I don't know -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you have a legal person there. I mean, places like Golden Gate Estates and Pine Ridge, they're zoned the same thing and this is prohibited in their neighborhood. Somebody couldn't go up in Golden Gate and buy 50 acres and build a development right in the middle of it, so why should it be prohibited in our neighborhood? This is, like I said, I can see if he was doing it to go in there to build five estate homes and make just as much money and sell them individually. He's going there for one reason and he knew when he bought this property two, three years ago that he was going to go in there with a rental community. Low income, we don't need low income. His employees, which he's talking about his employees, you have Trail Acres which is low income, you have Naples Manor which is low income, you have Habitat which is low income. I mean, how much low income does east south Naples need? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can just start wrapping up your presentation. MR. BREMERMAN: But I'm just saying, as I says, I mean, to me it's absurd that this is even going to be thought of. Because, as I says, drive down the neighborhood and you can see how this is going to devastate the whole neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I appreciate it. Ray, is there any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Three more speakers. Thomas Pizzuto followed by Helen Richardson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we start with the next speaker, court reporter, we were going to -- I try to break every hour and a half. Are you going to make it through to hear this particular issue, or do you want us to stop now and give you a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Please continue. Thank you. Page 52 -<~-~,,~"-".".'-"-~, ~."""'~'--""--- ' __.~""<_._'"N'_'",_,_,~_---,,,-__ November 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Go ahead, sir, please state your name. MR. PIZZUTO: My name is Tom Pizzuto. I live at 217 Price Street. I'd like to point out where I live if you could see -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN certainly. MR. PIZZUTO: I'm right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to come back to the speaker now, SIr. MR. PIZZUTO: There's exactly 500 feet from my house -- the line and my house across the gentleman's -- not this gentleman. Mr. Ford's land right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to stay by the speaker, sir. Unfortunately, we can't hear you unless you use the one on the wall over there. MR. PIZZUTO: Thank you. I'm 500 feet from my borderline to this project right here. When these people here -- when I bought this, there was a swath all the way through here. This swath has since been filled in here and the swath above that. So the water that comes from the hurricane this season here and the rain, our back lots right here, our back lots -- myself and my neighbor, we're getting flooded. We have a dike here and we're -- the water is staying right in here. It has no place to go. So what my concern is, when this gets filled in here and this, this water is already in here because it has no place to go because of the -- of the dike that they made up here. Our swale is completely filled in. And these people over here -- I don't have my photographs, but during the storm, I took pictures right down here where the sign is, and the water was right across the road. By building houses here, this water and the water that's coming from the rain, this is going to take -- by filling this in, it's going to take all the -- it's going to take where the water should have gone. And we're in that coastal zone. So what I'm saying is, these houses right here were like my back lot. I can only use just a portion of my land now because of the Page 53 "._"<...._~-""""-".""""-_._"".,._, November 3, 2005 way the water is settling in there and no place to go. So, you know, by filing that swath in, and then he's going to do it here and here and here, these people here had a foot of water when I went down and took pictures. Unfortunately, I had 20 things on the picture so I didn't have them developed. If there's other meetings I will bring them. So, you know, that's what my main concern is the water problem. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN? Thank you, sir. Ray, any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Harlene Richardson followed by Bruce Richardson. MS. RICHARDSON: My name is Harlene Richardson. And like many of these people, I've lived a long time on Price Street. We live on the very west end of the street. There's no house beyond us. I'm going to try to stick to my notes and not strain my time restrictions. A development with 15 houses would be the wedge needed for similar developments on Price Street. In time, we would have the density of Golden Gate City and the problems of a low land area trying to absorb the water runoff. Our lot on which we have lived 28 years full time, year round, has standing water most of the rainy season. With the building and filling under all the added homes, I can only see the situation getting worse. A question came up when it was mentioned, who is going to maintain this environmental area on this property. And it seems to me that we're expecting people living in small homes on small lots to afford to have a neighborhood association that's going to maintain this larger area properly. I think that's unrealistic. Just aside, I don't think it can happen. Everybody else -- I'm seconding all the other remarks that have gone before, and thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Bruce Richardson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Mr. Richardson the last speaker? Page 54 "~-",~,--'-_.._"^,-,,,.~ . ,-_....,-~---,,--,- " '-'--"'~',,," .....M___.~_._ .--.,------'"- November 3, 2005 MR. BELLOWS: He's the last one registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: I'm Bruce Richardson. My address is 274 Price. I have to admire Mrs. Bremerman for her lack of ability to speak. She speaks very very well and has pretty much said everything that I would have said. Also I'll keep it short. I just want to point out some of the things that we're quite concerned about. One of which is the expense that would be involved in sewer and water payments that we would have to make to have the -- have the piping put in. Also, I want to point out that there was a similar situation that arose. I think it was in 1974 out in Golden Gate before the estate zoning situation developed. A man named Joe Slosch built several houses on Castle Drive and Castle Road. They're still there. And I think that that was what precipitated the commission to vote to make estate zoning out there. And this is a similar situation. The commission recognized the fact that the Golden Gate area was an area of where large tracts were with single families on a large tract would be the way to go. Now we're asking that the same thing be done for our area. I just want to point out also that we live in a bit of a hollow down where we were. And although the road was paved since we moved there, and the engineers on the job at the time told us that the flow was from west to east, we see it every time it rains hard flowing to the west to our area. I won't take any more of your time because everything that I wanted to say has been said and said very well by previous speakers. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. That's the end of the public speakers. MS. REUTER: May I say one more thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, yes, you can. You need to come to the podium, and it needs to be, please, not redundant, and short. MS. REUTER: Sue Reuter. When Mr. Pizzuto mentioned his Page 55 . ------..."..- "-""-""~'" _"Mn._e_',,,," "--'""->.' ". '. ,"~---,..._------ November 3, 2005 land was in the back there, his -- he was right here. Well, I am right here. There was a ditch going from Barefoot Williams all the way down to the big main ditch. When they started filling in, and they filled in four feet higher than our property all along there, I got Tom Cook involved. He came out there. He told them that they had to put that ditch back in. Well, that has never happened. They moved in trailers and we've had them out there several times and he insists they have to do it, but they never done it. So naturally, we get all the water from there already. Ifhe has to build, he's got to build higher. I mean, we're all going to be flooded out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. MS. REUTER: You can have your wand back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give him his microphone, too. He needs that. Thank you. Mr. Thornton, did you have any closing comments? Short. MR. THORNTON: I have a couple of comments. I'd first like to have the civil engineer address the water management issues. Joss de Lestang. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr -- please identify yourself and probably spell your last name. MR. De Lestang. Yes. My name is Joss -- sorry, I'm fighting a cold. My name is Joss de Lestang. I'm with Gulf Shore Engineering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you spell that, sir? MR. DE LESTANG: De Lestang is spelled D-E L-E-S-T-A-N-G. And, actually my full name is Jocelyn, J-()-<=-~-L-Y-~. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. D~ L~ST A~G: Well, like you, I've heard a lot of talk today about how this place gets flooded and I don't doubt it. It does get flooded. In fact, my best analysis -- my best analysis of this site is that in technical terms it would be what's called a net exporter, which Page 56 -'-~--'..",-_..._. ." _,,___"__..~",~.,..-.",..~ _.__', .__".,... ..._....._,-_~_o_h,"_ >-._._v_"_'" , '-----~_._- November 3, 2005 means that under normal conditions, or existing conditions like we have right now, this site actually produces, or has more runoff than it stores on its own, within its own boundaries. And I have to say that also the best analysis we have of this site right now is that after we are done, and we are concluded with this, a surface water management district, per district criteria, we should end up with two distinct parts. One part that is going to remain pretty much the same, which is the wetlands area, which is contiguous to the road. And we're going to have a controlled surface water management area in the back, which will be bermed off. And based on the analysis we have right now, I think that we should be at least point seven or point eight acre feet to the good. It means the site will remain an exporter. We cannot change that fact. In fact, it will increase the storage on this site to the good by point seven acre feet versus what we have right now. And the reason for this is, despite all we've heard, there are -- this is basic facts, is that we are going to store the water that falls on the controlled surface area, on controlled surface water management area up to a certain level, which is probably about seven feet, 6.9 or seven feet. That's where our berm would be before it discharges, which means that we have storage -- we are going to have, under proposed conditions, storage which now does not exist. So, in a way these folks are right, but in a fundamental way, they're also wrong. Because there will be better conditions for flood situations after versus what we have right now. Right now there is none. And this is -- I've tried to eliminate all the obstructions that we deal with, usually with these issues. You know, how much storage you can have in the depth. The water compacted depth of soil, because we are going to put fill. Just assume that we are fully limited conditions, which probably exist in a hundred year storm where you would have pretty much water right up to the ground and every drop of water becomes runoff. I would just focus on just the basic physics of it. How much storage are we going to have with the roadway with the lake, because the lake is going to be Page 57 "-_.,--_.~~~" " 'p",--,"-'-"" .-- -~,~_._"-"--- November 3,2005 staged -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you need to start wrapping up. This is a closing time of the meeting and I think you're getting into more detail than we've asked for. MR. DE LESTANG: All right. Okay. Well, anyway, the basic issue, a basic question for me that was brought up has to do with the storage and I think we're going to be to the good. And the second point I want to quickly make is, I believe we are 45 or 50-foot radius cul-de-sacs. I think it may even be 50, which, no fire department has reviewed this but I believe that's the standard for Collier County. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have questions, if I may? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do too, Mark. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Mr. Murray, go ahead. I'm just thinking -- before you ask, Bob. Ma'am, Ms. court reporter, we're running over the time we normally allocate for break for you. Are you okay with this? It's probably going to take 15, 20 minutes to finish this hearing up. THE COURT REPORTER: That's fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And now you've opened up some questions for me because this is a tease here. Bear with me because I'm going to try to build some knowledge for myself here. We're talking about this rectangle, and at the north side of the rectangle, or the north face of the rectangle, including that, all of that is going to be built up, up to FEMA standard, correct? MR. DE LESTANG: FEMA deals strictly with the house-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I understand that, so if you can't answer that somebody else must. What I'm trying to find out, sir, is that it was asserted that there was a natural swath before that allowed water to transit. And now if I understand this correctly, all of those lots will be built to appropriate height to permit somebody to reside Page 58 _.~,_._,. ,_.,~.;.-._,._,~-,,"---_._, , ..-.,.- .~"-- November 3, 2005 there. And that you're saying is a point seven retention excess from some __ I think you mentioned 100-year storm, but I find that difficult to understand how that would be enough. But what I'm concerned about is, are you reflecting just the rectangle of this property? You're not talking about taking any water from any other place; is that correct? MR. DE LESTANG: Yes. As I pointed out, the side is what we call a netex border, which means right now, the water run on the site, rainfall on this area is actually going through all sides. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct. That displaces, correct. Now that displacement will cease, will it not? MR. DE LESTANG: Well, the displacement will be less than what it is right now because we're still going to have -- we're still going to have excess over the site of what the site can hold. Then I use 100 year storm because that's the standard if you want to deal with flood issues. Can use a 25 year storm which is a much more frequent, but 100 year storm, it sort of stresses your system out and you see -- you look at the worst case scenario. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I won't pursue this much more, but I will tell you that my concern is, and perhaps others will be concerned about it, is that you seem to have established, this would seem to establish a log jam as it were for the displacement of water, and that to me is a serious issue. So I think somebody needs to tell me certainly how you will help the adjacent properties to retain their wetlands and to retain their -- there's no sheath flow possible. It's an impediment. And if it's only going to take care of its own, and the water, that excess has no place to go, what do we do? And I think the question was raised by the chair before about interconnect maybe. I don't know. We'll see. Would you -- MR. DE LESTANG: Yes. To my knowledge, we do not have a swale in the back. Right now the natural drainage for these lots, or for this site, taking out all the mobile home parks in the back and all the Page 59 ,..--" November 3, 2005 neighbors, is basically to the southeast, you know, for this whole area. On out to Rookery Bay eventually and a lot of overland flow. So, our natural out flow really is a ditch that runs along Price Street. And my sense of it is that the ditch moves very little, moves very slowly during the case that we are discussing. And I don't expect that to change. It's outside the scope of our project really to address. This may be more -- this is more of a region wide, certainly a larger scope than for a lot more than what we are trying to do. I focus my analysis on the limits of our lot, and our lot includes both the controlled area that we are proposing, where the lots are with the lake. And the part that is -- that we are not controlling, which is the wetlands. So the wetlands remain as now viable whenever there's excess water flowing staging from the ditch, it will flow into the wetlands as it does us now. Now, if the neighbors on the back feel that they have some interconnection between the east, the neighbors to the east or to the west, I have not seen evidence of that. And I think they said that the ditch, there used to be a ditch. It's no longer there. I have not seen evidence of that. I see right now that everything is flowing to the south. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer, did you have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, two quick numbers. Sir, what is the average elevation of this site? MR. DE LEST ANG: Well, it varies. The wetland areas, I'd say about three-and-a-half, and the wetland area is about 4.5. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the finished floor elevation that the buildings will have to be built at? MR. DE LESTANG: If you go based on FEMA, which is really going to be the trumping criteria, we're going to have eight, elevation of eight for building pads. But the roadways, we assume the minimum crown of road would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.9 to seven, you know, depending on how we fine tune the proj ect. Page 60 -"'--"-_."~"'-.'''''-''''''''''"''''-'''-'--''- November 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No other questions. Mr. Thornton, you have about two minutes if you want to wrap up. I need to get this over with. MR. THORNTON: Thank you. Just regarding the type of ownership of the remittal, or owned, that's not a relevant question with respect to a zoning issue. This -- I have a photo. Sort of helps point out. There was a comment made by one of the speakers that this wouldn't happen in Golden Gate because Golden Gate is designated differently under the comprehensive plan. This property is designated urban residential under the comprehensive plan. This photo where you can see Eagle Creek, you can see Lely, see the mobile home park is immediately north. These properties are eligible for higher densities because they have been designated that way under the comprehensive plan. The developer, in order to address affordable housing concerns, if there are any, voluntarily agrees to $1,000 contribution to affordable housing trust fund at the closing of each unit. $1,000 per unit upon the first sale of each unit. That would be $15,000. Any other comments, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Thornton. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question for staff, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And a quick one. And I don't know, Kay, if you can -- the gentleman representative of Mr. Curiale has just indicated what we know from our reading is that this land is designated urban and could be converted for that purpose. What troubles me is that it's also well understood that it's a wetland area and our -- I think it has to be understood, certainly by me, what we're doing to the flow of water. Is that taken into consideration in all of this? In other words, when the county platted this all out -- I think it needs to be clear to certainly the audience members, if not myself. Page 61 _....."_._-~_._,--"-,, November 3,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Commissioner, just so you understand, yes, this has to go through all the appropriate permitting through state and federal agencies. I'm not sure on this case. Maybe Kay can clarify if it's deemed jurisdictional wetlands under the Corps section 44 permitting but, even if it is not, it still has to go through the appropriate permitting and review through South Florida Water Management District, and deal with all of the water runoff issues. And in fact, as I would think you know, that any development has to contain and maintain and deal with the water within it's bound. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that. And because it was designated as urban, it was intended that certain structures would be built on it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, we're finished with the public speakers and I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to move that we pass this on with the recommendation for denial because it's incompatible with the surrounding houses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Midney, seconded by Commissioner Tuff. Discussion? I would be supporting the motion because I believe it doesn't meet the GNP pursuant to objective 1.5 of the drainage sub element, 5.2 of the transportation element, policy of 5.4 of the future land use element, objective 1.5 of the capital improvement element. That's my reasons. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: To take that further, I, according to our rezone finding, I think it will create an isolated district of intensity. I think there are no changing conditions in Collier County that make this amendment necessary. I think it will absolutely adversely alter the neighborhood living conditions. I think it will Page 62 .. --_..._._,~-~._" ~--,,-, "' _." ~'_'_L~~_ November 3, 2005 more than double traffic on this -- with this one parcel, and there are other parcels yet to be developed on Price Street. I think the drainage issue is very serious and one that should be resolved before any project is put forth on this piece of property. I think it will affect the property values for the neighbors. I think that there is no reasons why the property cannot be used with the current zoning on it. Nobody has brought forth any information that says that they cannot use it as Ag zone. I think that the street is filled with single family homes on large lots and this will further be out of scale. And I think it's, according to number 15, it's absolutely possible to find other property in this county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would add one other thing. I think at a time in the past this was designated as urban and probably the presumption was that all of the land could be built upon. It's a coastal high hazard area. I think by adding more and more homes in that area and exacerbating a potential problem for people getting out in the event of a storm, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, that's a good reason why we should decline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Call the question -- oh, Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd just like to add one more thing. I live in a very similar neighborhood. I live -- I've lived for 19 years on a rural Ag area street with one unit per five acres. and at first I asked myself, you know, if they wanted to build something like this on my street, how would I feel about it. And I thought, well, you know, on my side of the street it's Ag, one unit per five acres, but on the other street, we do have duplexes, and we have 16 units where, you know, families who are working class can have a safe. Quiet neighborhood to raise their kids. But the reason I'm against this is because he's asking for a rezone. It's not the fact of that it's already zoned Ag and they're trying to changes it to RSF-4. And I think there Page 63 ___'~'.m__."... -_.'^_.....~._~-_..,-" _'_d",._"",~_,____",,_ November 3, 2005 are plenty of areas that are already zoned that to be able to put a development of this type. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Paul. Okay. Motions are made and seconded. All those in favor of a recommendation for denial, please signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those against the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion passes eight to zero. Thank you all. With that being said, this commission will take a break for 15 minutes to 10:45. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll resume our meeting, 10:45. Next issue is PUDZ-2004-AR-7299, the Manchester Square PUD. For those individuals wishing to testify on this particular motion, would you please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any disclosure on the part of the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, WCI is a client of mine. They have a potential contract on this property so I have to Page 64 .....-....,..".---.......-. ""'o""'~_""'--'__,__~.",_"".__." M".~,~,...~,_.,_,_ November 3, 2005 recuse myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are you going to file -- oh, I see you got the papers. Good. Are there any other disclosures? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich. MR. VIGLIOTTI: So did I at the break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I too talked to Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold. Any other disclosure? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move forward with the meeting, the applicant. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me also is Wayne Arnold and representatives of WCI if they need to speak. The property is approximately 36.9 acres. It's located on Livingston Road. On the visualizer, I guess if you pull out a little, Ray, you can see a -- get a better feel for the location. The property is immediately adj acent to the Community School, which is to the south. To the west and north are some groves. Then across the street is some estate lots. It's at the northwest quadrant of Osceola Trail Boulevard and Livingston Road. Osceola Trail Boulevard is a road owned by Collier County Public Schools and not a road that the county has any jurisdiction over, nor do we have any ability to connect to that road without the school board's approval. And my understanding is that the school board does not want to allow our project to connect to Osceola Trail Boulevard, although we think it's a good idea and would like to do that, but right now that's not an option for us. The property is in the urban area. It's eligible for a density of four units per acre. There are no density reductions applicable to this property under the comprehensive plan. Our access will be off of Livingston. Here's -- I'm putting on the visualizer the master plan. It will be on the northern portion of our property, so that would be our Page 65 ._~.__.~-".,. , ._...~,.".""""=-""'---,.~ November 3, 2005 access point. And as I mentioned, we don't have the ability to interconnect with Osceola Trail Boulevard. The R -1 portion of the property will be developed with either single family or two family dwelling units with a maximum height of 35 feet. The R-2 portion of the property closest to the FP&L easement will be, also allow multi family uses with a maximum height of 45 feet, and that zoned height for purposes of the petition. There are two modifications, or, I guess clarifications that I'd like to make to the PUD document. One is to table one. I notice that we have a footnote number six that addresses distance from a sidewalk, but it's not reflected in the table. That needs to -- footnote needs to be referenced in the minimum yard requirement to make it clear that we need to be 23 feet from a sidewalk. It's in the -- it's in the footnotes, but it's not shown on the table. And then second we met with county staff regarding our requested deviation for the parking requirements, for the recreational parcel. And as you can see, this is not a very big parcel of property. It's 36 acres but eight of those acres is really an FP &L easement. So, the area in which development is occurring is rather compact. The furthest home that would be built on the southern R -1 tract would only be about 1,000 feet from the recreational facility. We had asked staff for a reduction in just providing 33 percent of the required parking spaces, eight. We would need 21. We have talked with staff, and based upon the relative closeness of all the properties to the recreational parcel, and the, you know, the sidewalk system that we have in place to make sure everybody can get safely to the recreational parcel, they have agreed that a deviation requesting -- that we have to provide 75 percent of the required parking versus the 33 percent that we originally had requested. I think that's roughly 15 parking spaces versus the eight we had requested. Staff can support that. We believe it's justified based on our experience in other communities. The parking spaces are rarely used anyway. We think that 15 will be more Page 66 " _w",_,',v~_,"~_._,~ --,...~~."_._-~.., "_-.n_________ November 3, 2005 than enough to accommodate the people using the facilities. I mean, we're trying to encourage people to actually, if they're actually using the facility for recreational purposes, one would hope that they're not going to drive 1,000 feet to go play tennis or to use the workout equipment. We hope they can either walk or actually ride their bicycle that relatively short distance. So I think staff is in support of that. Staff has supported our other two deviations. Your staff report is very complete. I don't think there -- we haven't asked for anything as far as the deviations that are not typical deviations. And with that, I'll conclude my presentation. And if you have any specific questions regarding the proj ect or the PUD documents, we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioners? Richard, PUD documents, item 2.12Bl, and it's probably clear to you, maybe it needs to be -- I mean, I know after reading the balance of the document, I may have read it wrong. But under B 1 it talks about a 12-foot setback under general permitted uses. I just want to make sure that doesn't apply to your residential uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. That's just for the general permit uses throughout the document. It does not contradict the table one requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I wanted to verify. And on your table one requirement, you've said something here that I think is okay. I just want staff to verify that it means the same thing. Usually when we see building height, we see three stories not to exceed 45 feet. In this case it says 45 feet not to exceed three stories. Is there any difference from a staff perspective as to the meaning of that? I mean, as long as it's the same thing, I'm comfortable with that. I just haven't seen it. You just twisted -- you just reversed the words and I just thought it was odd. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'll tell you, the way it came out that way, the original table was 45 feet, and then there was the Page 67 ~"~'--""-"'''''''"'"-'---_.__. ----_..,---.-_.~~... November 3,2005 clarification not to exceed three stories, so that's how that came about. So we couldn't put four stories within 45 feet. So that's what that clarification was intended to do. And Mr. Strain, I did forget one other thing that we committed to and that will be added to the PUD document if it's okay, or do you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead. I would probably ask the same question. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I have specific language. You know, WCI actually was the first petitioner to volunteer to address affordable housing within the project. And with that they had agreed on Sabal Bay that we would contribute $1,000 from each closing to the county's affordable housing trust fund, or whatever fund the county decides they want to do, but we put the affordable housing trust fund. We have that commitment for this document as well. I've got specific language to hand out so we're all clear as to what the commitment is. And if I can hand that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, I'd like to see it. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But, yes, I meant to address that in my remarks. And that will be added to Section 5.8 of the PUD document. Sorry to interrupt your questions. MR. WHITE: If I may go back to the table and just note for the record that the building height would be the maximum zoned building height, not actual. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what I wanted to clarify. And if we need to make that note, we'll do that. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: I have just been provided what is proposed as Section 5.8 text for affordable housing. I believe Mr. Y ovanovich and other projects, and certainly my comments in our projects as well as assistant county attorney Student-Stirling has been that, the provision Page 68 ~_...,.,-- .......".,."._-,..""... November 3, 2005 dealing in the second sentence, the last phrase that reads, and shall fully mitigate the demand on affordable housing attributed to the Manchester Square RPUD development is, I believe, problematic in the sense that I think it's attempting to anticipate what may be subsequent regulations the county may choose to enact, in that sense may be violative of the concerns about contract zoning. So I don't know what Mr. Y ovanovich's opinion is about that, but I just wanted to raise it as a concern since I've just had it handed to me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I can tell you that in my discussions with Ms. Student, that issue has never come up. Her issue has been since I didn't provide that specific language to the planning commission when we originally made the offer, she was not going to support the inclusion of that sentence clarifying that this is our obligation, that we have satisfied our obligation. It's not been in -- she's never said, Rich, you can't do this. She said, you didn't see it. At the planning commission you can't add that qualifier later on. One thing we're trying to protect ourselves against is, you know, we've said this before, no good deed goes unpunished. We have come forward, volunteered to do this, and then 10 and behold if the county decides to adopt some type of fee that's applicable to either affordable housing, work force housing or whatever, we not only had to pay that fee, we also have to pay the $1,000 fee that we voluntarily agreed to pay. And that wouldn't be fair. It wouldn't be right. We wanted to make sure since we were corporate good citizens in volunteering to do that that we somehow didn't shoot ourselves in the foot and have to do -- go above and beyond what the county may decide to do. I mean, if the county fee is less, we're still doing $1,000. If the county fee is more, you know, we -- we're the first ones out. We're trying to get this set and resolved. MR. ADELSTEIN: Rich, would it bother you at all if you just take out the word demands? Read it, shall full mitigate -- mitigatoin on affordable housing instead of demand. There's no demands on this. Page 69 '.'.'~^~_"~'"""'_""""'V~.~___"_". ~.,..,.."..__._=""~-~.-... "-"'-''''--'''._--'._' November 3, 2005 This isn't a demand. MR. MIDNEY: I would agree with that too. We're not demanding you do anything. You're offering and, you know, we're saying that we appreciate it and taking that into account as one of the factors that we consider. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And you're also saying shall fully mitigate, which is the same thing you're saying that they can't hit you a second time, but not demands. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. That's fine. You're right, it was our -- we volunteered to do this. MR. MIDNEY: Nobody demanded that anybody do anything. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, you're right, but, we all know we need to address this situation. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think this should be considered, the $1,000 should be considered a credit. If the county should increase its fees, then you've got $1,000 per unit credit. But it certainly would not, should not exempt you from any increases in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, Richard, when this first came up, that was where I thought this was going too. Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but in order to respond to Mr. Y ovanovich and Commissioner Caron's comments, that is in fact precisely what I suggested by way of email to Mr. Yovanovich and others on other cases. And it may in fact have been this case. I can't recall that certainly the time to raise this issue is at the point when this type of proposed legislation would come forward. I understand their desire to try to do so, and that it is indeed voluntary and it's not a demand. All I'm simply saying is that I don't believe that it's legally appropriate to attempt to bind the present board in terms of what it may choose to do in the future or some subsequent board may choose to do. MR. yaV ANOVICH: Are you -- Page 70 '" '''W_C__'~''''''~_'____.___.____,.,..... November 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: There has to be some language that you all can come to agreement. Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me make a suggestion to you, Richard. Under the first paragraph, the last sentence, if you take -- if you put a period after the words trust fund and strike the rest of that line, and in the bottom the last sentence it says, the payment of the sums set forth in this section shall, and drop the words fully satisfy and substitute those with reflect a credit to any of the project's obligations, that I think covers it. Basically this becomes a credit if any kind of fee in the future is established prior to the buildout of this project, and the mitigation as far as this being the only mitigation, it only affects it if nothing else is adopted. MR. WHITE: I think that's a wonderful suggestion as a matter of policy in terms of a recommendation by this commission to the Board of County Commissioners. But I still believe that it offends the notions of contract zoning that are prohibited because it likewise attempts to bind the future board to treat this contribution, voluntarily made as a then legislative credit. If you're following what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well what I hope you're not saying is-- MR. WHITE: The, quote, evil here, if there is one, and I don't mean it in a negative sense, but the thing that offends principles of contract zoning is the idea that a present condition imposed by this commission or the board would somehow prevent the determination that would occur later in time because new legislation -- I agree with you that it's probably a wonderful recommendation and an appropriate policy that whatever legislation the board may choose to enact, and, in fact, the draft versions I've seen included is text for a credit for any previously made voluntary contribution. The difficulty is trying to put it in stone in this PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, all we want to make sure is, if I can, and I think your language is okay, Mr. Strain. The concept is clearly there. Page 71 .' "-"--_..,._.,~. ,. _._''''_.^..'''~~-,,---, ^ 0' ~"""~"';.''"''"''''''_'___'''_''>''''"' " .----.--....--.,.--.-- November 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want you guys paying twice. That would be totally unfair. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And all we want to be -- we want to be treated the same as everybody else who's made this commitment. And I don't think that we are, okay, because they -- I know for the projects that I've been involved in, we've talked to Margie and Margie said, since you didn't say you were fully exempt from it at the planning commission, she's not going to support it going to go the Board of County Commissioners. So we know that we're going to get a credit on Sabal Bay. I guess if you guys do the same thing on this one, it will be on this one. But I believe there's another project that went through on the same day and they have fully exempt language in it. And all we're asking for is we're treated the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That they be treated the same. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or we all -- everybody be treated the same. If we're all going to get a credit, fine. If we're exempt, fine. Just treat us fair. We're going above and beyond. We kind of set the standard, if you will, for all residential and commercial projects to come through and address this issue well in advance of the county itself doing this. And we should get some positive recognition for that and not run the risk of somehow being punished for doing this. MR. WHITE: I think there's a way to do that. And I fully support what everyone is attempting to do. My job is to make sure we stay on the -- the side of the law that I know from precedence is the one where the county has to stand. And if Mr. Yovanovich would accept the condition that says that the developer would be entitled to any credit that would be in subsequent legislation, that would cure it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know -- that's saying the same thing just in a legal term. MR. WHITE: It's not exactly the same, but that to me comes up to the line but does not cross it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I was -- as an alternative maybe Page 72 .____...~,__.._v_.._..~_..__._.._, "'__W"_...__.u -----_..^..>.,>...."._-_..".._..,.~-- November 3,2005 we just recommend, we accept the contribution and between now and the time of the BCC hearing you guys can work out the language. Is that a solution? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think it's clear that everybody's intent is that if a fee is adopted in the future at a minimum, we're going to get a credit for the $1,000 commitment we've made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we understand that if that fee is $500, we've committed to more than that. If the fee is $1,500, we would pay $500. Is that the intent of the planning commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: The intent of this board. MR. WHITE: Certainly that's the intent of the specific phrase that I suggested would be appropriate. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I think that's what Mr. Strain's language did as well. And I would like, since there's apparently a fee that's being drafted that perhaps we make sure that there's direction to the county attorney's office to include such a provision in the legislation that -- and maybe there already is, Mr. White, I don't know, but at lease we encourage them to include that kind of language in the legislation so there's no ambiguity in the future, that would be helpful. MR. WHITE: My understanding is that it will include such a credit. That will certainly be my recommendation as far as text to make, not only these voluntary contributions to give them the appropriate credit not financially, but in terms of the social good that's being done here. And also to assure that they're lawful. So, I have a draft, I've committed to Mr. Y ovanovich previously that he will see those drafts as they evolve so he can assure himself. And I want him to recognize that his clients should be likewise assured that if the board comes forward with any type of a credit that this project can lawfully include a condition or a stipulation, that they're entitled to that credit. Page 73 , .__,_.,'"'._.."....".N_.."~H_.-.-~_ "".~, ~^."..,->."".._..,,_."'--~._,.,-"'""'..,--_._,-,_. .,,~_.,~- November 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's -- Richard, rather than rewriting the PUD and the legal documents here, when we get the stipulations, I'm assuming we'll stipulate we accept your contribution and let the language get worked out before it hits the BCC hearing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had one other question on your PUD. It's footnote number one on the table. It said, principal in accessory structures on waterfront lots shall be permitted to be constructed up to but not encroaching into a drainage easement. And it gets back to the words shall and may. Would the word may be better used than shall? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Footnote number one. That way we're not required to go all the way up there, we can, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This gives you the flexibility so no one questions it in the future if you want that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the questions I have. Is there any other questions from other members of the applicant? If not, let's have the staff record. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem. I'm a principal planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. You have the staff report. And I won't belabor the issues. The petitioner has gone over what the proposal is and staff is recommending that it be found consistent with the LDC, and we are recommending approval for the adoption of the PUD document as you have amended it today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, in the language in your staff report I didn't see -- I saw transportation, utilities, zoning, comp planning. I didn't see EOC's comments. Were there any? I mean, I know the answer. MS. DESELEM: EOC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Emergency operations. Emergency Management. In regards to hurricane evacuation routes. Page 74 . -_._,-,-"---",.._._,--,----.__._~-~ '_''''~_~_''''_''''__''H''_ ~'."~"__~'N ... ~~-,',,"- --~------~-~-,---,--,--" November 3,2005 MS. DESELEM: I don't know if this went to them for review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to ask that question. In the future it would be nice, I think for all of us, unless someone objects, that staff just put a footnote in there that they reviewed it so we know that at least that party has also looked at it. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'll have the templates revised to have that a mandatory response. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for the record it will be a good thing to do in the future so anybody that looks back to see how the zonings occurred during any kind of event, they know that that was at least addressed. Okay. That's all the question I have. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Actually, not to you, Kay. It's my concern is the school board and the conditions that prohibit good interconnectivity. It's not the first time I've heard that they don't want that, and I would like to hear what the school board's judgments are and see whether or not that falls or rises to whatever appropriate level. It has to be a reason why they deny interconnectivity. I think I want it on the record, if we can have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray, do we have registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: We just have one registered speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is the school board a registered speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll address that when the school board speaker rises. Kay, is there any other questions of staff report that Kay can answer? MS. DESELEM: I forgot to mention one thing, staff is agreeable with the deviation number three as amended by the petitioner. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Oh, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The requirement that the Page 75 -..--,.-~-". .. ."-_.""~_._.~...,.",_..-.----_..__..,,, __<"M''''_',~_,_,,__~ ~ ,--"----~~'''~.'"-~-".._, November 3, 2005 parking be at 5 percent. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay. Hearing no other questions from Kay, Ray -- yeah, we'll have the public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Amy Taylor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guess what you're going to be asked, Amy. MS. TAYLOR: I will directly get to that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. TAYLOR: For the record, my name is Amy Taylor and I am representing the Collier County School District. There are two issues. This property in particular is different from any other property that the school district owns in Collier County. This property, it actually has as part of its deed a reverter clause. And I will read that to you, the language. The deed is subject to a public use restriction stated in a covenant as follows. To have and to hold the same in fee simple as long as the premises are used solely for public school purposes. And it continues, a violation of the public use restriction results in an automatic reversion of the title of the property to the state. There is another point in this. I believe Mr. Y ovanovich was representing the Community School in a transaction that was made a number of years ago. And this reflects the difficulty, and actually also the purposefulness of a language change. It was a modification in 2003. In 2003 we were -- I don't know who approached who, but we had always wanted an access onto Livingston Road, particularly as a service driveway for buses and for food deliveries and so on, because we also have our main transportation facility on the Osceola -- I mean, on the Barron Collier campus. This was done in 2003. And what it required was, number one, school board approval, but more importantly, it needed approval and a modification to the deed by the governor's cabinet. This was a very long process and it was agreed to with the stipulation that the reverter clause be transferred on the traded Page 76 '___~"_^_"~~F'~"'__,"~"_",~" - "'._-"'--'-'-'~ ---~--~-"'-~~-.~".~-".-._...._".._. " ,..,-.-..- November 3, 2005 property to this driveway. So the reverter clause, the modification, specifically named this public access. So, that ties our hands there. So number one, school board approval. Number two, it would have to go to the governor's cabinet, and the reason why the governor's cabinet, from what I understand, you know, acknowledged that this was okay, was, you know, there was a trade in property and also this was, you know, this was, Albeit a private school, it was for educational purposes. So again, our hands are tied. And also, I do have a letter from my executive director, and also an email that I sent to your staff, bus transportation and Ms. Deselem regarding and explaining that reverter clause, but also a letter from our executive director that I'd like to submit for the record. I can read that to you as well. Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, this is to advise that the school district of Collier County Florida does not approve and has not authorized the use of Osceola Trail, a private drive, for Livingston Road access by any parties other than the school district and the Community School. We have a record of working with transportation and working with private developers. One that just comes to mind immediately, and I can't remember the name of the developer, but it's the access to Pine Ridge Middle School. We allow -- that's also a private drive. And it didn't have that restriction by the state and so on and so forth, that reverter clause. So, in some cases we can do that. The process though is to go through the school board and to get approval from the school board and allow for staff to run an analysis of the impact because we have buses, or the maintaining of the road and so forth. And it is a private driveway. It would be like any private driveway to a business and not a roadway. The other aspect of it too -- well, I just want to make a suggestion. In the document itself it shows that the access is a potential access to the development from Osceola Trail. As I understand the way PUDs work, this would mean that the applicant Page 77 --.._-_._,-_..,,,-,,...~>-,., .- .._..~...""",...,_...'_-"."_.., . "~'~m__'_~,___._._,. . ._-_._,,---.__.'~.. November 3, 2005 would not have to come in for a PUD amendment. We request that that be removed as the potential access until, and if, they go through such a process so it can be forwarded through the proper channels first, staff administration, school board, and the state. As an alternative, which, you know, I would prefer the former, but as an alternative, if there would be language in the PUD document explaining about the reverter clause and the process of approval that would need to be undertaken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, legally, Amy, if there is a reverter clause and they can't tie in, what difference does it make whether it's been stipulated that way in the PUD or not? MS. TAYLOR: Right. And that's why I would ask the former that it just be removed as a potential access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on the other hand, to show it as a potential access means that at some time in the future, if this particular client wants to go to the person who holds that reverter clause and work out a side agreement, a recordable document saying that allows them access, why would they have to go back in and go through this whole process all over again when it's only here now if they can provide the use for it. So I don't see any reason to remove it. MS. T A YLO R: Well, as a recommended -- as a recommending body of the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of County Commissioners making the ultimate decision, we would suggest that we would like to have that authority ourselves first to evaluate it as a potential, but then, you know, that the proper steps be taken, and that's what we request, not that it be reviewed by the school board and staff, taken to the governor's cabinet, and then, you know, or simultaneously with that process come in for a PUD amendment so that we can have that protection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Again, I thought that the school board was reviewing those applications under the current interlocal agreement that we have, and as well as house bill 360 even Page 78 .._~--_. ,- ,,~~,-~------ ----"--" November 3, 2005 strengthened your position. So now -- you guys haven't reviewed this? MS. TAYLOR: The applicants -- the application was submitted, we reviewed it, the applicant's representative came in and spoke with us and we explained to him in detail of our restrictions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then in your review of the locations that were shown on here, assuming they're going to be fairly close to what's here, did you have an objection to those? MS. TAYLOR: The reverer clause was the -- was the ultimate decision for us. They need to go through a process to -- that, you know, they would have to go through a process that they haven't entered into yet. And that's we want it removed from the PUD document. We evaluated it, and there are concerns about its impact on the road. It's not a road. It's actually a driveway. It's a service driveway. There's buses coming in and out of there, you know, all day long. And it's an alternate access to the schools on the site and the administrative building. It is a private driveway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Amy, if this property is owned by you, subject to reverter clause that someone else holds, even if they got past the owner of the reverter clause or holder, it seems to me as the owners of the property, they still have to get your approval anyway. So you've got the ultimate hammer, and I'm not sure why forcing them to come back through the system, if some day that's worked out there's any benefit for anybody to do that. You're going to be in control anyway. MS. TAYLOR: If that's how the full planning commission feels, we would just recommend that the process, the language of the reverter clause be included in the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think a simple condition that says those two access points can't be used unless we get authority from the school board addresses the issue. Now, obviously, there have been other situations where private developers have worked with the school Page 79 .'O-"'''''_'_"__''_..~__"'.____ November 3, 2005 board. Pine Ridge Middle School is a perfect example. I think Panther Lane or Drive, whatever it's called, that's another example. I mean, if the issue is the reverter clause, then let's talk to the governor of the cabinet about removing that language from the deed, and we're happy to do that. If that's the only issue, I think we can overcome that issue. If it's an issue of talking about maintenance of the private drive, I think we can overcome that issue. If there are the issues, then, you know, we can do that. If there's some other issue that we can never attain access, that we'll never be able to make the school board happy, or, you know, someone needs to just, you know, tell us and tell the planning commission that that's never going to happen. And if it's just the reverter issue we can -- we'll work with you on that at our expense, to go talk to the governor or cabinet about removing that language. MS. TAYLOR: Well, the issue of the reverter clause, if we could include that in the language, what we would fear is that, you know, I'm not saying that this is going to happen, but if it's allowed to go through without a public hearing, then it's not in the PUD document, that staff can catch, then it could slip through the cracks and we would be in a real difficult situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Amy, if the language, for example, that Richard is suggesting, the access points on Osceola cannot be used without the authority of the school board, that's stronger than another public hearing. What is there -- MS. TAYLOR: If that's the alternative that you would like to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it strengthens your position. MS. TAYLOR: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we're there with that one. Any other questions of Amy? Hearing none -- oh, any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing. Or, I'm sorry, Richard, did you want a moment to cross -- not Page 80 -,.,.,.__-...___..., .,- -,. '__"_'_.'m.'.._."_._",,,,_..~.'_~._ .' -_'."'_...'"_..__."....c__ """._H_. November 3, 2005 cross-examine -- rebut. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There you go again, taking away our job. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You'd get upset if I started cross-examining people. No. I assume that Amy's comments, she's not opposing the project at all. MS. TAYLOR: No, absolutely not. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-7299 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion has been made by Commissoner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Discussion. There's been a half a dozen stipulations. For the sake of others, I'll just read them off. And the rest of you if there's others, we can add more. The first one is the correction to the table involving the 23-foot setback from sidewalk. Number two is the deviation. Number three will be accepted based on 75 percent of the required parking space calculations. Number three, we'll accept -- we will recommend acception of affordable housing contribution of $1,000 per unit. Language specific to that will be worked out prior to the BCC meeting with the county attorney. Number four, the table where it represents the height will be represented by maximum zoned building height. Number five, footnote number one the word shall should be changed to may. Number six, language shall be added to the PUD. Access points on Osceola shall not be used without authority of the school board. That's all the notes I took on it. Are there any other comments from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just have a comment on Page 81 '-"__~'~''''^''''~''''''''''''''___,^'''d_' , .--.- November 3, 2005 the deviations. This is barely -- it's barely 40 acres here. And eight of it gets taken away immediately because of this FP &L easement. And it's obvious as every other developer who comes before us, they're trying to maximize everything that they can possibly maximize, which is the only reason that we have these deviations. And I think that we should deny all three deviations which would make the proj ect that goes in there actually more compatible with the land that they're trying to put the project on. I don't see any reason that this project can't go forward without the deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I, because the deviations for the most part reflect actions internal to the proj ect, I just don't see -- I don't have a concern with them myself, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Am I allowed to respond to that or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I think you can respond, Richard. You always seem to respond to things. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just wanted to follow the rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: As you know, you know, these are private roadways too. You know, and the roadway width is pretty much a standard deviation for private roads. This is not anything that you haven't seen probably hundreds of times. The sidewalk issue, as you know, working with staff to get them to agree to any deviations of the sidewalks is not the easiest thing to do. So I think they even realize that this is a unique proj ect to support a deviation of the sidewalk requirements. And, you know, finally -- actually, it's 37 acres, and if you take away eight, it's really 29 acres. The biggest -- you know, usually you have recreational facilities that are serving much larger proj ects where people are having and coming much greater distances to get to the recreational facilities. Our furthest point is 1,000 feet. I would hope that people would actually be able to walk 1,000 feet to use the recreational facilities they're using. Again, we're only asking for -- that number is 15 spaces versus 21. So it's a Page 82 _,_w~__~,.. __, M ____._.._~ November 3, 2005 reduction of six spaces. We probably will do more than 15, but we wanted to not commit to more than that. We'll probably be able to do more, but we're not sure on our site plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to run too far astray of the discussion. I think, Richard, you made your point. Any other comment from the commissioners? (N 0 response) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none we'll call for the motion. All those in favor of the recommendation of approval -- oh, I'm sorry, will the motion maker and the second accept the six stipulations that I read into the record a few minutes ago? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I approve them. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And on behalf -- that was accepted by the motion maker and the second. And on behalf of Commissioner Caron, her comments involving the removal of the three deviations, does the motion maker and the second wish to accept that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. then, no. Now with that, we'll take the vote on the motion. All those in favor of the motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody opposed. Motion passes eight Page 83 ""'~--"-'._""-'-""-""---'"'-'~".."-~'-'-"."-"....._. November 3, 2005 to zero. Thank you. MR. WHITE: Commissioners, each of you -- oh, assistant county attorney, Patrick White. Each of you have been provided a copy of Commissioner Schiffer's Form 8B for the last matter. It's just, if you read on here, it's a formality we have to follow. You can choose to keep them or not. We do keep the original with the minutes and recourse department as per the law. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is yours signed? MR. WHITE: Well, I think his is signed, it's just maybe he went to med school. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll get on with the regular agenda. Item number 9 is old business. There isn't any. Item number 10, a discussion from planning staff on the Immokalee master plan study. Randy, I guess you're in charge of that? MR. COHEN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the planning commission. Randy Cohen, interim comprehensive planning department director. You should have received a memorandum from Nicole Fernandez that spoke with respect to the Immokalee master plan envisioning committee which has been an ongoing process out in Immokalee for probably over three years now starting with some modifications to the Immokalee area master plan. I really want to kind of cut to the chase with respect to this. The Board of County Commissioners, based on a recommendation from the advisory board and the community redevelopment agency entered into a contract with the RNPK Group to in essence look at the Immokalee area with the intent of doing modifications to the Immokalee area master plan as well as the LDC. As part of this particular process, one of the avenues that's granted the CCPC is the ability to function as a focus group. The question is, when do you want to function as a focus group. The Board of County Commissioners chose to function as a focus group early on in the process and to provide RNPK Group with what that viewed as both being positive attributes in Immokalee, Page 84 ".~--_._,~.. November 3, 2005 which they wanted to see accented, as well as some of the negative things that they wanted to see improved. One of the things that will transpire subsequent to that Board of County Commissioners meeting is a lot of groups with -- a lot of meetings with different focus groups out in Immokalee. It seems to me from a staff perspective that it's probably fairly premature to have RNPK come to you as a focus group initially on and ask you for your questions. It may be more appropriate for them to come to you after they've gotten comments, not only from the Board of County Commissioners but also from the other focus groups on that particular area. Obviously, they need to come to you as a group and present something to you. The question becomes when did you want to see them. And as a staff, obviously, we're functioning more or less as a conduit between the consultant, you know, which is representing, obviously, the community redevelopment area and the Immokalee master plan envisioning committee and obviously the government itself. So we're in a role of facilitator here. And what I'm here before you today to do is ask what is your preference with respect to when you want to see a presentation, that initial presentation from the Immokalee master plan envisioning committee, you know, via the RNPK Group as a consultant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Randy, you said something about maybe the BCC should hear -- should get the comments before we get the comments. Would you clarify that for me? MR. COHEN: Well, the BCC actually met with RNPK Group already. They wanted to meet as a focus group and present them with what they felt were both the positive attributes in Immokalee, that they needed to accent as part of the potential modifications to the Immokalee area master plan and subsequent LDC amendments. And they also wanted them to look at, and they identified what they thought were some negative things that needed to be addressed and how to improve them. So, those comments actually were forthcoming last month to RNPK Group initially in a workshop. So they chose to Page 85 ._--_.,_._._~._-----,."".-'. November 3, 2005 go the initial route. That was a decision that they made. Obviously, you know, down the road there will be additional workshops where findings will be forthcoming, you know, from RNPK Group with respect to these focus groups, but the question becomes, you know, as a planning commission, obviously, you know, you're more involved and we don't want to see things transpire along the lines of what transpired in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area, and we want to make sure you have a good bite of the apple rather than, you know, providing initial comments which probably are going to need to go a little bit further. So, it's basically a choice. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question that follows that then. Would there be substantive minutes taken that could be shared with this commission? MR. COHEN: From the board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. COHEN: There were minutes taken of that meeting, correct. They can be provided to you. They're very general in nature in terms of the scope of what each commissioner felt were both positive aspects and negative aspects of what needed to be addressed, but they can be provided, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The meetings that are going on in Immokalee, Randy, with this group that RNPK is sharing or handling or representing, are they open to the public? MR. COHEN: Yes, they are. They will all be duly noticed. There is a series of focus groups that are set up in the contract that represent a broad spectrum of the community, everywhere from commercial businesses, agriculture interests. There's about eight or nine of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, any planning commission member that wanted to attend those meetings, could do so. MR. COHEN: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Customarily, we have received Page 86 ~---""... -,~"-"-,,,_..~_....,_..,, ~___"___O_".~,..,,~. November 3, 2005 information that has been somewhat digested by staff prior to it coming to us, meaning that the intricacies of the comprehensive plan applications in the land development code have been somewhat reviewed so we're not getting a document that's so raw that it's hard for us to really apprise its compatibility with the rest of the other documents. GNP and LDC. I don't know what focus I could provide more than what the citizens in Immokalee can provide. I would rather see what they're thinking at some point down the road than me to try to interj ect my thinking into theirs. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can I make a comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's why I was hoping you would. You live out there. MR. MIDNEY: Up until this point, all of the meetings have been on Wednesdays at 8:30 in the morning, and I have requested numerous times for them to offer a nighttime meeting so that working people could go to it. And they've refused. The comment that I got was, well, the people in the group have already set aside Wednesday mornings for their meetings and they're unwilling to change it. And I find that a big problem. So I'm interested in finding out about these other focus groups, because I haven't heard anything about it yet. MR. COHEN: Yes, Mr. Midney, you are correct in that you raised that point in the past. And I know the consultant with respect to the Immokalee master plan envisioning committee meetings when they met jointly with the TRA, those meetings have been during the day. The intent of the focus group is actually to have those particular meetings during the evening time, that way they'll, obviously, have as much public comment and public interaction as possible. And obviously, there's a lot of working class people out there that can't make meetings, or can't attend meetings during the day. So the intent would be to have those meetings facilitated during the evening hours. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I haven't been able to make any because I have a prior committment at that time. Page 87 .u__-".__...._._._....,__,~."..______~._ ..."_ - ......_.-.....,-,~..._~-"~.,..,.- November 3, 2005 MR. COHEN: And the other intent here, and Mr. Strain raises a very valid point, it would be premature for this board, obviously, to hear comments or meet with the RNPK Group until maybe all the comments are received from the focus group so there can be a compilation that you can actually take a look at to decipher and decide what's on the right track and what's not on the right track and give them some direction prior to them doing any proposed modifications to the Immokalee area master plan as well as subsequent LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was headed. MR. MIDNEY: How long of a time frame are you thinking for these focus groups and the public comment? MR. COHEN: If you give me a minute here, I'll let you know kind of the way the schedule is set up, and, obviously, you know, they sometimes to have a tendency to delay a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, whenever a meeting is scheduled in this issue, this board is supposed to vote on one particular issue when it involves Immokalee, and I'll read to you part of the LDC. It's 8.03.06. In order to provide convenience and promote public participation, meetings of the planning commission shall be held in the Immokalee area when matters pending before the planning commission are of sufficient concern to the Immokalee area to warrant such meetings. The planning commission shall by majority vote make such determination at one of its regularly scheduled meetings well enough in advanced to allow sufficient time to advertise such Immokalee meetings. And I would recommend, Randy, if this board would so approve before we finish our discussion today, that whenever this is scheduled, it be done so in an evening in Immokalee and that's where we will meet. So that will take some pre planning by county staff as well. MR. COHEN: Okay. Just to let you know, and I wanted to run Page 88 ~__.~"~,,=..w_.., ~--"..._---,~-".,,~-" . November 3, 2005 through the focus groups for you to let you know what's going to transpire out there. The groups of transportation, which obviously represent the transportation interest out there. Development, various population groups, there's an economic group, an education group as well made up of people, obviously in the community as well as school administrators. There's a civic/community pride group, a tourism group, recreation, and an environmental group. So there's a broad spectrum that's going to occur out there. What I was looking for is actually the timing in terms of how long they allocated for that particular portion of the focus group to actually take place. Hold on a second and I'll try to find that real quick. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the meantime, is it the chair's recommendation that for every one of those groups that this body would go to Immokalee? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. That's why we're waiting to find out when the groups are going to be finished compiling their data. And at some point we would be presented with a compilation that would have at last had some cursory input by staff so we're not heading down a direction that's going to be a waste of time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds good to me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, maybe what we can do is once he determines when that date is, we can have an evening meeting out in Immokalee with the people, they can hear it along with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's where I was going. MR. COHEN: One of the things I just went through, and I found it very quickly, from the inception of the project and dealing with the focus groups, and involving the initial CCPC meeting, what they did is they allocated 120 days total for all that to transpire. That may be a little bit -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tight. Conservative. Page 89 -''''''-'''' ,-"",~,--,-,,-,',"'.- November 3, 2005 MR. COHEN: Yeah. So what we will do is basically follow up the process of the focus groups, when they reach a final point in time, come back to you and actually ask you for a point in time when you would like to schedule a meeting out in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work. Mr. Schmitt, you had something to say? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. And Randy needs to just cover me on this as far as the details because originally the contract, or the contract currently was asking for a joint meeting between the planning commission and Board of County Commissioners. I kind of advised Randy, I would prefer that not happen. I'd rather have the planning commission handle it separately, probably with the residents and the planning commission, and the planning commission help guide, form and direct the contractors so when the presentation is made to the board, its already has your input. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would wholly agree with you. That's a great idea. MR. SCHMITT: I appreciate your support in that because I think sometimes the dynamics in a situation like this -- well, the planning commission can express things and move things in a different direction; with the board it becomes a little more, if I can use the word politicized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's a good recommendation. I would prefer, as one board member, that we do meet separately and not have a joint session. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And if we need to amend the contract, we'll do that, but I -- when your original letter came out I had Randy strike that from the letter because I really did not want to have a joint meeting. I thought it would be much better -- and I think the board would appreciate your separate input rather than bringing it forward, and then we'll let the board deal with it separately because the board is going to give us guidance, direction for LDC and some Page 90 -, ,,''''.,- ...~.- ~."."~.. .,<>_--.._....,-'~... November 3, 2005 other things. And I think you all will have a little bit more freedom in moving this thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Evidence from past meetings is any indication, I think you're absolutely right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. COHEN: And Joe is correct, the initial meeting was just the focus group meeting just with the planning commission, but the two subsequent meetings were supposed to be joint meetings, so we'll ask them to make the necessary modifications to the contract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I think the direction at this point, Randy, is you're going to come back to us within the future as these groups start to collate their information at a time when we can be more productive with something in front of us that has been developed. MR. COHEN: With the understanding that the meeting will be in Immokalee? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Is that okay with -- I think we actually need to make a motion that that meeting be held in Immokalee based on 8.03.06's language in the LDC. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney has moved. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Schiffer to have the meeting in Immokalee on this Immokalee master plan study. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the evening, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the evening. Is that right, Mr Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Evening meeting seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Any further discussion? MR. COHEN: Just to clarify, you know, because obviously, it's Page 91 >"~.H'_,""._~,__... ..,. _._,-- November 3, 2005 a larger working class out there in Immokalee. When we say evening, any particular time in the evening that you would like that to transpire? MR. MIDNEY: Seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven is fine with me. MR. COHEN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: What time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven o'clock. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Begin at seven? MR. COHEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Giving consideration for how much -- how long would the duration of the meeting be estimated to be? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever it takes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever it takes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're going to gain a respect for Paul's committment to come here, I'll tell you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just to let you know, he has come here early in the morning and gone home late at night and I think that's the least we can do for him, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think seven is kind of a minimum for people to be able to get, you know, changed from work and to get out. And I don't think, you know, a productive evening meeting can go longer than two or two-and-a-halfhours. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was the question. MR. MIDNEY: No, not an all night meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm sure that Randy is not going to schedule an all night meeting either. When you come back to us, come back with concise times and the starting time -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Starting time and then if it rolls over a half hour, that's fine. Page 92 -~ . -- November 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Starting point at time seven. MR. COHEN: Okay. That sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion had been made to hold the meeting in Immokalee starting at seven at a time -- I mean, a date to be predetermined, or determined in the future. That was made by Midney and it was seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All those in favor? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) MR. COHEN: Thank very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Well, Mr. Schmitt, we're going to be discussing among other things the scheduling of the AUIR. MR. SCHMITT: Let me bring Randy back up again because we're going to be looking at several dates. The calendar in front of you has been color coded. Hopefully you all have that. The board meeting, regular board meetings and regular planning commission meetings are all highlighted and the available dates. And, Randy, let's go through. The original date for the Board of County Commissioners AUIR -- well, your date was, and it's not on here, Randy. What date was the original? MR. COHEN: The original date for the CCPC workshop was November 22nd. And the board's original workshop was going to be on December 6th. MR. SCHMITT: What we're looking for is a date probably in Page 93 "...-,~~~-~ , -~_._~....,-"..,.~ November 3, 2005 December to do a planning commission AUIR. Several reasons for the delay, one of which of course was the days lost in Hurricane Wilma, but we've been -- it's been an interesting exercise as the county staff, and! or as the county commissioners become much more familiarized, we're beginning -- we've encountered some -- I'll call it non anomalies, but some disagreements among staff as far as population -- using population figures and insuring that methodology matched, what matched and what was used to calculate impact fees. And it's all kind of linked together as part of the CIE. So we want to make sure what we give you certainly is the best information possible. And we need to move this into the December time frame. Originally we were looking at the 6th of December since we had the chamber, but what dates do we have, Randy, that you want to go through? MR. COHEN: In the dates that we had actually, and I know they were somewhat problematic maybe because they were the holiday season in December. And I got these on the 31 st and I'm hoping they're still available, would be December 20th, 27th, 29th, and 30th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's for the AUIR for the BCC? MR. COHEN: For CCPC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what does the dark blue represent on here? It looks like you could be available on the 7th of December, the 9th and the 20th? MR. COHEN: Yeah. And that's when the chamber would be available. And we know from the standpoint of the 7th and the 9th that the material would not be ready in time for your review. We want to give you adequate time to review those particular documents before having that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 20th would be an acceptable date? MR. COHEN: It would be acceptable if it is acceptable to this commISSIon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just happened to notice it's on here Page 94 -"~_..~.,., November 3, 2005 and color coded and the ones you mentioned aren't. MR. COHEN: I didn't put this one together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm trying to follow it. MR. SCHMITT: We had several dates, but go ahead, yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, those dates are also available for LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was going to be another question. That's the next piece -- look at the AUIR. MR. SCHMITT: Let's get the AUIR first and then we can talk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just out of respect really for Paul, some of these we only have four items on the meeting day. Why don't we take lunch and come back an afternoon on either the 1 st or the 15th. There's no sense having Paul driving around town. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good idea. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We have one of the two dates with only four hearings. MR. SCHMITT: AUIR will probably run -- MR. COHEN: AUIR, I know the joint workshop last time, and it was a relatively long workshop went from 8:30 to 12:30 looking at the tapes last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and we didn't finish. MR. COHEN: I know you didn't finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In fact I had to submit five pages of written questions I wasn't allowed to ask and this time I'm going to ask them so-- , MR. SCHMITT: And I would hope so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I intend to. MR. SCHMITT: We need to drill through this thing pretty hard. MR. COHEN: And the 20th gives you adequate time both the Page 95 -._,,--,,~..,~~,',..-..,.. November 3, 2005 morning and afternoon. One of the keys here, and just from our standpoint, obviously, you know the Growth Management Act, you know, starting in December of 2007 is going to require our comprehensive -- our capital improvements element to be financially feasible. And in saying that, obviously this is the right step in actually beginning to get moving forward and dealing with the step of financial feasibility and getting us off on the right track and getting the A UIR consistent with what that requirement is going to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we consider doing the AUIR on say the 20th, but do the LDC meeting in the afternoon on one of our regular sessions, and that would actually work for Paul a little bit better too. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. Yeah, because Tuesdays I have a diabetes support group I lead. I can't miss it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you can't come on the 20th? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Tuesday mornings, no. But I'm just one member. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're an important member. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Very important, extremely important, but I'm only one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we always have these scheduling . Issues. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we're going to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He can come in the afternoon so we can get started and bring you up to date and finish the rest of the day. Let's try to do the 20th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the 20th work for the AUIR for everybody else? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So far pretty good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Silence is consent so looks like the 20th, Randy. MR. SCHMITT: And I would like to start at 9:00 and block the Page 96 -'---~'-'.'"-'''''''" November 3, 2005 entire day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I think you need to. MR. SCHMITT: Because I want you to appreciate we're somewhat the gatherers of the information and part of this is a lot of information coming from other constitutionals and other divisions, so, and I certainly, and I think the board would as well, appreciate you're diving into this, and then when we get to the board, we will have vetted most of the issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 20th is the date then. We'll start at 9:00 and continue and Mr. Midney will be here as quickly as he can be. MR. COHEN: And just for clarity sake I had two other questions. Obviously, one would be how much advance time do you want the document in your hand? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two months. MR. COHEN: And of course my answer to that is, you know, I'll defer to my colleague on a response for that. No, obviously, I know it's a larger document that has some intricacies and you may want some questions. I ask that question sincerely, how much time would you like to get and we'll try to meet that requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, I mean, that document to be read adequately has got to be read with a whole provision of other documents as well. So, as much advance notice as you can give us, we ought to have. So, it's not a matter of what we want. MR. COHEN: If I can get you a couple of weeks, I'll do it. MR. SCHMITT: My target is to get it to you in your hands by the 6th of December. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Randy, since these are kind of distinct elements, can you give us some of them ahead of time? I mean, to get a big book, if you can feed it to us. MR. COHEN: It may be possible in some of the areas to do just that. Page 97 -~, ",~'-"",,_.. .~.. November 3,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then we can get started, you know, pick the low fruit and then when, you know -- MR. SCHMITT: That's acceptable. We can provide it incrementally because some of it is -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That would be fine. MR. SCHMITT: Those that are most involved are water/sewer and we're having issues with EMS -- MR. COHEN: And possibly transportation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's how we study it. We study it part by part. So, if you could start sending the parts out as soon as they're completed, we could get a good idea. MR. SCHMITT: So what I would ask then for Randy and what we'll do is put a book together. We'll have it tabbed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Empty tabs. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, empty tabbed and we'll send you basically the skeleton book of what's completed. We can even do that here within the next ten days, five, ten days and as we complete the others, we'll send you those inserts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the first of December, if you could provide us at that meeting, we'll do it as an old business item on the agenda to give us an assessment of where you think you'll be. If you're running too far behind, then we need to push it back before the advertising goes in. That would be I think adequate notice because it's more than ten days in advance of the meeting. MR. SCHMITT: Just for the record, because we want to cover just so that the planning commission understands. Normally this is a December event. And we know now, and we've had in the past gone into January, but the rules, Randy, are basically it has to be done. MR. COHEN: If you really read 6.0202, and Mr. White may correct me on that, what it says in there is that we have to do an analysis of the AUIR on a calendar year basis. It really doesn't say that we have to present it during the calendar year. It's kind of a weird Page 98 --",~,._~.. ,~._-_.,>-,,",._.,,--,.- .---- November 3, 2005 reading of it. I think we're probably consistent with 6.0202. but, I'll defer to Mr. White on that one. MR. WHITE: I think what happens, although Randy may be correct about the interpretation and application of the provision is that you end up with that annual train wreck that the board suffers. And I think the desire here is to pragmatically proceed in as timely a manner as possible so that we're not running into that board train wreck. This ties of course into budget matters in the following fiscal year and it is something that we've talked about making more precise in terms of the text and the process in the LDC, but I think we're just asking for your help to do as best we can to get this to the board as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're there with the dates. MR. COHEN: And we'll let you know on December 1st where we stand. MR. SCHMITT: We'll put it on the agenda as basically an update status report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next issue is the land development code amendments that are hanging because of the hurricane. MR. SCHMITT: Well, Catherine may want to run those so we can log those in. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. Catherine Fabacher, LDC coordinator for Zoning & Land Development Review. Actually, we've done more work than you might think. And I think you've had sufficient time to study your packets. So let me say what we have left that's really going to be significant. We have a few definitions, a lot of housekeeping. We have the Bayshore 1 Drive and the Gateway triangle overlays, which we agreed we could do after the meeting to finish the rest of the packet. And that means at least two meetings, and it's a question of whether we'll need a third. We have the Golden Gate Parkway that Michelle talked about last time, the overlay now, and you have a pretty complete version. And I -- she's -- I think by the time we have Page 99 "..--.---'- November 3, 2005 the next meeting, she will have worked out those last couple of sections that are stamped. Beyond that, something, street lights with the engineering services. The rest is pretty much housekeeping, changing citations, scrivener errors. And then of course we have a couple of definitions that might be given some thorough consideration, as they usually are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, the 17th I know is going to be pretty packed for us. We're going to be taking the carryover items from October that were cancelled. MS. FABACHER: November? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, November 17th. MS. FABACHER: May I say this first though? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. FABACHER: We need to re-advertise 15 days in advance. So we can't get it by then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think you could. MS. FABACHER: Right. I'm just saying that we're at December. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My suggestion was, we have two meetings in December. The first and the 15th. They only have four items on them at this time. Why don't we schedule both afternoons. One being, the first one being the items that were continued from the week after the hurricane hit, or the day after, a few days after the hurricane hit, and the second one for any cleanup, including the Bayshore cleanup documents that we should have ready by that time. MS. FABACHER: That sounds reasonable to me. we absolutely have the chamber all day. Do you want to have a contingency plan for a third day, a third meeting in case? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can wait and see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's wait and see how the first goes. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Well, you know, the calendar is so Page 100 ,- -"~"""~'"- November 3, 2005 booked up for this room that I'm holding some dates -- the dates you see in blue I'm holding open, so -- I can continue to do that, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but we just know there's several dates in the week of the 26th, 27th, 28th, and 29th. Randy just told us some dates that aren't on here that apparently are open. If you want to block one of those afternoons just in case, that might be the way. MS. FABACHER: You mean between Christmas and New Years? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Didn't Randy say this room is open? MS. F ABACHER: It's probably open, but it's just kind of a weird time because if it's a public hearing -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: People could be out of town. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Just about everybody. MS. F ABACHER: It's just not a good idea to have a public hearing during the holidays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you guys just give me your proxies, I'll be here. MS. FABACHER: Well, you know, there's some stuff in January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then keep those dates in January. MS. FABACHER: Okay. I'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just go afternoons in January then. MS. FABACHER: And may I say, let me encourage you, if you have questions that you know we can maybe look at and staff, we could discuss before the meeting just to shorten those public hearings. We can bring you the answer there but if we could have some time to look at your concerns ahead of time, that would be much appreciated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Spoil the fun. MS. F ABACHER: Well, just because we have a lot to get through, and I mean, I think you see our next cycle starts around Page 101 .___~'H_' ...... -'"._~---,-~-" ,..----- November 3, 2005 March 17th, and I have to get it through the BCC and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the last item on new business. Public comment? Public is not here. Discussion of agenda of addenda. Nothing there. I'll make a motion we adjourn. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, can I make sure everybody understand -- of course, the meeting that was cancelled, most of these items due to the emergency and Pat, the advertisement criteria was all in place because of the emergency, there was no need to re-advertise, I believe, so you all understand. What's the issue so we can explain that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The meeting is scheduled for the 17th, right? MR. WHITE: As to any matters that were not heard by the planning commission, and then specifically continued to a date, time, and place certain must be re-advertised with the appropriate time, et cetera. There is no continuation of matters through a canceled meeting. Only by the action of the planning commission affirmatively continuing them can you do so. So if you don't have a meeting, there's no way to continue. MR. SCHMITT: So We really had nothing that was impacted by the storm. What was continued has all been properly advertised and is scheduled for the 17th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's where we're at. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Page 102 -, -.--.- November 3, 2005 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 noon. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman Page 103 _ 4'__'~___~_ ' . '",.~.- _"'_~n ---...'..--. - FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ~U\(JC WU"1ISS>OIV THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITrEE ON t WHICH I SERVE IS A UNZ: o CITY COUNTY o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF PO~ttt~ISION: MY POSITION IS: o ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other loca/level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. .- INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowinglY voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a prinCipal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or I 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-In-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may partiCipate in these matters. However, you r ,,- disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made b, . -,u or at your direction. I IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 .-.--..- ,~_.,--, .-.,--- 0" I I APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) '. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ~{) '::~~ , hereby disclose that on t\..lC\Xi"\ G~L ,-:) ,200:>: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (checK one) - inured to my special private gain or loss; - inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, - inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ~ inured to the special gain or loss of W(\ ' by whom I am retained; or - inured to the special gain or loss of ' which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , i \\ ).;/ ;) Date Filed l I Signatur , NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES S112.317, A FAILUR TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE I CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAYBE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MOR OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, I REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, RE 'UCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. i I I CE FORM 88 - EFF 1/2000 PAGE 2