Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/19/2006 R January 19,2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 19,2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Lindy Adelstein Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Chief Planner Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2005, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE 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 - DECEMBER I, 2005, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - Not Available At This Time 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: BD-2005-AR-7471, Recca Development LLC, represented by Turrell and Associates, requesting a 29-foot boat dock extension for a protrusion of 49 feet as measured from the most restrictive point of a meandering mangrove shoreline to allow the docking of 6 vessels on a multi-family site. The subject property is located on Recca Avenue, in Demere Landing Subdivision, Lot 36 and 37, in Section II, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) B. Petition V A-2004-AR-5438, Darryl J. Damico, represented by Beau Keene, P.E., of Keene Engineering, requesting a variance from Section 4.02.02C of the Land Development Code (LDC) of the Estates Zoning District for earth mining to exceed tbe maximum site area (20 acres). The application would allow for the inter-connection of three existing lakes to create a single 25.19 acres lake. The property is located between 54th Avenue N.E. and 56th Avenue N.E., in Section 4, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Michael J. DeRuntz) Companion to CU-2004-AR-5439 1 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. We'll start the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, and good morning. Before we do roll call, I'd like to welcome our new board member, Tor Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Tor, please, until I get used to your name, if I ever pronounce it wrong, just kick Brad, okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: He won't kick back, will he? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's the best idea you've had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope that staff gets Tor the various documents he needs, the books, the CD ROMs, and anything else that needs -- that's being distributed now. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I met with him yesterday, and we gave him a copy of the LDC, the growth management plan, the informational packet that you handed out at the last meeting and some flow charts and procedures, and the rest of the information is -- we're still trying to get together for him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you, Ray. And I know you'll keep up with it. Nice to see today we have a full board. Everybody's here. This is a rare occasion, so I'm glad to see we're all able to make it today. Item #2 ROLL CALL And with that, madam secretary, would you do the roll call? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? Page 2 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: 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. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last but not least. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Is there an addenda to the agenda, gentlemen and ladies? Mr. Adelstein, did you -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Old business, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What topic? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The topic is, specifically we had add neighborhood information meeting problem before, and I wanted to know if something has happened with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will at least give staffa heads-up on where we may be going then, okay. Page 3 January 19,2006 Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Are there planning commission absences? Ray, what are the next say -- meetings for the next 30 days? Are there any special meetings or still just the first and third Thursdays? MR. BELLOWS: Still the first and third. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's an EAR meeting, but that's not coming in till March, right? Will that be our next special meeting? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. There's an LDC cycle in March that starts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, good. Anybody knowing they're going to be absent on the first or third Thursday of February? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, okay. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 2005, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes from December 1st regular meeting. I believe there was a supplement issued to those and sent out separately, a rather thick supplement, so that will be the one I'm assuming we're approving today. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Adelstein. Page 4 January 19,2006 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC report, not available at this time. That's still holding true? MR. BELLOWS: The recaps? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: We have recaps for the January 10th meeting. On January 10th the board approved the conditional use for the eco-tourist facilities. That was approved by a vote of 5-0, the PUD rezone and amendment for the Cambridge Square was also approved by a vote of 4-1, and then the conditional use for the Living World Family Church was approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Ray. Page 5 January 19,2006 Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. This morning I had too much reading, so I focused on that for this meeting, so there's nothing else, other than the fact, an announcement, just to let the public know, if you're here to attend the AUIR meeting, that will be a separate meeting this afternoon starting approximately one o'clock when this meeting ends up. So the first -- this morning we're going to work on the general CCPC business. Item #8A PETITION: BD-2005-AR-7471 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we'll go to advertised public hearing. The BD-2005-AR-7471, Becca Development LLC, represented by Turrell and Associates. Would those people wishing to participate, please raise your hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. You'll have to stand -- you'll have to stand up and be sworn in. If you don't have anything, that's fine, but at least you're covered if you do. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, the applicant's presentation. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning, Rocky Scofield representing the owners, Becca Development LLC. Christian Spilker's going to hand you out some aerials and surveys of the property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion that we accept this into evidence. Page 6 January 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein to accept the four pages of colored aerials into evidence. Any -- all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody objecting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Motion carries. Thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. What we're requesting here -- this is a piece of property on Becca Avenue. It's roughly an acre in size. It's on the Haldeman Creek. The aerial I gave you should be on top, is the first one I have up here on the overhead. There's an arrow pointing to the piece of property in the area on Haldeman Creek where we're proposing to put the docks. I want to say up front in your -- in the advertisement for this project it was advertised as a 29-foot extension, for a total of 49 feet into the waterway. That's -- I'm going to get in -- I'm going to explain about the project first and show you the lay of the land, and I'll get back to that. What I'm requesting today is basically a 15- foot extension into the waterway, and I'll explain why it was advertised and listed. It's because of criteria number four, the way it's written, and it's a Page 7 January 19,2006 technicality, and that's the way Joyce had to write it up and present it, but I'll get back to that in just a minute. This should be the second aerial you have in your packet that was handed to you, and that shows the docks as proposed on the Haldeman Creek. There's a total of six slips for a -- the development that's going in, which will be six upland units on the -- for this piece of property. This drawing on the aerial shows the development. There are six units that are angled from the road from Becca Avenue down to the creek, and the docks are there on the -- the docks are here on the end. These are the developments. These are the housing units right here, you've got one through six and on the east side of the property, there is a canal, an existing canal, and you can see on your aerials the canal, it's kind of hard to see because of the overhang of the Australian pines and the mangroves, but there is a canal like on most of these streets here. This is the plan. This drawing is in your packet that was issued to you by staff. This is a drawing of the docks as it's proposed on an overlay of the survey. The discrepancy comes if you find this drawing -- if you can see here, it's in your packet also. On the west end of the property, there's a measurement of 49 feet, and that goes all the way up to the mean high water line. In this area right here, the mean high water line comes back into the property because of a washout in that area, and the tidal flows into this -- into here. The -- in the middle of this, there's another measurement you can see. It's 35 feet. Now, this is a very irregular shoreline. And you have in the back of your handout that was given you a survey which shows this irregular shoreline. The shoreline's been eroded over the years, and it goes in and out. So what we had to do in the permitting is pick an area out -- this shoreline is inundated with mangroves. So we come back to a point where the mangroves are and we place the rear of the -- of the Page 8 January 19,2006 walkway at that point on the shoreline, and then we're coming out. So on this irregular shoreline I picked a point midways in here where there's a little dip outwards, and then it comes inland and then back seaward at this point, and also here and -- for an average of 35 feet into the waterway. That would be a 15-foot extension from the allowed 20 feet, and that's where the discrepancy comes from. Now in criteria number four on the BDE application, it reads, you know, you're allowed 25 percent -- well, up to 25 percent encroachment into a waterway. And this criteria pertains to navigable waterway and leaving 50 percent of a waterway open. This -- this application and this drawing does that. The thing -- on this piece of the property, on this side right here there's a berm on this property. This whole property is very low land. It's mangroves -- it's surrounded by mangrove on three sides. The entire perimeter of this property is surrounded by mangroves. On the west side of this property -- and you can see on your aerials, this whole west side, all of that property is a mangroves preserve. These mangroves come over onto this property, and they go around the Haldeman Creek, all the way up the canal on the east side. It's a huge mangrove area. So that's one of the big environmental deals that we had to put up with and deal with on this is -- permitting to get to where we are today was about a two-year process, a very lengthy thing in getting this whole project put together. So what has happened, on the criteria number four, that's the only criteria on your -- on the BDE handout from the county staff that you have that says the criteria is not met. Now, I take exception on that; half of the criteria's met. One of the things is, is 50 percent of the waterway left open? The answer to that is yes. So half of the criteria for four is met. The other half says, does it encroach -- does it protrude more than 25 percent? In your staff report, the answer to that was yes; Page 9 January 19,2006 therefore, they said the criteria was not met. The reason, again, is because on this west side of the property, there is a berm right here. Now, there's a drainage all the way from -- all the way up from Becca -- let me show you on the -- this is the sur -- this is the survey. The survey that's on the back of your aerials. This is the west side of the property. This -- on your survey this shows this berm. There's a drainage all the way from Becca Avenue down this side on the -- to the east side of this berm going out in there, and you can see where the land curves in right at this point. That's because of the -- over the years the drainage through there has washed out, fill has been taken out of there and deposited into the creek. On the second sheet of your surveys that was handed out, those are the water depths that were taken by the surveyor. And if you look right in front of that area, you can see how all of that land has been accreted out into the creek. So, again, what criteria number four reads, it says, when you're -- when you're measuring out from the mean high water line or the property line or whatever reference you're using, a seawall line, you have to take the most restrictive point. So, therefore, staffs -- when they had to write this up, they had to come along -- they went along this shoreline and they saw that this little indentation, this point here, was the most landward point, therefore, being the most restrictive, and that's where it's taken from; however, that's not navigable waters. When you take the average shoreline around here and you see where the docks are located, the open waterway is 143 and a half feet wide as surveyed by the surveyor, okay. So we are not going out more than 25 percent of the open waterway. So technically speaking, you know, technically or nontechnically, however you want to see it, we do meet criteria four. We're not going out more than 25 percent. We're actually 24 -- I think if you did the math, it's 24.4 percent, that 35 feet extends out into Page 10 January 19,2006 143-foot waterway. So that's where that comes from. Now, I can give you a little bit of background on where that criteria came from, as I helped write a lot of this stuff for BDE applications some time ago. We got into situations where you have a seawall. The easiest way to describe is a concrete seawall, and all of a sudden people -- a lot oflands go out into the waterway, not a lot anymore, but there used to be quite a few. So a person had a seawall but the actual -- their actual property line would go out into the waterway. Sometimes -- and even in Haldeman Creek, and you'll see here in the future, some of these properties extend all the way across the creek. And so that's where the problem came in. When we went in for -- somebody came in for a dock, they were going, well, I own halfway out into the canal, so I'm going to start my dock out there. Well, obviously if people did that, we'd block off the waterway and it couldn't happen; therefore, their criteria was put into the BDE applications from the most restrictive point. That was the situation that takes care of. Also, the reverse of that, when the property line is landward of a seawall, then there's a question, who owns between the property line and that seawall, and that's a matter we have to take up at the state level and we have to determine who owns that lands, and can it be deeded to the property owner, and then move ahead with an application. So that criteria on this -- that half of the criteria from the most restrictive point really does not apply when you're looking at this particular application. We got into a lot of this on Keewaydin Island, and we don't -- anymore we don't have to do BDEs on Keewaydin Island. They're administratively done. They're just put through as long as we meet the state and federal requirements down there. What happened is you have mangrove shorelines, kind of like Page 11 January 19,2006 here. Very irregular shorelines, but a lot of them are solid mangrove shorelines. Well, the mean high water line may go 100 feet back into the mangroves. Well, that's the mean high water line. So technically, according to criteria, that's the most restrictive point. Well, as you can see, it doesn't make sense to go 100 feet back into a solid mangrove forest and use that as your line trying to do a boat dock extension. So the main thing here is waterway width, which is surveyed at 143 feet. We're only out 25 percent of that waterway, little less than 25 percent. Fifty percent of the waterway is left open. We did get one -- I'm jumping ahead a little bit. I did get one letter, Joyce gave me, from a Dirk Tucker, who is an agent. I talked to Dirk yesterday. He represents about seven homeowners in this area of Haldeman Creek. It's not -- they don't object to this. I called Dirk yesterday. It's not an objection. What they were concerned about is what everybody else is concerned about when they see a public advertisement saying, we're going out 49 feet into a waterway. Well, that's not -- for the reasons I just explained, that's not right. But I would object too if I just heard they're going out 49 feet into Haldeman Creek when it's 143 feet wide at this point, because then you're blocking the navigable waterway. And that was his concern. He said, my homeowners that I represent want to make sure that 50 percent of the navigable waterway is left open. I said, well I can assure you it is. And if you'd like to come see all the paperwork, I can show that to you. So he said, no, I don't have a problem. We just want to make sure 50 percent of the waterway is maintained for navigability, and it is, even if there are docks that come out on the other side. And that's another -- on the overhead. Let me -- I'm going to show you the -- all the way -- a picture of it all the way down the creek. Okay. That's good, okay. Page 12 January 19,2006 This is the proposed project, more the west end. All the way-- all the way up here, this is Bayshore Road. This is the big aerial you have in your packet there. And this just gives you a view of the whole creek looking down here. And as you can see where our project is here, that clearly this does not have any impact on navigation. As a matter of fact, the area that we're going to put these docks in is not navigable waters right now. It's only about, at the best point in this area where the docks are going in, it's about a foot to a foot and a half, maybe two feet deep. This land's been eroded in. We have permits from the state and Corps of Engineers to dredge this area. There's no way boats can go in here right now, so this area where this dock's proposed is not navigable water as it exists right now. It will be once it is dredged. And the county, hopefully this year, will start dredging of Haldeman Creek, and hopefully it will all tie in together. This is an overlay. This is also in the packet handout from the county staff. This shows the dredge area. It's an overlay on to the big survey that you have where you're showing the water depths. And if you look at that area over here where staff measured the 49 feet from, you can see how the land has accreted out into Haldeman Creek from washing out. The shaded area is the dredge area. The mangroves shown there are overhangs of mangroves, so we are not -- as I said before, we have extensive environmental permitting on this site to -- to deal and keep it as much natural, without destruction of mangroves on this property. What you see there over this dock and shaded area where we're going to dredge is overhang. Some of these have been torn out, broken off, since the hurricane, but this is how it existed before that. The -- now, maybe I'll head off a question that probably's going to come up, and that's, why don't we put the docks on the canal side instead of out here on the front? And all things were considered on this lot. And that was an issue -- that was an issue taken up with the Page 13 January 19,2006 South Florida Water Management District and the Corps of Engineers. The canal along this side is heavily vegetated. And if you look at your survey, it will show a very irregular shoreline, which is eroded in and out, but it's a heavy mangrove area, and it's very shallow in here. It would take extensive dredging of this entire canal, which is about 300 feet long, it would take a lot more dock area in here, it would be more impact to the mangroves in this area, and flushing is not nearly as good, obviously, as it is out on the creek. And these are all the things that we had to deal with in permitting this through the agencies. So they wanted it out here where it was the least amount of impact on the creek. The other thing is, is that the entire perimeter of this property had to be placed into a conservation easement, and I'll show you that. That's the property, the shaded area you see there around the perimeter is -- all of that is being place -- had to be placed into a conservation easement to preserve the mangroves, and on the west side of that property where that berm is I told you about a little while ago, that berm has to be removed, scraped down to the existing elevation, which is actually a floodplain. There are -- there are mangroves on this west side. Of course, to the west of the property is a big preserve. But there's mangroves actually growing all the way up into this area here. And the agencies have required -- once the berm is scraped down, we have to plant mangroves back in there. There's a boardwalk, as you can see, on this west side. This comes out of the units that I showed on the plat earlier from the six upland units. This is a boardwalk that has to be placed -- this is the way the people will get to their docks. It's over the wetlands, over a floodplain, over mangroves that have to be planted. There's mangroves that are there. So this is, out of almost an acre of land, almost a third of -- you know, a third of this property had to be preserved into a conservation Page 14 January 19,2006 easement for environmental conditions. So that's the -- that's it. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, in all the years you've come before us, I've never heard you talk so much. I mean, you're quite detailed today for some reason. Maybe it's the coffee you drank this mornmg. MR. SCOFIELD: Mark, I promise I won't keep you all as long as you did -- kept everybody the other night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that one continues this afternoon, so -- are there questions from members of the planning commission? Mr. Murray first, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just a curiosity. The -- I think of storm surge, and I think of neap tides and the like, and it's pretty low, this land, isn't it? MR. SCOFIELD: Very low. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I'm just wondering about the way this is configured as to if that's going to be -- that's going to be a benefit or that's going to be a detriment in that area. How high -- how high above or inset into the mangroves are -- is there walkway? What I'm trying to express here is, what height have we got our dock up and leading towards it? And I'm concerned about, ultimately, the dock surviving under these circumstances. MR. SCOFIELD: Now, are you talking about the dock or the walkway -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The walkway. The dock itself I can see. That's not -- it's not a floater, right? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: okay. MR. SCOFIELD: The dock is seaward of the mangroves. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. And so that I can appreciate. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Page 15 January 19, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I'm concerned with the walkway along there. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the walkway is over -- it's actually-- when I say mangroves in there, the mangroves are about this tall. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD; They're stunted growth because it's a floodplain which means at normal high tide back into this area, it rarely gets there. Now a full moon, when you get a full moon and your tides are a foot higher, some -- this area gets wet back in there, and there's small mangroves. But mostly it's salt-tolerant grasses. If you were to go onto this site, most of this whole site in the middle here is -- are grasses where the buildings are going to be built, but it's salt-tolerant. But anyway, it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That gives me what I wanted to understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rocky, the site to the east of this, it appears that the lands of that, or the riprap anyway, comes out past the property line; isn't that right? I mean, it almost appears like your dock would be behind what the eastward site protrudes into the waterway. MR. SCOFIELD: On the -- you mean across the canal to the east? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. What you're -- well, you know, what you're looking at there on that aerial is Australian pines that greatly overhang, and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm actually looking at the survey. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the one that shows -- well, both of them. It does appear that this is coming out quite further -- Page 16 January 19,2006 MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- than your lot to begin with. So since essentially these docks are tucked behind that land. MR. SCOFIELD: They are, they are. This land has been eroded back. Along the shoreline -- and Joyce has pictures of it -- where we're putting these docks, there was Australian pines there too. They were cut down quite some time ago. The stumps are still there. And, of course, obviously they're dead now. And, you know, boat traffic and the wake goes through, and now it's washed out under the old Australian pine stumps and has eroded the land, and that's why we're going having to go in here and do extensive dredging to put this in. But, yeah, the land is back further. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant before we hear staffs presentation? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On the east side, again, you show a walkway there. I thought everybody was going to access from the west side. MR. SCOFIELD: On the east side right here there is a short walkway. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, over the mangroves. MR. SCOFIELD: Through the mangroves to -- from the parking lot. There's a -- there's a little area right here for extra parking. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. MR. SCOFIELD: And there's an -- that's just a little five-foot wide access boardwalk to the docks on that end. Mainly -- mainly when people are bringing supplies or they are having to work on boats, this is a -- this is where people would park their maintenance trucks and stuff, and they would access through here instead of -- the only other way is coming out of the people's unit. Page 17 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: So we had to have an access to there for maintenance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Rocky. Joyce? MS. ERNST: For the record, I'm Joyce Ernst, from zoning and land development review. I might be repeating some of the things that Rocky said, so -- but this site is located on Becca Avenue, and it's off of Bayshore Drive, and the property is zoned for multi-family development. Now, an SDP has been submitted to develop this site and to construct one dwelling unit with six -- well, one building with six residential units in it. I am also reviewing that SDP, and at this time it's still under review. And I have a setback issue, a rear yard setback issue. And the building is also, as the dock measured to the most restrictive case, which in this case is the small area where the water accretes into the property, and that's basically where I'm having a setback problem; however, the engineer has -- the engineer who's developing -- or who is drawing up the site, the SDP for us to review, has assured me that they will be able to move the building slightly to comply with that setback. But, however -- in any event, I had put a stipulation in the approval for this boat dock extension that -- that the number of slips shall correspond to the number of units approved but shall not be more than six. And this is just reassurance in case, you know, for some reason they decide to put less than six units in. Now, as the applicant has stated, according to the code, the boat dock is measured to the most restrictive point. And you can see on that site plan that they submitted that it does show the -- you know, the waterway accreting in that weir area, so that's what code requires that we measure it to. Page 18 January 19,2006 Now, even though -- you know, when you look at the docks, I mean, they really are not extending out 49 feet into the water except at that one location. The property to the west is a mangrove wetland preserve and will never be developed. To the east, again, is the canal. And adjacent properties on the other side of the canal, they have some boat docks off of the canal. Now, I've received two phone calls and one letter. The one letter I got was from Dirk Tucker, and he had asked that I, you know, pass these out, so if I could do that at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. I need a motion from someone to accept this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I move that they be accepted as evidence in the -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Adelstein, to accept this into the record. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Joyce. Thank you. Page 19 January 19,2006 MS. ERNST: Okay. Another phone call I received was from a nearby neighbor who was questioning, you know -- or just inquiring about the facility and explained, you know, the situation to him. He was going to come in and take a look at the site plan. I offered him -- you know, to show it to him, but he never did come in. And I also received a phone call from an attorney that represents the property right across the canal, and he came in. I gave him a copy of the site plan to bring back to his client, and I have not heard anything more from him. He was concerned as to how, I'm sure, this was going to affect his property as well. Now, the site -- the proposed facility does fail one of the primary criteria with its criteria number four, and that addresses whether the proposed facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway. Now, again, according to code, this is where I am required by code to measure the extension; however, we -- staff feels that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed facility does not obstruct navigation, more than 50 percent of the waterway is available for navigation, and it does not obstruct the use of neighboring docks. And so, therefore, staff has the recommended approval. Does anyone have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joyce, though, don't you agree that the site to the east comes out much further? So I mean, essentially, while he's messed up in his 25 percent, it's really due to the fact that his site is eroded back, where other sites that come forward actually have a much narrower waterway, and using that dimension, he's nowhere near the restriction that's in front of his site? MS. ERNST: I feel-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other thing is, would this dock be able to be built prior to the units being built? MS. ERNST: No, no. In fact, there is a stipulation that, you Page 20 January 19,2006 know, they cannot pull a permit for a boat dock until the permit for a residential building has been pulled. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Hi, good morning. MS. ERNST: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Joyce, you said you were familiar at least in part with the SDP that they've put forward? MS. ERNST: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm looking at the plan that shows the six boats there and the stubs. And the one closest to the waterway, it seems that it's in the middle of the mangroves as it were. And I understand that those are adjacent to the entrances or exits of the homes. That's what was portrayed by Mr. Scofield. Wouldn't they have to fill that area? This is the area in question where you're measuring from, right, the wash-out area? Wouldn't they have to fill that in order to have that -- where he shows that little stub there? MS. ERNST: Yeah. I see one stub that, you know, is closer to the water's edge. Now, I don't -- you know, without looking at the site plan, I don't know if that's where all the building entrances will be. You know, without -- as I said, without looking at a site plan -- the actual building plan -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I appreciate that. MS. ERNST: -- comparing it to this, it's hard to say. But -- well, they can put a boardwalk, you know, because I'm sure these buildings are all going to be elevated because it is a flood zone, and it will be a boardwalk walking out over the mangroves. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I wasn't trying to put you on the spot because you may not have looked at it in detail, certainly. But Mr. Scofield indicated that those stubs were associated with actual domiciles, the homes. And if that's being the case, it appears that Page 21 January 19,2006 they're right in the middle of all of that. And that is, again, where that washout area is. So I wondered on the SDP whether that showed whether or not that washout was going to be filled. That's not intended to be filled? That's going to remain natural? That's okay. MR. SCOFIELD: I can answer that. MS. ERNST: And I think it's possible that maybe they'll have to move some of these stubs. I'm not sure. Maybe Mr. Scofield could help us with that. MR. SCOFIELD: Let me answer that real quickly. This -- these units are going to be elevated. This is not going to be filled. These will be pilings above, and the boardwalk will come out. They're elevated to the level of the slab of the units coming out. This area -- this area right in the middle is not filled. As you can see the washout area comes up to there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. SCOFIELD: But no, there's no fill that will be washing into there. This will -- okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That helps me because I wondered about all their furniture and things as the water came in. All right, thank you. That would be my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No other questions? Joyce, I have one. Ownership of this property is owned by whom? MS. ERNST: Becca Development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And who are the owners of Becca Development? MS. ERNST: Well, I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says Lao Dee, Inc. And who are the owners of Lao Dee, Inc.? MS. ERNST: What I put in the packet was because they're an LLC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 22 January 19,2006 MS. ERNST: An LLC, I understand, has a representative that represents them, Brendan Cunningham. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern is the affidavit was signed that references that we/I am/are the owners of the property described herein. And by the documents I was provided with, I don't find any connection to John Brendan Cunningham as an owner, only a registered agent. I want to make sure that's -- the record reflects it properly. I understand the County Attorney's Office has reviewed all this before it came here today, so maybe she can comment on whether or not this is an issue. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think it may be well to have the applicant put on the record who the LLC members are. MS. ERNST: Okay. Well, see, when I looked into it and I pulled up the corporation, it just had -- and that was explained that when it's a corporation, you basically have a person, you know, that represents them, and you know, basically this is the information that I was -- received, that I have obtained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're used to seeing bodies attached to the LLC's names that we can identify with, so if we have a conflict on this board, we would know it. We don't know it by an undescribed LLC, so that's the only reason I'm concerned. It's been an issue periodically over time and we've always had it clarified at the meeting. So I simply want to get it clarified as the county attorney has instructed, if it's possible. Someone from the applicant's side want to tell us who owns this property and who the LLC is? You don't have to. You just may not get much further here today. MR. SPILKER: Just for the record, Christian Spilker with Turrell and Associates. Actually we've got a representative of the LLC, but the LLC has changed as of Christmas. Just -- you know, Page 23 January 19,2006 you closed on the property, at Christmas. So the new LLC is Demere Landing, LLC, and maybe you can speak as to the officers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far, I just want to get the county attorney to tell us what the proper procedure here is, what is needed. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think it would be appropriate for the new officers to be identified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR SPILKER: Okay. Can you do that? Do you know? Why don't you come on up. Were you sworn in? MR. KOLLECAS: No, I wasn't. (The speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you identify yourself, please. MR. KOLLECAS: Oh, my name is Ulysses Kollecas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay? MR. KOLLECAS: And the property was to Demere Landing LLC at the end of December. I do not know the exact date. But it was the end of December it closed. And the officers are Tom Kollecas, K-O-L-L-E-C-A-S, and Chris Collier, C-O-L-L-I-E-R. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that sufficient, Mrs. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's sufficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are they also the owners though? I mean, the officers and the owners don't have to be the same. MR. KOLLECAS: Yeah, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's sufficient for the County Attorney's Office, then we're fine. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions either of the applicant or the county staff? Any there any public speakers, Ray? Page 24 January 19,2006 MR. BELLOWS: We have one registered speaker, Jack Hail. MR. HAIL: My name's Jack Hail. I'm concerned about the 49-foot dock. Ifwe could borrow the colored picture and put it back up, I'll show you my property. I think it's the bigger one I need. I'm east of it. MR. SCOFIELD: This one? MR. HAIL: Yep. Okay. By the drawings of this, it doesn't really look like it's 49 feet out, as my concerns are. My property is right here. And if I went out 49 foot and somebody else did across the street, which, the property's right here, Mr. Antoranium (phonetic) owns, if he goes out 49 feet, nobody's going to get through the canal. That's my concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you the lot with the three boats at one dock? MR. HAIL: Mine is -- yes, it is. That's an old picture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're here complaining about the gentleman down there, and it looks like your three boats are quite a ways out in the waterway. MR. HAIL: Yeah. I think that's an old picture. That's not when I owned it. I bought the home from Johnny Morgan in 2001, and that's an old picture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I thought it was odd that that particular site was so far out over the rest. MR. HAIL: And it's really not. If you look at the Royal Yacht next door, I don't stick out any further than that. And like I said, those are some old pictures, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HAIL: But my concern is, it doesn't really look like it's 49 feet out. If it's 49 out -- feet from the mangroves, that's a long ways, and there is no water except dead in the middle there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It won't be any further out, sir, than the picture portrays. That is not -- as they explained, it's not 49 feet from Page 25 January 19,2006 the mangroves. It's 49 feet from the innermost washout, which ended up adding about, what, 10 or 15 feet to the depth of those particular docks that doesn't really transpire to this aerial photograph. So they're not going to be any further out by scale than what you see here on this photograph. MR. HAIL: Okay. Well, that's my concern is that it's sticking out too far, and if the guy across the street does it, we're not going to be able to get by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I fully agree with you, that's why it's pretty important that this photograph be there. MR. HAIL: If it's okay for them, it must be okay for me then, too, huh? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. HAIL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, wait a minute. I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-five percent. Doesn't matter if-- you've got to come in and apply for it, go through a variance, go through permitting. But if the other side does the same thing and they get 24 percent out from their shoreline, then we still have a navigable waterway in the center is what it boils down to. MR. HAIL: And why can they not just pull a permit to have it dredged back and dredge it back out? MR. SCOFIELD: We are. MR. HAIL: And be able to go 49 feet from that then, you know, dredge their property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What they're asking for today is what's on the aerial. MR. HAIL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what they're going to be bound upon. MR. HAIL: That's all I'm worried about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 26 January 19,2006 Are there any other questions from anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Looks like the audience. MR. BULOW: I did not register. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you come up and use the mike, sir, and identify yourself, that's fine. And you'll have to state your name and address for the record. MR. BULOW: My name is Bob Bulow (phonetic), and that's my dock right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the mike. MR. BULOW: Right here. And I'm not here to get in the way of this development because I already have a dock out there. And the farthest point of my dock is already 40 feet. If you built one 20 feet, you'd be on the rocks. And we, some years ago, had hired Turrell and Associates to try to get a lift added to this for our existing dock. And at that time -- I don't know if you have figured this out, Rocky, or not, but I was working with Michael Hawkins. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to speak towards the microphone, sir. MR. BULOW: And the question -- the question that came up was, when the developers of Demere Landing originally started, they drew the lot lines with a straight edge when, in my opinion, they probably should have drawn them along the mean water line. That would have clarified a lot of things. But the thing -- the issue that came up with the state at that time was who owned the property between the mean water line and the property lines. And as far as I know, that's never been answered. And I guess I'm just looking for what the rules are so that if I ever want to go get a lift put on my dock, that the rules are the same for me as it is for everybody else. And also, there was no clarification as to what the size of the docks -- or the docks would be and whether or not they would have lifts in them and that sort of thing. And that's really -- those are my only questions. Page 27 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest that you -- should you want your questions in more detail, the young lady behind you or Rocky could probably do a better analysis than we can at this public meeting, which we're not about to do. But thank you, sir, for your comments. Rocky, we're about to wrap it up. You want to get in the way of a conclusion? MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. This is -- excuse me. Rocky Scofield. You don't want me to talk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can if you want to, but I don't know if we need -- MR. SCOFIELD: This is the dock plan for him to see. That's all I was going to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any other questions of anyone here today? With that, we'll close the public meeting. Is there a recommendation? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that we approve DB-2005-AR-7471, subject to staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll call for the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 28 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you all. Item #8B and #8C PETITION V A-2004-AR-5438 AND PETITION CU-2004-AR-5439 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie -- Marjorie, the next two applications are about the same contiguous lot. Can we hear them together or they've got to be -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, you can hear them together -- I think they're related -- and take separate motions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. The next petition is variance V A-2004-AR-5438, and it has another petition associated and contiguous to it of a same nature but it's a CD. Conditional use 2004-AR-5439. We will-- if the applicant is willing, we can discuss both of these concurrently and then vote on them separately, that way your presentation would not have to be duplicative for either one. So with that being said, is there any disclosures from the planning board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, the applicant's prepared to make a presentation. All those wishing to speak before the board, please raise your hand and be sworn by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. My name is Jason Reynolds Page 29 January 19,2006 from Keene Engineering. I'm going to be representing Brad and Darryl Damica. For the variance-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to talk a little slower. She's got to write as fast as you talk. MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sorry. I'll be representing Brad and Darryl Damica for the variance and the conditional use petitions for Jolly Excavation. I'm just going to read through the statement that was prepared that's going to answer any questions or concerns from the staff report. Basically the subject 44-acre site is located in the northeast section of Golden Gate Estates, generally east of Everglades Boulevard between 54th and 56th Avenues Northeast. Two previous excavation permits have been issued on the subject property. One for a five-acre lake in 1997 and one for a 10-acre lake in 1999. There appears to have been approximately four acres of over excavation beyond the approved limits. Code enforcement issues have arisen. Approval of these petitions will bring the project into compliance. Considering four of the existing parcels within the 44-acre site are five-acre tracts, each of which can legally be split into two parcels per the land development code. Upon 20 -- up to 20 homesites can be constructed on the subject property. Through the approval of these petitions, the property will be limited to 12 building sites as shown on the site plan. This will-- this will result in a significant reduction in density on the subject property by eliminating up to eight dwelling units. The creation of one large 25-acre lake, which meets current requirements for bank -- lake bank scalping and littoral plantings, will be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood and more useful to wildlife in the area. From what we understand, three neighbors have expressed concerns regarding the approvals of this petition. Their concerns were Page 30 January 19,2006 as follows: Number one, truck traffic. All three concerned neighbors appear to reside on 54th Avenue Northeast, which receives no commercial truck traffic from these projects. All trips will be utilizing 56th or DeSoto. Operation times. Operation times will be abided by a personal commitment from Don Jolly today, which, from what I understand, will be from seven a.m. till five p.m. Number three, lowering the water table. We feel there has not been and will not be an adverse impact on the neighbors' wells as a result of a temporary dewatering. Dewatering has been contained on the site through use of containment berms. Also, number four, the berms. Berms and levies mentioned in the objection letter are temporary and related to dewatering. These berms will be removed upon completion of the excavation. Number five, the exotic plants. Exotic plants will be removed and the property will be maintained exotic free in perpetuity. Basically in summary, we feel the approval of these petitions is beneficial to the neighborhood and Collier County by reducing the potential number of dwelling units on the property from 20 to 12 and will create one pleasing lake meeting current requirements instead of a fragmented lake permitted under old rules. If you want, I'll answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. On your final site plan it shows a lake edge that's within the water area. Do you intend to fill up to that edge? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. That will all be filled. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. The other question is, this one parcel that's kind of cut out of sight in the center there, it's not included in your application. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. The one that's -- it's actually owned by someone else. Page 3 1 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you weren't able to obtain that? MR. REYNOLDS: From what I understand, an acre and quarter has been obtained, but it's not included on that piece. There's just another acre and quarter which is not included. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And in terms of permitting, it looks like the lake to the -- as it's shown on the visualizer, the lake to the right was permitted. The lake -- the small lake on the upper left was permitted, but was that third lake permitted? MR. REYNOLDS: That was a dewatering area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Meaning? MR. REYNOLDS: Basically it was to pump out for those lakes to excavate those lakes further, and we wanted to incorporate that into the new -- the new lake. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But wasn't that excavated to create that or -- I mean, it looks like a lake in these aerials. Is it not a lake or -- MR. REYNOLDS: It's not really that deep. I don't know how far you dug that, Don. MR. JOLLY: It's just a berm up around it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't be speaking from the audience. Come up here and -- MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, his statement was that it was a berm around it, which means -- so essentially it's at grade. This is water above the level of the lakes? MR. REYNOLDS: For -- yeah. If you can -- actually if we could zoom in on that area, you can see where they've been -- that they were pumping into that. I don't know if it's on that picture or not. Maybe it is. No, I don't see it on there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But anyway, it's not a lake. MR. REYNOLDS: No. Don Jolly could probably answer any Page 32 January 19,2006 questions you might have on that. MR. JOLLY: No, sir. What that is is -- you know, we have to have a place to hold our own water. We don't have a -- but we just dig a berm up and then put our water in there so we can dig the lake deeper to go to code. That's basically what that is. It looks like that but all-- you know, if you -- the color of it will tell you it's a lot shallower. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Now that you mention it, it does look different. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How deep is the lake? MR. JOLLY: The lake will be 20 feet deep. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And are you having the littoral zones around the lake? MR. JOLLY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, were you sworn in? MR. JOLLY: No, I was not. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. JOLLY: Yes, I do. I'm sorry. And if you have any more questions for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have questions of somebody after Mr. Murray. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, sir. MR. JOLLY: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're -- are you the only -- are you the owner of the -- MR. JOLLY: No, I'm just -- I'm just digging it for the owner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, having to do with the property, the citations and the permitting and so forth, but beyond that, how many trips are estimated left with -- when you bring the -- Page 33 January 19,2006 this thing together and create one lake, how long will you be operating before development begins? MR. JOLL Y: I would -- I hope to do it in one year. It's just, you know, with weather permitting. Maybe 18 months. I mean, it's not going to be 10ng. I don't have much to do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not going to be 10ng. MR. JOLLY: Not going to be long. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And who -- who will be doing the developing after this -- this work is finished and the property then becomes available for development? MR. JOLLY: Capital Homes, I would imagine. Just going to sell the lots off and build homes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just sell them off? MR. JOLL Y: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I don't know, there was something here about platting, or maybe that's in the other area. But -- let's see, yeah. It was a question that was platting. It would appear that they're going to be replatting. Now, you probably don't know. I think I'll reserve that question for staff. Let me see in have any others. Okay. Now, I'm going to ask the rest of my questions of staff. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Question, I thought the report said that it would be done in less than a year, and you're saying it's 18 months. MR. JOLLY: Well, I mean, weather permitting. Ifwe-- depending on when we get -- if we can get in there now, we can finish it in one year. You know, it's just, it's time. Rainy season comes, you can't hardly do anything out there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So it is not necessarily as it said in the booklet, that basically it could be more than one year rather Page 34 January 19,2006 than it will be less than one year? MR. JOLLY: I mean, I can -- I mean, I'll try to give it 100 percent to get done in one year. That's what my plan is. I just -- you know, weather permitting, I mean, hurricanes, whatever. I'm just -- that's the question. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- I understood from the prior gentleman that there's no traffic on 54th Street Northeast; is that correct? MR. JOLLY: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you wouldn't mind if we stipulated that to -- as a restriction, that there would be no truck traffic from your operation? MR. JOLLY: It has always been a stipulation in my permit that I'm not allowed to use that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your working hours are seven a.m. to five p.m.? MR. JOLL Y: Seven to five, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that-- MR. JOLL Y: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then my last question, I guess, is of the county attorney. The gentleman prior to this gentleman said that they would limit the density to, I believe, 12 units instead of20 that could be allocated to the property. How can a CU and a V A on different properties, and there are a total of, it looks like 16 parcels, effectively limit that so that actually is the outcome? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't -- Ray, could you -- it would have to be consistent. The laws would have to be consistent with the comprehensive -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're getting -- they're asking for this and they're saying that one of the positive benefits is they're Page 35 January 19,2006 going to go from a potential 20 units down to, I think he said, 12. Okay. If that's a benefit we're cashing in on and we're saying, okay, that's a real public welfare purpose why this may happen, how do we link that requirement, that stipulation to 15 or 16 different parcels based on the applications we have in front of us today? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I believe the conditional use can have a condition placed in there limiting the number of future potential dwelling units. The comprehensive plan has a density rating system where the site is eligible to receive more units based on the land acreage area. But if they're willing to stipulate a lesser amount, that can be incorporated into the conditional use. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: As long as it's within the limits of the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the conditional use covers all these parcels. And if we stipulate the conditional use is limited to the outcome of no more than 12 units on all four parcels -- all 16 parcels that this conditional use applies to, that's a strong enough stipulation so someone could not come in in the future with an application to your department and apply for typical estates zoned housing that's available based on lot size in Golden Gate Estates? MR. DeRUNTZ: It's -- Mike DeRuntz, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development review. And condition number nine was drafted to try to address that. It states, the subject property shall be replatted to the estates zoning standards with the development of the proposed homesites as shown on conceptual site plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if it's replatted estates zoning standards, it could produce 20 units, but it can't -- you're limiting it to just those shown on the plan? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that sufficient, Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I believe it is. Page 36 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other questions before we get staffs presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, it's all yours. MR. DeRUNTZ: Good morning. My name is Mike DeRuntz, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development reVIew. I have distributed a handout. This is some additional petitions that the county has received after the staff report went out. I do have a petition location map of all the petitions that were received, those that were in the staff report and those you have just received. And those properties are identified on the green, and each of those are on 54th Avenue Northeast. As was mentioned, these are companion items for a variance and a conditional use. At the present time, there is, in the land development code, some regulations relating to the percent of lake area and some other issues relating to excavations. And the county engineering department is proposing an amendment of those plans into the code of land -- the ordinance of codes and ordinance -- wait a minute, laws and ordinances, excuse me, and that's going to go before the Board of County Commissioners on January the 26th. Stan Chrzanowski is present with us, and he could address that issue, and also the issues that were referenced by the petitioner about the consolidation of these lots and how, by consolidating these lots, it is a unique situation where there are two adjoining lakes, and -- but by the combining of these lakes, there -- this would be a positive benefit and should be taken into consideration for the -- those benefits of being environmentally beneficial, being able to address stormwater management better. In looking at this application -- or both of these applications, the staff has also placed conditions on the -- on the variance, and I'd like Page 37 January 19,2006 to read those into the record, that, you know, the variance is limited to the extend of development as depicted in the application site plan; and two, that the variance is limited to the maximum excavation site of the 44 acres; the variance is limited to a maximum lake surface area of 57.25 percent on -- of the 44 acres; and four, that the approval of this variance shall be contingent upon approval of the continual use 2004-AR-5439. Then with the conditional use, staff has placed nine conditions, and those conditions are on Exhibit D. And if you'd like, I could read those into the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've all got a record of them. I'd rather not go into things that we can use ourselves. But thank you, Michael. Appreciate it. MR. DeRUNTZ: I did want to identify an error on my part in the staff report for AR-5438, is that, in the requesting actions on the third sentence there it says, requesting is 24 acres. It should be 5.19 acres. And that same number was reflected also in the purpose and description of the project. So they're exceeding the maximum of the 20 acres as identified as a conditional use, of which would be 20 acres by 5.129 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DeRUNTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Tuff, then Mr. Murray, then Mr. Midney, then Mr. Stiffer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I feel like I got left out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mike? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: What makes you think that this client will abide by the stipulations or conditions that you proposed since they saw fit not to abide by their permits to begin with? Page 38 January 19,2006 MR. DeRUNTZ: The engineering department has been working with the applicant, and they want to bring him into compliance. And this was -- we felt it was the best way of doing this. It would final out the project and that site. And, Stan, would you like to help address this? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, good morning. Stan Chrzanowski with engineering review. When this project was first permitted, the reason that it's on two separate sites is we had a limit on the amount of excavation you could do in the estates on a parcel. And they bought contiguous parcels, so they permitted two adjacent parcels. At the time this was done, we didn't have a program for going out and checking on excavations. Now we do. We have two people that go out and visit every excavation in Collier County once a month and double check that what's going on is according to code. It's possible they could have gotten carried away with the excavation, lost track of how far they were going. I don't know. But we're stuck with the situation we have out there. Engineering review is the party that pushed to have this lake combined into one big lake, because when you look at the aerial photograph, what you have out there just is dumb. That berm in the middle of the two lakes should be taken out, the lake should be made one large lake. I don't see any reason to make them go back and fill in the part of the lake, because we're already lacking fill in this county, and I don't like the sort of dumping fill into a lake and building on it. I understand they're going to do that with part of it. It's going to be difficult. I couldn't see doing it to four acres of lake. That would be just unreasonable. I personally don't care if they don't build any houses on there. We already have -- on the visualizer -- I don't know if Ray can switch that over. It's upside down. Thank you. What you're looking at, a couple years ago we did an analysis for Page 39 January 19,2006 Golden Gate Estates, and how much of each unit was built out in percentages. The green area is less growth and the red is more growth. That was -- that was like two years ago. We did one recently, and then we did this which was a subtraction of the one recent, or the one two years ago from the one recent. What you're looking at is the amount that each unit has -- has built in that two-year period. A large proportion of the growth is out at the east end of the estates. The fill we got out of the lake probably went to do a lot of that growth. Ifhe didn't build any homes at all on that 20 acres, I'd be happy, because we're already getting a lot of growth out there. We don't have any water management out in the estates. Everything is swales. The swales dump directly into the canals. There's practically no water retention other than what gets held in the swales, and that's very little. The lake, personally as an engineer, I'd let him dig from boundary to boundary. The lake is 20 feet deep. The wells that we dig out there are about 80 feet deep. You can't dewater a 20- foot lake and impact the aquifer that an 80-foot well is drawing from, although when the lake is done, it will be a sink for water that will recharge the aquifer. So we don't see a downside to this from an engineering point of view. Yeah, they've done some bad things. We could punish them, but we're just interested in getting it ironed out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Stan. Just in case-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Did that answer the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you spell your name for the court reporter? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, C-H -- S-T-A-N, C-H-R-Z-A-N-O- W -S-K-I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Mr. Tuff, your question next? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. And I apologize if you have to Page 40 January 19,2006 suffer with my learning curve. But the two issues I had on the conditions you had spoken about was, the number five is coming up with a common maintenance agreement, because if they're going to be sold individually, then -- is that -- should that be part of this document? And the other is the number seven where it says the director of department and zoning can approved minor changes, and it's very broad and it's -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Yeah. That's a template -- or boilerplate statement that we have about changing the conceptual site plan on a conditional use, would have to go before the department -- the director. And as far as the maintenance agreement -- because these homesites are going to be around this lake, staff felt that this was an integral element that would need to be incorporated into the platting as this develops, that the lake would be jointly maintained, even though they're going to be sold off individually, that there be a common maintenance agreement. Also there's elements about access to the lake because one of the lots would not front on the lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff, that's a good question. I would like to know how the county attorney's going to tie the common maintenance agreement into 16 separate parcels. Is there a way that can be done on a CU? Just so we make sure it's worded right. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Well, what I think is that this would have to be -- the lake maintenance agreement, in other words when later development comes utilizing this standard, use that as a basis to do the agreement and have it reflected in whatever platting or whatever development order comes forth as a result. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't they have to then-- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I believe that would occur at the time of replatting when they -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what will happen then is this property will have to be platted at the time the lake is completed prior Page 41 January 19,2006 to the sale in order to make sure the lake's maintained? MR. BELLOWS: If they're going to resell, then you would plat the lots and you'd have that maintenance agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if they don't resell? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the conditional use still has the requirement for -- and the restriction on the number of units, and I believe maybe a deed restriction could handle the maintenance easement. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. I think that that could work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they're going to have a common maintenance agreement pursuant to the -- added to the CU as a stipulation, but the -- if they don't plat, then it's going to be by deed restriction; is that right? Okay. MR. BELLOWS: That would be another way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on Mr. Tuff. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Does one person own all these lots? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Then what's the problem? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to sell them off. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He's got them down now. They've already been used. He's going to sell off the land, but he owns all of them, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But he doesn't have to sell them all. He could sell one at a time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what we're saying. Ifhe sells one at a time, then the plat will catch the common maintenance agreement. If he doesn't sell it one at a time and doesn't plat it, then it will be deed restricted to catch it. I just want to make sure it's caught through either process. That was the objective. Mr. Tuff, did you have any other questions? Page 42 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, you were next. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. My questions really center around the neighbors and their rights. What is the closest residence to these -- this area? I'll call it an area, it's so large. MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, you can see on the aerial that you do have a house, existing house, right across 54th Street, and that's -- that was one of the properties that had signed the petition. Where's my aerial. There is it is. Yeah, this is the house right here, and then there's another additional house at this corner here. There's two houses here that are close -- you know, across the street from 54th. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What would you say they are, 150, 200 feet away? MR. DeRUNTZ: Oh, I'd say from the property line that they're probably, you know, 50 foot -- or the one across the street is directly across 54th Street, so that's what, 50 feet, 60 feet away. This other one -- the other one's at corner, probably 150 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So what I'm thinking about is the A buffer and the distance and the amount of quiet enjoyment somebody might benefit from. We have, it's estimated, a year, year and a half before they'll be finished with their function. And I have not been out to the site to know how noisy it is or what their -- the glare and the rest of it that goes along with it, but that would be a concern I have. Is it an A buffer? Will that -- to 50 feet boundary and an A buffer, where's that buffer? Is that going to be right at roadway? MR. DeRUNTZ: Right at -- to the boundary. We're recommending a type D Buffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You are? I thought I saw that in there. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yeah. And you know, the idea is is that, you Page 43 January 19,2006 know, you have these larger lots -- you have these larger lots, you know, around this development, but it -- hopefully in the conclusion, you know, there will be 12 lots and they will be residential. So there'll be, you know, similar type activities. But we were hoping to provide some buffering between these like uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I can appreciate recreational opportunities. Those would be for the homeowners if they did that. The environmental benefit, do I take it that the recharging of the water to the aquifer would be an environmental benefit? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. After the lake is complete. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: But truthfully they're -- even if they do a little bit of dewatering now, the water still goes -- it doesn't go anywhere. It stays in the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So there's no concern about that. That's good. I'm happy to hear that. Okay, let's see what else. I've got that part of it. Just explain for me, please -- because I'm not clear on this. The platting, was the platting lost when they had this conditional -- MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir. The platting is there, but when you redevelop it then you need to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Need to requalify the plat size. MR. DeRUNTZ: -- come into the existing code of the estates where some of these lots may be smaller than what are -- is the . . . mInImUm SIze now. When you -- and then there's the other issue of these homesites have to be 150 by 150 foot in area, where if you're using the existing lots of record here, they're narrower than 150 foot wide where this homesite would -- home pad would be. So there's that replatting that's going to be involved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And will they not own part of Page 44 January 19,2006 the lake as well or -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. So that means that they will have the responsibility for maintenance of some sort? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This lake is not lined in any way? So it's natural to that. I think you've answered my questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is over excavation illegal? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And what is supposed to be the sanction for breaking that law? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know. You'd have to talk to code enforcement who is waiting with baited breath for the outcome of this item when it goes through the planning commission and the board. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The other form of mitigation or fining, so to speak, is the paying of the after-the-fact variance fee. That is one form of fining somebody for -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So in other words you're just saying, just pay to make it legal? MR. BELLOWS: That's one form of it. And as Mr. Chrzanowski indicated, there's also code enforcement action that they're dealing with. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know. It just seems strange to me that the law is not being enforced in this case, and it seems like you're -- how are you not encouraging other landowners to also break the law? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We have a more active program of inspecting lakes than we had when this was done. It's not that we're encouraging them. We just -- from a practical point of view, to haul Page 45 January 19,2006 four acres of fill back in here would strain the roads more than hauling that berm out. We'd be -- we'd be filling in part of a lake unnecessarily from our engineering point of view. We're just looking to get this thing, from an engineering point of view, looking as good as possible, as easily as possible. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But there was a law that was broken. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. And there is code enforcement action against it. As soon as we found it, we turned it in to code, and that's standard procedure. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm just thinking maybe a little too personally, but I know a young adult in Immokalee, ifhe doesn't pay his tag or he doesn't pay his insurance, he can not only be fined, but he can be jailed. And we're talking about very small amounts of money. This is -- we're talking about a much greater amount of money. Instead of any fine or sanction, the person is getting rewarded with being able to get all that fill and sell it and then develop the property. That doesn't seem right to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And this is the -- to Mike. The property, since they're playing an area game here with 50 percent of the site, some of these sites are really remote from it. I mean, is that meeting the intent of what the law is? I mean, the ones to the southwest are not even bordering on the lake. It's just added in there to get area, and it's kind of -- is that the intent of the 50 percent? I mean -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, a lot would have to be contiguous, which these are. MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, they -- you know, they were hoping to, you know, get as much excavation as they can out of this. But you're Page 46 January 19,2006 correct, they're trying to conform to the existing excavation laws that the permits were issued by and -- but they're having, you know, gone beyond the limits of what was permitted previously. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we are -- I think we're bending over backwards to help them, which I do agree with one thing, we do need fill. The first fellow testified that there may be a purchase on that little strip that's in the center there. Would not they have had to disclose that in their application, or if it was purchased since the application, update their application to disclose that? MR. DeRUNTZ: That's correct. And I have been in contact with the representative for that property owner, and they have been -- have had discussions, but they have not come to an agreement on the sale of the property, and so that's why it has been left out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But I mean, ifthey did include that property by whatever they had to do to get it, maybe that's the punishment Paul's speaking about. But if they did have to include that property, wouldn't that cure that 50 percent problem? MR. DeRUNTZ: It would get closer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none. Ray, is there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing and we have two motions -- two particular applications here, one is for a variance, and one is for a CD. The variance has recommendations by staff, as does the CU. I think we have, in discussion, possibly come up with five suggestions that would probably make this a little bit better of an application. Page 47 January 19,2006 One is -- and I'm saying this now so that if the motion maker wants to entertain them, then that's all the more, we can get more accomplished more quickly. We heard that 12 months is maybe able to accommodate but doesn't account for time delays due to weather for completing of the excavation. If we were to favor with this application, we might want to consider a time limit of no more than 14 months for the conditional use as far as the excavation goes. We ought to include a statement that there be no traffic on 54th Street Northeast. I know that's part ofthe permit, but in the conditional use, it would strengthen it. The working hours are seven a.m. to five p.m. The reason I'm suggesting that is the county changes those periodically, and this would not apply then. It would have to apply pursuant to the conditional use. Yes, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question on it. How many days a week is that; is that stipulated five days a week? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do you know? It surely isn't on Sundays, I would imagine. You can't work on the weekends, I didn't think, but -- MR. BELLOWS: Monday through Friday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Monday through Friday. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the -- in the staffs recommendations, I think it was recommendation number nine, at the end of that I would suggest we add the language, not to exceed 12 homesites. And the other item that we would want to add somewhere in the stipulations is that common maintenance will be done by a replatting or by deed restriction, whichever is appropriate at the time excavation is completed, which would be 12 or 14 months from the time this is -- Page 48 January 19,2006 if that recommendation is accepted. So these are the suggestions I would have to any motion made. And Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question. If this variance and the conditional use are approved, does that prevent code enforcement from taking action? MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that this is a requirement to help mitigate from code enforcement action. Whether they continue with other items, I would have to defer to Mr. Chrzanowski if he has any additional information. But I don't believe it fully alleviates. They'll still have to go to code enforcement board and report that they've received a conditional use and the variance for what they've done. Whether there's other forms of -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. This is just to make this legal. What code development does after that is what they do. COMMISSIONER CARON: But you don't know whether that will prevent them from doing anything? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It won't prevent them from doing it. The first thing -- when you have a violation, the first thing, you try to get the violation legal. Then code enforcement does whatever it is -- I'm sorry. I don't deal with them a whole lot. MR. BELLOWS: I think what happens is, if the petitioner failed to take any action, code enforcement board would take that into account. They also would take into account that the petitioner has paid after-the-fact variance fees, has paid for the additional conditional use and is making the thing legal, and that would help offset any action that they would take. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Donna, your point is that this would cure the code enforcement problem, which stops code enforcement. In other words, there is no way -- and I've watched the commission deal with this. There is no way for a contractor who does something wrong, gets cured through the variance process, there is no Page 49 January 19,2006 way to go back and work with that contractor as to the fact that he did something wrong to begin with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I had a question about the 14 months. I understand you've considered two months slippage based on weather. But beyond that if they -- let's say they go beyond 14 months, we're back in the same situation that we were before where they're violating. Can we make it stronger, do you think, in some way, that -- I'm not sure I could come up with anything, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if we put a stipulation of 14 months, they couldn't go beyond it without coming back in for another conditional use. And if they've not addressed it properly, we'd find out then. I mean, for the amount of dirt they've got to do, you can do 10,000 yards a month. There's no reason they can't knock that pit out in 12 months. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See, that's what I don't know and you do know, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't know why they can't get it done. And I understand if we have a hurricane season like we did last year and we get a couple delays, I can't see it taking more than a couple months past that. So I thought that 14 months is reasonable, for the work they've got to do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I feel more secure now. And then code enforcement, knowing this is an active issue, would be more likely to jump out there ifthere's -- what do we have -- Mr. Bellows, what do we have in our documents that -- a tickler to allow code enforcement to see something like -- and go out and take care of their responsibility to verify compliance? MR. BELLOWS: In understand the question correctly, there's always a computer tracking that they have, so ifthere's any calls come in, they're tracked through their computer monitoring. And if a particular resident has a -- wants to check up on the site, they can just Page 50 January 19,2006 call code enforcement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So interested parties certainly as well can -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So we have the elements in place for it. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then one other question kind of related to what Mr. Murray just hit upon. This common maintenance agreement that would be by either a replat or deed restriction, common maintenance means control over the exotics, the cattails, the lake embankment. That's costly. If this lake is dug, how are we assured by a bond or whatever that the money is there to do this common maintenance should this not be sold right away? MR. BELLOWS: That's a good question. I'll have to check on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we ought to figure out an answer for it before we finish here. I mean, do you have an excavation bond in place -- MR. DeRUNTZ: There is an excavation bond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, somebody needs to use the speaker. Okay. And Stan's probably more of an authority on excavation bonds, Mike, so let me ask him. Stan, can that excavation bond be tagged and remain in place to assure that this addition, this common maintenance agreement is either enacted and it's used, or is it strictly for excavation, we can't -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think if the developer agrees to it. But generally when we do the final inspection of the lake, we release the bond because the lake is built according to plans and specs. If you want a permanent maintenance bond, maybe you're going to have to get the homeowners' association to contribute to a fund or something. Page 51 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my fear is there's no-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Everything takes permanent maintenance, exotics and preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Exotic removal from every site I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then how do we know in a site like this, or how do we control and force it to happen in perpetuity without -- say that -- but see, here's what I think could happen, this is going to get dug, they're going to make the money on the fill. Land out in that area's only going to get more valuable as time goes on, lake front views are very valuable, so it wouldn't hurt to sit on this for a while. And if they sat on it for five years and the lakes became inundated with cattails and other problems, how is that now rectified with, simply, we have language that says, there'll be a common maintenance agreement by deed restriction or replat, but yet there's no enforcement because there's no money to make it happen. How is -- do you know how that happens? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: My son lives in Golden Gate Estates. He's constantly pulling Brazilian peppers out because his neighbors have them, although he was built under the new code that calls for them to be removed, and he doesn't like them, so he pulls them out while they're small. But I don't know how it happens in the rest of the estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the rest aren't excavated like this. That's the only -- that's the only difference. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, we could, I suppose, put in place some type of permanent maintenance bond. It's the only way I could see to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I didn't have a question. The point is, I had a statement for you, that before this property gets Page 52 January 19,2006 sold, you say it might take a few months or few years, they couldn't possibly sell it until all this thing was done, and anything that was not up to snuff had to -- is made up to snuff before it could -- the land could be sold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they could. I mean, it's up to the due diligence of the buyer. I mean -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. You're still going to have to go in -- yeah, I'm sorry, you're right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. I don't think they could because of the code saying that you're a certain percentage. And we're giving them a variance to that. If they start selling off parcels -- although I suppose if they sell the parcels with a lot of lakes, they could throw themselves into compliance -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- without even doing anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I just want to make sure that we catch all the loopholes that might occur, especially if it's been proven that we have problems in the past with this particular site. No sense opening us up for more in the future. So I think as part of the recommendation we might want staff, between now and the time it goes to the BCC, to take a look at some kind of maintenance bond to assure that this site is maintained properly. MR. BELLOWS: That would seem to be the logical way to handle it, a permanent maintenance bond. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Paul's statement kind of got to me. Is there a way that we could, while we approve this for future use, make a condition that in no way endorses past unpermitted activity? In other words, this variance -- the problem I have with the variance, that it's a cure for unpermitted activity when, in fact, I Page 53 January 19,2006 certainly think that the site should go in the direction that it's going. But I don't think that that should relieve -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We do have a program in place. We visit every excavation -- every commercial excavation in Collier County, and we have inspectors visiting the ones in places like Fiddler's Creek and Pelican Marsh that are technically not commercial. They visit it once a month and they take pictures and they take measurements, and they look at what's being done. I don't think we're going to get another case like this. But we do have a couple of outstanding small excavations out there we have problems with. So far we haven't had to bring any of them to you because the owners realize they have a problem, and before they sell the land they have to work out the problem, and these people are more interested in selling, so they came in and worked out the problem with us. COMMISSIONER CARON: Stan, how long is the -- have you had these people onboard to do these surveys? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think it's been going on for two years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Stan, you're making it sound like it's your fault for not enforcing it that causes this unpermitted work, and that's not the case. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. Yeah, we know that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, my concern really is MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't think this will happen again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- Paul's statement is true, people get beat up for small things and get in a lot of trouble for small things, yet we just turn our back on big things sometimes. And what I'm saying is, if there was a way to put a condition, that we certainly approve this to go forward in this direction, that it in no way endorses -- I think it cures prior activity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wouldn't that go without saying Page 54 January 19,2006 though, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think it does go without saymg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, I'd like to chime in. I think that it's -- if you -- if it's part of the reason without being a condition, I don't think it's exactly land use related condition that would go with the variance, but a strong statement on the record, I think, would suffice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion maker could make that statement in their motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, I'd make a motion that we pass the two petitions with the six stipulations you said with a statement added that this is not an endorsement of past sins, or however you want to word it. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, can we start with the conditional use petition first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Let's start with -- yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two separate petitions. In the order that they're in our book -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, the variance, I believe, is supposed to be voted on first; is that not correct, Mr. DeRuntz? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the variance is the first one in the book, so let's entertain a motion on the variance. Now, the variance is different than the conditional use regarding the stipulations. I think the stipulations are more appropriate to a conditional use where the variance is for acreage that has been applied for insofar as over excavation. So if you guys want to entertain a motion for the variance -- is that what you'd like to do, Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: So move. Page 55 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You make a motion to recommend approval for the variance? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Now, we are going to get into the conditional use in a minute, but the variance is the issue on the table right now. Is there any discussion in regards to the variance? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Would not the variance be the place where the unpermitted prior activity would be best noted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- if that's the feeling ofthis board, then someone needs to state what they want to state and we'll get it on the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's the variance that would cure the past work, so let's just state it on the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to state on the variance that COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That this approval in no way excuses prior unpermitted activity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know on the staff report, page 7, it does talk about an A type buffer, and I thought somewhere in here that I had seen a D as well. But I want to be clear, Michael, you did indicate that there was recommended a D Buffer? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So are you saying that we should be modifying page 7 of 8 to reflect that? Because it's not in your -- it's not in your recommendation that I could see here. MR. DeRUNTZ: It's in the conditional use recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're under the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Should it not be in the variance Page 56 January 19,2006 portion? MR. BELLOWS: You're not varying from that requirement, so this will be reflected in the conditional use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Good. If it's not necessary, fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's been a motion made and seconded, there's been language added to the motion to emphasize the distaste for breaking the rules. Motion maker have any problems with the comments that have been made? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Sounds beautiful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the second-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'm assuming, goes along with it since he made the comments. Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: Opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-1, with Ms. Caron opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one, conditional use. Does anybody wish to make a motion on the conditional use? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I would make the motion that we pass Page 57 January 19,2006 the conditional use with the six stipulations you stated, such as 12 units, only on 56th Avenue limited from seven a.m. to five p.m., limit to 14 months, and excavation in the deed restriction or a platted area has to be there, and a permanent maintenance bond be attached. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And not to exceed 12 units added to the staffs recommendation on number nine. MR. VIGLIOTTI: And how about five days a week on the-- COMMISSIONER TUFF: I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And five days a week. Okay. Motion's been made. Let's get a second on the motion first. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded the motion. Now discussion? Mr. DeRuntz? MR. DeRUNTZ: Chairman, you also mentioned about no traffic on 54th for the excavation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. He said -- I thought he included that in his motion. MR. DeRUNTZ: He did. Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was -- he didn't go in the order, but he did, I think, get everything in there. Is there any further discussion on this? Mr. Schiffer, do you want to make a statement, just add one to this one as well? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. I definitely think that the statement should be, is that this in no way excuses prior unpermitted activity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess as long as you understand that needs to be emphasized to the BCC when we -- Page 58 January 19,2006 MR. BELLOWS: It will be emphasized on the executive summary to the board. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just so that everybody is aware, I will vote against this as well. I really think we have a serious problem and that we should not be rewarding individuals for -- or companies that flaunt the law. These permits expired in 2002. It is now 2006. We're just getting this to us. And their -- and instead we're going to send through a variance and a conditional use that essentially takes away code enforcement's ability to go after these people, and I think that's exactly opposite of what the Board of County Commissioners has been talking about recently with respect to variances. Just so everybody's aware, I will vote against it again. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms. Caron. No further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7-2. Thank you. MR. DeRUNTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point we will take a 15-minute break to 10:25. Thank you. Page 59 January 19,2006 (A brief recess was had.) Item #8D PETITION DOA-2005-AR-8113 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will get back to their seats, we'll bring this meeting to order. Next item on our agenda is petition number DRI-DOA-2005-AR-8113, the Vineyards of Naples DRI. Any disclosures on the part of the commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Anybody wishing to speak on this issue, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SAADEH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Michael Saadeh, S-A-A-D-E-H. I'm the chieffinancial-- chief executive officer and the president of Vineyards Development Corporation. Today we're requesting an extension to the DRI development order, the build-out date only. The original DRI was approved in October of 1985. In September of'86, the final ordinance was adopted, ordinance number 86-63, and was approved. The first construction activity on the site began in October 1986. An arbitrary build-out date at the time was picked for the construction of the whole development of 20 years. Throughout the 20-year history of the Vineyards, we fulfilled all the regulatory requirements and have not violated any issues or requirements from any agency. Further, we have filed an annual monitoring report every year since 1986. We were under the impression that since the construction began Page 60 January 19,2006 in October of '86, that the 20-year build-out time would be due to expire in October of 2006. We were actually surprised when we got notice by the county in June or July of '05 that the build-out time is lapsing and we needed to commence with renewal process. So we immediately met with county staff, and then we met with people from South Florida Regional Planning Council, and we made contact with the Department of Community Affairs and initiated the process at the request of staff, as soon as all the requirements were identified, the paperwork was prepared, the exhibits there, photographs, everything else you have in your packet. And today was the earliest date that we had except for the Christmas holiday to be before you here. The only thing I'd like to note is that the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the DCA, along with your own county staff, has deemed that the extension of the build-out date is insubstantial in value, and you know, it could be translated as a formality or the like. We hereby request approval of the petition, and I'd like to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions from the planning commission before we hear from staff? Hearing none -- oh, did you have some -- did you have a question, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. I had questions as to, what remaining developments are there that need to be completed, and will they all be done by that time? MR. SAADEH: If you would look at the aerial to my right, there's this project right here, the parcel right behind it, this project right here. And as you can see, they're all under construction, and there are three more mid-rise towers on this side right here, and that's it. Everything -- this is property west of I - 7 5. This is the property east on-75. There's a total of over 45- or 4,600 units built. There are Page 61 January 19,2006 no more SDPs or site plan approvals required. Everything has been mapped and platted. All these lots have been platted and mapped and approved. And just, it's merely the final construction of the site, that's it. So it hasn't been like a sitting PUD. We're not buying time or anything. We just got caught up with timelines from 20 years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, you had a question? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, sir. What is this project going to be doing to address the problem of affordable housing in this county? MR. SAADEH: Sir, that's a zoning question. We've -- I think that our development was approved 20 some years ago. And at the time of the DR! approval, we have -- we have made a lot of concessions, if you would, as part of the approval process. Part of it had to do with building a four-lane road from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road at the expense of the developer, and it's still maintained by the developer. We've donated a 40-some-acre park site, we've donated a 20-some-acre elementary school site. We've built a weir for water control on the 1-75 D2 canal. So I think we've met our obligations with what our civic or any other duties that were required at the time. I mean, today this is not a rezoning petition. We're not re-opening the PUD. We've -- all these parcels have been identified and built up, and all the requirements that were required from the developer originally over the 20 years have been met completely, all of them. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, you had a question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. What is the purpose of Catalina Plaza? MR. SAADEH: To be honest with you, I don't know what Catalina Plaza is. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Catalina Plaza is not Page 62 January 19,2006 something involved in this? MR. SAADEH: To my knowledge, I don't know anything about Catalina Plaza. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions while Mr. Adelstein's researching that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. If we could have staffs presentation. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I am a principal planner with zoning and land development review. You do have the staff report as part of your file, and you have a copy of the one aerial that shows the areas identified that still have some construction pending. Staff is recommending approval. I won't go into great detail unless you actually want me to. I can address the affordable housing question. The way this particular project is set up, it's a DR! from the state, and the state sets forth whether something can be a substantial deviation or not a substantial deviation. If it's determined to be a substantial deviation, it can open up this project to scrutiny for such items. This one, by virtue of the time that they're asking for, which is 364 days -- four years, 364 days, so it's less than five years, so it's determined to be -- not to be a substantial deviation, so it doesn't open it up to any kind of issues such as traffic or anything else like that. If he were to be doing a longer period of time, perhaps those issues would come up. I also have Stan Chrzanowski that would like to speak with you as well, if you don't have any more questions for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MS. DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 63 January 19,2006 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Stan Chrzanowski with engineering review. I was here for the item before and I noticed this on the agenda, so I decided to stay. This, of every project in Collier County, this one we've had the least amount of trouble getting commitments from. The weir on the D2 canal, all the other commitments they've made. This is the only project in Collier County that's up to date with their water management district project certifications. We've had no problems from this developer at all. He's -- I wish everybody were as efficient as they were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two registered speakers. The first is Howard Goldman followed by Frank Corso. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are the public speakers in the audience? If you are, you need to come up and -- oh, okay. Sir, were you sworn in? MR. CORSO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORSO: My name is Frank Corso. I live on Livermore Lane, which abuts one of the projects that's happening in the Vineyards off of Arbor Boulevard. And I just -- I just am expressing concern about the constant truck traffic and the noise that's coming by it at end of the day. It's getting -- this year it's getting to be like a drag strip. I mean, they're leaving and they're really -- it's a 25 -- I believe it's a 25 mile an hour speed limit, and they're just -- there's a lot of aggravation. A lot of my other neighbors have expressed concern, but I don't see any of them here today. So I just wanted to express concern about that, that issue. And I'm just not sure which part of the project we're talking about here, if this is -- you know, I don't expect it's going to Page 64 January 19,2006 stop anything, but I just wanted to express concern about the truck nOIse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may want to talk to your substation commander with the sheriffs department. They do have a roving group of deputies that do more like a -- I don't know what -- the word they use. It's like a stakeout where they'll monitor each end and they'll catch people in between that is effective, and you may want to let them know you're having that problem, and they might be able to respond to you that way. MR. CORSO: Yeah, I can do that. I don't suppose there's any way for there to be any separate construction entrances for any of these projects either in this development? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see that as an issue being opened up by today's discussion. This is strictly a time frame issue to buildout. MR. CORSO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. CORSO: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is there any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: I have one registered by Howard Goldman, but I don't see him here, so I believe he's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Goldman, if you're here, please stand up. Otherwise we're going to move forward. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any further comments from the commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. Entertain a motion. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would recommend approval of petition DRI-DOA-2005-AR-8813 to the Board of County Page 65 January 19,2006 Commissioners as described by the amending DR! development order resolution. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, second by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. MR. SAADEH: Thank you very much. Item #8E PETITION PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6417 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's hope the rest oftoday is as easy as that one was. We'll move on to petition PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6417, Ronald Betterson -- Benderson, et aI, Trustee. It's the rezone, 1-75/ Alligator Alley from PUD to commercial planned unit development. This is a -- Page 66 January 19,2006 is this a continuation, Michael, from the prior meeting, or has this been advertised as a new meeting? MR. DeRUNTZ: This is a continuation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is continuation. Thank you. And I guess the -- as soon as the applicant's organized, they can start their presentation. We'll first need disclosures and then swearing in. I'm sorry. I've been moving too fast. Let's do swearing in first. All those wishing to participate in this hearing, please rise, raise your right hand for the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. I had a phone conversation with Robert Duane regarding architectural design issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a phone conversation with Bruce Anderson regarding this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Anderson called me, but we didn't go forward because I indicated I was very involved in reading and I could not speak to him about the matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know that you all got a mass emailing from Mr. Anderson asking us to call him about the project. He finally called me, and I did speak to him about the project, and we discussed issues about traffic concerns and the inconsistency noted in the staff report, and he was going to come today to address that. And anything that he and I discussed will be reasked at today's meeting. So hearing no others, Mr. Anderson, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Roetzel and Andress here on behalf of the Page 67 January 19,2006 applicant. We were before you in late November on this number, you may recall, and it was right after the state had pulled funding for Davis Boulevard widening, and we were all surprised and in a reactive mode to that, and you were kind enough to continue our hearing to allow us to regroup and focus on that issue and see what we could do to address the concerns that had been raised. I'll note -- I'll let staff speak for themselves, but it is my understanding that the recommendation from staff that is reflected in the report you have is not current and that they are recommending approval of this application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's deja vu. This is what started this. So now staffs going to reverse its position as they did two months ago; is that what you're telling us? MR. ANDERSON: That's what I'm led to understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have to see. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: The principal problem that we had two months ago was an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, particularly policy 5.1 of the transportation element which says that the county commission shall not approve any rezone request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating or projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service within the five-year planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are approved. We have offered specific mitigating stipulations, and I'll summarize those for you. There are some important transportation system benefits that approval of this PUD will provide, and these are in the form of the stipulations to address this policy. Number one, the project will be providing shared access with the east Gateway commercial PUD immediately to the west of this project, and that will help coordinate. There'll be a traffic signal, as I understand, and it will line up with the Marketplace project across the Page 68 January 19,2006 street as well, I believe. In connection with that, the current entrance is being relocated further west to lessen the impacts on the signalized intersection as planned there. Very importantly, the applicant has offered up a phasing plan for this project. This PUD currently has adequate public facilities certificates for approximately 130,000 square feet of commercial uses. Anything above that would not be able to be issued a Certificate of Occupancy until Davis Boulevard widening was completed. Also, importantly, the project has made provision for the acceptance of drainage from Davis Boulevard when widening. That will save whoever winds up paying for the Davis widening, whether it be the state or the county or some combination thereof, that will save money in that respect by their acceptance of stormwater from the roadway. That will be just some other land that the state and county won't have to buy. Besides the transportation benefits, there are some environmental benefits that were recognized by the EAC in their unanimous recommendation of approval for this PUD amendment, providing for the revegetation of a failed conservation area and providing fencing around the perimeter of that to help with its restoration, and also a provision of off-site mitigation for the impacts to wetlands. Also another public benefit of this project is in the area of affordable housing where a contribution has been offered up in the PUD document to make payments to the county's affordable housing trust fund for all of the improvements that do not already have an adequate public facilities certificate; in other words, the extra commercial that can't be occupied until Davis is widened, payments to the affordable housing trust fund will be made for that commercial development. Lastly-- MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me. How much would the payments be? Page 69 January 19,2006 MR. ANDERSON: They're reflected in the PUD document. MR. BELLOWS: Is that 50 cents per -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The timing of those, again, was when you CO'ed the commercial? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Well, actually those -- no. It's at the time of SDP approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- okay. That's fine. That works. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: And lastly, the last benefit, public benefit, that approval of this PUD provides is the provision of two potable water wellsites to the county. I have with us today the other members of the team. Robert Duane, planner for the project; Robert Price from the Metro Transportation Group; and Rick Reiff from Kimley Horn Engineering firm. And we're available to answer questions that you may have now or later after the staff presentation. And Ken Passarella is also here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are certainly a lot of questions. I don't know how the panel wants to handle that. I am little interested in seeing what staffs change of heart is again, if that is actually the fact. Do you want to question the applicant and then go into staff report like we normally do first? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to hear the staff report first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This is such a change that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was thinking the same thing. So, Michael, if you could address all of these issues, we'd appreciate it. MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development review. Page 70 January 19,2006 You have a copy of my supplemental staff report as part of the record. This item was continued from the November 17,2005, meeting. And with this -- with that report, you also had a report from the updated traffic impact statement, and the -- and the revised PUD document. In my staff report I identified the changes that were made. In the traffic impact statement, the conditions did not change. It was identified that Davis Boulevard, you know, was -- did not meet current level of service demands and that policy 5.1 of the transportation element of the growth management plan was not met, and because of that it was inconsistent with the growth management plan. We did in the staff report state though, however, that the planning commission may determine that the developer's commitment, that there shall be no issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for any permits used until -- and the verbiage of that I put in my recommendation. The -- and transportation representative is here to talk about those commitments that Mr. Anderson had talked about. But on the face, it is not consistent with the growth management plan, but in the growth management plan it does talk about mitigating stipulations, and that's something that we can discuss. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think that's where staffs caveat is on this, and as noted in the staff report talking about the however, the planning commission and the board has that determination to make that consistency finding where staff would support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if you've got a language in the GMP that says it's got to be a certain way unless there are mitigating circumstances and an applicant provides the mitigating circumstances and those are ones that the departments accept, doesn't that make it then consistent? MR. BELLOWS: I still think a consistency finding has to be Page 71 January 19,2006 made by the board, too. And I think in the long run it could have been rewritten to phrase it the way you're implying, yes, and it probably could state that staff could have supported -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not right now weighing in on whether I support or not support this amendment, or action today, but what I'm trying to understand is, if you have a GMP that has conditions that allow you to become consistent and you utilize those to approval of the staff, then the recommendation that it's inconsistent wouldn't seem to apply anymore. Is that -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, I think it boils down to what's determined to be a mitigating factor. And I believe transportation responded that it was found mitigating, but I don't know if that was at the time this was written or not. Now, maybe Mike -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I understand what you're saying. I'm -- necessarily wish it was handled differently. But I think if -- with the board's pleasure, we'll -- maybe transportation can chime in on all this; is that okay with the members? Okay. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation. Some of the language I got up to yesterday, the PUD document so -- but the way that Mike wrote it I didn't have a problem with in the sense that if the board accepts -- first of all, from staffs standpoint, I agree, that's mitigation. We've already had the discussion, is time mitigation, and yes it is because it gives you time to do what you need to do to bring it up to -- to make it meet the problems that you have out there. The second part of that is that I -- this does meet it, waiting until the time that Davis is opened, substantially -- I think it's written substantially complete, essentially open to traffic out there, before the COs are done. But some of the thing -- I think the reason why we have what we have and the way it was written is the timing between the last meeting and this meeting and not having it as, this came through as a whole package that we reviewed back and forth and Page 72 January 19,2006 comments back and forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't review this prior to yesterday? MR. SCOTT: Some of the issues with the staff -- I got this report, the thing, about two days ago, the report itself. We had discussions with the applicant previous to that about some of the issues you were going to have. But not seeing the write-up in the PUD language, you know, obviously I want to see what we're talking about, make sure the language is in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how we move all these things through the departments without them seeing them, and they come and get scheduled for a public hearing and we hear them without your final review. I mean, we're assuming that every department has weighed in on these. MR. SCOTT: And it's more so because of the continuation. Obviously we went back and forth on the traffic. We had comments on that. And that's the issue that we were dealing with at the immediate time and not the end result, which is the mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a lot of questions. I imagine the other members do. So with the pleasure of this board, we can start asking Don Scott about the traffic questions or we can move back to the applicant. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Don. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll start with you, Don. In here on page 17 is says, specific capacity is not anticipated to be available on Davis Boulevard until such time as six lane -- is road of six lane and can include with the analysis it fits through (sic) the land development code. There doesn't seem to be any question that you can't use this road until it's six-laned. How can we possibly put anything on it? MR. SCOTT: Anything as in what? Page 73 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Any additional traffic to the numbers this thing will bring out? MR. SCOTT: I think that's the mitigation side of it. The first portion of the project's vested, and essentially they have a COA. I can't do anything about that portion of it. That would -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The fact that -- add a number that -- what will happen when they put that many cars on the road on Davis Boulevard? MR. SCOTT: Well, timing-wise, I'm hoping other improvements will help too, like Santa Barbara. Golden Gate Parkway interchange, that's going to have some aspect of it. So, yes, as things -- you know, if nothing else happened out there, yes, it would get worse. But other improvements parallel whatever are happening. Now Davis, I don't know, five years from now at the rate we're going right now, something like that for widening. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But you're saying that in five years this project will have commenced and some portions of it will be finished. MR. SCOTT: Some portions of it, yes, COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We know that Davis isn't going to be done in five years. MR. SCOTT: Best case, five years. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We know it probably won't even start in five years. So we're going to allow this to go on even though they've bought the right to something that literally is no longer there. The road is there, but use of that road will be almost impossible. MR. SCOTT: You're saying that it's going to be so backed up you can't get in and out. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's correct. Now, I know their feeling and I know they paid for it, but the issue right now is, we had no idea that last year the state would say, we're not going to do# Page 74 January 19,2006 this road now. MR. SCOTT: No. And when all of that happened back in 2002, they didn't obviously know -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Of course. MR. SCOTT: -- what was four years from now. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But we've got to live with today, 2006, and right now that road is not functional. You can't add that kind of traffic to it and assume that anything else is going to happen but a logjam. Now, I don't know how to get around this. I realize what their position is. I understand their position and I wish that we could get it -- that we could actually go ahead and let them do it. But if we do, we will literally close Davis Road. Because right now I've driven on it once last week at four o'clock going towards 951, it only took me 25 minutes to get down that street, and that's without what they're going to put on the road. MR. SCOTT: All right. Well, my only qualification to what you're saying is that there are other improvements that will be in place, like Golden Gate Parkway interchange opening up, will take some of the traffic out of Davis. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you some enough (sic) or enough to make it work? MR. SCOTT: Well, and obviously from a model standpoint, it takes 10 to 15 percent traffic out of there. Is that enough? It might be. I think it probably has more benefit when Santa Barbara's extended, which is -- which is programmed. It could be more. You know, obviously what you're referring to is if it gets so bad like you're talking about, people will find alternative routes, too, if those alternative routes are there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. Ifwe turn it into a parking lot, that's what's going to happen. MR. SCOTT: Yep. Page 75 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, the issue today is that we are -- that we can do something. Whether -- if we approve this, they have certain elements of square footage, like 265,000 square feet and a 107 -unit hotel room, some of which is already built. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe don't approve it, they have what the old PUD is. But they also, if we don't approve it, it has no impact on the 130,000 square feet of COAs already offered, right? MR. SCOTT: That will still build, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So any action that we take today will have no impact on the 130- COAs already issued. That's a given? MR. SCOTT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a given? MR. SCOTT: That's a given. And the argument could be made that you're getting, you know -- we've had these conversations with other parcels. You're getting more than what you had previously. If you say no, you're going to get the 130,000 anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure we understood that so everybody's aware that that 130- is, unfortunately, something that happened and we may have to live with it either -- regardless of today's outcome. So with that, are there any -- we can start working questions now with, I guess, all parties involved. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have you thought of any other items of mitigation that would be useful in that area that might be possible? MR. SCOTT: We've already -- this ownership group owns on the south side also. We've already approached them about right-of-way on -- we don't need right-of-way necessarily on the north side of the road, so we've already approached them about right-of-way on the south side of the road, though that is not addressed in here Page 76 January 19,2006 separately to that, so we needed stormwater more so than the right-of-way itself. So, yeah, we are up and down the corridor, that's what we're looking at. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they've been responsive in the positive? MR. SCOTT: Yes, they have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And of the items that Mr. Anderson counted off, how many of them were new since our continuance? Do you have any idea? MR. SCOTT: The stormwater's new, the -- obviously the not to build until it's six-laned is new. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Drainage. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, drainage, exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought -- okay. So we really -- since the continuance there have been a number of items that have been added that are helpful to the overall project, and if approved, we still wouldn't be looking at that activity until the road is completed, which could be seven years? MR. SCOTT: Could be, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a healthy investment on the part of Benderson, I could say. Thank you. MR. SCOTT: I don't think at this point they have much choice either. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the panel? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, maybe. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You talk about improvements, the Golden Gate interchange and the Santa Barbara extension as helping the traffic in the future. What about the overall worsening of traffic as areas to the east on-75 develop and there's an increased need to get Page 77 January 19,2006 access to that area that's within two miles of the coast? I mean, that's going to go in the other direction, too, and you can't perceive that because that's a more diffuse kind of an effect. MR. SCOTT: Well, and the model takes into account trips coming out of the estates essentially trying to get to the urban area, either for services and/or trying to go to work. And does that get worse in the future, yes, that's why we're looking at corridors out there like Vanderbilt Beach Road extension and other issues like that. So even -- when I talk about the model of the interchange at Golden Gate Parkway and 1-75, that's taking into account your future growth in that area, too. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But how much faith can we have in the models? Because it seems as though in the present things seem to work out worse than they were projected to in models of previous years. MR. SCOTT: And in a sense, if you look in the past -- and I've looked at all the way back to 1988 when they had a traffic ways model and looked at projections for the future, there are two things that are different. One things is, if you look at the older models, the growth was assumed to be in the south faster than in the north, and that kind of jumped up to the north. So some of the road network on the north side wasn't as accurate from that standpoint. But from a traffic standpoint, pretty accurate except faster than projected, and what I mean by that is the populations were always held down because everybody said, we're not going to grow like that. Now, we use University of Florida Beeber (phonetic) numbers for population, and that's been -- you know, there's been conversations at the AUIR and some of the long-range plan aspects of that. Even using high Beeber numbers wasn't enough for some years of growth, and that's the problem. The model wasn't wrong it was just too fast -- I mean, the population was faster than that. Page 78 January 19,2006 So in look at it and I say, I've got a 2030 model right now, will it happen by 2022? Maybe. But if I have those systems in place, then I can mitigate for the traffic. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you're saying that even with the high rate of growth that the county is now going with, that the traffic will not be bad on those -- on these roads. MR. SCOTT: They will. On certain segments there always will be. But, you know, one of the aspects of the concurrency is you're looking like from an aspect of right now, what's in your system, what did you bank for trips. Then you go out and model out what the future's going to be. If I have all those roads in place, but I also have all those developments in place, what is the issue going to be? Now, are there certain corridors that will get -- everything's a timing issue. For instance -- I'm trying to make a good example. In have a roadway that's going to get bad and I need a parallel roadway to it, in don't get that parallel roadway in timely, yeah, that traffic on a certain roadway might be bad for a while. But as long as I still do that parallel roadway, the I have relief to it. Now, is it perfect all the way along? No. You have -- you have political issues, you have other issues, environmental issues that might stop certain things to happen, but that's why we try to build the model side of it now. Is funding an issue? Obviously. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You say that the COs will be dependent on the road improvements. Is it -- is it good for us to be, in a sense, allowing this developer to reserve space in the future before others since he's going to be the first one to get this request in before the roads are even done? MR. SCOTT: Excellent question, because instead of saying just now, what about the future. What are you doing beyond that. I had a conversation, and obviously things change as development changes. You're talking about the eastern portion of the county. Things Page 79 January 19,2006 that we do in the eastern portion might help some of the commutes in the future; might hurt too if we don't do certain things out there. Well, let's just talk specifically about this project in this corridor. I got a call from -- I'm working with the designer that's working for FDOT for State Road 84, Davis Boulevard widening. And they said, can you provide all of the development up and down the corridor? And I said, I'll give you the development, but I'll also give you what -- kind of what we hear might happen on a certain corridor out there, because they basically told me, they said, if I look at it right now, I don't justify six lanes. A four-lane roadway for improvement would work there. Now, what that tells me from -- and this is from, you know, a new model. They used the latest adopted model and started analyzing the corridor -- is that, you know, theoretically from what they're doing, if I'm saying that I can add two more lanes above that, I have some extra capacity in this corridor once I can do six lanes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, did you read the new TIS that was issued in detail with this project? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ITE has recommendations for pass-by rates. Are you in agreement with the pass-by rate that was used in this project? MR. SCOTT: At -- it was around, what, 30 percent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. But it was -- this project is below 400,000 square feet. MR. SCOTT: It's -- you know, it's probably one of the issues we discuss a lot, and I think, you know, we've talked about changing the -- what'd I call it -- the TIS guidelines to address specifically what we think rule of thumb should be used in the future. As you note in the report, it says anywhere from 8 to 89 percent. I don't know where the heck they have 89 percent pass-by, but -- it might be a little bit high, Page 80 January 19,2006 but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ave Maria. MR. SCOTT: That's like 64, I think, but anyway. It might be a little bit high. You know, obviously it depends on things -- how they -- how it develops and what's there. One aspect that I look at is I try to look at the worst case that we're talking about, even in the corridor. You know, end result of that TIS is, does it change necessarily what I'm going to say today? No, because, you know, one thing we might look at is, would you do an interim improvement at Davis and 951 based on your saying it's failing? Until we do all those improvements it's going to fail. No. We've done, you know, our interim improvement. We spent a lot of money on that. I would not do anything more to that until we do, you know, the ultimate widening of the roadway. So from an aspect of anything -- if we're talking about 10 percent less or whatever, I don't believe that change is the end result of what we're talking about today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have a lot of questions on the TIS. When I get started I'm going to start my questions in order, so if you could just stand by once I get going. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to follow up on that question of reservation. When a six-lane road is completed for Davis, what are -- is there anything contemplated that would improve it beyond the six lanes? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. The ultimate -- and this -- you'll hear more about this because the new cost estimate for Davis -- and I use that loosely because I'm meeting with FDOT next week about it -- was around 60 million. And right-of-way, I, guess, went up a lot. The issue is, as part of widening Davis, included in that cost was cost for ultimate improvements at Davis, 951 and the interstate. So it included, for instance, buying the gas station on the north side of the road. Well, the road's being widened to the south side. I don't Page 81 January 19,2006 necessarily need that for Davis itself, but that was towards the ultimate interchange. So, yeah, next year -- it's either next year or the year after that, there's a $9 million design to look at the whole interchange in there. And I think ultimately we'll probably end up with pieces of it over time that kind of fit into the ultimate picture. You know, obviously one thing right now is if you're trying to go north and get on the interstate, that left turn onto the interstate is problematic. A loop like at Immokalee is something that we probably needed previously, but this would be something that would be like an interim improvement towards it. So all of those, the ultimate improvements in there, are above and beyond the six lanes of either of those two roads. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the following question then would be, given that -- predicated that the six-lane widening is completed and they can begin their work, would that create as many problems because of the fact that the rest of those improvements are not in place? Would we not have a condition that would be as negative as we perceive it to be negative now in the absence of six-laning? In other words, does it really do what you need it to do to keep us out of trouble? MR. SCOTT: Six lanes on there and six lanes on 951. Yes. And obviously for all buildout, I'd say no, obviously. But obviously in the context of even my conversation with the designer that said, you know, I think you can get away with four lanes. Well, I don't want to do four lanes. I don't want to do the interim improvement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. SCOTT: But-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so getting back to the reservation issue is that if this were given -- and this is essentially on the north side, if you will, would traffic flow be okay? Would the reservation issue impact? Would there be some other questions associated with others needing and wanting -- Page 82 January 19,2006 MR. SCOTT: And maybe we're not answering the whole question. They are vested to go with the 130-. Whatever they do above and beyond it is subject to concurrency. So even five years from now or six years from now when Davis is done, they'd still be subject to the concurrency system in place at the time, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So there's a few speed bumps along the way? MR. SCOTT: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's what I needed to understand. MR. SCOTT: Right. I mean if we -- I mean, theoretically, I guess, if everybody started using Davis overnight and we didn't make extra capacity in there, then it might not be able to go forward at that time, whatever, it's six, seven years. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've answered my question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, when you did your concurrency on this particular site how much square footage did you allocate, total buildout? MR. SCOTT: Two hundred sixty-five, I believe it was, 265,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what they're asking for today. Their prior PUD didn't have a number. At least it didn't have it in the PUD. It did in public records. What number did you rely on prior to today's PUD in order to come up with the square footage for that site? MR. SCOTT: I looked at, from the purposes of -- obviously from concurrency aspect, it's the 130- today. But for modeling and everything we were talking about previously, I looked at what was originally talked about, around 260,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you come up to use that number? MR. SCOTT: Because I believe from what our conversation -- it might have been conversations if it wasn't in something. But I know Page 83 January 19,2006 that was a level that we had talked about previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm going to need to find out-- I'll talk to the applicant, then if -- I have questions for transportation, but I need to work my way through the rest of the document and then get back to you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- just one other thing occurred to me with regard to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If concurrency rules change and -- under 360 and they have a five-year window, then what does that do to us? In other words, the widening is done, but we're not -- we're not concurrent under our current rules, but under the new rules. What are the implications of that? MR. SCOTT: I guess if you said that tomorrow we adopted everything that is in the new growth management bill including proportionate share, then it would be looked at that, is there a problem within five years. If there's not, then they would be allowed to go. If there would be a problem, they would be required to pay a proportionate share to resolve that problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then go? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we're on a -- okay. I wonder if we could somehow constrain it to make it a stipulation according to concurrent concurrency policy in our county. I don't know if that's binding, but that will be subject to conversation later. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the board doesn't mind, then maybe the applicant, whoever would like to address square footages. MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane, D-U-A-N-E. There are no limitations on square footage as, per se, in the ordinance as we discussed at our hearing last week. There were some numbers that were contained in the 1988 traffic impact study that was Page 84 January 19,2006 done some time ago that made some assumptions as to what, you know, measures were analyzed at that time. But, frankly, those were not translated into any limitations that were contained in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DUANE: The number of square feet per acre for this residential -- for this commercial project is approximately 9,000 square feet per acre, which is not an untypical amount of square footage that's typically provided in a retail project. The number of square feet we're proposing for 27 acres, more or less, of actual buildable commercial area is reasonably typical of a kind of a retail development that you would expect of this size at this location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you finished? MR. DUANE: Until -- unless you have another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I have. Lots one, two and three, if I'm not mistaken by the analysis that you all provided in your -- I'll tell you the document -- water management study, on those three lots you're proposing 32,234 square feet. Does that sound reasonable? MR. DUANE: Sounds reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lot four, does it sound reasonable that you had proposed 125,000 square feet? Let me tell you where I'm going, Bob, so you haven't got to answer a lot of questions not where I'm trying to get to. November 28, 1989, there was a presentation made by Ray Bellows and you in front of the Board of County Commissioners to obtain the zoning for the site. Mr. Bellows said the following: He reported that the intended use of this 40-acre site is for a mixed-use planned developed allowing for non-residential development on lots one, two, and three, and up to 125,000 square feet of non-residential development or 90,000 square feet of non-residential development and a 100-unit motel on lot four. He explained that on lots five and six, petitioner proposes 150 Page 85 January 19,2006 multi-family dwelling units, or a 250-unit motel or a combination thereof. Now, if you translate all that into square footages, I come up with about 208-,209,000 square feet. Have you done a similar exercise? MR. DUANE: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What did you come up with? MR. DUANE: About the same number of square feet, depending upon what assumptions that you make. Those were guesstimates that were, you know, made a long time ago, but notwithstanding that, you could translate those back into a number of square footage. But the ordinance is very specific. Development intensity is a measurement of height and setbacks, and those never translated into the ordinance. It was an impact analysis that was done, and I never envisioned that as a regulatory tool that would somehow limit the number of square feet in this development some almost 20 years hence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you made the presentation to the BCC. It was the second time it was presented. It was rejected or it was not -- they didn't react on it in the first meeting. They had to come back. And the issues seemed to be something with the intensity on the site. You stood up before the BCC and you provided them this information that I just read out of the public record from 1989. Do you believe in making that presentation you were giving them information that was inaccurate, or do you believe it was accurate information? MR. BELLOWS: That was a while ago, and I'm trying to remember the situation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray, I've never known you to-- MR. BELLOWS: -- other than I'm quoting information that I had reviewed, and that was part of the application. Whether -- how Mr. Duane recalls, that was not part of an overall writing maximum square footage, I can't recall. Page 86 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I can only go by the record, and my -- based on the record -- and we have had arguments about made -- statements made on record and how valid they are. It sure seems that the intent of the project back in 1989 was less square footage than we're discussing today. That's the point I wanted to make, and we'll just move on from there. MR. DUANE: Commissioner Strain, in may also-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. DUANE: We're adding acreage today to this project, approximately 3.6 acres, over and above what was previously contemplated back in 1989. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're saying that it comes to about 9,000 an acre times 3.6, so you're looking at 32,000 square foot on top of 21 0 for the additional acres, so you're looking at about 242,000 square feet instead of265-. I'm just adding. Also that -- back in '89, you were going to provide 15 acres of wetlands. What are you providing in today's PUD? MR. DUANE: We're providing 12 acres of preserve area and water management area. It's approximately three acres less, the difference being what we're putting in the commercial component of the project. That's in addition to the revegetated areas that we're providing in the off-site mitigation we're also providing to further mitigate our wetland impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the acreage you're adding to this site is not new acreage to the site, it's just changing of uses within the site? MR. DUANE: It's adding approximately 3.6 acres to the commercial area that was previously designated as conservation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your PUD -- why don't we just start on that document, Bob, and work our way through it. And I'd be starting on page 7, 3.3B. I've heard you talk about phasing this morning, but I don't see it addressed in that particular item. In fact, it says, the anticipated time Page 87 January 19,2006 of build out of the project is approximately six years from the time of issuance of the first building permit or 2011. I guess -- MR. DUANE: I think your point's well taken. I think we need to add some language, or until such time as improvements are made to Davis Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, for the record, Mr. Anderson, when I spoke with you yesterday, I told you that I hadn't read the guts of this, that I basically had only gone through the staff report, so I did not have an opportunity to discuss this with you until I read it last night, so -- MR. DUANE: And it's also been addressed in the transportation stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, in this particular document, they keep referring back to very specific sections of the LDC that I believe aren't necessary, as I've spoken many, many times over the past two or three years in these. What my concern is is that their reference to the LDC are very specific. They're saying they -- like, for example, prior to the issuance of the building permit or other development order, the revisions of section 10.02.03 of the LDC site development plans shall be applied to all platted parcels where applicable. Now, I'm not sure that that singular reference addresses all site development plan issues that are addressed in the LDC, and I'm not sure in the future we may not amend the LDC to take care of that. But that kind of specificity is in almost every paragraph of this PUD document, and I don't want us to be in a position where we've eliminated ourselves from an application because of that particular language in this PUD. MR. BELLOWS: I agree, it should say as amended. And just to note, we're also about completed with the process to completely eliminate the PUD document. In the meantime, we were also initiating a process of calling PUD documents to eliminate any Page 88 January 19,2006 reference that's redundant to the LDC, so it won't be in documents that you'll see in the future. Right now there's pipeline petitions that are in, and so you might find language like that in ones that are in the pipeline. But we've made the decision to go with the elimination of the PUD document. The LDC amendment's about ready. I'll be working with Catherine to get it to you in the next cycle, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in any format that this goes forward, whether it's approved or not today, is someone from staff going to add a provision, a general catchall paragraph that relates to the as amendment -- as amended intent of all the LDC references? MR. BELLOWS: That just could be made as a condition of approval by this board, and we'll continue that. And by the time you get to the Board of County Commissioners, we'll have that language in the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Ray. And Bob, on page 11, item 4.16, in the third line you talk about an exception to section 4.06.02D5A. Does this fit -- you've asked for two deviations. MR. DUANE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this fit one of those deviations? MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a page 11 question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's 4.15. It states in there that all off-street parking shall be in accordance with section 4.05.04, but does that also mean -- of the LDC. Does that in any way exclude the fact that it's also governed by the architectural standards? MR. DUANE: No. There's a reference in section 4.13, pertaining to the architectural site and design standards. They're not Page 89 January 19,2006 mutually -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But I'm referring to -- in other words, I don't want anybody to think that the off-street parking part of it trumps the off-street part of the architectural standards. MR. DUANE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, Mike, there's no way that could be happening from those words? MR. DeRUNTZ: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 14, Bob. B2 is just a little typo. If you look at the first word of B2, I think you'll figure it out, parometer. I think you meant perimeter. Under -- on page 16, item D, you have 5541, gasoline service stations. Back in 1989, Mr. Duane noted that the petitioner has removed some of the uses from the PUD, i.e., automobile service stations. Is this not removing or you're trying to put it back in or -- MR. DUANE: I'm putting it back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was originally approved with your statement, taking it out. I don't know why we need more gasoline service stations at that intersection. They seem to be everywhere there. Just making a suggestion. We can stipulate if we get that far today. MR. DUANE: Mr. Anderson just reminded me that several of those gas stations at the intersection are likely to be removed with the widening of Davis Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. You know they've got three Subways at that intersection? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Don't let the cat out of bag on that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 18. I'm trying to figure out where you're trying to go with number 6, B6. It's talking about the motel Page 90 January 19,2006 density. Is your intent here to lock in just what's already on the site or to provide the opportunity for more hotel density -- motel density on the site? MR. DUANE: It was to allow the existing motel that was approved at 26 units per acre to -- basically allowed to be conforming with not only the motel site but a portion of the mitigation area that they used for density. So since we didn't own that property, we didn't want to convert it necessarily to today's standards, which would have been a floor area ratio. As it so happens, the existing motel could be accommodated within our present floor area ratios. But I thought it best to remain -- to retain that as the 26 units per acre it was presently approved under. Any future motel development would be subj ect to the floor area requirements of the LDC, and that was the intent of number six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just said something interesting. You do not own the motel site? MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, does that bring any kind of issues in regarding this PUD and its -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, this issue has come up before, and we've talked about the fact that the applicant can come in and make suggestions for, you know, the areas that they have under their control; however, for the board to change other things in the PUD document that the applicant doesn't have under their control could be problematic. And we had had a memo, if you recall, from our outside land use counsel, Nancy Lanan, on this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the number-- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think what Mr. Duane is attempting to do is alleviate that problem by putting that language in here since they don't own the motel. So they're not trying to ere -- you know, have a nonconformity then be created on property that's already improved and they don't own. Page 91 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how can they create a nonconformity for a property that they can't apply to, meaning -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think he's just clarifying that so that it couldn't be read that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have you read number 6, B6? Have you -- I mean, do you support that -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I inherited this PUD, and so -- from Mr. White, and I was just going with his comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm bringing it up is, first of all, they don't have 26 units per acre on there now. They've got 25.8. I know that's splitting hairs, but if you're trying not to change anything or if you can't change anything, maybe this ought to be worded more specific to that property than is worded here. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think that that would be a good idea to have it be more specific so that it wouldn't create any nonconformity for them. MR. DUANE: Commissioner Strain, we wrote it the way we did just because we didn't have control over that piece of property. And in recognition of that, we tried to treat it exactly as it was previously approved in the site plan that was approved by county staff. We didn't trying -- I wasn't trying to confuse the issue, but I thought that that issue needed to be addressed in the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're right, it does. Ijust want to make sure that the way you've addressed it is as clear as it possibly can be. Number 7 on that same page, maximum height, it says 50 feet and a maximum of five stories. Usually it's a maximum of five stories not to exceed 50 feet. Is there some reason you didn't use that kind of language versus this one? MR. DUANE: No, and I'd have to check the old ordinance, which I do have with me, but I believe that was a carry-over from the '89 PUD. Page 92 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, obviously -- that's another -- well, I'm glad you brought that up. Why didn't we get a strike-out version on this particular ordinance? Does anybody know? Ray? Mike? MR. DUANE: We addressed that issue at our last hearing. The ordinance was so antiquated going back to '89 that we basically started with a new document. Striking through that would have, I'm not sure, had very much relevance to our proceedings. But I had encouraged county staff, however, to encourage -- to include a copy of the old ordinance in the packet. And for whatever reason, they did not do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have. I've read the old one and that's why I asked for a strike-out because it's hard to follow. MR. DUANE: I've been corrected by Mr. Anderson. The prior ordinance had a maximum height of just 50 feet. So why don't we leave it the way it was previously? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good idea. Number 10, should industrial uses develop. You're only going to develop what you're getting permission to build. Have you got any industrial uses in there, or you've just got -- what are you referring to in number 10? MR. DUANE: I think there's some wholesale and warehouse uses that are permitted, which could be categorized as industrial type uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we say what those are. Should we use SIC code number XXX if developed, then we have no consternation in the future as to what's considered industrial on the property, and maybe staff would know readily by looking at it when those buffers would then apply, or when the masonry wall would. MR. DUANE: There is an SIC code provided on page 16. Let's see, it's general warehouse and storage. It's group number 4225 including mini warehouses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the one you're referring to in Page 93 January 19,2006 number 10? MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in staffs review, would staff agree that is the only one that number 10 should apply for? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I would believe the -- that language could only apply to those uses listed in the PUD document, so that would be the only one that would apply. MR. DUANE: There's also on -- excuse me. Yes, there's also commercial printing on page 15, and that's code number 2752. Those are the only quasi industrial type uses that are permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ray, what I was getting at is, if this statement stays like it is, someone's got to determine which of the PUD uses are industrial. And I'm trying to know what those are because I don't know -- MR. BELLOWS: I think for clarification sake, they should list the SIC codes of the one they're intended to apply to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Then my question is, the two that they've suggested, 4225 and 7 -- 2752, are those the only two that staff would agree is an industrial use? If so, then we're done. But just I need to know. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 21, Bob, item M, you talk about sidewalks, but you do have this in lieu of provision that I think you're going to utilize, from what I understand. Is that -- if that's true, is M written appropriately? MR. DUANE: I think we've also crossed -- it also cross-references section 4.17, which is on page 12. That provision -- well, to give you a little background on it again, we have an existing condition. We have two fast-food restaurants that have not provided for a six-foot sidewalk. We don't control those properties, so we made the distinction between the six-foot sidewalk that would be provided on the portions that my client controls, and recognizing the existing Page 94 January 19,2006 condition on the other outparcels. That's why it was placed here. And, again, there was a cross-reference to the one in lieu of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's a gentleman behind you that wants a chance to tell us. MR. SCOTT: Good catch. Staff, on their comments, had said, please strike 7.2M. When we -- or I shouldn't say we. When FDOT or us or both of us widen it, we'll be rebuilding this section of sidewalk, and we wanted it just to be pay in lieu for both of those segments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I'm assuming you don't have any concerns striking it? MR. DUANE: Well, no, actually I do, because I made that explanation to the transportation staff, you know, that we had an existing -- I'm not going to repeat myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have an existing PUD because you virtually rewrote it. You already said that, so -- MR. DUANE: But I wanted to distinguish that a six-foot sidewalk would not be provided on the restaurant sites because there's an existing sidewalk there today that's lesser than that, and I needed to acknowledge that condition similar to how we tried to treat the hotel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure you were successful if transportation feels that needs to be struck. I mean, this is a new -- virtually new PUD, so the way it needs to be written is in conformance that staff agrees can be applied. Don, I don't mean to keep making you run back and forth. You might want to grab a seat up here for a few minutes. What is your reason for striking this? How critical is that to your understanding of this PUD? MR. SCOTT: Because essentially when we do build it, that existing one will go away and we'll rebuild the whole front, all the way up to the intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to have an Page 95 January 19,2006 impact on the existing property owners there regardless of whether Mr. Duane wants to? MR. SCOTT: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't see why -- I don't see why it shouldn't be removed. MR. DUANE: I'll concede the point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll concede the point, good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Strike M? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Strike M. Page-- MR. DUANE: Could we tie that to the widening, if that's the trigger mechanism? That was a suggestion Mr. Anderson just made to me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's certainly a code violation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don? You responded, if we tie -- how would we tie this to the widening, if that's the request? Is that something you can -- MR. SCOTT: No. We're actually asking for payments up front these days because of -- the follow-up is not always as good. You never know who the staffs going to be five years from now, so that's why we're trying to get payments up front and pay towards it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it wouldn't be deferred to the widening; it would have to be payments up front? MR. SCOTT: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just leave it struck. Page 22, Bob, item 7.3B. I've noticed in the past we've had these issues about wellfields and other utility requests on most PUDs. They're on every one of them all over the county. I don't know of a master plan that ties them all together. I don't know of a plan that I've ever seen that's going to utilize them all. I don't know if they know if they're going to utilize them all. But in my conversation I had with Ms. Student yesterday, I understand that there's a possibility or there's -- it's reasonable to Page 96 January 19,2006 assume that you could have impact fee credits for these. Are you aware of that? MR. DUANE: I had not contemplated that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, is the impact fees for these sites mandatory? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: As I understand it from speaking with the impact fee coordinator, that whenever property is donated to the county, then it is credited against the impact fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, my concern is that utilities is out there asking for all these parcels and all these pieces of land all over the county that they may never ever use, and they're sucking up impact fee revenue that could go to help building facilities instead of coming out of the general fund, as we learned in the AUIR last week. So based on that, I don't know why we would have 7.3B in here unless utilities is here to show us today that they have a master pIan to defend this request or they can do so by the BCC hearing. Otherwise, if it's not used or potentially may not be used, why would we want to waste impact fees on something that we may never use? MR. DUANE: I think your point's excellent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, is this something that you can specifically address by a -- I mean, I'm -- when I'm asking for something in regards to a master plan, I mean something laid out showing how, if this is a site they can actually utilize, how they're going to get the piping, the facilities above and below ground, electricity and all the other elements that have to go into this site. If it's not on a master plan depicting that, then why are we wasting impact fee money on it when we can be putting it to other good uses to lower the tax base in this county? So-- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I've discussed this issue with Mr. DeLony a while ago in trying to work out a process where they can have their needs addressed through the zoning process. And I mentioned to him that very issue, that it's difficult for private property Page 97 January 19,2006 owners to anticipate their needs, and there is no code requirement or master plan requirement for them to do that, and it's basically a negotiation and if they agree to provide such at the time of zoning, but it's not a requirement because they do not have a master plan to require those things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because my concern is is that we're going to end up creating a whole pile of these sites and depleting our impact fee revenue. MR. BELLOWS: No. They may be in the process of working on one. I believe that -- I thought I heard that they were working on one. And whether impact fees are applied or not, the petitioner could always -- or the board can always waive that requirement giving impact fees -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure 360 -- what was my question, Ms. Student, yesterday. Three sixty's a whole different ball game now. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Three sixty's transportation. I'm told again by the impact fee administration that for these things, they give the credits. So I will be happy to check if there's ever a situation in which the board has waived them and so forth and what the basis for that would be. But that was the question that I was asked and I presented to them, and that's what I was told. But between now and the board meeting, I will be happy to look at the issue about, if the board has ever waived the credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we might, Margie, try to find out if there's an adopted master plan for these by which we can use as a basis to make this request of the landowners to begin with. It's just another element that may have just gotten in by policy that needs BCC reVIew. MR. DUANE: Does a reservation until, perhaps, such time as it may ever be needed, does that -- I'm just thinking out loud. Rather than contributing an easement up front, reserving it, and then if it ever Page 98 January 19,2006 is needed, we can deal with whether there are going to be or not going to be credits. I don't have a preference one way or another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think between now and the BCC -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's an option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Between now and the BCC hearing, it's a simple thing to find out the answers to the question. And by the way, if they have a master plan, could we get copies of it so we all know what's going on? MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that may be hard to do. MR. BELLOWS: The same issue kind of arose with the parks and recreation and their stipulations or conditions requiring a certain type of playground equipment. There's no compo plan or issue requirement for that. It's just one of those things they feel -- on a case by case they may feel is necessary, but it's up to staff and planning commission and board whether -- and the applicant whether they want to adopt that or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just want to -- it would be nice if we just were consistent. MR. BELLOW: No, I agree. That's one thing the zoning department has asked of the utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets me through the PUD. Does anybody else have any questions of the PUD? Because I need to move on. We can move on to the TIS. But you don't want to talk about that, Bob? MR. DUANE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Excuse me, Mark, a second. I have some questions on the architecture. Would that be best held or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you catch it now as part of the -- that's more of a PUD issue than -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my concern -- let me ask, the Bedzel Road, Bob, is that a private drive or is that a Page 99 January 19,2006 county -owned? MR. DUANE: It's a subject of a subdivision plat currently, and it's a public road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It will become a public road? MR. DUANE: Private. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It will be a private road or a public road? MR. DUANE: Private road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern I have is that in the architectural standards, we have a requirement to kind of diminish large parking areas that are in front of buildings. So I guess, Ray or Mike, you can answer that. Would this be considered -- that roadway, would that be considered a street that we could use in the architectural standards? What is the abutting streets on this site, I guess, is -- MR. DeRUNTZ: The abutting street is Davis Boulevard and Collier Boulevard, and 95 -- or interstate 1-75. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So between an abutting street, which would be 1-75, and this building, would that be considered to be between the abutting street and the building, the parking? And here's where I'm coming from because that -- MR. DeRUNTZ: At the last meeting you raised this question, and I -- and I went to Carolina Valera that reviews the architectural standards and -- with this -- your concern, and she had no objection to the layout that they had there, that it did meet the criteria of the parking with the way the buildings were oriented, and there was ample, you know, buffering, and they're meeting the percent of location of where the parking could be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, because my concern is, as you're coming into the community from the east coast, as you go over that overpass, what you're going to see is a huge parking lot and a big 1960's strip mall. Page 100 January 19,2006 The architectural standards, would they apply to this building then? I mean, it's -- MR. DeRUNTZ: It's -- they have -- subjectively nine would apply here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But activity center nine, it has some criteria and some roof pitches that are in addition to the architectural standards. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So therefore the architectural standards plus -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- not altered by, but plus the additions in there. MR. DeRUNTZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern is, then what's a primary facade on this building? Is it going to be -- it's visible on three sides. The fact that they have out structures, does that make this building have no primary facade then or -- MR. DeRUNTZ: The primary facade that Carolina was talking about was the area that was along the frontage here and this side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And not visible from 75 on the north? MR. DeRUNTZ: She did not consider that a primary facade. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But would that be primary? I mean, I'm concerned. Because if you're saying that between the primary facility and an adjacent street that parking is not, then how come then the conclusion is that that's probably not considered primary facade? And my concern is, I think it's going to be highly visible from the highway. So what I'd kind oflike to do is, is when we do vote on this, I'd like to see if we could make a condition that the north, south and east facades of that building are primary facades. Page 10 1 January 19,2006 The concern is, this is a -- could be a 170,000 square foot building, 50 feet tall, a huge mama sitting in the field with parking in front of it. And there's nothing in the ordinances that -- other than the architectural primary facade standards that will, you know, put lipstick on that. MR. DeRUNTZ: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Members of the board, we usually try to break a few minutes before 12 so those that want to eat at the Subway downstairs can get in line and get out before our time limitations are up. I can't see us getting through this in less than another 30 or 45 minutes. So at your leisure, we can either break now or we can break at 12:30. What would you like to do? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good. We'll break now. I'll see everybody back here at quarter of one. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let us move forward. It's 12 -- actually it's 12:46. And I believe we were starting to discuss transportation issues from the TIS that was supplied by the applicant. MR. DUANE: Actually we hadn't finished Mr. Schiffer's issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the architectural issues, I'm sorry. Brad? We'll just finish that up then. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you were finished. You want to volunteer something? MR. DUANE: Well, I'm just not sure how we resolved the issue. We were talking about retrofitting our design standards in our LDC for this project differently than they're applied today, and I -- if that's on the table then I want to complete, you know, a rebuttal to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last comment I heard, if I recall, is that the north, south and east elevations will all be considered primary Page 102 January 19,2006 facades. MR. DUANE: Yeah. And I could -- I could not agree to that, and I have data that I believe will support that that's unnecessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DUANE: And I'd like to enter that into the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bring it on up. We'll motion to enter it, and we'll take a look at it. Bob, before you start, let's -- not you, Bob, that Bob. We'll have to have a -- after we take a look at what's passed out, we'll make a motion to accept it, then you can go forward. Is there a motion to accept this into evidence? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is by Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to accept this into evidence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Adelstein. All in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob. MR. DUANE: Thank you. These are photographs that were Page 103 January 19,2006 taken on the site. Area one is going to be the preserve area or detention basin, and that's this green area that you see around the edge on-75. Area number two, this is the area off the off ramp that is partially vegetated. Area number three, I'm sorry, is the existing -- is the existing ramp. But most importantly, area number four, which is in the right-hand corner here, that picture was taken from the highest point of the ramp. And I would point you to this sign that you see right here. You'll see a cabbage palm behind it that is approximately 15, 16 feet in height, or about the size of the area that we are going to have to revegetate. That's that 6.128 acres. Those trees will have to be a minimum of 14 feet in height, and they'll have a midstory, and then they'll have an understory. And I would submit to you, if you take that line of cabbage palms and extend it across this fragmented area, which only has sporadic plantings, I would submit to you that you will not see the parking lot on the other side of this 6.128 area. I would also point to you on area one here. On your photograph it's going to be hard to see. But this is the ramp right here, and this was taken from the edge of the parking area. And I would submit to you again, when this entire six acres, you know, is replanted that there'll be a minimal impact on the view or the visibility of that parking lot from 1-75. And I think on the basis of that, I think trying to retrofit the design requirements to treat this project differently than other projects that may abut against 1-75 is not warranted, in my position. And, again, we're substantially exceeding the number of planted areas. Under the interchange activity center guidelines, a type D buffer 25 feet in width is required with one tree every 25 feet. And I would submit to you that with our six acres of plantings, we will substantially exceed the interchange activity center number nine Page 104 January 19,2006 landscaping requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're focusing on the landscaping requirement, and I had -- my notes indicate that north, south and east elevations were all to be treated as primary facades. Are you not -- so what is it you're object -- and, Brad, I thought you were focusing on the facade issue of the architecture. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am. I mean, there's two issues in the architectural standards that -- and again, the reason I'm coming this way is that the prior design had a loop road system that really broke this up into smaller lots, and by combining it like we're doing, we have the potential for a very large building. The architectural standards were -- I think the reason they were first written was to avoid large buildings with parking in front of them. And, again, that's what I'm fearing this could look like. And, again, I think area four is close to the view, but I think further on the other side of the highway we get another view into the thing. I think you could probably cover the parking with your buffer. It's the building that I would like to see treated as all three facades. In other words, it's not fair to Davis to have this big building behind other buildings and then have a loophole that this facade isn't adjacent to a street. I think 1-95 -- or 1-75, even the off ramps should be considered the streets, so, therefore, that would put the east and north into a facade treatment. And, Bob, I don't know why you'd be so afraid of that. I mean, it's -- the line can't be a straight line, but it can still be a big building. It could still -- MR. DUANE: But we're going back to the comprehensive plan. It encourages intensive development in activity centers, and this is a relatively large parcel. Section 403.23 of the code -- and we talked about these, the design requirements for activity center number nme. Page 105 January 19,2006 It's very specific. In addition to the building requirements or the design standards, all primary facades shall have one of the following. It's got standards, it's not roof treatment standards, it's got a variety of other overlay requirements over and above the general design guidelines, and they were put here for a purpose, and we're fully in compliance with those. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually I have it in front of me. And the way it's really written is, you would have to do those things, which none of them are that restrictive, but you would also, in addition, have to do the -- meet the architectural standards. It's worded, in addition to the requirements of section 558. MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, these things that you're looking at aren't the standards which you're building by. These are in addition to it, which is essentially establishing roof slopes that would have to be put on it. Again, my concern is, a big box without the facade broken up and the sea of parking in front of it. MR. DUANE: But breaking up -- and I'll rest my case at this point. This is a good location for a large retail end-user. And breaking this up into a number of small parcels greatly reduces the utility ofthat property. And I think given its location adjacent to 1-75 and major arterials, imposing additional restrictions beyond all the layers that we currently have within this activity center, in my professional opinion, are unwarranted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, I'm not asking you to break it up. I'm actually saying that by combining it, you are able to build a large retail center, which is good. We need them. Good location for it. Just that I think that the facades, at least three of the facades, will be visible to the streets and should be -- meet our architectural standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We could go on -- we'd be Page 106 January 19,2006 saying the same thing forever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, and I agree. I think you can both agree to disagree, and point's well made, and we'll just have to make that decision when we get into the stipulations on this particular project. Now having said that, are we moving on to the TIS? Is that working for everybody on the panel? Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Strain, I do have a clarification on the issue with the wellfield. I have an email from Susan Murray. If you'd like, I could read it into the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. BELLOWS: There is a master plan created for the wellfield zones, but, however, it's not an adopted master plan. The wellfields are voluntary exactions. We have not given impact fee credits for them; however, that doesn't mean the developer can't ask. The shortage of wellfield sites and wells have caused the county to attempt to acquire them whenever there is an opportunity. However, as noted above, they are voluntary exactions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is this applicant telling us that they want to voluntarily provide wellfield sites? I mean, why would they have voluntarily decided to put that on their plan? I'm just curious. Maybe Mr. Anderson can address that question. MR. ANDERSON: For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I'll use voluntarily in the loosest sense of the word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured as much. MR. ANDERSON: Frankly the petition, and all petitions, are held hostage by the utilities department, and they have reject comments placed next to them until the applicant knuckles under with regard to the wellsites. That's just as plain and simple as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I appreciate that, your candor, thank you. And that's why I'd like to see this, in the future, if they're even considered to be tied to a master plan. Page 107 January 19,2006 And my concern in my conversation that I had with Marjorie Student yesterday was that based on some of the language coming out from various new legislation, I didn't want to be in a position where extractions, contributions, whatever you want to call them, from developers becomes a way to utilize and reduce impact fees when impact fees ought to be used for more pressing needs that are part of a master plan. And, Margie, in your research, they can volunteer this, but they're not obligated to provide it. Does that mean they could still then obtain approval for utility connections and things and not provide this? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. First part of the question was, yes, they can voluntarily provide it, and then as I stated in further discussion with folks in the impact fee administration department, that there have been situations where that's occurred, and as stated in the email, where they haven't sought or received any impact fee credits. I don't know what the policy of the utilities department, you know, is concerning their hookup, but there should be, obviously, the water and sewer facility available for them to be able to hook up, or usually there's some provision made for some interim type facility -- but I haven't seen that for a long time -- you know, to allow them to go forward until such time as the county provides the facility, and then they're required to hook up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that everything needs to be done with a purpose and a reason, and we all -- everything needs to be treated fairly. If there's a master plan out there that shows a need for wellsites at this location and a means to utilize them in the future, then I think the request for these wellsites ought to go forward. But if there isn't such a master plan that the BCC has accepted and gone forward with, then I don't know why we're holding this -- bringing this issue into a compromise or a requirement of the developer. So that's just my issue on it. We got to the bottom of it, and I thank you for your Page 108 January 19,2006 research on it. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: And, Commissioner Strain, I just want to add that at the present time the amendments to the growth management law, or commonly referred to as Senate Bill 360, address -- it has to do with transportation facilities and also school site facilities only at this juncture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Are we ready to go forward with the TIS? And I don't know who wants to respond to these questions, but probably the applicant's engineer ifhe's available, because these will probably be partly responsible to him. How you doing? MR. PRICE: Good. Rob Price, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rob, on page 3 of the TIS, in the second paragraph you talk about Collier Boulevard and you use the two oh four AUIR. I just want you to know that that didn't happen, as you probably are aware. The two oh five AUIR has now moved that to 2006. I'm going to point all these discrepancies out, and in the end I'm going to see if transportation has any concerns over it all in the end, because maybe now that you've put off your COs until the road's improved, it may not make a lot of difference, but I want to make sure the record's clean. The last paragraph, second line, you talk about the p.m. peak hour turning movements. Did you look at the a.m. peak hour turning movements, and if you did or didn't, do you have any feeling as to how they might impact? MR. PRICE: We did not look at the a.m. peak hour simply because uses that we were proposing on this site have their most impact in the p.m. peak hour, not the a.m. There's not as much traffic that will be generated by our development in the morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In that same paragraph, about the fourth line from the bottom, actually it's the fifth line, it says, these Page 109 January 19,2006 turning movements were adjusted in 2008 background traffic conditions based on the appropriate annual growth rate indicated in the 2004 Collier County average daily traffic report. What was that annual growth rate? Do you remember? Or did you -- where did that -- how is that derived? Do they do it from actually counters on the road system? MR. PRICE: Yes, sir. The traffic count report has four years worth of traffic data, and it actually has a growth rate on the end that's based on the last year. And what we usually do is determine the growth rate based on all four years, and then take whichever one's higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have we ever gone reversing growth with your experience or with the records you looked at, or is there always added growth every year, increased turning movements? MR. PRICE: There's several occasions where it's reversed in growth. And what we usually do is assume there's no growth at that time. We don't -- we don't reduce the volumes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You said that you take the higher one? MR. PRICE: Yeah. There's instances -- basically the county produces its own growth rate based on the last year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're saying you take. MR. PRICE: And then we'll calculate it based on the four-year average as well. And usually we'll take whichever one's higher unless there's some reason that we can justify using the lower one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On figure three, which is after page 8, you show the project site in percentage on various roadways where your traffic's going to go. I notice you show Radio Road at 23 percent of your traffic, is going to go down Radio Road, but I didn't recall -- and maybe you can point it out because I ran through this pretty fast Page 110 January 19,2006 last night -- where you addressed Radio Road in your TIS, because that's operating deficiently, in'm not mistaken now. It was supposed to have improvements it didn't have. And Radio Road's a bad one too. But like table 7 doesn't have a reference to it, and I didn't see many of your other -- anything else. With 23 percent hitting that road, it seems like, if you're going to address Davis with only 16 percent going westward, why wouldn't you address Radio Road with 23 percent? MR. PRICE: Well, we only addressed Davis along the project frontage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PRICE: West -- we didn't actually do a level of service analysis west of Radio Road on Davis. Our site -- our site -- the area of impact of our site basically stopped before Radio Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you're going to have a -- 23 percent of your traffic is going to hit Radio Road, it's going to have an impact on Radio Road. And I'm just curious, did anybody take a look at what that impact is in numbers? I mean, you put a percentage down on figure 3. MR. PRICE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means -- maybe I'm reading it wrong. But referencing something is going to happen to Radio Road as a result of your project; is that right? MR. PRICE: Well, yeah, there will be some traffic added to Radio Road. It wasn't a significant impact, that's why we didn't analyze it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm trying to find out. So 23 percent of the total of whatever it is is not significant? MR. PRICE: That's correct. Our impact area ended just before Radio Road on Davis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that is a failed -- another road with a failed level of service. Page III January 19,2006 MR. PRICE: Yeah. We actually did an impact percentage on Radio Road previously, and it was 2.5 percent. So it was below the three percent -- three percent, five percent significance test. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll have to ask Mr. Scott-- MR. PRICE: I'm sorry. I guess we excluded that. We excluded that from this TIS, because in the previous TIS it wasn't shown to be significantly impacted. So when we did this revision at the start of, you know, December, we didn't even look at Radio Road because we didn't significantly impact it before. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You might recall questions that I posed specifically about Radio Road and suggested strongly that it be included in that. But that may have been forgotten. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is that Radio Road is deficient now, and with any traffic going on it, even if it's 23 percent, it seems that even if it's not significant -- I'll have to find out from transportation -- do you still exceed the threshold of allowable available? MR. PRICE: If you don't significantly impact the roadway, you don't measure concurrency on it. That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think concurrency's a cumulative effort so-- , MR. SCOTT: It is failing, I think, in the AUIR, like we talked about, but it is programmed for widening next year, or this year actually, 2006. So the four lanes was what was assumed. So it was failing, yeah. Over one percent would be the issue, but it's assumed with the four-lane capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this one's taking that assumption into consideration. MR. SCOTT: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 17, the second sentence, thus Davis Boulevard will not be adversely impacted as a result of the addition of phase one traffic at these intersections. Page 112 January 19,2006 I know you got your adequate public facilities for that, but, boy, that statement just doesn't seem to be coinciding with reality. I mean, if you've driven -- I drive that intersection multiple times every day. And I don't care if you have one car added to that, it's going to have a negative impact to that intersection. It just seemed like an odd statement, everybody knowing what that's like. I guess it's not one we need to debate, but I wanted to point it out. The -- page 18, first paragraph, second to the last sentence. Therefore, as a part of this analysis, the six-laning of Davis Boulevard was not assumed complete until the year 2015. Now, if you were to be approved today, you're tying your work on the -- above the COAs, any work you do above the 130,000 COAs. Would it be to that 2015 date? MR. PRICE: No, it would be till Davis Boulevard is widened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PRICE: That was just an assumption on our part that, in discussions with Don, it's a good possibility that that roadway widening may not be completed until that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just wanted to make sure that everybody's understanding the date. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Anybody else have any transportation-related questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Does anybody have any questions at all they'd like to ask before we go into any public comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, with that we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion on this particular PUD. Page 113 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER TUFF: I make a motion that we pass this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommend approval? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Approval with the seven conditions that they stated. And I don't know if the landscaping -- I guess I don't think I want to include that in my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't want to include it in your motion? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I don't have enough -- because I don't think that you'll see what -- I don't think it will cause that problem with just the rope lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's been a motion made to include the seven stipulations and not include the landscaping issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I don't have a landscaping issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just get a second, then we'll get into discussion. Is there a second on the motion at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'll second it just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now a motion's been made and seconded. Now we can get into discussion. I have a lot of questions, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you read the seven -- thank you, Paul. Could you read the seven -- the seven conditions again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where did you get those? Are those the ones that I spoke -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: I just took them as you read them off. Maybe I missed one, too. They're on his list that he -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the staffs recommendations? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Staff recommendations, okay. COMMISSIONER TUFF: You know, the project provided shared access, entrance further -- Page 114 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're utilizing all the staff recommendations and no others basically? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, there's -- I got a list of things, and I'm sure Brad does and Bob may, and so why don't we start discussing them. You want to hear mine? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, first of all, if this motion is to be approved or any motion recommending approval that is carried by a majority, and I will not probably be one of those, I would suggest that we add some of the other parts of to day's discussion as a minimum in case it goes to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. One of those is that the language that references the fact that the sections referenced in the PUD for land development code are as amended or are -- or are other -- are as other sections of the code may apply. Number two, that there be no gas stations on the site. Number three, reword item B6 on page 18. That's the one about the motel. The other one is that on B7 on the same page, the height is not to exceed 50 feet. B 1 0 on the same page will reference the specific SIC code, two of them discussed at this meeting. We would strike section 7.2M, as recommended by transportation. I -- myself, I'm concerned about 7.3B on the wellfields. Without a valid reason for requiring those, I mean a valid reason that can be supported by documentation showing that we have a master plan that ties them in. I don't think it's fair to require something like that at this time. And the last one is that we have -- Brad's comment about the three facades all being primary facades, the north, south and east, I Page 115 January 19,2006 think as the gateway to our community, this building should have that. So if this were to pass, those are the things that I would like to see added to it. But on the other hand, I can't, myself, vote for the motion or any motion that would recommend approval for anything but what was originally anticipated on this site, which was a far less amount of square footage than was discussed in today's PUD. I'm not saying the site may not be able to handle it. But if we're anywhere from 2011 to 2015 off in getting this accomplished, then at the time the road's done and everything's functioning, if it's functioning properly, that's a better time to make this kind of decision and not buying into something, a pig in a poke, let's say, for the future. So that's my position on it. Anybody else can chime in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, did you -- I have a notation here, page 7, add language for phasing. Did you cover that? I don't think you did. If we were to make certain that we have language in there for phasing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I may have covered it, Bob, I honestly-- I didn't cover it in my summary, but I don't know why it wouldn't want to be something to be considered. Well, that was 3.3B. Yeah, correct language in there was acknowledged as building wrong, so he's suggesting to correct that on it, right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And also did we -- we touched on the 50-foot maximum height and deleted the other part of it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. He's already got that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And those SIC codes were 4225 and 2752. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't remember what they were. I wrote them down inside the book but not on my summary sheet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wrote them down there. That's my only comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all your comments? Okay. Mr. Midney? Page 116 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We've talked -- we've heard about time mitigation, and it seems as though they're saying that time mitigation should solve all of the traffic problems, but if this is 10 -- this mitigation, this time mitigation could be 10 years out and we're a planning commission, it seems as though that's too long for us to be able to provide a proper planning now. We're okaying something that may not happen until 10 years from now, but the conditions may be so changed that I think I would feel more comfortable if we're planning for something that's more in the immediate future rather than something that may happen in 10 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Somebody else? Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Brad had a question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just kind of want to talk to the motion maker. Russell, are you okay with the conditions Mark had? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so am I as the second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't sure ifthere was any more, so that's why -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I mean, the primary facade actually covers it because it covers both design areas as to codes as to what a primary facade should be. And the reason I think it's important is that the prior design by the road system broke it up into smaller buildings. This design allows it to be a large building and also brings it closer to 75. So I think the look of this building is important. The fear I have is that somebody could take and claim because there's out-buildings between it and the road, that these are not essential primary facades. They could be 50 feet tall. You'll see them over the other buildings anyway. So I think it's important that we Page 117 January 19,2006 make it clear that those three facades are primary facades. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment, then Bob. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just was going to say I'll not be voting for the motion because we know that the TCMA under which this falls is most likely going to fail within the next six months. I'm not happy about losing preserve and gaining square footage. I will agree with Mr. Midney that all of this probably should be decided later down the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. The issue ofthe concurrency at that point in time that I raised about falling under 360, Senate Bill 360, or the growth management act of 2005, it would seem to me that we hear -- if we are to approve this, should include some kind of constraint that concurrency would be operational under the current mode as opposed to a five-year or proportionate share mode, if that's plausible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure -- what are you trying to say? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you understand what I meant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Yeah, I'm not sure what you meant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I apologize. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know if we could do that. It sounds like a good idea. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well-- and I agree, maybe that's why I wasn't as clear. I raised the question before that the concurrency rules, and if they're changed as a result of 360, we would be subject to a proportionate share and a five-year go program where basically, as I understand it, if that does come into play, you would be able to go ahead regardless and put in the infrastructure and do your building, and that would tie our roads up very seriously. And I guess that's, again, why I was hesitant because I'm not sure Page 118 January 19,2006 legally that we can constrain them to do something that there may be law that would contradict. My constraint would be -- and I recognize its weakness -- is to have them agree to a stipulation that they would conform to the current concurrency rules in effect. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Presently we have our current concurrency management system on the books, and the Senate Bill 360 calls for us to adopt implementing ordinances and things for that. And in fact, there's supposed to be a model ordinance to come out to help local government to draft the appropriate ordinance, and then we have a time frame to do it, which, if memory serves me correctly, it's sometime in '07, I believe. So I guess I'm a little bit concerned about the development schedule and what they might be coming in with because it seems like it's going to be quite a bit down the road, and then how some future ordinance might apply to that -- to this project. And if we want to vest them, if you will, under this procedure, I just -- because it gets us into almost like writing the ordinance before we're there to create some exceptions and that we've created that here. If -- why don't you make that a suggestion and let's take it under -- and put it in as a suggestion, and we'll take it under further advisement before this gets to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Bob's already stated it, so that should be enough of a suggestion for staff to look at it. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll do it like that then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But that would not be carried in this motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russell, did you have -- then Bob. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. I just wanted to clarify in my mind, that if we don't go through with this and they can go ahead and Page 119 January 19,2006 do whatever they're going to do, so this -- I guess I'm acting on the thought that this is a better project than what we're going to get if we don't. And if we stop it, we stopped them for -- I guess I'm still continue -- I'm in favor of my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just -- don't disagree with your thoughts. But I mean, basically they have COAs for 130,000 square feet, and they can build that whether this gets approved or not. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Right now, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Bob, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will not be voting for this motion. I think we have to project too far out to the year 2015. I don't have a lot of faith in this traffic impact study we're looking at, and I just think we should -- I will not support the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my reasons for specifically not supporting it are reference to LDC section 4.07.02.B.2, capital improvement element objective 1.5, and the transportation elements 5.1 and 5.2. So with that, we'll -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just say one thing in favor of it to second your comments is that, you know, what this is allowing them to do is to build another form of development that they're already available to do. They're not going to be able to build the whole thing. They're going to have to, like they would with the existing one, wait before they could add the square footage. So all we're really changing here is the shape of the development, not the development itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're increasing the size. That's a little -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The potential? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They going up to 265,000 square feet. The prior numbers were around 210-, so -- Page 120 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But those numbers were really -- I mean, there really was no cap on the square footage though. I understood it before. You were adding up some assumption numbers and coming up with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just was adding up the record. That's okay. I think it's time we'll call for the vote. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor-- MR. ANDERSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: At your prior hearing, I had requested, and I would respectfully request again, if you could have a separate vote on the PUD master plan change from the rest of the PUD amendment, because the master plan change is necessitated by the environmental permits that were issued for this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bruce, at this point of this hearing, I didn't -- I didn't -- I mean, in my mind, I don't know how to separate those out. I hadn't looked at this separately as we've gone along. I just don't know how to do that with this motion pending right now. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There is a motion pending now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have -- I mean, as we had gone along, if that still applied or if that was an issue, I would have -- I would hope someone would have pointed it out, because right now, I don't know how to separate that out from the rest of the pieces of the PUD, of what we walked through a couple hundred pages of data here today. And I don't know how to -- I mean, I don't know how to sit here right now and make two separate motions on something I don't know -- I'm not clear on. So I'm going to have to leave it like it's presented so far. MR. ANDERSON: What it would be is you would -- you would Page 121 January 19,2006 be leaving the existing PUD intact if you recommend denial, and you would be substituting the new master plan for the old one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- Bruce, in my capacity here today, I could not correlate that. I need some time to think about that, and I couldn't do it sitting at the podium today. If the rest want to pose that -- if this fails and we have to go in for another vote, then maybe that's an issue. But right now, I mean, I -- myself -- I don't know what the reading is of this board, but I can't separate it out. COMMISSIONER CARON: Bruce, but the new master plan includes the additional square footage that you want. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Well, we'll take -- we'll take it off the master plan then. I did not -- I did not realize that. We'll remove those references to the additional square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, I don't know if staff or anybody's provided us with information today to tell us the ramifications of separating these out, should one be approved and one not. I don't even know -- I haven't seen any staff report addressing those kind of separations. Have you, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No. The staff hasn't really, I believe, looked at it that way, but I don't see a problem with, if planning commission requires additional time, to get a continuance, and the petitioner would resubmit a revised master plan without the additional square footage and without those additional impacts. As several members have expressed, the proposed other changes are a benefit to the community and -- if we could work with the applicant to reach some of those other fine goals that were proposed without the additional impacts, that's up to the applicant to agree to that, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if you guys want some more time, state it, and we'll consider a continuation at this point. We have a motion pending. We'd have to withdraw it and then go back in Page 122 January 19,2006 to consider a continuation. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There's a motion on the floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's what I mean. We'll see, if they want a continuation and if we want to withdraw our motion. MR. ANDERSON: We would respectfully request a continuance so that we could try to separate and make sure that staff and you all would be comfortable with voting separately on just the master plan change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a wise move if that's important to you. MR. ANDERSON: Because we need to -- we need to eliminate that inconsistency with the other permits that are out there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the motion maker like to withdraw their motion? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the second like to withdraw his motion -- his second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In have to, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In have to. I mean, this is the second time -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have a second -- a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we -- you know, this is the second time we've been at the altar and everybody skips out, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's at the request of the applicant. We can vote on -- now that the motion's off the table, we can -- either we can vote on the continuation or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'll withdraw. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have a date, or just going to -- will staff schedule that? MR. BELLOWS: I think we'll have to schedule it, because I'm Page 123 January 19,2006 not sure how long it will take. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, did you want to comment on something before we vote? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Y ou'd make a motion to? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion for the continuance of this PUDZ-A-2004-AR-64 1 7, known as I-75/Alligator Alley CPUD to be continued to a date to be determined by the county staff and the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 9-0. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, again. Item #8F Page 124 January 19,2006 PETITION PUDZ-2003-AR-499l CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next petition is petition number PUDZ-2004-AR -- 2003 -- I'm sorry, AR-4991, the Woodfield Builders, LLC, also known as the Rockedge RPUD. Will all those wishing to provide testimony in this case please rise and raise your right hand for the court reporter to swear you in. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the planning commission? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a telephone conversation with Mr. DeRuntz and also a telephone conversation with a gentleman by the name of Ken Drum who is the president of Lely Island Estates, who subsequently sent me an email, copies of which I made and distributed to each -- to the chair for distribution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That email will be coming to you in a minute because we're going to have to make a motion to include it. I, too, had conversations with Mr. Anderson on this particular project. We discussed items involving traffic and density, and we will be discussing those at this meeting as well. COMMISSIONER CARON: I had a meeting with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Mulhere on the project, and we talked about transportation issues, as well as the project overall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have -- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. I also spoke to Mr. Anderson regarding traffic issues on this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I spoke with Cormac Giblin. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's been an item passed out, Page 125 January 19, 2006 a letter, dated -- well, it's a copy of an email dated January 18th to Bob Murray from Ken Drum. I wanted to accept it into evidence so we can get moving. Bruce, if you need a copy, you can have this one. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to accept this into evidence? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion. A second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. Bruce, it's yours again. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, again, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the applicant. And with me today is Bob Mulhere; Brian Mansour, the developer; Ron Talone, our traffic consultant; and a representative from Passarella & Associates. I won't belabor the obvious. We have an affordable housing Page 126 January 19,2006 problem in this county. We have a developer who's stepped up to the plate to try to solve it. Most of the land in this PUD, almost 56 acres out of the total 76 acres, has been previously and specifically identified in the growth management plan as an appropriate location for a market rate and affordable housing homeownership development at a density of up to seven and a half units per acre. That occurred when the comprehensive plan amendment for this specific location was approved. I checked the records, and I'm pleased to share with you that the planning commission that sat at that time twice unanimously recommended approval of that amendment, and the county commission unanimously approved it as well. We're hoping that the third time will continue to be a charm. As I stated, the comprehensive plan allows up to seven and a half units per acre on this piece; however, the density -- the density that is in the proposed PUD is 5.23 units per acre, and that's because of wetlands that a higher density was not achievable. I would note that the Environmental Advisory Counsel unanimously recommended approval of this petition. It will be a maximum of 400 multi-family dwelling units, of which 111, that's 30 percent, are set aside for sale to families earning 80 percent or less of the median income in the Collier metropolitan statistical area. I'll ask Bob Mulhere to come up and speak with you about the site plan, and then we'll avail ourselves for questions that you might have. MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. For the record, Bob Mulhere with RW A, Inc. As Bruce indicated, the project is just over 76 acres. The affordable housing density bonus applies to just over 55 of those acres, hence you come up with the 111, 30 percent, of the -- based on the 55 acres that are eligible for the bonus, 111 affordable housing units. Page 127 January 19,2006 I'm just going to step over here to these exhibits and point out the location. I think the location is a very important part of the deliberations as it relates to this petition. As I'm sure you are aware, the Collier Regional Medical Center is under construction, is located immediately to the north of our property. We have had several meetings with representatives from the hospital. We continue to meet with them in order to provide what we hope is a very unique opportunity for the future residents of this project, at least a goodly portion of them, to have home ownership opportunities here and to be potentially employed at the hospital. There are other employment opportunities in close proximity as well, including Edison College, you have an elementary school here, and there will be future development in this activity center at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock. Going specific to the site plan, as you can see, access to the project will be from Collier Boulevard. The exact location of that access point has not been finalized yet. It will be in the proximity of the existing Amity Road, which is right here. Weare coordinating with the contractor for Collier Boulevard as well as transportation services staff. As I said, the exact location hasn't been determined, but we are replacing the existing Amity bridge with a four-lane span to allow turning movements in and out and through movements, and so that will be generally in that vicinity there. Weare also coordinating with property owners to the north as we need to provide access to the three property owners immediately to our north, and I'll point that out to you. And so once we have the final determination of the exact location, we'll know exactly how to locate that access point to the north, which obviously has to have proper stacking. That's really an issue for the site planning stage of the project. As Bruce indicated, we -- the petition was heard by the Environmental Advisory Council and approved by a vote of seven to Page 128 January 19,2006 nothing. If you look at the site plan, you can see we have substantial preserves. We actually exceed the county's native preservation requirements, providing slightly over 33 percent of the site. The location of those are the highest quality wetlands. And as you can see also, highlighted in yellow on that color exhibit, and hatched, are several archaeologic preserves that are wholly and fully contained within our native vegetation preserves. There is an integrated lake system. Drainage will go really in two ways. We'll rehydrate the wetlands with the lake that's furthest to the east and the balance of the water management will be directed towards the Collier Boulevard Canal. We had a neighborhood information meeting. This has obviously been quite a long petition with comprehensive planning occurring in 2003. We had a neighborhood information meeting in 2004. At that neighborhood information -- and there's some information contained in your staff report. At that the neighborhood information meeting there were, I believe, six individuals that showed up. We have been in contact with most of those individuals on a continuing basis, particularly those that are most close -- closely adjacent to us. I think there are one or two folks here today that may wish to speak. We, in fact, had conversations with a couple of individuals here today who had questions regarding the buffering that would be to adjacent properties, and I'd like to point out those locations for you. This property owner here was concerned about the buffer in this location. And Brent King, who lives right here, was concerned about the buffer along our entry road. And we have been working with him all along. The master plan shows a type D buffer, which is required by code. I wasn't sure exactly -- I had to go back in and make sure I read that thoroughly. The concern was that it be a sufficient vegetation to provide adequate buffering to adjacent property owner -- properties. Page 129 January 19,2006 And the type D buffer does require within one year an 80 percent opaque buffer with trees spaced 25 feet on center and hedges of a larger size than is required in the other types of buffers. And as far as we know, that is sufficient to satisfy those concerns that were raised. We did add -- as I said, the affordable housing bonus portion of the property that's subject to the comprehensive plan is just over 55 acres. We had been continuing to try to acquire some additional lands in order to mitigate for the wetland impacts, and were able to get just slightly over 20 additional acres. We have not applied -- the only density that's available in those acres is the base density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre. Early on there was a plan where the rear portion of this property would be single-family. That plan turned out not to be feasible. The entire project now will be developed multi-family. Always, though, the PUD allowed for the option of developing the entire project multi-family right from the beginning. I really think that that concludes my presentation. As Bruce indicated, we have several other consultants here to answer some of your more specific questions. Ron Talone is here to answer transportation questions. And if you have any specific environmental questions, Elena Mandia Hoffman from Passarella is in attendance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, when you -- can you show me the area that you're -- the 20 acres that is not eligible for housing, show that on the map again? You may have done it when I was looking down. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure that I did, but we added some acreage in the back, in the rear portion ofthe property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you're going to take that then so you can bring it onto the other part of the site? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. That 1.5 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All the densities were blended Page 130 January 19,2006 together. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. MULHERE: Oh. And I do apologize. Mr. Ron Talone would like to make a brief presentation regarding transportation, which is why I didn't deal with that issue in my presentation, other than to say, the project is consistent with the transportation components in the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before the gentleman speaks, could you identify for me, please, are all of the units, whether market or affordable, are they segregated in any way or are they all together? How is that laid out? MR. MULHERE: We intend to build the affordable housing in the front portion adjacent to Collier Boulevard. In part that's driven by the fact that those units are expected to be built early on in the project, in the first phase of the project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. MULHERE: And the reason for that is -- well, there's a couple reasons, but particularly one reason is that construction costs are escalating at such a rapid rate in order to minimize the impacts, they're not going to make any money on these affordable housing projects. It's the market rate that drives the ability to build the affordable housing units. So if we can build them as early on in the process as possible, we reduce the likelihood of unforeseen additional construction costs related to those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question though focuses on the issue of whether or not they will be different -- MR. MULHERE: They're not going to be different. They'll be smaller. Page 131 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Smaller. I notice there was one -- there was -- there's 600 square feet was the minimum I thought I saw, MR. MULHERE: Yes. But these are all-- I'm not sure of the exact size. I'll defer -- I'll find out for you, but they're all two-bedroom units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At 600 square feet? MR. MULHERE: All -- no, I don't believe they're 600 square feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, I'll wait for that. MR. MULHERE: That's just the minimum size in the PUD, but I don't believe that's the size -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, wouldn't that permit you-- if we agreed to it, wouldn't that permit you to build 600 square feet? MR. MULHERE: It would. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then -- so you're going to say to me now that -- well, I'll go for that later. MR. MULHERE: I need to -- I'm not building them, so I need to talk to the builder. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that, but I just wanted to be clear. And I know I've read the papers, so I know some of the questions that I've asked -- or I know the answer to in part. But what I'm reaching for is that insofar as anybody would see, there are no differences between the units that are built for the first phase, which is the affordable, as opposed to the others? So everything that's associated with market would be amenities -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- in and around -- MR. MULHERE: Amenities within the building. For example, you may not have solid surface counters in the affordable housing. You may have those. That's an example. I'm not saying that's the case. But also size. The market rate units are likely to be bigger. Page 132 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. And you've indicated they're all multi homes, although the early document apparently indicated single-family homes. MR. MULHERE: Right. We were looking at an option of single-family in the rear of the project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's absolutely out? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's all multi-family? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That will be my questions for the moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? MR. MULHERE: Brian Mansour indicated that they'll probably be in the range of 1,000 square feet, the affordable, but we can certainly commit to no smaller than 800 square feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I talked more to Cormac Giblin about -- because that has to do with size of family, and we're looking at size of family here. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, we're talking about two-bedroom units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. So that limits the size of family that we can have in there. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Doesn't it? MR. MULHERE: It certainly does in terms of practically speaker, yeah. They're not three, they're not four. They're two-bedroom units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're supposed to have a bedroom for each person. MR. MULHERE: No. I don't think a bedroom for each person. I mean, I don't know. I shared a bedroom with two people most of my life. Page 133 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you know, what I'm trying to say that in a family, you're supposed to have separate quarters for sleeping, if I'm not mistaken. MR. MULHERE: Correct, correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And in that content, that would pretty much limit it. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, before your transportation fellow gets up, do you want to answer questions or do you want to wait till after he speaks, nontransportation questions? MR. MULHERE: Nontransportation, I can answer those now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got some? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. Just on that drawing he was talking about. If I had eight units and all those units on the little drawing, then I can only come up with 336. Of course you said you were going to add on, so that gives you another 80, but then that's not a -- if -- is there only going to be eight in each of those buildings in the front? Because I can't see how you're going to come that high. That means it's got to be a lot denser than the drawing we're looking at. Now, you said if we added 10 more buildings, that's what it would take to get to the 111. MR. MULHERE: No. We've designed the plan. We can fit 400 units on the project. COMMISSIONER TUFF: As it shows up here? MR. MULHERE: That is correct. We already have submitted an ERP application for our water management permit that -- you know, that has some level of design that we can fit at 400 or pretty darn close. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So those front buildings must have more than eight units. They must be more than 16. MR. MULHERE: Some are -- some are 12s. Page 134 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER TUFF: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, on your -- in your environmental impact statement -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you have a plan that closer resembles the -- well, actually it looks like the master plan you're using. In your water management -- water management document that you've submitted, it looks like it was based on the master plan that showed the single-family going out into the preserves. Maybe I'm reading that wrong, or did it just stop short of that eastern lands that you just recently bought? I'm not sure the two coincide. MR. MULHERE: It actually -- I think you're correct. I think the water management -- the original water management plan probably showed some encroachment that has subsequently been brought back as part of the discussions with environmental staff. But it does not encroach into those environmental lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You re-did the water management calculations? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were there any discrepancies -- or further -- MR. MULHERE: No, it had no bearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's where I was going. On your PUD, let's start with double i, little i. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's right in the beginning. COMMISSIONER CARON: What page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's page double little i. I don't know -- they didn't put a number on it. On that page and throughout that document, for the most part, you talk about 400 dwelling units. And Bruce, you probably didn't get Page 135 January 19,2006 time to relay this to Bob. On page 3-1, iii-I, you refer to, in section 3.2,396 dwelling units; is the -- MR. MULHERE: That would be an error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we want to get that to 400. MR. MULHERE: Just point me to that again, Mr. Strain. I'm just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you want to start-- MR. MULHERE: Did you say 3.2? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's Roman numeral three dash one, section 3.2. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I see it now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you aware of the letter that Roetzel and Andress wrote that says the following: The first phase will contain all two-bedroom units. Language has been included in the PUD document to reflect this development plan? I know on your master plan where you're indicating to put these in those different -- I think they're what -- I don't know how many units per building they are, but in the front part of the project, but I haven't -- I couldn't find any language in the PUD that referenced the phasing plan. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I don't -- I don't believe I saw that letter, so I'm going to have to defer probably to Bruce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's public record, so-- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. No, I don't -- I'm not disputing that it -- that the letter was written or that it exists. I'm just saying, I don't think there is anything, Mr. Strain, in the PUD that says that the 111 affordable housing units will be built in the first phase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I'm -- and I don't doubt that a bit, because in your affordable housing bonus agreement, it was peppered with references to affordable units in each phase. January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now -- but I need to know, just out of curiosity so the record's right, are you building all the affordable in that first phase out front by the road and no more in the rest of the project, or through every phrase? MR. MULHERE: No. I think the intent is, once we start the affordable housing units in the front, is to complete those, again, because of the risk of increased construction cost. But I think that in order to be able to afford to do the 111 units, obviously it's the market rate that pays for them, so following right on the heels or simultaneous to that construction of those 111 units, there will be construction of market rate units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I fully understand that. I just want to make sure that it's clear, because in your affordable housing bonus density agreement -- I'll point to the language when we get to that document -- it refers to affordable housing units in each phase, yet the letter is what caught my attention. I think you intend to do it all in the first phase. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may want to make that real clear so that you're not into a situation -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that changes for you. We'll get to it in a little while. MR. MULHERE: I would be happy to add that to the PUD. I think that is the intent. And, you know, things have changed so dramatically in terms of cost even since, you know, we started, that it becomes important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That agreement, on page 7 of20 of the affordable housing density bonus agreement, that's where it says that the percentage of affordable housing units to which the developer has committed for the total development shall be maintained in each phase and shall be constructed as part of each phase. Page 13 7 January 19,2006 MR. MULHERE: You know, that may be -- and I would defer to Cormac. That may be standard language. Because I think what that is intended to get at is not sort of pushing that back to the end of the project and not having a guarantee the affordable would be built at the same time as the market rate. And we're actually taking a different position. We're agreeing to build it up front. So I'm going to assume CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just think I can see the hesitation. MR. MULHERE: I think there's a little bit of a conflict there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could just make the PUD consistent with what you intend to do so that there's no question in the future how it was supposed to come out, that would probably help -- MR. MULHERE: That's good. I've made a note. I'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And speaking of phasing, your project has based a lot of its concurrency on the fact that Santa Barbara is going to go through to Rattlesnake Hammock. And as we learned in the -- last Friday in the AUIR, what transportation always wishes to happen is not always what happens. I understand that you need -- there's a need for the affordable housing and you need some market rate. Is there some phasing of this project that you would feel comfortable with that would allow us to phase a certain portion of it at completion of Santa Barbara? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We've discussed that, and we -- we could commit to the ability to build 250 units up front. And just so you understand, that obviously doesn't mean tomorrow because we don't have our ERP, and we haven't submitted an SDP as of yet. So at least based on my calculations, you would not see those impacting the roadway for a minimum of 18 months, probably more like 20 months. The balance, the remaining 150 units, we'd like to have some ability to construct a certain number per year thereafter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's better than all 400 at Page 138 January 19,2006 once. As far as the 250 units in phase one, would that be all -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the affordable first then, right? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would include all the affordable. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: It includes that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And what kind ofa quantity would you need to see -- I mean, we're talking about 2010 before Santa Barbara's predicted to be through, and that's if we rely on transportation's predictions. MR. MULHERE: I think we were talking about 7 -- there's a remaining 150 units. We were talking about 75 per year thereafter. That would bring us to just about 2010, two years. We're talking 2008, get through the first phase, then 75 units in 2009 and 75 in 2010. The -- I think Ron's prepared to discuss the actual trip impact associated with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's hear from him then. And we -- MR. MULHERE: I think it's 40 some odd trips peak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- may have more questions on this. Okay. MR. T ALONE: Good afternoon. My name is Ron Talone. I'm with the transportation firm David Plummer & Associates. On behalf of this project, I prepared a traffic impact statement consistent with county guidelines, and that was presented to the county staff, who reviewed it and approved the TIS. The project, 400 multi-family units, is -- would generate approximately 188 p.m. peak hour trips. That's a relatively low traffic generation. The primary roads that would be impacted by the project are Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, both roads which are scheduled for improvement. Page 139 January 19,2006 And in just checking the most recent AUIR, both roads show up in their current condition as LOSD. But after the improve -- with that volume after the improvements, the AUIR indicates that the levels of service would issue C on Collier Boulevard and B on Rattle -- D on Rattlesnake. So those roads are projected to operate at a good level of service, and I'll get into the projections further here in a moment. We did use the adopted Collier County travel model to project volumes out to 2010, which was our estimated buildout of the project. I want to point out that in the earlier hearing -- I sat through the hearing that you just concluded right after lunch, and at that time Mr. Scott had alluded to a number of the road improvements out in that part of the county that are going to alter travel patterns, in some ways, improve the situation that we have out there. And I just want to go through a few of those here with an exhibit that I've prepared. Mr. Mulhere will help me out with the mechanical stuff. Anyway, what I wanted to point out was that in addition to the widening of Collier Boulevard and the widening of Rattlesnake, there's some other improvements that will have a very important and beneficial impact on conditions on Collier Boulevard and the David Boulevard corridor that everyone is concerned with. For example, with the -- within the next two years, the county has programmed the widening of Santa Barbara Boulevard south to Davis Boulevard, and the continuation of Santa Barbara's a four-lane road down to Rattlesnake. They also programmed the four-Ianing of County Barn Road. And also two pro -- three projects that are actually under construction already today are going to have a beneficial effect, and those are the construction of the new interchange on Golden Gate Parkway and the six-Ianing of Golden Gate, and the new overpass at Airport. Page 140 January 19,2006 With that new interchange traffic -- a lot -- some of the traffic that now continues on down past Pine Ridge to 951, get off there, and then double back on Davis, some of those will be able to get off immediately at Golden Gate, either turn west if they're going in towards town, or they can take ajog to the east and use Santa Barbara to continue down into the area, in the County Barn/Rattlesnake area. And just to illustrate how that can be beneficial, for this particular project, the projections show that very little of our traffic ends up on Davis Boulevard. The majority of the traffic that's headed in that direction would cut through on -- would go from Collier Boulevard down Rattlesnake, and then up Santa Barbara. So there's no reason for our traffic to go up to Davis and double back. So that shows one example of how the new roads will improve the situation. Another thing that's not shown on this exhibit, because they're private roads but will have a beneficial effect, is there's some road construction within the Lely development. For example, the continuation of Grand Lely Drive up to Rattlesnake will allow the traffic from that development to get to Rattlesnake Hammock without being forced to go out onto Collier Boulevard. By the same token, Lely Cultural is being extended west to connect with the new road so the traffic from those schools on that road don't have to go out to Collier Boulevard. They'll be able to go up to Rattlesnake, then continue north on either County Barn or Santa Barbara. So we think that this will have a beneficial effect. And, again, I do want to reiterate that based on our traffic study, we did not show any of the roads failing. They were all -- they all operated at or better than the level of service standard. And the project was not -- did not have significant impact on any of those roads. So we do believe that the impacts of the development are fairly low impact and that the roads will-- are projected through 2010 to Page 141 January 19,2006 operate at an acceptable level of service with the improvements that are now scheduled. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any questions on the transportation aspects of this project? Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I -- just maybe an interchange. We have an emergency operations center to be built, we have a library to be built, we have continuing -- continued building at Lely Resort, significant building, and I'm just trying to figure, with the time frames that you're talking about -- they sound really good, but I'm just wondering, did you take into consideration all of those trucks and all the other affairs going on in your study undoubtedly? MR. TALONE: We used the county's adopt-a-travel model and use their zonal -- or socioeconomic data base, and that data base has recently been updated for the long-range transportation plan. So we took the county's data base. We did add the hospital -- you know, made sure the hospital was reflected in the zonal data so that that was reflected. So we believe that we have reflected the ongoing growth. And the Lely development would be part of that background traffic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of transportation or the applicant before we hear the staffs report? Oh, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You stated when we were talking about the affordable housing, you said 1,000 square feet, and then you went and talked to a gentleman and you came back and said, well, maybe it will be 800. MR. MULHERE: Well, actually what happened was I talked to Page 142 January 19,2006 him and he said they'd probably be 1,000, but we could commit to a minimum size of 800. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How about committing to a size of 1,000 so that I know what I'm voting for in want to get there? I want this to happen right, and we've got two-bedroom units with four people very likely in them. A thousand square feet would be a very comfortable way to live. MR. MULHERE: We've got footprints, but I don't have exact plans. I've been authorized to go to 900 square feet, which is pretty good size, two-bedroom. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You know, we're talking about people in affordable housing, and let's get it straight. MR. MULHERE: No, no, I understand that. But Mr. Adelstein, it's the cost. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Let's make it 1,000. Let's get it done so I can vote for it properly. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Looks like you're a hard bargainer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like you just set a precedent, Mr. Mulhere. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a number of questions, and they're going to look like they're all over the woodwork here. But I'm looking at page 24 of the God knows what here. This looks like -- I don't know what document this is. This might be anywhere from the EAC report. In any event, I'll read it to you. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It says, the four archaeological sites may in part be -- or whole be preserved as green space as part of an agreement to develop the Newton PUD parcel immediately west of the subject parcel. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Okay. I can explain that. Page 143 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's talk about that. MR. MULHERE: Well, let's see. The name has changed four times. In Collier County you can hardly find a name that you're allowed to use anymore. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure Rockedge is acceptable, but that's what we're going with. And that name came from one of the middens. That's where that name came from. One of the archaeological middens. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But the central question there -- MR. MULHERE: Same project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- immediately west to the subject parcel -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- are you in agreement with -- have you -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. We've preserved those. They're within our -- those archaeological sites are within our -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's part of that issue. All right. I want to be sure on something. I'm on the i's, the three little i's as well. And it says, the project will act to implement policy 2.9 of the housing element by providing affordable housing dwelling units blended within the balance of the RPUD. Okay. Blended. I wonder if maybe Cormac has to answer this ultimately. Whether being out front like that constitutes blending or just they all have the same appearance represents blending. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think it's both. But I mean, we're not going to separate those affordable housing units in any way from the balance of the project. They are going to be located up front, but they're not going to be separated. There's not going to be gating or some other, you know-- Page 144 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they'll have common use of facilities. MR. MULHERE: That's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which brings me to the question of an HOA. They're going to be asked to join an HOA. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If they're already in a difficult situation and they're going to be adjoining or being part of a PUD with market rate, the market rate balance numbers will generate a lot of activity, if you will, various -- whether it be new capital items or higher maintenance levels, better quality flowers. What are we doing to make sure that those people who manage to get a fee-simple ownership now aren't pushed out because they go broke? MR. MULHERE: Well, you have to -- it's based on incomes. So the money that they can spend on housing, exclusive of real estate taxes and interest on their mortgage, is limited to 30 percent of their income divided by 12. You come up with a monthly amount. That -- and if they're spending money on the homeowners' association, that's going to factor into that situation. We're not proposing any very extravagant amenities here. Even, by the way, the market rate here -- I mean, I can't suggest to you what the price point's going to be, but obviously it's not going to be, you know, the higher end of market rate. So, you know, we've got to factor that in. We have got to find people that are qualified to buy these units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe we can get some GAP people in there, is that what you're -- MR. MULHERE: That's kind of what I'm suggesting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're suggesting it. I hope that would be a reality. But Cormac was nodding to indicate that that's the case. But that is a concern I have where people are being -- they qualify initially, and Page 145 January 19,2006 then they run into a snag, and that doesn't serve anybody. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. There's so few people doing this. And particularly now we've put some limitations on ourselves here, voluntarily. Number one, we agreed as part of the compo plan -- and we wrote that language for this project -- to 30 percent, which is higher than typically you're going to see in a project. The second thing is, you know, we've agreed to, as I said, construct those units up front so there's a significant expenditure associated with that. And they're also fee simple, which is, you know, quite a bit different than rental. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Appreciate it. MR. MULHERE: So I think we've put quite a few conditions on this to make it palatable to our neighbors. And I think, though we may have a few objections for the most part -- you know, the room isn't full. It's obvious that, you know, we've done our homework as best as we could. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under section three, and it's Roman three or -- yeah, Roman three hyphen one, I'll just relate the question to you here. What is the question here? Three hundred ninety -- yeah. You have 396 dwelling units in that area. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You want to change that, for the record, to represent a total of 400? MR. MULHERE: I'll take responsibility for that error. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I just want to go through real quickly here. All right. On V -4, I'm just wondering if it shouldn't be -- I'm going to refer you to capital L. Payment in lieu of, sidewalks and bike lanes. The amount shall be determined utilizing FDOT's 2004 transportation costs as amended. Should we be up to 2006? MR. MULHERE: I don't know if they've renewed it. I don't-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or 2005? Page 146 January 19,2006 MR. MULHERE: I don't object to changing that date if that's the case. If-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that the latest date, 2004? MR. SCOTT: Four. MR. MULHERE: But we put as amended. So if it changes during the time that, you know, prior to us making that payment. Just so you know, the county is actually going to construct that pathway, I think, construct that pathway within the canal easement. I'm not sure if we are or they are, but either way, we're required to either make payment in lieu of or construct it ourselves. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I notice in V-3 it says in 5.5C, a proportional amount of recreational facilities must be open and available for use by residents. So if you're going to first phase all of the affordable units, that means the pool and the tennis courts and everything else have to be in place first; is that right? MR. MULHERE: We're going to have to build the -- yeah, the common facilities in the first phase or very close to the first phase, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because that's a selling point to begin with. MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to verify that's the truth. MR. MULHERE: And again, I think that's a county stip., that you have concern that you, you know, defer the amenities and build something and folks don't have the amenities in place. You need it as a marketing point anyway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Understand V-5M where it -- it's the last sentence, if co-utilization determined not to be feasible that is cited, a school bus drop-off and pick-up shall be provided internal to the site. Do you have a candidate location? Because the document I saw didn't give a heck of a lot of room for a turnaround for a bus. Page 147 January 19,2006 MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, the CAT is probably going to utilize a location within a turn lane that's not depicted but will have to be constructed along Collier Boulevard at our entrance. So they're going to get out of the travel lanes, pull over into a turn lane. And if there's a shelter there, if that can be co-utilized, meet with the CAT folks and find out -- and the school board, and find out if that also can be co-utilized as a school bus stop, that's probably a pretty good location. If it can't be co-utilized either for safety reasons or because the school board, you know, for liability or whatever reason, then we'll have to accommodate a school bus motion coming into the project and then stopping and exiting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: It would be right up front, right past the entry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you're definitely -- that's not something that's going to go away. That's-- MR. MULHERE: No. We're going -- we're expecting to have children, so -- I mean, I'm not, but within the project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under V7 where -- landscape, buffers, berms, fences and walls, and you speak of a fence here, or wall. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at B. What kind of a fence? We're not -- MR. MULHERE: We're not proposing to install a perimeter fence. We will have a -- probably two -- you know, I would defer to Mike Neally (phonetic), the project engineer. But I know we'll need a berm of some kind. There's probably a couple-foot berm that's required for water management around the perimeter of the project. And we're also required to install a type B landscape buffer. As indicated earlier, I actually went on-line and made sure I knew what a type B buffer was because I actually was wrong. I thought it was less vegetation. When I went on-line type B is required to be opaque Page 148 January 19,2006 within a year. It requires trees 25 foot on center, it requires a hedge. Hedge -- in five-gallon buckets and five-foot high with a certain spread at the time of planting, so that's what helps to ensure the opacity . This gentleman over here is -- operates Squares Nursery, and he was concerned about this here. And so we are planning to work with them with respect to the vegetation. Once we told him what that type B buffer was, he seemed to be satisfied, and we'll continue that dialogue with him between now and the board meeting so -- if there's any more specificity. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do I understand you to say then that the buffer will be consistent throughout the entire development? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so there will be no differentiation between any kind of units? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's an important part MR. MULHERE: And I would just add that we -- you know, obviously where we don't have to install landscape buffer are the locations along the preserve where there's existing native vegetation that meets those requirements, that fulfills those requirements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I was going to ask you where buffers shall be provided around wetlands where possible. And I was just wondering -- MR. MULHERE: They're not talking about landscape buffer. They're talking about a structural buffer in that -- out in that verbiage. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that context. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's see ifthere's anything else. No. I think I've done my thing for the moment. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now are we done with Bob? Page 149 January 19,2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you, Bob. Could we have staff report, Mike? If there is any. Hint. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Minutia is a good idea. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development review. This application did go before EAC on December the 7th and received unanimous approval. I do want to make reference -- I was -- it was brought to my attention that in the staff report I did reference 60 percent where it -- of the mean income. It should have been 80 percent there. And in the -- also in the staff report, that I had some income, annual salaries based upon number of persons, and that has -- was reflective of that 80 percent value. And the -- excuse me -- the 60 percent, and it's 80 percent. And those numbers are different. And if you'd like, I could show you that, what those salaries are. If not, we're recommending approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we know what they are, yeah. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yeah. The staff is recommending approval. We're finding it consistent with the growth management plan. They're providing a lot of amenities to, particularly, the -- you know, with the affordable housing and interconnecting and the bus access, and we found it compatible with the surrounding properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Is there any questions of staff by the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: We have two registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: If Allan King could be followed by Ken Drum. MR. KING: (Waved hand.) Page 150 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr.-- MR. DRUM: I'm Ken Drum. I'm a resident of Lely Resort, and I'm also the president of the Lely Island Estates Homeowners' Association. I take no position on this project as to whether it's good or bad from the standpoint of affordable housing. The reason I'm here is because our residents have great concerns about the amount of traffic that's generated on 951. Some of the previous speakers talked about the roads as if they were already here. They're not. In fact, we may go through several years of construction in order to get there. The problem that we have as residents is that we don't want the second coming of Immokalee Road, what you have up there today, which is ongoing construction and tremendous traffic jams. We've got the hospital coming in there, which everybody in the community's grateful for. We have several businesses that want to come in. We do have a shortage of retail in the area. And 951 is our only major thoroughfare to get out of the area and into some of the other areas. All you've got to do is go there in the afternoon at three o'clock and see the backup from Davis all the way back. To approve this kind of density is only going to exasperate (sic) the problem, unless you do as Chairman Strain just mentioned, and that is phase it in as the construction is completed. As far as the road through Lely Resort, we don't want a Livingston Road going right through the middle of our community. And to characterize that as a road where all people are going to use that is incorrect. Most people in our area will use 951. So I would encourage you to consider the traffic situation and adjust your recommendations accordingly consistent with the project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 151 January 19, 2006 Okay. Ray, is that -- no other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mulhere, did you have any other questions? MR. MULHERE: Yes. And I apologize. Just one quick item. I mentioned to you that we were still working with transportation staff for the final design and location of the access. And under transportation, I think it's on page V-4, item F, there's a condition that says, all proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with Collier Access Management Plan, and it basically goes on to say that they can basically change that, which we understand. We had talked with Nick Casalanguida prior to the hearing. We wanted to add a sentence to that that basically says the final design and location for the access to Collier Boulevard shall be determined at the time of site development plan. He was not in objection to that and actually prefers it. I just wanted to add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he usually adds that language. He must have missed it this time. Could I ask Mr. Anderson one question -- MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- before we close the public hearing? Bruce, it's about an old subject, utility wellfields and ASR fields, whatever they call them. I notice this project wasn't asked for any, or at least there's none appearing here. MR. ANDERSON: Shh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. It's a good thing, but the inconsistency is what troubles me. MR. MULHERE: I think I can answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Apparently they've done -- and I don't know to what extent, but they have done some analysis which might go to your question, wherein they've determined certain sites are not Page 152 January 19,2006 appropriate for wellsites, either proximity to the canal or perhaps the wetlands, or there's not the right whatever they're looking for, you know, water underneath the ground there. But almost in every other project that I've worked on, they have asked for them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Curious, because not too far from there they have a bunch of ASR wells, so -- okay. I just thought that was odd. Thank you. With that we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. MR. ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-4991 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? MR. SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now discussion? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Okay. Just that he wanted 1,000 in there, and that wasn't -- 1,000 square foot. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's 1,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's just get -- this is discussion. So the stipulations that are going to come out of discussion, the first one is that the minimum unit size is 1,000 square feet. Is that -- everybody comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are some typos, discrepancies, in the PUD. They're not such I think we need to list them in the stipulations. They're just things that need to be corrected, and I'm sure that everybody's understood what they are and they'll get corrected. In particular, the phasing of the units, all in the first phase up front; all of the affordable units will be phased in the first phase up front, and that the project itself will phase its construction for impacts on roads. It will be 250 units in phase one, which will include all of Page 153 January 19,2006 the affordable housing for the project, and that will just be the first phase. It will start and end whenever it happens. But the next phase is 75 units, but the CO on those won't be until 2009, and 75 more units with a CO in 2010. I believe that's what I understood the applicant can live with. I see some discrepancies. Now, we're COs now. We're not start dates. MR. MULHERE: Right, those are for COso CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: Actually, we're looking for -- assuming that we would commence the first phase in 12 to 16 months and probably complete that 12 months thereafter, that puts us two years -- two years to two and a half years out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it would be 2008. MR. MULHERE: Two thousand eight and 2009. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you start your next 75 and you CO them in 2009, then you start your next 75 and you CO them in 2010. Doesn't that work? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think there's just some concern that that takes us out, perhaps, a little bit further than we anticipate. We were thinking 2008 start, and I don't know when the CO -- you know, we were thinking 2008,2009 versus 2009,2010. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To start. I know. You had said that, but I was looking at COso It's going to take you a year to permit and build them. They're multi-family structures. That's the only reason I was looking at it that way. MR. MULHERE: I guess he's thinking he could build one unit and get a CO on it and build another unit and get a CO on it, and that that might happen during the 2008 -- it would be the tail end of 2008, but it could happen during that period. So '08 and '09 were really the time frame that we were looking to schedule the last 75. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, now that it -- just the fact you're phasing it is a big help, the roads will -- first of all, by that date Page 154 January 19,2006 Rattlesnake and 951 are supposed to be completed. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only one that wouldn't have been is the Santa Barbara one. But 951, if that's -- it's supposed to be completed by then, I think you'd still be in pretty good shape. So I think I'm comfortable with that. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it will be 75 units in 2008 and 75 units in 2009. So you'll have three phases? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I may be out of order, but just to make me comfortable, if nobody else, could -- maybe Don Scott could verify that those dates are realistic? I know what we like, I know what we think we're going to get. MR. SCOTT: That's a very detailed schedule of Santa Barbara's schedule. In regards to -- essentially completing August 2009. Design just got underway. As for Collier Boulevard, from 41 up to Davis Boulevard, it's supposed to start later this year. The southern portion, I'm more comfortable with, up to Rattlesnake. We have all the -- essentially we have all the stormwater issues and all that addressed. We have one issue north of Rattlesnake regarding stormwater pond. So if I was to say what's my comfort level in the southern portion? I'm more comfortable -- I think we'll probably be breaking the job up and doing the southern one first, and then the northern portion up to Davis second. And, you know, if the other one -- this one starts -- the southern one starts later this year and the next one's '07, you'd be talking about an '09 completion time frame. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now we have design done? Page 155 January 19,2006 MR. SCOTT: We're at about 90 percent for Collier. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then -- so when do we let it for an RFP? MR. SCOTT: Development on how much right -- we don't have a whole lot of right-of-way we have to get. It's basically fitting into the right-of-way. But my caveat is, north of Rattlesnake we still have an issue with pond site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have all your right-of-way for the southern portion? MR. SCOTT: Just around the intersection, with actually Lely we have agreements from a prior DCA to get around the intersection as part of them. It hasn't been specifically identified as of yet. I'm hoping that that's not a big problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, isn't most of your work going to be in the median? MR. SCOTT: Yes. Most of it's -- it's the intersections where they essentially have to blowout some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I understand. That's why that road was built the way it was, so the medians could be filled in rather quickly. MR. SCOTT: It wasn't perfect though. One of the issues is the bike lanes were supposed to go away, you widen to the median, but you can't get dual turn lanes in, left turn lanes in. That's why the intersection's a little bit more. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Don. We have a motion made, some stipulations made. There's a first -- does the motion maker accept the stipulations? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept the stipulations? Okay. Any other comments? (No response.) Page 156 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9- -- or 8-1. Mike, you've got an after-the-fact comment? MR. DeRUNTZ: We need a motion for the affordable housing agreement also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. A separate motion? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move -- how do you want that -- to word it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approve the affordable -- recommend approval of the affordable housing agreement. Motion's been made by Commissioner Adelstein to recommend approval for affordable housing -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- seconded by Brad. Marjorie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Excuse me, but in paragraph 17 there was an issue about the language referring to each phase. Is it the wish of the commission to have that reflect the first phase instead, because that's the way the affordable housing units are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the direction to Mr. Mulhere was Page 157 January 19,2006 to get that language cleaned up to be consistent. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm -- that's what we expect. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I wanted to make sure, because you're voting on the agreement -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- and it's language in the agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am, that was. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 9-0. Thank you. We will take a break to 2:30. (A brief recess was had.) Item #8G PETITION PUDZ-2004-AR-6932 Page 158 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if you could turn us back on. Are we there? Okay. Okay. The planning commission will resume. The next petition is PUDZ-AR-2004-6932, R & S Development Company, LLC, the Sandalwood RPUD. Would those people wishing to testify on this particular issue, please rise and raise your right hand to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any disclosures on the part of the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kelly, it's all yours. MS. SMITH: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Kelly Smith. I'm with Davidson Engineering, and I'm here this afternoon on behalf of the applicant. I also have with me today Jim Krall, who's an engineer with Davidson Engineering. Before I begin my presentation I would like to take care of one issue. In preparing for today I recognized that we had somehow not ever formally amended our application to include the fact that Dino Longo is a contract purchaser of the property, and so I have those for you now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's in here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I saw Dino Longo. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's in here. COMMISSIONER TUFF: His name is in here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I saw it. MS. KELLY: I think it's mentioned in there, but it's not officially in the application. The Sandalwood RPUD property is located west of the Livingston Road on the south side of the proposed Memorial Parkway. The subject property is adjacent to Mediterra and Imperial Golf Page 159 January 19,2006 Estates, North Naples Middle School to the south, and the future North Naples Elementary School to the east. The property is 20.58 acres, however, the applicant is donating 1.24 acres to the Collier County Public Utilities Division for ASR wells as part of the proposed RPUD. The total developable area of the property is 19.34 acres. The property is currently undeveloped, although it was previously used as the temporary construction access for the North Naples Middle School. The subject property is located within the urban mixed-use district and the urban residential subdistrict of the future land use map of the growth management plan. This designation permits a variety of residential uses at a base density of four dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting a rezone from rural agricultural to residential planned unit development and will permit the development of up to 67 single-family homes and customary accessory uses. The requested density is 3.5 dwelling units per acre, which is lower than the density permitted by the GMP and the density rating system. The proposed RPUD includes 2.64 acres of preserve native vegetation, which exceeds 15 percent, or the 2.61 acres required by the LDC. The conceptual master plan also proposes water management within the preserve, with the exception of pretreatment, which will be outside the preserve area. Access to the property will be provided through the future Memorial Parkway. Development commitments in the proposed document include the designing construction of 600 linear feet of the southerly two lanes of the future six-lane roadway adjacent to the subject property as well as the accommodation of the stormwater runoff for the southerly three lanes adjacent to the subject property. We believe this arrangement to be beneficial to Collier County by reducing the amount of land required for the construction of Page 160 January 19,2006 Memorial Parkway. The neighborhood information meeting for this project was held on April 11, 2005. Several property owners from Imperial Golf Estates attended the meeting. And in response to a concern raised at that meeting, we have specifically prohibited storage and utility sheds as a use within the PUD. A subsequent meeting was held with the Imperial Golf Estates Board of Directors in September in an effort to keep the neighboring owners informed about the status of the project. There are two sections of the PUD document that in conversation with staff we would like to point out some changes to. The first is -- they're both within section 5.6 under transportation. The first is item 0, which is regarding the noise mitigation law. The intent there was to let the developer and the subsequent owners know that -- that it -- at a future time if a noise mitigation wall is deemed to be necessary, that would be at their responsibility, not Collier County's. So the language proposed there will be changes to a noise mitigation wall adjacent to the future Memorial Parkway if warranted by improvements to future Memorial Parkway shall be the responsibility of the developer and not Collier County. The second item has to do with the interconnection to the future elementary school. That has been written so that should the school decide they want an interconnection, one will be provided, and that will be done through the platting process. There's some ongoing discussion whether or not the school actually wants the interconnection, but county's transportation staff wants to make sure that that's a viable option in the future should the school decide that they ultimately do want that interconnection. Based upon the consistency with the growth management plan and compatibility with neighboring uses, we ask that you forward Sandalwood RPUD to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. And with that, I'd be happy to answer Page 161 January 19,2006 any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Memorial Parkway, is it a two-lane road now? MS. SMITH: It is currently -- I don't think it's really a road now. It's more of an access -- maintenance access for Mediterra. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So you're saying though, that if this PUD builds two lanes, it will be a two-lane road? MS. SMITH: Correct. And the elementary school will also be building two lanes, and we will essentially be piggybacking off of what they're going to be doing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And when do you expect the school to be done so their two lanes will be built? MS. SMITH: They were initially supposed to be open in August of this year, and just last week the school board postponed that opening until August of 2007. Our understanding is that they're still going to move forward with the construction of their same time frame, but they're running into some time constraints with permitting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is that also due to the road? I mean, if they could get a permit for the road now, would they be doing it, or are they going to wait till they finish the building and then do the road? MS. SMITH: I'm going to let Jim Krall from Davidson Engineering answer that question. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Fine. MR. KRALL: Hi. For the record, my name is James Krall, representing Davidson Engineering. The -- TKW is the consultant for the school. And they have -- are constructing two of the -- or designing -- excuse me -- two lanes out of the six of the master plan to take it down their western property line. Weare contending with their road profile for the additional 600 feet to our westerly boundary. It's all part of the six-lane master plan as Page 162 January 19,2006 developed by the county. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: When will they be starting theirs? MR. KRALL: To answer your question, they will be starting the road immediately upon receipt of their permit -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And what-- MR. KRALL: -- of their permitting, and they're doing that currently. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And you're going to do the same thing? MR. KRALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Immediately after theirs is done, you'll -- MR. KRALL: That's right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of -- go ahead, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I read in the report that the average price of these houses will be about $850,000. I can see this creating a need for workforce housing. And I'm particularly -- as sitting on this board, I notice that there doesn't seem to be any workforce housing built in this area of the county. All it -- it seems to be all million-dollar homes. What are you planning to do to address this need? MS. SMITH: The reference that you're speaking about came up at the neighborhood information meeting, and that was discussed as a response to the neighbors' concern that these homes would be below market rate and, therefore, would impact their -- their appraisal and their value. I don't know -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's not the thrust of my question though. I'm asking what you're going to be doing to help affordable housing. Page 163 January 19,2006 MS. SMITH: This is not an affordable housing project that's being proposed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You don't intend to do anything at all? MS. SMITH: There's nothing currently in the PUD document relating to affordable housing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You don't think that there's need in the -- Collier County for affordable housing? MS. SMITH: I do think there's a need, yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you're unwilling to contribute anything? MS. SMITH: Not that we're unwilling to, we just hadn't -- hadn't put anything specific in the document to this point. We'd certainly be happy to consider suggestions. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I feel very strongly that we're actually creating problems -- not that we're being neutral, but that we're actually creating problems when we use upland and large areas of land, and when many different developers in an area of the county do the same thing, and that we're actually not being neutral, we're creating -- we're contributing to the problem when we do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So final position is, you guys are not doing anything in this project for affordable housing? MS. SMITH: I would like to take a moment to discuss with my client, in may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go right ahead. MS. SMITH: Thank you. I think that it's been proposed in other projects ofa similar nature to provide a donation, I believe, of$l,OOO per unit, and we certainly would be willing to add that as a stipulation to the PUD. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions of this applicant at this time? Page 164 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe it's something for Nick, too, is that, is there any chance that Airport-Pulling could ever come up alongside this property, a connection between Immokalee and Livingston Road on the western boundary? MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Commissioners, Nick Casalanguida, transportation planning. There's nothing in our long-range transportation plan that has Airport Road connecting to this property or to Livingston east/west. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, is there any physical reason why it couldn't, or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I haven't looked at it, but it's not in our plan, so I would imagine there are some constraints there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Houses, buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nothing on this site. And when you look at the map, it looks like -- I guess it would mess up the school. It would be closed. Okay. Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any there any other questions at this time? Kelly? MS. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How have you kept the neighborhood informed? MS. SMITH: We held the neighborhood information meeting, we had a subsequent meeting with the Imperial Golf Estates Board of Directors, and we certainly have indicated that we were anxious to communicate with them through the entire process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you given them additional site plans since your neighborhood meeting? MR. KRALL: Yes. Page 165 January 19,2006 MS. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going for 67 units in this request. In your informational meeting you told them, the neighborhood or the people that attended, there'd be 50 to 60 units. MS. SMITH: We told them at that time that the ultimate design would probably mean only 50 to 60 units. We have submitted a PPL application for this project with a total of 57 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty-seven or sixty-seven? MS. SMITH: Fifty-seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty-seven, okay. Your utility department asks for an ASR site on this project. How did that come about? Did they tell you they needed that to get approval, or what was their situation? MS. SMITH: The public utilities department indicated that they would be asking for wellsite easements, as they are doing on other projects. And rather than have property that was unusable that was covered by an easement that the developer and the subsequent homeowners' association had to maintain, we decided to donate that property to the utility department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if it's part of any master plan? Did they show you a master plan which this fit into some plan that they had for ASR wells? Do you know if they did any testing that ASR would be even acceptable in that particular part of the county? MS. SMITH: I do remember the discussion that ASR would be appropriate. I know that they had a general idea of locations, but I don't believe that there was a specific master plan at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie, this particular ASR well would be put in with taxpayers' money. The pumps and everything else that have to go with an ASR would be, likewise, paid for by taxpayers, yet in the PUD this particular project is able to utilize the ASR well for irrigation purposes. Now, irrigation water in Collier County, I thought, was on a man Page 166 January 19,2006 -- on a listing of projects from top to bottom. And I'm just wondering if that's an appropriate way to handle -- it's on page 5-1 of the PUD. The developer of Sandalwood Estates RPUD shall be provided with the opportunity to connect to the ASR wells for irrigation purposes. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. Usually, it's my understanding, that we use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And there's a waiting list for reclaimed water in Collier County. So I'm wondering, does this mean that if anybody donates ASR wells to the county, they get first dibs on the reclaimed water, because if that's -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: No, no, no. I haven't -- I don't believe I've seen that language necessarily in the other provisions for the donation. It is something that I'm -- I would be happy to look into any ordinance requirement in that regard or discuss that with our utilities counsel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would like you -- someone to look at it before it goes to the BCC -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Certainly will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if there's a question of policy or proprietary issues involving that water, it would be good to know before this PUD was approved. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kelly, in your PUD, on page 2-4F you talk about complying with the guidelines for -- of U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding potential impact to protected species on site. I've read your EIS, and I've also noticed that you didn't go to the EAC because you had no protected species on site nor habitat that was likely to support that. So do you know why this paragraph is in your PUD? MS. SMITH: I believe it's just standard language requested by environmental review staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is that one of the ones that will be Page 167 January 19,2006 cleaned up in the future? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 2-6, item D, top of the page, it says, a 15-foot wide type B landscape adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project may include a berm or masonry wall to be shared with the adjacent North Naples Elementary School property. How do-- what do you mean by the word shared? MS. SMITH: That the -- instead of constructing a wall, both properties would be required to have a type B buffer. And instead of having the wall on this subject property and then five feet in between and then a wall on the school property, the opportunity to have one wall that would serve as the required wall for both projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what does the word shared mean as far as costing goes? MS. SMITH: The wall is actually going to be constructed on the Sandalwood property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're paying for the wall? MS. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could we have a clarification to that to make sure that the taxpayers aren't paying for that wall on behalf -- through the school board? MS. SMITH: And I've also been asked to let you know that the maintenance of that wall will also be by the Sandalwood RPUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd hope so if you want it maintained. On page 3-3, your development standards, table one, your front yard setback at 20 feet is inconsistent with what we've utilized for other projects. It's been 23 feet, unless you're using side entry garage. That 23 feet was a requirement of transportation to clear the sidewalk. MS. SMITH: And our PPL has been designed with a 23-foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can change table one to be-- Page 168 January 19,2006 MS. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 23 feet? On page 5-3 -- and this is probably something Nick will probably want to chime in on. It says under M, the proposed development shall accommodate the stormwater runoff of the southerly three lanes of the future six-lane Memorial Parkway adjacent to the subject property. Now, the word -- what I'm worried about is the word adjacent. MS. SMITH: And I should point out for the record that 200 linear feet in both paragraph L and paragraph M should actually be 600 linear feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute now. What are you reading? MS. SMITH: There's 600 linear feet adjacent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't have any linear feet mentioned in my two paragraphs. Do you have a different PUD? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 5.53? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on 5.6, page 5-3, item M. MS. SMITH: That was a correction requested by the county attorney that hasn't -- that we haven't submitted yet. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute now. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: What page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're supposed to be reviewing the final document here today. This is not the final document? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: What page are we talking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5-3. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I reviewed the document and gave my comments several weeks ago to planning staff, and which got to the applicant, and I got another document back from the -- through the applicant, and there were just little nit-picky things. What are we -- MS. SMITH: And that's what I'm talking about. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: What -- I'm sorry. I was out-- MS. SMITH: Page 5-3, item L and item M, you had asked for Page 169 January 19,2006 the linear feet to be designated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My Land M don't have any such designation. I'm not sure how many changes you have. And, Ray, do we -- how many versions of this do we have to deal with now? MR. BELLOWS: I've been informed that the packet you have is -- was the latest and greatest, and -- but there was a minor change that was made to certain pages in the attorney's office because their review came after -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It was only a clarification and it was reviewed by me. I can -- let's see -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now the one you're showing shows 200 linear feet, and Kelly's saying it should be 600. The one I have doesn't show even 200. What does the rest of this panel have? Does anyone have one that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, okay. So we all, apparently, don't have the right document. MR. BELLOWS: Not the document, just the page, right? We just have one revision that came after your packets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is the only revision that we don't have? MS. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SMITH: And in speaking with Nick just now, he indicated that it should just say, adjacent to the project frontage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for the County Attorney's Office? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That works for me. I just was looking for clarity, that's all. I wasn't changing any substance of anything. Page 170 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're going to drop the referent to any of the linear feet so it will be more like we have, just the words on M that says, adjacent to the project's frontage? MS. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that would be the same with item L, design and build the southerly two lanes adjacent to the project's frontage; is that right? MS. SMITH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That are all -- those are all the questions I have, Kelly, right at this time. I guess I'll see what -- anybody else have any follow-up questions with the applicant? Hearing none. COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you actually get an answer to your initial question on the stormwater runoff for M? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, and that's -- but I think they answered it by defining the area that it applies to. I was concerned what adjacent meant in regards to accepting stormwater runoff. And I could see something happening in the future where if adjacent was determined -- not determined to be, say, 601 feet, transportation wanted to take a foot or two of nonadjacent water into that, there'd be a problem. But if they're comfortable with the limitation of frontage as a discussion -- I guess, Nick, if you don't mind, on the record, what I want to make sure is, if you have a piece of roadway in front of this property, directly in front of it, 600 feet by two lanes or future three lanes -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you've got a catch basin in your gutters or your curbing that picks water up that picks it up from a distance greater than -- or outside of that immediate 600 feet, by this language you'd be limit -- you would not be allowed to take it to this property . MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd be limited to the amount of water I Page 171 January 19,2006 could take into this property, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not the amount of the water, the location of that water. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you fully comfortable the future design is not going to want to bring water within a little distance from that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm comfortable to the point, sir, because our future design -- or our temporary design is going to bring water to the north side of that road. And in the future, we're probably more concerned with what's happening right now in the temporary situation, taking that water. So I think in the future we'll accommodate for the water either partially in the development, probably someplace else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I would suggest is that you put a little more flexible language in there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't disagree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you want to suggest what that language would be? You're limiting yourself too much here, and I could see -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: My only concern would be, I have the developer here, and without giving him an -- approximately adjacent to the frontage, ifhe's comfortable with that. There may be a certain amount that, you know, without defining how much, he'd be limiting himself or exposing himself to a certain amount of water runoff, and I don't think he wants to do that. And I'm not comfortable without a full design and a drainage package to ask him to do that, so probably I'm trying to be -- meet the best of both worlds with what I'm saying right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So at 600 feet of frontage -- or just, it will be the frontage subject to verification of future road designs? Page 172 January 19,2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: You comfortable with that? He's comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. No more questions of the applicant, then staff. MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. For the record, Heidi William, principal planner with zoning and land development review. The project was reviewed and found to be consistent with the growth management plan, including the density rating system. In fact, the proposed density is lower than what would be permitted. As already noted, the project did not go to the environmental advisory council because no wetlands or listed species were found on site. The wellsite has been covered, and the transportation issues have been well covered. The zoning analysis finds that the neighboring properties are two low-density residential developments and two schools, one middle school, one elementary school, and that the proposed low-density residential development is a more appropriate use of this site than an agricultural use would be at this location. The current zoning would permit many types of agricultural use. This limits it to single-family residential development. The requirement for neighborhood information meeting was met. And with the revisions noted, I would just like to add that we did have a version of the document that followed your packet being sent to you that does contain revisions that Margie Student has deemed to be insubstantial. They're cleanup items, and that does include that language for clarity. I apologize that that was not provided to you, but that -- that was deemed to be mostly insubstantial changes. Could I answer any questions for you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Follow-up to your statement there. I know that staff and Margie may consider them insubstantial, but I'm not sure each of us would always consider things insubstantial. Even if Page 173 January 19,2006 you have to email them to us or give them to us late somehow, I think it would be beneficial if we had those changes before our meetings. MS. WILLIAMS: Sure, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Thank you. Ray, public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: One speaker. Tom Harruff. MR. HARRUFF: For the record, may name is Tom Harruff, H-A-R-R-U-F-F. I'm the vice-president ofImperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, and I live -- MR. BELLOWS: Could you point on this photograph, sir. It's the same one. MR. HARRUFF: I live right there, so I am an impacted homeowner and we have been talking mostly to the builder, Dino Longo. Dino's been to our homeowners' association, and he's shown us his designs. We've been very happy with what we've seen. We do have a few issues that we're concerned about. As the construct -- Longo was there. He brought us conceptual designs for the barrier and the berm and landscape drawings between our two communities. Today we happen to have a chain link fence that is about near its ending life-span. We've been there about 20 years. Dino's proposed to put up a wall that looks very nice in the conceptual drawings. I don't find that defined in any great shape for us because we're concerned about having something better defined than just a conceptual drawing. The type A barrier that's going to be there, he's planning, I understand, to plant that behind, and also to landscape in front of the wall so that our homeowners will be watching through that. Another concern that we've had addressed to us from the homeowners is the fact that there were numerous large pine trees Page 174 January 19,2006 along there that were removed when North Naples Middle School was developed and never replanted, so there's a lot of native vegetation that homeowners are used to seeing behind their property that no longer exists anymore. I assume that that will happen when they clear that. We're going to lose a lot of native vegetation that the homeowners are used to seemg. They're is a water management canal between our two developments. The plan is to store their water on site without any lake in that 2.56 acres of natural area that is on the south side between this development and North Naples Middle School. We've already had some overflow in the most recent rains to that water management canal that goes down to our lake at the end, and we have a weir down there that the county is currently studying to see if they need to improve that weir. So we do have a great deal of concern about water outflow once that area has been paved and no longer has the absorption rate that it's had in the past. Because that water, if it does outflow, will, in fact, outflow into the water management canal between our two properties, which by the way is on our property, that easement, and then flow down to our lake, so that is a concern that we have. We really would like to see some specificity of what is going to be between our community and this community as we continue to go forward. We've seen, as I say, conceptual drawings. We've seen no specificity though what that's going to look like. Those are the major concerns that our homeowners have brought up. We've been very happy, as I say, in working with Longo. So I-- you know, I know he's a very good developer. I've heard that from lots of people. But I always like to see things in writing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you bring a copy of the -- what he showed you would go between your buildings? MR. HARRUFF: He did not. Page 175 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Did you? MR. HARRUFF: He did not. He would not give them to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I think we need to get on the record what was provided to you, what you were told you would have. MR. HARRUFF: A conceptual drawing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And whatever goes -- whatever goes on the record is what will have to be there. If it's not on today's record, chances are you don't have any way to enforce getting it if it doesn't happen. MR. HARRUFF: That's why I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you are. So maybe between your description and Kelly's we can figure out -- to make sure that this is included in the project. MS. SMITH: For the record, Kelly Smith. I do not have a copy of that with me today. The land development code doesn't require a type B buffer with a wall in between those two uses, so that would be above and beyond the code. We'd be happy to commit to that wall, but I don't have a drawing with me that I could provide as an exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you -- did someone tell these people that they're going to have a wall between them? MS. SMITH: Yes. Mr. Longo has committed to putting in a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we're here to help you keep your commitment. So let's make sure -- let's put the language in the PUD to make sure it addresses this particular issue. Can you describe what you're committing -- what you committed to to these people in regards to the wall and the vegetation as to go on both sides of the wall from what we heard today. MS. SMITH: Okay. And I would also like to point out that the plans and plan application I referenced earlier was submitted with the wall and landscaping on both sides. So that is public record, and Page 176 January 19,2006 certainly we can reference that as well if necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Can you deal with the flooding issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish the wall first. What's the height of this wall? MS. SMITH: Six feet, plus the berm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how high is the berm? MS. SMITH: Two and a half feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind ofplantings are on either side of it? MS. SMITH: It's a type B buffer, so it's the standards plantings required for a type B buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Sir, is that consistent with what you've been told? MR. HARRUFF: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That will be on the record. And the last question that we have, Ms. Caron had of question about the water management, of Kelly, to follow up with your concerns on that as well. MR. KRALL: I can address that. The entire site will be -- have pretreatment, which will take a half inch of water over the entire site and pretreat it before it's discharged into the preserve, and then the preserve will be the detention area, and there will be a controlled discharge from the preserve. We've done extensive modeling to prove that the -- to prove to the environmental staff that the preserve will not be drowning in water, that the discharge will take place over a 72-hour period and will dry out to its native standing. And we can assure the local areas behind us in the residential communities that we will not be discharging more water than what's occurring right now. Page 177 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm assuming all this is going to be consistent with South Florida Water Management District standards and county standards. MR. KRALL: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Is that all, sir? MR. HARRUFF: Yes. Thank you very much. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for your time today. Appreciate it. Ray, is there any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments or questions from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Just that they showed that community 50 to 60 houses, and they said they had a drawing for 57. So can we just make that so that would be their -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It says up to 67. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Right. But now they showed the community -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. COMMISSIONER TUFF: They said they could do one for 57. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's ten less. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. So instead of providing 67 and we end up with 10 units of ghost density, if 57 is what they got planned, 57 is what they need to have. Fine. That's a very good point. Kelly, is there any objection from your side? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe we could cap it at 60, which is what they told them the cap was. I don't know how far they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your site plan? MS. SMITH: Our site plan -- our current proposed applied PPL site plan shows 57 units, so we would be willing to reduce the density Page 178 January 19,2006 requested. I would request that it not be lower than three units an acre. That allows a little bit of flexibility for one or two more units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're requesting 60 units instead of 577 MS. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm curious as to where you'd put those, but -- MS. SMITH: We don't think we can, but since we haven't gone through all the permitting yet, we'd just like to retain that as an opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Tuff, a good catch. You're catching on. Okay. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. I'd entertain a motion -- by the way, the motion maker, I have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, items that we've discussed that you may want to include in the motion. So is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make one. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Brad Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's got to finish his motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'll make a motion that we forward with a recommendation of approval PUDZ-2004-6932, with the conditions. How many conditions was it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have seven. I'll list them, assuming we all agree on them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the seven conditions soon to be listed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you-- Page 179 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Mr. Schiffer, second by Ms. Caron. The conditions that I've taken notes on are the following: That the developer will contribute $1,000 per unit to the affordable housing fund that's been in the same manner as we've requested of other projects, or we've received from other projects; That the ASR language in the PUD be reviewed by county attorney, and a comment about its applicability be provided to the BCC before they hear this matter; That the buffer wall that's going to be shared between the school board property and Sandalwood be paid for by Sandalwood and maintained by Sandalwood and would be on Sandalwood's property; The table one, the reference to the front setback, instead of 20 feet, will be 23 feet; That on page 5-3 of the PUD, items Land M, will be subject to the front -- the language will be corrected to reflect the frontage of the road is what's applicable, and that will be subject to the future road design when it finally comes out to determine the exact range of accepting water from that area; At the wall along the Imperial -- I think it's Imperial Golf Estates -- there will be a wall along Imperial Golf Estates at six feet high on top of a berm that is 2.5 feet high with a type B buffer within that wall as well. And the wall is to be maintained by the Sandalwood Development Company, or it's assigns; And lastly, the density will be reduced to 60 units. I think I have all that. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the landscape's on both sides of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well the type B would-- COMMISSIONER CARON: On both sides of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 180 January 19,2006 Does the motion maker accept the stipulations? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept those? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker and second accept those stipulations. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 9-0. Thank you. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item on the agenda is old business. And Mr. Adelstein had an item, and Mr. Schiffer will be next. The old business item is, Mr. Adelstein, NIM issues? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. This is the neighborhood information meetings. About a month and a half ago I request that neighborhood information meetings should -- must be within one year Page 181 January 19,2006 of the time it comes to the hearing of the county planning commission so that it isn't a three-year -- or the one we had there was over four years ago, and no owners had been notified of anything until -- until the last four years. I was hoping that we could get that, somewhere, get an answer from someone in writing in the next week or two so I can know what's going on. Because I do believe it's a very important thing that if something's going to happen in my neighborhood, I certainly would like to know within the year what they're planning to do so I have a voice about it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Especially with such rapid growth here. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure Ray will follow that up. You might as well keep bringing it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I thought we made some headway, not the last meeting, the meeting before the first one in December, further the discussion on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could check. MR. BELLOWS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't recall myself, but that doesn't mean my memory's not as good as it used to be. Brad, did you have an issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I did. And one thing on Lindy's saying -- Ray, would that require an LDC amendment? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Right now the LDC does not specify a second meeting or a time limit between meetings; however, we have adopted a policy that if it approaches a year, that they hold another one, and we try to deal with the petitioner in that regard, and so far, I don't think anyone would object to that, but that would have to be an LDC amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But as the -- you know, we're Page 182 January 19,2006 getting close to the deadline, which is the beginning of March for LDC amendments. Could we, as the commission, vote to have you put that together, or should we put the wording together or -- MR. BELLOWS: However you wish. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Lindy, you could make a motion that that become an amendment that will be added to the first cycle of this year. I'll certainly second it. Okay. I guess Lindy did make a motion by his nod, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think before you make the motion, I think we ought to request that staff take a look at including it in the appropriate cycle in which they can do it. I mean, is that cycle still available to have items added to it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think there is time, yeah. MR. BELLOWS: I think if you phrase it that way, that would be helpful, and we -- I'll report back to you via email this week. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They have over a month to do it. If they're having trouble with the wording, we can do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe put a motion together and it's pretty solid, then we're kind of -- they're kind of stuck with it, and if they can't do it, that makes it even harder. So I just thought we could have some flexibility in case there's a problem there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I know the deadline's early March, so they do have time, that's why I'm saying it. So I guess we could vote on that motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the -- I didn't --let's clarify the motion. Mr. Adelstein, were you making a motion then? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell it out so I know what the motion is? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Does this go on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're-- MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, you're asking for a second Page 183 January 19,2006 neighborhood information meeting if a public hearing before the planning commission board can't be held within one year since -- from the time the first public neighborhood information meeting is held? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. That would be my motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, you had an item. Did you want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A couple issues, yeah. One is that -- and we've been promised that on the website the LDC amendments that are going through cycle, going through the commission -- what the intent is, is we wanted to review them before they went to the commission. It was said that it's a no-brainer to have the website updated. As of last night, the website still isn't updated, so MR. BELLOWS: The website updated with? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The LDC amendments. In other Page 184 January 19,2006 words, after they go through the planning commission, we make adjustments to them. The concern we had is we wanted to see what was going before the commission. The promise was, no problem, just go to the website. Unfortunately, the website's back in November. MR. BELLOWS: I know Joe Schmitt was working on that, along with Catherine. I'll double check on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But isn't it a matter of simply posting what should be in the commissioners' packet? MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure what's all entailed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's where I wanted to see it. The other thing is, we've been trying to get access to the LDC and the GMP on these computers. So somebody from the computer department's going to have to write a special little menu where we could just be able to access that off of these computers. MR. BELLOWS: When you pull up the screen, you should be able to pull it up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, we just have a mail account. I don't think we need to get access to the total county system. It would be nice if they just made a planning commission menu that would allow us to go to those two sites. And then the only other question -- and this is for the court reporter actually, is in the minutes, when we go from one topic to another, we just kind of bleed into it. If there's a way to put a space or bold or something so that we could see that we've left one hearing and gone on to another hearing, that would make it a little bit easier. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm certain that if the court reporter could look into that and respond back to us the next time she's at a meeting, that may be helpful, respond back to Ray and let him know so you're talking through him if that's -- you feel more comfortable. That's okay, too. Thank you. Are there any other public -- oh, Margie, you had a comment? Page 185 January 19,2006 MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, I did. On the Board of County commission minutes, the way they're set out, they'll break out the new agenda item, like it will say 7 A, and like a brief thing, and then the minutes of that start. So I think that's kind of what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That will be good. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's kind of what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: So it'd be patterned like the board of county commission minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll see if that's possible and get back to us. Thank you. We are -- at about four o'clock we have to make a decision on how far we're going to go tonight so -- are there any other issues on this particular meeting? None? This meeting can stand adjourned. Page 186 January 19, 2006 ANNUAL UPDATE & INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) - (CONTINUED FROM 1/13/06 MEETING) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back in order. Lynn, thank you for joining us. I think your drive is going to end up being longer than the work tonight. We'll just have to see where it goes. AUIR - EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Mr. Page, thank you for hanging in there today. Appreciate it. I think you just had one issue, that was the averaging between lease and owned. MR. PAGE: Correct. What we did is -- did they get the new copy here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. MR. PAGE: What we did was the 21.5 units that we initially had we identified six that were owned, five that were collocated and 10.5 were actually leased type of units. That total value came to $35,295,095. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. MR. PAGE: Okay. Then for the proposed FY'06 to FY'10, the nine units, we had six that we predict to be owned, three that would be collocated. That figure should actually be 22,270,974. So about $30 off on that printed copy you have, I think. And that would bring the 30.61 required inventory, the actual number there should be 57,566,069. Thirty dollars off there also. And the only other correction I would make, if you turn to the second page, the five bullets at the bottom, the 10.5 leased stations for the equipment and vehicles, that figure should be 9,342,837. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The purchasing of new stations-- MR. PAGE: Yes. Page 187 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and leasing of new stations, before what was used, the unit cost was 2.791. MR. PAGE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the request was to consider the unit costs for the collocated units for those and then the new unit -- the new unit price for the ones we owned. That would seem to me to indicate we would need less money than providing them all at the rate of the new unit yet the numbers haven't changed in the bottom line. We should have a reduction in revenue if we're not spending as much money because we're leasing some stations instead of owning them. That was the whole objective. And yet the number is still the same, so I'm a little lost -- MR. PAGE: When you say the bottom line, where are you looking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The additional revenues required or level of service standard reduction. MR. COHEN: Nineteen million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nineteen million. MR. PAGE: I believe that number is correct if we're talking about the expenditures for the proposed FY'06 to FlO (sic), the 22,271,000, that number is correct. So if that is correct, and that's taking what we had at the initial available inventory that we presented last week, that number, I believe, was like 50 million. It was huge because it had 21.5 at the full 2.791 rate. So that value cost came down considerably when we took into account the number of owned stations, the five collocated and the fact that we leased the other 10.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I'm not in a position to be able to argue with you on this right now. I need to figure it out. MR. PAGE: Well, I think -- that was one of the issues we had last week, so we addressed that value and cost for that figure. But Page 188 January 19,2006 what didn't change is the fact that we did address in the '06 through FY' 1 0 -- originally we came to you last week with six owned and three collocated so that cost never changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those were already calculated. MR. PAGE: They were already calculated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the one that wasn't calculated that way was the available inventory that you corrected. MR. PAGE: Correct. You pointed that out and you were correct on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't see helicopters on there. MR. PAGE: They have their own funding cost center, although the chief pilot directly reports to me. That is their own. They are under the general fund. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So it's not in the AUIR? MR. PAGE: No. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why is one thing in and one thing not? MR. PAGE: Well, that I really can't tell you. It has changed over the years where at one point helicopter operations had its own director, the chief pilot was its own director. Then it came under EMS for a time, it was under emergency management and it just moved around. Right now it's currently under my department but their funding cost center is separate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What's the value -- what's the value of that enterprise? MR. PAGE: Their budget is approximately a million, 1.2 maybe. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's their operating budget. MR. PAGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And at what rate are we planning to increase the fleet of helicopters? MR. PAGE: There's been a number of discussions over the years Page 189 January 19,2006 of what you might do in this situation. You may take the approach that Lee County did, as that helicopter gets old you buy a new one and use that one as reserve. Traditionally, in the past, in the county what we have done is as the helicopter gets old we use that as a trade-in and purchase a new helicopter. The helicopter we currently have is, I believe, about five years old. As it ages it will have more down time due to maintenance, rotor repairs, things of that nature, transmission overhaul, things of that nature. I have had some discussion with Mr. Dan Summers, the bureau chief, and the county manager at looking at possibly getting a second ship or what that would involve in purchasing a new ship maybe three years out and having -- if it was the same ship, having that type of helicopter as a reserve for parts and things of that nature. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: As the population grows are you planning to increase the number of helicopters? MR. PAGE: That usually is the trend. If you look at larger counties that have gone down this avenue before us, they have purchased a second helicopter. And generally when you can start showing the amount of revenue generated from doing interfacility type flights that aren't necessarily an emergency from a hospital here, say, so Lee Trauma Center, you can justify that funding. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because I know there is some discussion among public health people saying that when you have scarce health dollars, even though helicopters look good, it seems as though you are doing a lot to prevent people dying in crashes or whatever, that you might better allocate the money in other aspects of public health. MR. PAGE: I've heard that also. But I think if you start looking at the amount of revenue generated by a helicopter, we're talking about, especially the private providers, when they are generating some revenue where it may be $9,000 just to turn the rotors on and then they Page 190 January 19,2006 charge, say, a hundred, 150 a nautical mile for flight. There is a business out there for that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You mean the county can actually make money on that? MR. PAGE: Certainly they could. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought that most people didn't -- I mean, aren't we losing money on the ground ambulances? MR. PAGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why would we be making money on the much more expensive helicopter service? MR. PAGE: Well, you make -- what is the cost of a flight? Typically in a helicopter like our particular helicopters, twin engine, it's probably about $800 a flight hour. The amount that we charge is based on the revenue that we don't collect, okay, because not everybody pays, we realize that, and then we compare our prices to the other Part 135 providers that are licensed to transport medical patients throughout the state. The board each year reviews our, our user fees for ambulance services and looks at that cost. I can tell you that several years ago that Collier County EMS charged $300 a flight. Well, that -- obviously, you are not even making the cost of your run. So the board made a conscious effort through the advisory council to increase that fee more in common with what Medicare would pay and what everybody else charges in the state. So we look at that each year and that's why currently, I believe, the cost ofthe flight -- let's say the base cost would be, say it's $5,000, and then you have $80 a nautical mile, you just base is that way. But in terms of collection, insurance companies will pay for those helicopter flights. And usually if you are using your helicopter for a trauma-related incident it involves a car accident, so your car insurance picks up that cost. We have a higher collection rate for helicopter transport than a ground transport. Page 191 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because I have been aware of many times when a patient was transported by helicopter only because there were no more ambulances left in Immokalee. MR. PAGE: We do have -- there are times when you use a situation where it's more of a convenience. In other words you don't have enough units or the patient needs to get to a hospital outside of the county. Medicare allows for that and they pay for those charges. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. MR. PAGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of EMS? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would just follow up on that, just out of curiosity. Are helicopters stored inside? MR. PAGE: Inside a bay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. And that's a capital cost where that -- whose budget would that be under, where would that come out of? MR. PAGE: Well, the helicopter operations is actually a collocated station that we have with the sheriffs department, EMS and helicopter ops, and it was set up that way right there at the airport. We leased the land. I think we have a 99-year lease. We built the station itself and the hangar and it has the EMS living quarters, the quarters for the pilot, and the sheriff works his helicopters out of there also. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifwe suddenly needed a new helicopter, suddenly, who would be the responsible party to obtain that? Would they come to you? MR. PAGE: Well, the county commission -- are you talking about at the county? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to find out what organization in the county carries the dollars, is responsible to expend the dollars. MR. PAGE: The helicopter is covered under the general fund. It's not in our budget. Page 192 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, it's -- okay. Now I understand. Okay, it's out there on its own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One question. MR. PAGE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you answered it before but I need to understand it so I can look further into it. You have a level of service of .00068 per capita. MR. PAGE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if I'm not mistaken the footnote you have says the current level of service is .00050. And I believe the impact fee study is .00052. Why are we going to the higher number, the .68, and what kind of an impact is that having? MR. PAGE: Six-eight is where we need to be. We're not there because we went from a weighted -- because our impact fee was based on a weighted schedule, a weighted population. We need to be at .00068 or whatever that number is but we're not there based on the fact that in some cases we've leased stations where we were not able to buy any land, let's say in the City of Naples, or had to lease the property. And when we went from a weighted population to a permanent population in 2002 we fell behind by five units, really, at one point. Now I think it's about three units. So we're behind the curve because we switched back in 2002. We thought we could do it a better way by addressing the seasonal growth with 12-hour units running during that time period, and it actually worked for a couple of years. But what we didn't see is the fact that the seasonal population extended from a two-month period to three to four, now it's like six months, and my personnel just can't keep up with it. I'm paying them overtime and working them harder to try and address that. So there comes a point when you have to put on extra units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions?e Page 193 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just have a suggestion. It seems as though even though the helicopters may not be a money-losing operation and they may be a small part of the budget compared to the ground transport, by including them in the AUIR instead of in general revenue we could keep a closer watch over, you know, how profitable or unprofitable they are and keep a better track perhaps on them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PAGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Are there any other questions? If not, is someone willing to make a motion on this particular element? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would make the motion and include what Commissioner Midney has just indicated, which I think is an excellent idea. Recommend that it go forward with the new per capita of zero, decimal 000068 and -- MR. PAGE: For the record, excuse me, that's not necessarily correct. It's not new; that's the old standard. It's always been that way since the '80s. But what we are asking is that we go from a permanent population to a weighted population. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's right. I had lost sight of that. It is still the number you wish to use however. MR. PAGE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So the recommended action is that the proposed capital improvement element for fiscal years '06 through '10, if I use weighted population-based projects and use the numbers that have been displayed here in this most current iteration, 25,530,018. Is that clear as a recommendation? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What about the 19 million Page 194 January 19,2006 revenue we need? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that in this discussion we ought to make a recommendation that if we believe the 19 mill (sic) is justified, which obviously your motion supports that by the level of service you've recommended. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's a reduction from the prior number. COMMISSIONER TUFF: The last time we were at $15 million worth of savings and I'm having a hard time keeping up to where that went. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am too. I'm not -- but at this point I cannot sit here and analyze it, I need to pull out the impact fee study and try to figure it all out. I can't do that right now sitting here today, and after today it's not going to matter as far as the BCC goes because they are going to get our recommendations and be done with it. So at this point we're either going to accept it and recommend acceptance or not. If we don't have -- as far as the 19 million goes any excess in funds we could address the revenue source for those, a suggestion. Right now it's showing as a possibility of coming from ad valorem if the level of service is not lowered or if another revenue source is not found. And that other revenue source, maybe Mr. Midney hit on it in some of his discussion, spurred some thought from me. When you get paid by people for transport where does all of your incoming money from those revenues go? MR. PAGE: The excess goes into the general fund. So you hit a good point. I mean, based on what our user fees are right now I can tell you that each year our user fees go up. Now, if the board were to make a quantum leap to say we're going to charge EMS in Collier County what California charges and they set the schedule at $1,000 per ground transport, then at that point you are breaking even, you're starting to make some additional Page 195 January 19,2006 revenue. So I guess what I'm telling you as a board is that this is not to say that the board at a later time or next year can't raise a rate to address this, the additional revenues required. They may choose to do that through a rate hike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that -- where we're going is a suggestion might be in order to -- this additional revenues required, the sources for those should come from consideration as a rate hike, impact fee hike, but I certainly don't think it should be ad valorem mcrease. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe that's part of our recommendation as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Midney, I thought, hit it right on the head with that. Certainly bringing that under your jurisdiction in all aspects of it would give you a better bottom line and a clearer picture of your responsibilities. And certainly, I think that's well done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so I understand it. When people do pay you for whatever services, whether it's ambulance, whatever service you guys render, is that amount of money -- well it can't be. The only revenue source you list here is impact fees. Where does the revenue that you generate go? MR. PAGE: It goes into the general fund. Well, first offlet me just say this. Take last year. The cost for EMS services countywide was approximately .17 mills. Now, in my fire district where I live I pay 1.5 mills for fire service. But we're able to provide that countywide by using user fees and ad valorem. If you were to take this money, if the revenues increased and you wanted to lower your ad valorem, generally the way that we do that is through a rate hike. You increase the rates for service. And that's typically what the board has chosen to do each year. And I would Page 196 January 19,2006 expect that to continue, that's what all of the other counties are doing. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I was wondering how much revenue do you generate a year? MR. PAGE: Last year I think we encumbered 11 million, so we actually made more than we had predicted. The additional revenue goes back into the general fund. So my actual cost last year was less than .17. Each year when you start your budget you're estimating how much revenue you're going to collect based on last year's collection rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are hitting on something that we're learning in some of the other departments too. There are other sources of revenue from the departments for different reasons. Interest earnings was one example. Yours happens to be user fees. They go back into the general fund and then they get divvied up throughout the general fund. But first off, if they go back, their immediate use of those ought to be to balance any of your books right offthe get-go because those are fees earned from your operations. That's where -- and then if there is a shortfall in ad valorem taxes or a shortfall in the general fund for another reason, that would make it very obvious to the commissioners that what is the most important reasons, what do we need to deal with these general funds with. And if the amount left over is items not as important as EMS maybe they'll decide not to raise taxes, not to -- well, I shouldn't say they haven't raised taxes -- but maybe they'll decide we don't need an ad valorem raise in future years because the monies that are being allocated are going back to the sources that generated them. So I think part of the motion if the motion maker would consider it is that we do consider that these revenues generated by EMS show up on the revenue line of the EMS AUIR as a source of income and that that be utilized prior to any ad valorem increase. Page 197 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree. It would help accountability, I would think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, every department -- we ought to show when a department is doing something good and is a benefit. Why aren't we showing it in documents like this so everybody can see it straightforward? That's all I'm trying to hit on, is get in that direction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing I may not understand. I mean, this isn't your -- I mean, the AUIR numbers are not your total operation. I mean, there's -- MR. PAGE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is really just facilities -- MR. PAGE: This is capital expenditures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For you to use. Right, that's all. So in other words, the funds that you get for revenues probably are -- when the commission is looking at your budget that number is probably in there. You said you make a prediction. You probably made it higher last year so obviously you did better. But that has nothing to do with what we're doing here, I don't think, does it? MR. PAGE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then -- I guess I don't understand what we're doing here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The new unit price, I thought, came out of a total of all the costs going in including owned and operated and leased stations, which would be capital improvement facility units, everything. But-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it doesn't have salaries of other paramedics. It doesn't have all that stuff in there. MR. PAGE: No, none of that is included in this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're just giving them the capital to work with, that's all. Page 198 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you say you have a positive cash flow in regards to your income or did I mishear that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what he said is last year he made a prediction as to what revenue he would have. He made more than that so essentially he feels good that he put more into the general fund than -- MR. PAGE: We were able to come under budget so I never exceeded my budget. If I had, now, that would -- they would have taken the money out of revenue to balance it out. But if we come under budget and I have an additional 2 million in revenue that was generated more than we expected it goes back to the general fund to reduce the ad valorem costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then maybe it's already addressed and our point is already taken into consideration. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, it is and no it isn't. In practical terms, if you are running a business, a certain amount of your income is going to go toward capitalization in the future and you are going to protect your business by making sure you have those funds set aside. And it strikes me that while these are components of your everyday activities, that certain allocations, what we're talking about, should be set aside for your future and reduces the amount that you have to go in and beg for or we have to -- MR. PAGE: Or compete with, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- or translate into millage. So I do think it's appropriate to square that on there. And no, it's not a complete package of all the salaries and everything but it's based on, if you look at the sheriffs office, how they arrive at their 140,000 is the agglomeration of all of that information. So I would hold with my motion on that. COMMISSIONER TUFF: If I'm hearing that right, so you would treat the excesses of income -- Page 199 January 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER TUFF: -- the same as you would what we're suggesting and someone is probably suggesting that the interest monies goes back to this area and so this could also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is kind of like, yes, earned income, then. Isn't showing up on the books except going back into the general fund and used as a tool. This way if his budget is better than what he predicted and he's got to take less out it would show up here. I think that's what Bob is trying to say. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. He has to be a beggar otherwise. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't know ifin fact -- we discussed the interest rates, we don't know if in the budgets of these departments that interest rate number isn't already in there. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, just for the record, and I just was conferring with Mr. Page, he indicated to me like for this fiscal year his budget is $21 million, though obviously he's taken in $11 million in terms of what his rate fees are but it's being augmented or supplemented by another $10 million from the general fund on top of that. So that kind of gives you an example of how things do transpire in the budget process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's our job -- we're just trying to make sure that you have enough capital, enough hardware for your guys to work with, that's what we're plotting here. It looks like on the screen that disappeared that we are behind right now anyway, it won't become whole for the five-year period we're looking at. MR. PAGE: And I really appreciate it. You have hit on a lot of good topics here. Another way to address this or another option the board would have to address the deficit is you can set up a specific amount each year so that you build that up. And whether it be additional revenue generated that goes into that rainy day fund or you Page 200 January 19,2006 just budget for it accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who was the motion maker? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry. (Commissioner Midney left the room.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, did you want to restate succinctly your motion if you can with any new additions so we can understand what we are seconding and then eventually going to vote on. MR. COHEN: Can I try to help out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. COHEN: Mr. Murray, I believe your motion was to accept the summary form and the recommendation as submitted in this latest iteration as provided by EMS. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. COHEN: With the understanding that there would be no increase in the millage rate associated with that. (Commissioner Midney is back in the room.) MR. COHEN: And my understanding also, and it wasn't included in your motion, but Mr. Midney also wanted the aspect of the helicopter included in the next AUIR. We don't have an adopted level of service for helicopters so probably we want to take a look at that as well too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. And I made certain that Mr. Midney's comments were included in the motion. Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think during our discussion we asked that instead of ad valorem taxes, which we said we do not want to see those increased by this, that we consider user fees and impacts fees for the source. Is that consistent with the motion maker and is that consistent with the second? Whoever was the second. Page 201 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney was the second. Okay. Now that we've beat this one up. Those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Those opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. AUIR - GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Last but not least, I think it's last but not least, has anybody missed -- no, government buildings is the last one. (Commissioner Midney left the room.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have to be kidding. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What do we do with all of this? We need a week to read this. MR. HOVELL: Again, for the record, Ron Hovell with the facilities management department. I just became aware listening to my predecessors today that you had not received the updates that we provided based on last week's meeting so my boss ran downstairs and made copies of the package I brought, so I just handed lout to you. I can address the specific items that you asked me about last Page 202 January 19,2006 Friday. The first two had to do with specific inventory items that also appeared in other studies. One of 1 was the sheriffs CID building and the other was the fairgrounds. And so what we've done in the package that I just handed out to you is removed the sheriffs CID square footage from the inventory, so the inventory went down, from as of 9/30/05 went down from 639,231 to the 604,181, that was the only number that was taken out of there. The fairgrounds, I think you had observed that they showed up both in government buildings and parks, and so what we did on the capital improvement plan, which -- that must be Page 103, 4, 5, 6, the one that has the various categories showing under construction, approved for construction, et cetera, I've showed both fairgrounds and the sheriffs CID -- (Commissioner Midney is back in the room.) MR. HOVELL: -- the fairgrounds going out, and currently it would be planned for next fiscal year 2007, and the sheriffs CID building being added in in 2007. So when you get to the table and chart 1 figures are included in the column Square Feet Planned in the Capital Improvement Element. I think I already addressed the question you had about the inventory sheets and the accessory buildings. Again, 1 square footages are not included but the valuations are in the impact fee study. Based on the guidance to be consistent with the impact fee study in the capital improvement element we removed the CDES projects that are going to be funded with user fees for the second story edition and the garage, and we therefore also removed from the revenue 1 users fees that were showing in here. So you'll notice that the total expenditures required dropped by almost, right about $10 million, but also the revenue dropped by that same amount and therefore the deficit continues to be the 30,227,206. We changed the summary sheet note to reflect the full impact Page 203 January 19,2006 fees of219,047 and I've added in parentheses that that includes the $35.15 for land and that when we're comparing 1 numbers to our current costs that we're experiencing more, at least here on this complex, more in the neighborhood of 390 a square foot or even 500 a square foot. When you have to build something like a courthouse annex and build a parking garage to go with it it raises your per square foot cost. And I think the only other thing you had asked about was on the previous version, the bottom, the very last comment had the asterisk but there was nothing up above that indicated what it went with so I've added under the revenue section impact fees anticipated. That's where I put the asterisk, and that now goes with that comment. So I think that addressed your questions from last week. Now, maybe you want to ask some more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It addressed the questions that we asked. There may be more. The only thing I notice is you're -- we are creating a surplus in this category, $45 million surplus as far as above the needed facilities versus what we currently have. So I mean, it kind of fits into what we were talking about earlier with parks and buying ahead or building ahead. I'm assuming that someone has a reason why they need 157,000 square feet above the level of service. MR. HOVELL: That's what we were discussing last time and your recommendation was to stick with 1.7 square feet per capita, which is consistent with the impact fee study. But I think our observation has been that our true need is 1.9 square foot per capita, and that was reflective of the fact that we started with an approximately 10 percent deficit because of leased space. So we're in somewhat of a policy conundrum here where if we're only to pay for things with impact fees then, yes, 1.7 would be the right -- square foot per capita would be the right number whereas if we're to follow the policy guidance to get out of leased space, we have Page 204 January 19,2006 to build those buildings to catch up and erase that deficit. And so the two right now don't match up very well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't think you're only paying for things out of impact fees. I think what you are establishing by the impact fee is a level of service that is across the board. Whether it's paid for out of impact fees or however, that's how we'll get there, because your impact fees are only 14 million anticipated but yet if you -- you have a need of 28 million to spend so youn -- about 50 percent of your impact fees will be used for that issue. Is that right? MR. HOVELL: Right. And that's our point is, either -- and certainly the impact fee will be updated and whatever that study justifies will be perhaps for the next go-round or whenever the timing works out, but hopefully the revenues will go up as a result of that study. But it still begs the question of where does the additional funding come from to make up that difference here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think similar to community parks, if the AUIR was written to meet the level of service that was adopted, which is 1.7, anything beyond that if you were to approach it separately with the BCC on an as needed basis and discuss it in public hearings in the process that could evolve, that might be a better which to show how the taxpayers are impacted by going above and beyond the level of service. MR. HOVELL: Just a correction, and albeit I think it was a mistake, nevertheless the board adopted 1.9 square foot per capita as the level of service. As you'll recall, the impact fee study had both 1.9 and 1.7 in it and it used some different words about why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one was functional and one was weighted. MR. HOVELL: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The board wants 1.9 and goes to functional population, then you're going to -- that's even probably going to be a positive not a negative. So I think, you know, it depends Page 205 January 19,2006 on what you presented to the board -- not you -- but how the, how it was presented to the board and what they were told. I'm sure that if they were told it was 1.7 in the weighted population they wouldn't necessarily go to 1.9 unless the whole ramifications and the tax ramifications were told to them. MR. HOVELL: The last year's presentation, all the paperwork said 1.9 square foot per capita weighted population. And I agree that it was not in concert with the impact fee study but that's, for whatever reason that's the way it was presented last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm done with my discussion, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In this new, the capital improvement plan why did you drop the community development buildings? MR. HOVELL: Because as was discussed last go-round it's user fees that are paying for it and if we're going to be consistent with the impact fee study, the current CDES building, it does not show up in the general government buildings inventory and therefore it's somewhat of a disconnect to say we are going to build a new building for CDES and put that on the inventory. So to be consistent we took it back out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we do the same thing with Mr. DeLony's operations since he's enterprise zone? MR. HOVELL: His were never in our inventory and never on our capital improvement element. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me finish, though. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. I didn't know you were not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't that make us look better? In other words, essentially that square footage, it isn't costing the taxpayers anything to get. By removing it doesn't that cause a -- MR. HOVELL: The chart and the table that go with it, if we Page 206 January 19,2006 include that -- and I forget the numbers, I'll flip over here, whatever the square footage was of the CDES building, the 20 or 30,000 square feet, whatever it was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. HOVELL: -- if we build that and call it a general government building, two things happen. One is their current building, which, it's a second story addition, their current building is not in the inventory. So to be consistent either we need to bring in the rest of their building, which really starts to skew things because it kind of goes to how is our level of service calculated to begin with. The impact fee study, when all is said and done, was our total square footage in the inventory at the time divided by the population at the time. Well if we now go back and start saying, oops, let's add this building and this building and this building then it begs the question of, well, then our level of service can't be right because now we're providing facilities for even more departments than were originally included in the impact fee study. So to be consistent we pulled CDES back out. And it's also consistent with, as Mr. Murray just asked, I think, that we've never included things like public utilities or other any other enterprise-funded activities that have their own set of user fees and whatnot to pay for things in the general government building inventory impact fees and capital improvement plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What my confusion would be is that, in other words, since these are self-funded facilities we are getting square footage essentially off the taxpayers' responsibility, I think we should be able to isolate such that when we're calculating impact fees that should help us in our calculation of impact fees. We don't need to provide impact fees to build 1 buildings. MR. HOVELL: I'm not sure I can explain it but -- other than what I already said, that, you know, if you took that to the extreme, Page 207 January 19, 2006 let's say between utilities and CDES and -- can anybody help me with any other enterprise funded things -- let's say that number is 100,000 square feet. Well, our original impact fee study was based on 580,000 square foot. If it was 680,000 square feet then our level of service wouldn't be 1.7; it might be 2.1. And so if we wanted to go back and redo all of that then we would be consistent in a new way. But to be consistent with the current impact fee study it does not include CDES and so we pulled it back out of the capital improvement plan. (Commissioner Vigliotti left the room.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So where is CDES in terms of -- as we look to see if we have enough facilities for the future where does CDES exist? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the sheriffs budget right now. MR. COHEN: CDES is in Fund 113. It's a separate fund. MR. CAMP: Let me see in can add something to clear it up. For the record, Skip Camp, facilities management. CDES was built by user fees and only 1 departments, CDES are in there, so they don't help -- that doesn't really help the ad valorem side at all. The buildings were built by 113 funds and only 1 departments are in there, so they are just segregated totally. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I understand who they are, but to me that would be a benefit. We should be getting square footage at no cost. And when we start tracking square footage that should look good. MR. CAMP: We can't get any benefit, ad valorem departments can't get any benefit out of that building. We can't go in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. I understand that. I'm just saying when we look at how much square footage we should have per population you would think that that would be one that would keep our costs down. But I may be missing something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think you are right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I want to pursue -- even Page 208 January 19,2006 though it's probably beating the beloved horse to death, again. I just want to get my arms around this one. If Mr. DeLony's organization is in occupation of a floor, and I'm assuming it's an entire floor, it's within, just for the sake of this discussion, okay, that's all I'm really poking. They are in there, they don't pay rent, right? MR. HOVELL: I don't know whether they pay rent or not. MR. CAMP: Yes, they do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They do pay rent. Then you've answered my question. But Commissioner Schiffer is right. Where is that being tracked for their needs for the future as well? But okay. (Commissioner Vigliotti is back in the room.) MR. HOVELL: I think at one point in time it's been debated, and perhaps the next master plan update will address is one way or the other, but I think the long range plan is that that space would be recaptured for non-user fee-funded entities and they would have to go build their own building out of their own user fees -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which makes sense to me, which simply make sense to me. It's just that I was wondering. And if that rent comes in too -- I mean, I'm -- probably nothing much here, but if that rent were significant in coming in, does that go to the general fund as well? MR. HOVELL: It does go to the general fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think your impact fee summary kind of says it. Basically, the county provides a variety of buildings that are to be used to deliver government services to businesses and residents that are not included in other impact fee program areas, so basically, that's what you guys are doing. You're the catch-all for everything else that isn't included in another area. MR. HOVELL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may explain why that building isn't Page 209 January 19,2006 counted, it's because it's paid for through another service area. Not that that in a way, though, if it's not weighted in to meet the required demand -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. The problem I have is what we're doing here is to see if we have enough facilities for the county . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How can we ignore that facility, because that's an important facility for the county. MR. HOVELL: But we are not including, as was just suggested, we are not including public utilities, we're not including CDES, we're only including -- we're not including the sheriffs spaces because they now have an impact fee that supports their areas -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, they're someplace else -- MR. HOVELL: Right. Well-- and CDES has someplace else to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is it? MR. HOVELL: Their user fees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, for us to judge do we have enough facilities for the county, it's not showing up in this book then. MR. HOVELL: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So-- MR. HOVELL: I don't know the budget process or-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we come up with ratios, so much square footage per county, so what you are saying is that that does not include the building department -- MR. HOVELL: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- as a county operation. MR. HOVELL: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The fact that that doesn't make sense to me, I guess, is something I just have to live with. Page 210 January 19,2006 MR. HOVELL: Well, you are struggling with-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I can get used to it but it doesn't make any sense. MR. HOVELL: -- some of the same questions I struggled with-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can get used to it but it doesn't make any sense. MR. HOVELL: You're struggling with some of the same things I've struggled -- you know, this is my first time to go through it, and one of them is what is an AUIR and how does that relate to an impact fee study. And most of us keep trying to make the two equate and yet others would tell you that maybe the AUIR process is really meant to be a five-year kind of budgeting and strategic planning process. And that doesn't necessarily equate one for one with impact fees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the fact that one of those elements, self-funding, is a good thing, I would think. And even when you're calculating impact fees I would think that if you need so much square footage in your community, some of it is self funding, I wouldn't throw that over the fence. I would stir that in. That's a good thing. I don't want to sound like Martha Stewart-- MR. HOVELL: As we go to update the impact fee study, if the decision was made to include CDES or any other entity it would both increase our available inventory and therefore our level of service would increase. But I don't think it would be fair to put it on the inventory but keep the same level of service. Then the other departments that are counting on getting that space can't get it because you say, oh, look, CDES just provided it for you for free. But they were not part of the level of service to begin with. So to be consistent it's out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll talk about it next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the commission? Thank you. Page 211 January 19,2006 Is there a recommendation from the commission? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. I would recommend we move forward with the numbers that are presented and just with the caveat or questioning whether we should be budgeting and planning for a 157,000 square foot surplus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- okay. Is there a second for the motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's made and seconded. Again, it's the AUIR, and if the commission wants to adopt a different level of service then they need to do that and base the AUIR on that. But based on the level of service of 1.7 that's been presented I think we ought to stick with what the need is and anything beyond the need be separately addressed at the time it comes up with the BCC so they know what year it hits in and what year things happen in. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So do 1 two conflict with each other? I guess I thought I was kind of saying that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you questioned it but I don't see why we would recommend leaving it in. I think, like community parks and regional parks, if you are going above and beyond the need COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then let that be separately addressed to the BCC so they -- it's really aware to them that, hey, we're spending outside the budget we established. And that's fine if they find a source and a comfortable source to make the expenditure but at least they are knowledgeable every step of the way that that is happening. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Nobody has seconded my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Paul Midney seconded it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I did. I liked it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My point was that the 157,284 ought to Page 212 January 19,2006 be recommended to come out and be addressed separately as it occurs over the next five-year period. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I would like to change my motion if Paul will back up. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: To? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would you want to change your motion to? COMMISSIONER TUFF: To leave out the 157. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion seconded. So the recommendation, Randy, is that we remove anything above the need, which is the surplus, the 157, and it's to be addressed separately as the need arises. Not saying not to spend the money but not through the AUIR. Yes, sir. MR. HOVELL: If I could just make the point. On the summary, Page 103, we're only proposing to build over the next five years 100,000 square feet. Now I agree that that must mean we sort of already have a surplus of 57,000, but to say leave off the 157,000 would imply that we're going to go backwards and actually cancel projects that are already underway. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Good point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: These are projects that are actually encumbered? MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. Approved, budgeted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, they are? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The five-year surplus? MR. HOVELL: No. I'm saying that if you look -- in the end we wind up, the math winds up with a 157,000 surplus but the five-year plan that we're presenting to you is to only build 100,000. So if you cancelled every single one in the five-year plan we would still have a Page 213 January 19,2006 surplus of 57,000. In other words, I can't balance -- I can't get it down to zero without going backwards and cancelling something that is already approved and underway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, let's clarify the semantics. I don't know that anybody here is saying cancel it. MR. HOVELL: The point is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're saying then account for it, account for the immediate need in the AUIR and anything beyond the need, highlight to the commissioners in a separate request. That way they know what's happening on a regular basis. That's the only -- we are not saying cancel. MR. HOVELL: And I just -- semantics again. But the need I think was described in the master plan. And what we presented to you last week was the need really is based on 1.9 square foot. The adopted level of service in the impact fee is 1.7, yes, and there's, and that drives a specific number but I'm not sure that it's fair to call that the need, it's just the calculations. MR. COHEN: I can possibly help out a little bit in this. Obviously, Mr. Hovell has indicated that 57,000 square are obviously encumbered and funded already of that 157,000 square feet. The rest of that particular amount is actually not budgeted at this time and approved by the Board of County Commissioners; is that correct as well, Mr. Hovell? MR. HOVELL: The five-year plan shown on whatever page that would be, that didn't get numbered, I think it's three, four, five -- 106 shows that we already have approved and under construction in some shape, way or form 126,000 square feet that, because of the lag between approvals and the time that it takes to build it and come on line, some of 1 won't come on line until 2007 or 2008 but they are already in the pipeline. The other 100,000 is what is being proposed in the five-year plan. Page 214 January 19, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifwe leave it in there, Mr. Hovell, if we leave it in there and the only way to obtain the funds to balance what you have here would be millage, would you be an advocate of that? MR. HOVELL: Well, that's not the only way. One of the things that will happen, I guess, in the next six months is the impact fee study will be updated and so the revenues will change. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you indicating -- MR. HOVELL: Since we have no basis to know what 1 new revenues might be, what you see here is based on current impact fee collection rate. So the -- I doubt it will make up 30 million but it will make some amount of a dent in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we were to suggest that instead of 157 square feet -- 157,000, that's 100,000 square feet, so the 57 that's approved stays in the process, then the 100,000 is just left on the table to be brought to the BCC as you all want to create it over the next period of time. It's not taking it off the books, it's just taking it off the AUIR as a reference. Does that work better? MR. HOVELL: I'm not trying to argue that we can't do it in any particular way, I just wanted you to be aware that a lot of this is advanced, already being procured. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you are right in that point, we're not -- MR. HOVELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I mean, you're absolutely right there. MR. HOVELL: I would also just remind you I think I pointed out last week that when we look at our revenues of 14.2 million, if you look under expenditures, just debt service payments alone, the revenues don't cover that, we're already going to be, whatever that is, $5 million short there. And that's reflective of that same thing, that we're building in advance of the 1.7 square foot per capita level of Page 215 January 19,2006 servIce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COHEN: Commissioners, before you move on, I think Amy Patterson needs to weigh in on the impact fee methodology and the impacts which your motion may have on that methodology itself. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson. I'm the impact fee manager, for the record. Just before we go any further on this, on these projects potentially coming out of the AUIR, the AUIR is our tool that not only shows the needs for the impact fee but also the benefit for 1 people that are paying that fee. And so without this tool to map out how that money is going to be spent over the next five years, you're potentially looking at a problem with your impact fees. And the master plan that went through this hundred million dollars, give or take, in facilities did -- was an essential part of the development of this impact fee to show that we not only needed the facilities but we also were going to provide a benefit to 1 people that are paying for 1 facilities. And so you just have to understand the repercussions of this AUIR on your impact fees if you so choose to start removing projects. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No one is advocating removing projects, but I didn't get a chance to really review these six documents or whatever they are. Is the 157,000 square feet accounted for as specific projects? MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. Well, not, not totalling up exactly to the deficit or the surplus of 157 but all of the square footages are specifically listed in the capital improvement plan. That should be Page 106 or look like this in your package. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they are lockable to particular projects; is that what you're saying? MR. HOVELL: I was going to say, if you wanted to specifically talk about what are the projects in the five-year plan and are any of them worthy of being kicked out, you know, you go down the list. Page 216 January 19,2006 The first one is the CAT operations facility, which, I think when we were talking before, they are bringing their own money to the table. So they are going to build that almost 7500 square feet with their money, free to government services. But we are accounting for that in here because they are getting a one-time grant from the federal government but long term they are part of the general government buildings. And then the other four, one is the judges' parking lot addition. We pretty much have to do that one. The judges are approved by the state to come. We have to provide a place for them to park. So in some way, shape or form we're going to have to come up with some funding for that. COMMISSIONER TUFF: The CAT operations, you said the square feet is included in that but then is the revenue, is that included in that 4 million that's -- MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for point of note, before we go too much farther, I want you to continue but will the motion maker just withdraw his motion. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll wait and get done. I didn't know that we were going to have this much more discussion. So let's just finish the discussion. When everybody's finally done we'll go ahead and make a new motion. So please go ahead, sir. MR. HOVELL: The third one on the list there is Courthouse Annex Phase III. We just came up with that name because originally it was Phases I and II, we were given authority by the board to build the full seven-story building but not -- the top four floors will only be shelled in. And in order to have anybody move in we then have to build walls and partitions and install electrical and the HV AC and all that type of stuff. Page 217 January 19,2006 So this Phase III would finish out the rest of a building that would already be in existence. And I think there is a master plan that supports the need for all the people to move into that space. The tax collector north office was actually in last year's AUIR as something that should have already been planned and programmed, and the tax collector I believe has written a letter to the county manager asking when are we going to get on with that. They are starting to be very interested in when that is going to come on line. And then the last one is the health and public services building addition, the two more floors to that building. And again, that supports other entities that aren't necessarily Board of County Commissioners folks, could be public health and what have you that would be occupying that space. If you really want to get into the details I can probably get Skip to -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. That's not the purpose of my question. I may be in error here, but transportation has like $298 million that they encumbered, that's their carry-over as they call it. I'm wondering if it couldn't be conceived the same way. I don't think anybody here wants to see a reduction necessarily of your numbers. I think we want to reallocate it so that it becomes clear that certain things although approved are encumbered, certain things yet to be approved, certain things approved but not encumbered so that it can be qualified. Because right now we're looking at it's all or nothing, from what I perceive, and that may be a misperception. And I want it to be clear to me. And that's my problem. I want to be helpful, okay. MR. COHEN: Might I suggest something. All the projects that are not approved yet obviously have to be vetted by the Board of County Commissioners and they have to go through the budgett Page 218 January 19,2006 process. So your concerns about increases in ad valorem taxes, revenue that is necessary to fund these buildings, if the money's not there, obviously, you know, there's going to be a problem in funding them and going through that budget process. I believe as part of the master plan they have identified the need, obviously, subject to those funds being available when they go through a budget process each year, and you'll be presenting on an annual basis whatever those buildings may be that are part of that budget process, which would then be subject to public scrutiny and approval at that point in time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, Randy, if we were to make a motion and suggest that these numbers are okay and supported by the current impact fees, because that's what you are basing them on, right? You are not basing them on -- well, that's what I'm trying to find out, what should we base our motion on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as Bob finishes unless you think you can help with this issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know. My question was, and maybe it's what Bob is saying, is that in the capital improvement element we have a 1.9 square foot for the government buildings. And I thought our task is to look at the AUIR, look at the capital improvement and make a judgment as to are we meeting that facility. When you showed us the chart with 1.9 it looked like we were at it or under it or, you know, we were really filing 1.9. But then you come with this chart for 1.7 which gives the illusion of a large surplus. So my question is why are you doing that, why aren't you using the 1.9, which is what we -- it's the only number that I know exists. I mean, you can tell me you have impact fees at 1.7 but that's not our job here to judge impact fees, it's to judge the AUIR, the CIE, and, you know, so you are showing us a surplus when I don't think you really have a surplus if you use what the AUIR is telling you to use. Page 219 January 19,2006 MR. HOVELL: You're hitting on the exact point -- and again, I'm new to this -- that I was trying to make last week that even though the impact fee study, I think if you were to go through there and say let's be consistent with the impact fee study, then by -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What does the impact fee study have to do with our task here? Our task is to go to the capital improvement element, look at the numbers in the capital improvement element and make a judgment based on that. So showing us impact fee studies that totally make it look like we have huge surpluses, why is that helping us? MR. HOVELL: Well, last week that was the direction of this commission was -- or recommendation, whatever words you want to use, was to be consistent with the impact fee study. Our suggestion last week was that we consider that as a policy decision to be made of, is the impact fee study the level of service that we really need in this category. And I think if we were to look at the master plan and as -- this, this is the 1.9 chart that's up on the screen -- where it looks a little more in line with -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, which is a good chart. In other words, it doesn't raise the problems we're discussing. MR. HOVELL: And I think that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the point is that you didn't give us copies of any impact fee studies. I mean, how would we make any judgments based on impact fee studies? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you think this CIE comes up with the numbers? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know how it comes up with the number but it has a number in it. If our task here reviewing the AUIR is to adjust the CIE number, that's a different job and let's get different data and try to work on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's all we had to do we would have finished this up the first hour last Friday, Brad, I mean, honestly, if Page 220 January 19,2006 that's all that you thought this was then certainly it could have been done a lot quicker. But we have a lot of studies out that produce a lot of data, and if they are useless then I don't know why we're doing them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what studies are there? In other words, what they have given us -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and I have access only to the growth management plan and the capital improvement element. What else should I have been looking at? And when you look at that we're not in that big a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have looked at every document that -- or every -- I tried to, and I only found 1500 pages, so that's probably not every document that pertained to the establishment of level of service because that's what drives these numbers. And then in that level of service it gives you the calculations on a per unit cost that also drives these numbers. And if our objective is to see if the numbers are reasonable, my understanding, my thought process was what is driving those base numbers. And that's why I started turning to the only studies that I knew of that were validated by law, by ordinance -- well, there might be more -- but the ones that I'm familiar with is what BCC passes in an ordinance. And they passed all these impact fee studies. They paid consultants to do them. They summarize all of the actions of government that we have been discussing. So right now that's the best source I have. And I haven't seen anybody produce a better one since we've been here, other than just telling us it should be a different number. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But when they adopted, like, for example, in this case the 1.7, is there a recommendation to change the capital improvement element to 1.7? Sometimes I've read the capital improvement element and you've Page 221 January 19,2006 said, wait a minute, the BCC has done something to come up with a different number. So, in other words, when they review these impact fees are they changing this capital improvement element? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't really -- offhand I can't tell you. At this time point, though, we need to finish up this discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- and again, if you look at this chart we seem to be doing, you know, a little below, a little above, that's kind of what we should be doing for the next ten years. It looks okay. And this is based on what's in the CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You believe in that. I would have to look and see -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- why the 1.9 was used in the CIE, what documents back it up, because the documents I got don't back up that level of service, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you are suggesting then, and maybe that's what we should be doing, is making a motion that reduces the level of service of the CIE to 1.7 and adjust their work accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, contrary to what we heard, in my AUIR book I've got two documents that were passed out to us prior to last week and they used 1.7. That's, that matches with the weighted population and the impact fee study. I didn't suggest that last week, that was given to us in this document and so I thought it was the right thing to follow because you went from functional to weighted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in our CIE it discusses 1.9 per functional resident, parentheses, weighted, so that's been done already back in 2004. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does it read? I'm sorry, I didn't-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It reads, general county government buildings, 1.9 square feet per functional resident, Page 222 January 19,2006 parentheses, weighted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aha. Well, now therein lies a big problem because that's a contradiction. The 1.9 in the impact fee study is there but it's only if you use functional population. If you use weighted population you have to go to 1.7. So now we have a CIE that contradicts itself in the same sentence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That issue came out earlier. MR. HOVELL: Absolutely. And I think your point last week is if you want to be consistent with the impact fee study in essence we need to change it to 1.7. And we've recognized that all along, that's why would your materials have the 1.7 numbers in it. But we also presented 1.9 last week to spur the discussion of but is 1.7 really the level of service we need. We have specific master plans and we've shown that we had a 10 percent deficit at the beginning of the impact fee study, and it could certainly be argued 1.9 might be the more appropriate level of service if you want to go above the impact fee study. And that's a policy decision. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When you use the term above the impact study, impact fee study, you mean in terms of dollars or what do you mean? MR. HOVELL: Level of service. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, level of service. MR. HOVELL: Level of service, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know that we've talked a lot about this. I want to ask another time before we go for a motion, is there any more questions? Do we need to discuss it any further? No? If you do, please do, let's just get it done now so we don't make a motion and talk for another hour on it. I'd rather get it off, get it done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The more you study this, the blurrier it gets. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm having a hard time figuring out how to make a motion. Page 223 January 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let Mark make a motion. I'd like you to make the motion, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My motion is we recommend approval of the government buildings facilities at a 1.7 per capita weighted, a unit cost of288.25, with the need shown at 157,000, which would leave a surplus of about 100,000 that should be removed from the AUIR. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In approval of this, Mark, then, it would go back in the CIE, for next year it would be changed to 1.7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I'm not sure the CIE is wrong. If it says 1.9 per functional, in the study that that came from the weighted is 1.7, so if they are going to go to weighted in the CIE they have to go to -- I don't know how you can have both of them in there, the studies don't show that the level of service is the same for both. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a conflict and somebody ought to correct it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That certainly is a conflict. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Call the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But anyway -- yes, definitely call the motion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 224 January 19,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Those opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, we're there. There were no other issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is one thing, Mark. Last year when we met there are some things in our growth management plan, we have elements for things that obviously aren't concurrency issues that we were going to start tracking, I mean, essentially create a Category C. One of those is affordable housing, where we have a requirement to make 500 units available each year. Does anybody have any tally as to what we did last year? MR. COHEN: No, sir. I think the best thing that we can do is that we can probably contact Cormac Giblin, who is with housing, who deals with affordable housing, and have him do a tally for you and provide that information. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know it's not something that we have to worry about for the capital improvement element but it would be nice to look at the other elements of our growth management plan, especially 1 that do have goals and objectives, and see how we're doing with 1 goals and objectives. And I guess maybe it's create a category C or something that's. MR. COHEN: Did you ask for that on a calendar year or a fiscal year because I wasn't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At the last -- when we had the workshop it was discussed at the end of the meeting just like this and the deal was that you would come back next year with that, especially the affordable housing. It would be nice to keep score. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll wrap this meeting up. Meeting will be adjourned. Thank you all. Page 225 January 19,2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:15 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARKP. STRAIN, Chairman Page 226