Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/04/2006 R May 4, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 4, 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 Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Tor Kolflat Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 4,2006, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRA TION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZA TION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 30, 2006 REGULAR MEETING (EAR) 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS-APRIL 11,2006, REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 17,2006 SPECIAL MEETING, APRIL 19, 2006 SPECIAL MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2005-AR-7181, Basil Street Partners, LLC, represented by George Varnadoe, Esquire of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, are requesting a conditional use allowed per LDC Section 2.04.03 of the "A" Agricultural zoning district to provide a passive recreational facility, consisting of an elevated screened and covered pavilion, screened deck, and restrooms with showers, which will serve as an amenity and provide beach access for owners and residents of the Naples Bay Resort projects. The Passive Recreational Facility will be constructed on two lots on Keewaydin Island. The subject properties, consisting of 4.32 acres, are located at 10111 and 10121 Keewaydin Island, in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) 1 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if you could turn the mic on. If everybody will rise for the pledge of allegiance, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Good morning. This is the May 4th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Next item on the agenda is roll call by our secretary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 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: And Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show, Mr. Tuff has just moved. He called in today. He's overwhelmed with trying to unpack and sort out and get his life in order, so he will not be here today. Item #3 Page 2 May 4, 2006 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA With that, we'll move into the addenda to the agenda. Ms. Student, I need to ask you a question. There's been a request by Basil Street Partners, LLC to continue their hearing for today till May 18th. Is it best brought up during this addenda to the agenda period, or under the advertised public hearing? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think it's best brought up under the advertised public hearings, and the board can entertain a motion to continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there any addenda to the agenda then? MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? I've had a request to -- for Item 8-A, instead of being continued to May 18th, be continued to June 1st. This will allow for the environmental staff to also attend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there was a -- I have no problem with that and I think it's critical for the environmental staff to be here, since this is a major environmental issue. Although I know the petitioner was under some issue with timing-wise. I'd like to make sure that -- hear from them in that regard so there's no unexpected conflict. Yeah, Clay, you represent the petitioner? MR. BROOKER: Yes. Clay Brooker on behalf of Basil Street Partners. We have no objection, although we prefer environmental staff not to be there. But we have no objection. No offense to any of the environmental staff. We have no objection to moving the CCPC to June 1 st; however, we would like to keep the BCC meeting before they take their summer break, so I think the latest date would be June 20th. So we're okay with June 1 st and June 20th. And my understanding is that planning staff is okay with that as well. Page 3 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, believe me, you are one of many -- we would love to have control over the BCC, but we don't. So I can't continue. I can't tell you that we can have their date set for you, but if you have no objection to the 1 st, then when we get to that item, we'll entertain a motion for that. Thank you. Anything else, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's all I had. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning commission absences for May 18th. Anybody? (N 0 response.) Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, approval of minutes from March 30th, 2006. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to approve the minutes. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Murray. Motion was made by Commissioner Adelstein. You're looking at me. I will slow down. I was late this morning. Although the timing didn't say it, I was late. The traffic was so nice out there today. There's a motion made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Page 4 May 4, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Ray, we have a BCC report? Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS MR. BELLOWS: Yes. At the last board meeting, the board of zoning appeals heard the Enzo Pizzeria variance. That was V A-05-AR-8857. The first motion to deny failed by a vote of2-3. Second motion to approve passed by a 3-2 vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report. I have none at this point. I should have had plenty; I had enough time to sit in traffic to figure it out this morning. Page 5 May 4, 2006 Item #8A PETITION: CU-2005-AR-7181 So we'll go on to better things right now. First petition is Petition 8-A, and it's CU-2005-AR-7181, Basil Street Partners, LLC, also known as the Keewayden Island project. This has been asked -- there's been a continuance asked by both staff and by the petitioner to June 1st. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein to continue that hearing until June 1st. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Basil Street Partners will be continued to June 1 st. I just want to make sure that's a regular meeting. Is that June 1st a Thursday meeting date? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, I think it is. Item #8B Page 6 May 4, 2006 PETITION: PE-2006-AR-9076 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next petition is Petition PE-2006-AR-9076, Sorbara Company. It's at 923 Rosemary Lane, Rosemary Heights subdivision, lots eight, 10 and 12. All those wishing to speak on this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any disclosures on this issue? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I visited the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat visited the site. Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll-- is the applicant prepared to make a presentation? Somebody out there must be the applicant. MR. VALLE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Gianni Valle with Naples Drafting and Design on behalf of the client, the Sorbara Company. I should also -- it should have been Rosemary Holdings. But we're just -- we're proposing a three-story building, approximately 8,700 square feet with parking underneath, and we need these 10 additional parking spaces on lot 14 in order to meet the parking requirement as of one per 300 square feet. And the site plan pretty much speaks for itself. If you guys have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. But the first three lots are zoned commercial. And that lot 14 is zoned residential RSF -4, and we need that additional lot for parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 7 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the southern property, there's a lot of landscaped area, area that you're not building onto. Do you ever intend to use that for parking? MR. VALLE: In which portion of the site? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be between Rosemary Lane and the building. MR. VALLE: Yes -- no, we don't intend to use that for parking. We're going to need that for landscaping and for setbacks and possibly even for a detention area, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because my concern is that if we approve the use of this land, you revise the plan and come back in and increase the size of the building and provide parking there, then that's kind of not fair. MR. VALLE: No, absolutely not. It is our understanding that upon being granted this parking exemption, that we have to proceed with the plan as drawn. You know, it's our intention to go ahead with SDP as per the site plan that we submitted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, on your plan, which is on the visualizer right now, I looked at this and I wondered, I tried counting, you need 10 spaces, and I tried counting 10 there, and I found it difficult to see 10. Could you point those out for us, please? MR. VALLE: Okay. Right along that landscaped buffer on the east property line, there's seven spaces there. And then if you move along to the upper right corner, there's two more spaces. It's like 1.9 spaces, if you can see where that lot line is for lot 14. And then if you go down to the very bottom right corner of the site, there's one physically handicapped space. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So I guess Marjorie, my question would be does it matter the boundary line or the plat line there that dissects it in some fashion, even though it's a minor Page 8 May 4, 2006 percentage, does that in any way affect the space? What I was looking at was the county, they need a certain number of spaces, and they're looking for an arm of that lot to be able to quality. And I notice that one of the parking spaces at least was cut to some degree. I know this is angels on a head of pins, so to speak, but just a question for me, at least. Does that impact in any way, does it subtract in any way from that space by virtue of the fact it's slightly dissected, or is it unnecessary commentary here? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Well, I think I'm going to have to get a little background, perhaps, from either the applicant or the planner. You said it's a plat line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which line are you referring to? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My apologies, I should have oriented everybody. I'm looking at the plan now and I'm looking at the lot which is on the right-hand side, the extreme right-hand side. Correct, that would be -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Lot 14? MR. VALLE: It's lot 14. It's 50 feet wide. And there's that line there. It's a very thin line, but you can see and it shows where -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where the curser is. MR. VALLE: Right. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: They are under common ownership, correct? MR. VALLE: Yes. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: So in other words, the applicant owns all these four lots. MR. VALLE: Right. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay, I don't think it's a problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Even though they're different zones? But as long as they're unified control or ownership, then we're okay with that? Page 9 May 4, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay, as far as ownership, you should be fine. And as long as both zoning districts allow it, then it should be fine. MR. VALLE: I counted it as 10 spaces. I didn't want to count it as nine, because I was asked how many spaces we need for this exemption, and it's like a fraction of a -- it's like eight-tenths of a space COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I realize that, sir, I'm not trying to give you a bad time. But I honestly, I looked at it and I tried counting and I couldn't make out the 10 that you needed, so that was my problem. MR. VALLE: Okay. Can you see them now, though? Can you see where the handicapped -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not really, no. I'm relying upon your statement that it's there. The way I counted on that lot -- you're counting two lots to get your 10 there, are you not? That's what you're doing. I thought the one lot that you want, number 14, was for those 10 spaces. MR. VALLE: It is pretty much. If you see the handicap space on the bottom right corner, and then there's the seven along the eastern property line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One, two -- why don't you use the curser and count them for me, if you would, please. MR. VALLE: Use the curser. Where is it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The handicap spot at the bottom is -- right there. One. And then two. MR. VALLE: Then there's seven -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. And that was the fraction. MR. VALLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And so the hair splitting is over, so we're good. And I thank you very much. Page 10 May 4, 2006 MR. VALLE: Sure, no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Now, these number of parking spaces, they were computed as office use, according to the Land Development Code 4.05.04.G; is that correct? MR. VALLE: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What type of office are you referring to there? MR. VALLE: Architect's office, engineer's office, lawyers, stuff like that. Those type of uses. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, in the same paragraph G there are other uses that would have entailed less parking spaces, correct? MR. VALLE: I don't know of that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think there are, if you refer to the LDC. Valid uses that could be applicant there that would not require the not 300 square feet, something less than 300 square feet, or more than four. It's a variation. MR. VALLE: What would the divisible be? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Beg your pardon? MR. VALLE: What would the divisible be, if it's not one to 300? What are the -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I think they go up as high as 400 in some cases, down to 200 for different uses, depending on the use that's designated in that paragraph. MR. VALLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, ifhe changes the use from what's shown on this plan and it has a different parking configuration, when he goes in for his SDP, they would catch him at that point and tell him either he has to go back to a use that is consistent with the parking that's on the plan here today, or he has to produce more parking, which he may not be able to do. Page 11 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. But what I was trying to bring out, Mark, is the fact that he could select another use that would not require as many parking spaces as he has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. MR. VALLE: I appreciate that. I'll look into that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Next item I had on Page 5, if you turn to Page 5, on paragraph five, and it's the fifth line up. Do you have a copy of that? MR. VALLE: No, sir, I don't. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could you get one? MR. VALLE: No, I don't have that information with me. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's in the staffreport. MR. BELLOWS: Page 5? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Page 5. MR. VALLE: All right. Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And it's about the fifth line up from the bottom, where you have use west. Is that west or should that be east? It says extends the commercial use west of the designated C-4 zoning district. MR. VALLE: I guess that would be east, right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I understood that to be east, but you had west there. MR. VALLE: East, okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Should be east? MR. VALLE: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. One other question here I had. You mentioned that this would be used for employee parking. How do you intend to enforce the employee parking in that section? MR. VALLE: Just with posting signs, I guess. And, you know, that's something we would address further upon submitting for SDP. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But will there be any Page 12 May 4, 2006 enforcement involved with the posting of the signs -- MR. VALLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- seeing they're being complied with? MR. VALLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Will that be done by the owner or by whom? MR. VALLE: By the owner, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: By the owner. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If that site was not available, that parking site, how much smaller would the building become? MR. VALLE: We're looking at something shy of 6,000 square feet, give or take. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And how big is it with it? MR. VALLE: About 8,700. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll ask for a staff report. Thank you. MR. VALLE: Thank you. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. I'd like to for the record just make one correction. On Page 7 of the staff report, on the top, the last sentence has citation of the section of the Land Development Code that says 2.3.16. It should read 4.05.04.G, and 4.05.09. We have reviewed this petition and as noted in the staff report we are recommending approval of this parking exemption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Carolina, I have a question that Page 13 May 4, 2006 maybe it becomes a matter of law as well. I guess this is my day for law questions. In parking exemption, in number one, what occurred to me, this pretty well locks it in, according to what this provides. What would be the case if the property were later sold, let's say that the building burned down and what have you, and they decided not to rebuild in the manner that they were going to. Does this run with the land? Does this require this always remains this way, or does it free it up to come back to RSF? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's been quite a number of years since I've handled parking exemptions, but I would say that it would run with the land. And in the scenario that you raised, if the building burned down or something and they might want to do something different, then the redevelopment scenario, we might not require this, and, you know, it might go back to like it was and they might be able to utilize the parking, you know, in a smaller area, depending upon what they'd want to rebuild if the structure burned down. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Margerie. I suspected that was the case, but it read so strongly that I just wondered whether or not it could somehow bind them. Thank you, that was my only question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: If that's the case, Margie, then how does this qualify as merely a parking exemption and not as a rezone? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, if it's -- if the building is burned down and then a new -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, for any reason. Are we changing the zoning or does the underlining zoning remain RSF -4? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The underlying zoning would remaIn. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, so it will remain RSF-4. Page 14 May 4, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Carolina, are you comfortable that condition three really locks in this site plan? And here's my concern, is that it's an extremely inefficient parking lot layout. There is a lot of extra land on the site that could have parking. The area I was concerned about, while it's landscaped, he claims is for drainage, that there's a huge drainage swale already on the site. The concern I have is could someone walk out of here today with this approval and then reconfigure the parking using that site for 10 parking places but adding a lot more parking places and a bigger building? Does condition three really lock that in, or -- MS. VALERA: It seems to me that it does not allow for variations of the parking configuration. Certainly we can add anything else that you may think will lock the site plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We need to play with the words on that. MS. VALERA: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me join Mr. Murray on the head of the pin with the angels. It says it can only be used for parking, yet part of it's used for the dumpster layout. Is that something we should worry about, or -- if you look at the south property line next to the handicap space, the property line does go about a foot, a foot and a half into the dumpster zone. MS. VALERA: I see. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So conceptually it's not just used for parking. They could slide that over and slide that whole drive system over. MS . VALERA: But the portion of the dumpster enclosure that is encroaching into the residential lot is -- I mean, is not part of the parking exemption. So I wouldn't be worried. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're allowed to put Page 15 May 4, 2006 dumpsters on residential property for commercial buildings? MS. VALERA: Oh, I see your question. It's not prohibited. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, then it's no matter. All right, thank you. MS. VALERA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Carolina, since you were making corrections, on Page 6, it's RMF -4, or is it RF -- it's actually RSF-4? MS. VALERA: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: What is it under 12? MS. VALERA: Under 12. Oh, yes, RMF -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it RSF? MS. VALERA: RSF. COMMISSIONER CARON: RSF-4? MS. VALERA: Yes, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Additionally, is it normal for this county to think that extending commercial into neighborhoods is a good idea? MS. VALERA: The code allows under a parking exemption to extending to the residential zoned property, if it is, you know, decided by the board to be done. I don't think the Land Development Code has a provision, you know, if it is a good idea or not. Certainly it is a consideration that, you know, within the -- our staff report we try to give you all the background so you can make that decision. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Carolina, I've got a few questions for you. Under your analysis, number one, whether the amount of off-street -- off-site parking is required by the LDC Section 4.05.00, or Page 16 May 4, 2006 is in excess of these requirements. I read your response, and basically it said it's not in excess of the minimum requirements of the LDC, but that's because of the size structure they designed, not -- MS. VALERA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because the site couldn't handle it. The C-4 site could have handled it if they just designed a structure that could fit on the site. MS. VALERA: That is correct, yes. The part -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and on the next page it says number six, potential parking problems for the neighborhoods. And the argument is that if this doesn't happen, the -- if this happens, it would discourage parking along the roadways or in the neighboring yards. Well, if they reduce the size of the building and use the parking that was comparable to the building size that should normally have fit there, why would they have any more risk of parking along the neighborhood roads than they will with this over-sized building in this extra parking lot? MS. VALERA: No, you are correct, it will have much less impact on the residential neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So six is really tailored around the fact they went to a larger building than -- MS. VALERA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- normally could have fit there. MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And number 12 is whether there are more viable alternatives available. And basically you say what I've just been saying, they could reduce the size of the building and fit -- MS. VALERA: Absolutely, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the aerial that's in front of us, it doesn't match the aerial that's in our plan. The one that's in our -- in our package, I'm sorry. The one that's in our package simply shows the subject property outlined. Do you have that one available? Page 1 7 May 4, 2006 Ah, there we go. Where is his limitation of the C-4 to the property to the -- you can zoom back out, Ray, I need to actually look at the property to the north and south. Where is the C-4 limitation line to the property to the north of the subj ect property; do you know? I do, but I wanted to see if -- MS. VALERA: Yes, it's in my excerpt from the zoning map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. That doesn't -- have any of the other properties taken advantage of exceeding the C-4 boundary limits as shown? MS. VALERA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think so. Okay, that's the only questions I had. Thank you, Carolina. MS. VALERA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any witnesses -- anyone else wishing to speak, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I have one registered speaker. Gianni Valle. Oh, that's you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the applicant. Okay, are there any final comments from the applicant? You can't speak from back there. You can shake your head yes or no, and you don't have to come up if you don't want to, but we give the applicant a final chance to rebut anything they'd like to. MR. VALLE: I just wanted to say, as far as that area up front, that green space, I know it looks like a lot of wasted space, but again, you know, granted approval, we'd have to go through with SDP. But we have talked with an engineer, a consulting engineer, and we believe that we'd need a lot of this area for detention. We're even told it may not be enough. And if you can see there, there was an area we left for a pump station and then also for a loading zone. And we've tried a couple of Page 18 May 4, 2006 different schemes to show parking up front there. And when you figure in the buffer and areas for aisleways and for traffic circulation, this is the best way we could maximize our parking. You had made the comment that it's not very efficient for parking, but we looked at other solutions. So that green space is well needed there. That's all I wanted to say about that. And there's going to be some minor changes to this site plan, based on the SD P. We still have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You just mentioned a pump station? MR. VALLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that a county pump station? Because I noted that your water and sewer is from the City of Naples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally if you have -- a lot of cases you need a lift station to pump sewage. That may be what it is. I'm not MR. VALLE: We met with an engineer who's got pretty extensive experience in this area, and he assured us we'd probably need a pump station. We need to show a 20 by 20 area for a pump station. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's anticipatory, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, sir? MR. VALLE: No, that's all I wanted to mention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, Mark. In my opinion this petition is in essence a conversion to commercial C-4 on RSF zoned lot abutted on three of its four sides by RSF zoning. It seems to me it's not fair to other property owners in the neighborhood who relied on the retention of the current RSF zoning and a limitation on the C-4 uses. The petitioner has other viable alternatives. He could reduce the Page 19 May 4, 2006 size of the facility to fit on the existing C-4 property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We haven't closed the public hearing yet. Okay, now we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. Is anybody willing to make a motion on this issue? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I make a motion we recommend denial of this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Kolflat, seconded by Ms. Caron. Is there discussion? F or my reasons, I would go along with the motion. I disagree that there's any hardship here or that it's needed. The facility can easily fit on the C-4 if it was designed a size comparable to what land could be equivalent to. So I will support the motion myself. COMMISSIONER CARON: Once again, it's sort of trying to put 10 pounds in a five-pound sack once again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that custom in Collier County? Any other comments? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 20 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0, recommendation of denial. Item #8C PETITION: RZ-2005-AR-8039 The next petition up is RZ-2005-AR-8039. It's the SJC Whippoorwill LLC, represented by Gary Butler of Butler Engineering. Will all those wishing to speak in this matter please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any disclosures? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I visited the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. And I was stuck in front of the site for a half an hour trying to get here this morning. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're not going to hear the end of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a disclosure. I'm sorry. I read the e-mail from Cindy Bombard and e-mail from Roy Hoveno (phonetic) . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only e-mails I read were the ones supplied by staff and already as part of public record. I didn't have any others. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should we -- when staff sends us e-mails, especially 11th hour e-mails, should we disclose those? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I never -- I usually haven't, because it's public record. But if we need to disclose everything staff gives us, I guess we have a whole long list of disclosures of everything from now Page 21 May 4, 2006 on. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, we've taken the position that staff correspondence and so on should be disclosed as part of ex parte. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that case, I also -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So everything that we get from staff, this entire package, has to be disclosed at every meeting? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Oh, this package? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This came with part of our package. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it didn't come in mine, it came in an e-mail yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From staff, to everybody. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Anything that came outside of the regular courier occurring in an addendum, I would -- I think it's safer to disclose it. And you can just say e-mail from staff. And then if anybody in the audience wants to question it or see it, they have the petitioner or someone else that they have the ability to know it's there and ask for further information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, just for the record then, I have not been doing that in the four years I sat on this commission, because if it came from staff I assumed it was public record. Therefore, let me go back and make a disclosure on everything we've done for the past four years, that I have received e-mails from staff prior to the meeting that contain letters they received from the public or e-mails from the public, and I have some for this meeting as well as just about on every single subject we have here today. So with that on the record, I hope that covers it. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I also had received an e-mail that I read from Ms. Cindy Bombard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none-- Page 22 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also received e-mails from staff. COMMISSIONER CARON: As part of our package, we received an e-mail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think everybody has. So with that, we'll go on to the applicant. Mr. Butler? MR. BUTLER: Gary Butler, with Butler Engineering, representing the petitioner. We're proposing to rezone an approximately 10-acre piece of property locate on Whippoorwill Drive -- Whippoorwill Road, to RMF-6. 59 or 60 units, depending on the exact acreage. It will be multi-family, probably two-story, similar to what's out there right now. We've got similar densities surrounding us. It's one of the last pieces in there that has not been developed. We've got water and sewer on Whippoorwill so there's no problems there. The drainage has been worked out with South Florida, regionally for that area, so we'll comply with whatever they're going to have us do water management WIse. The only other issues I've seen in the e-mails, we're talking about transportation. I was out there this morning, and there was no real problem with traffic on Whippoorwill today, the problem was on Pine Ridge. And the wait on Whippoorwill, they wait till about 10 cars stack up, which does take two or three minutes, but that's to keep the traffic moving on Pine Ridge. The actual intersection itself could use some improvement in the future, and I suspect that will be tied with right-of-way acquisition with the corner parcel. There are a lot of more units coming on line. We're a small percentage of that. The only other thing I would add at this point is there's some talk about Green Boulevard being advanced in the schedule, at least partially by Livingston Village, or whatever, the PUD that's south of Page 23 May 4, 2006 where Green's going to go through. So there won't be a second means of accessing all these projects in the future. We're probably look at a year and a half to two years out for our first COs, so that will probably occur in that same time frame, and that will help the entire area. Again, we're a small percentage of the number of units in this area, in this square mile. With that, if there's any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What percentage of the site is in the right-of-way? MR. BUTLER: About half of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the land to the south of that really can't be developed, it's not wide enough. MR. BUTLER: We've got like a 30- foot strip that will serve as a good buffer, but it's not going to be developed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So do you know what the density would be? Because they only place you can build it is in that strip along the north, correct? MR. BUTLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially we're taking this density and building it on half of a site? MR. BUTLER: Right. It would take it up to 12 years. But that's very similar to other sites that have water management and preserves and other issues. If you look at the density of the units just north of us, they're probably at 12 units per acre for the net area they're using. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What are you going to do in the FP&L right-of-way? MR. BUTLER: We can put parking in there, we could put retention in there. We cannot build structures in there. Page 24 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No recreation. MR. BUTLER: You can -- there's a lot of things you can do within FP&L easements. You can't put habitable structures, basically. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And will the width of that easement probably stay that width? MR. BUTLER: Yeah, we talked to them about shifting that easement 30 feet to the south and they said no. Just, you know, continuous easement. The same problem occurs on other parcels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Could you tell me the size of the unit you're building? MR. BUTLER: I don't think that's been finalized at this point. I mean, if I had to guess, they're going to be very similar to the units to the north. They're probably 1,200, 1,300 units square foot, but I can't confirm that at this point. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In this area -- okay, I got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, I noted that you're not intending to build any affordable housing in there whatsoever. Have you modified your position on that at all? MR. BUTLER: It was something we had talked about originally on the parcel, and, you know, with higher density so we could achieve an economical proj ect. But given the actual footprint with the FPL easement the way it is, it's really not a perfect site for affordable housing at all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, when we use the term affordable housing now, we now call it affordable workforce housing. It also speaks to those numbers to 150 percent of the median income. So a range of housing wouldn't be for the 80 percent or lower necessarily, it could be higher. Page 25 May 4, 2006 What do you expect that market, half million? MR. BUTLER: I think the current units to our north are selling for like 400, 360, which is really -- that's workforce housing at this point, I believe. I know it sounds expensive, but I've heard lots of things going on lately that they're talking about 360,000 is workforce housing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's the point I'm trying to make, that -- okay, you're indicating you don't believe that in any way you're going to go from here to the BCC with the idea of putting -- including anything. MR. BUTLER: No, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. BUTLER: But I do believe that this will be workforce housing, if that's your question. Not affordable, but workforce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: On Page 5 of six, it seems the floor area of the buildings are either 550 or 750 square feet. MR. BUTLER: That's as minimum. It's a standard area for this particular -- this is not a PUD, this is straight RMF-6. That's the minimum. But I can assure you we won't build anything that small. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So you're not intending to build that size. MR. BUTLER: No. I don't think there would be a market for it if you did. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't think there would be either. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Workforce housing. MR. BUTLER: 360,000 for a 500-square-foot unit. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That was my problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the width of the property not in the easement to the north? Page 26 May 4, 2006 MR. BUTLER: I'm going to say 160, but I'm not absolutely sure of that. 130 possibly, yeah. I think that is -- 30-foot, yeah, 130 feet. We've drawn up several plans, but because it's straight zoning the plans are not binding, so we haven't actually submitted any to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you, Gary. We'll continue discussion with staff. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I'm a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. You have the staff report that's been sent to you and the findings to support that staff report. And along with the explanation provided by the applicant, I would just say that we are recommending approval, finding that it is consistent with the growth management plan. If you have any questions, I'd be a happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. I personally inspected the property quite thoroughly, and also with the help from staff, who sent me some information relative to other developments in the other area. And I count there are 12 developments there that will exit onto Whippoorwill Lane. And of those 12, probably be equivalent to 9,000 people. That concerns me very much with the traffic aspect of egress and exiting that area. Have you discussed this with traffic department? And what is their recommendation on this? MS. DESELEM: Yes, they are here and you can obviously ask them specific questions, but they did recommend that this particular petition be found consistent with the growth management plan's transportation elements, finding that it met the test for rezoning. Know, however, that they will still have to -- they being the Page 27 May 4, 2006 petitioner -- have to meet concurrency when they come in for development order approvals. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, on Page 4 of the staff report it says, there will be an access connection to Whippoorwill Lane from Livingston Road will be installed. That designates that there will be one. But I'm curious, what is the time frame for that installation? MS. DESELEM: I believe transportation staff should answer that. Because they have more of the information on the timing of what their improvements are. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. The connection from Whippoorwill over -- we're working with Livingston Village -- I'm not sure that's the same name anymore -- but with the right-of-way issue, which would be the first portion of Green. And we had a discussion with them about doing it, making that connection. I don't know about the definitive time frame at this point, but we were working to try to get that done as part of their construction of the portion of Green. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, without a time frame we don't know whether that will be going on after or before or during the construction of all these other developments. MR. SCOTT: That's correct. And we're also, at the other end of it we're working with Naples Nissan at the corner to get additional turn lanes, because it isn't sufficient at Pine Ridge. Pine Ridge at the moment -- and the reason why it's consistent is only because of Golden Gate Parkway and 1-75 interchange opening, not because of the existing conditions you experienced this morning. And so mitigation is that those things will happen. If they don't happen, then they won't meet concurrency. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But there is still a lot of construction to be done, so they will be adversely affected as time Page 28 May 4, 2006 goes on. Can you not give us any idea when the completion of that connection would be? MR. SCOTT: No, because we still have to go through some, you know, essentially permitting and issues like that. And at the moment I don't have it programmed. We're trying to get it done as part of a different, you know, developer's responsibilities. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Do you think it's prudent judgment on our part to approve a development that's going to load up the area that much when no one has an idea of when the roads will be in? MR. SCOTT: I didn't answer the quest -- I mean, I know they wrote that in there. We didn't answer our consistency based on that being a definitive connection to the south. We based it more on Pine Ridge and the interchange of 1-75 and Golden Gate Parkway, and improvements that we are going to do at Pine Ridge and Whippoorwill. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually, for Ms. Deselem. On Page 3 of six of your staff report there, the second paragraph speaks to the applicant is encouraged to implement appropriate policies under objective seven of the FLUE that it support smart growth, including walkability in its connections. First question: Is it even feasible in that property for that to be done? I know that this is a statement in here, but did we actually -- maybe I should really be asking the -- first I need to ask you. But do we -- can we realistically get, ifhe builds those 59 units, can we get interconnectivity based on -- I know there's no site plan. That's why it's blind. MS. DESELEM: Exactly. That would best be determined at the site development plan stage of review, because at this point we don't know what it is they're proposing to when they're not tied to a specific Page 29 May 4, 2006 site plan as part of the rezoning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand. And that paragraph ends in a peculiar way, in a sense. Because you really have no way of relating beyond that. But it begs the question, you know, we encourage it, that's good. But what do we do beyond that? And since we have no site plan, what do we do? And I'm going to go back and I'll ask the question of the developer of whether or not they would like to participate in that strongly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go back to the developer, is there any other questions of staff? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Actually it's not of staff, it's of the county attorney's office. Marjorie, there's a concept called zoning in progress. I mean, the purpose for this applicant being in here today is merely to beat the EAR report. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, the zoning in progress does not apply to the comprehensive plan. There's case law in that it only applies to land code amendments. COMMISSIONER CARON: To land code, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. In the report you state there are public commercial services located in close proximity. Where are those close proximity services? MS. DESELEM: There are all kinds of commercial and retail and professional office uses along the south side of Estey at the intersection of Estey and Airport, and all up and down north to south on Airport Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got mixed up. This is the Whippoorwill one. MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is Pine Ridge where all that Page 30 May 4, 2006 commercial is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Boy, my brain was starting to cook with that one. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. Did I have you going? Sorry. As you go up to Pine Ridge -- I'm sorry -- and go along the Pine Ridge corridor, there are commercial uses that would provide services to -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But they're basically gas stations and fast food places. That's basically what's up there. MS. DESELEM: There are, I believe, some professional offices, if you go towards Livingston. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But that's what you had in mind when you said commercial services -- MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- close by in proximity. You talk about residential density band and that there is a petition -- or not a petition but a revision to the EAR amendment to change that. What then becomes the density of that area, the -- what is the base density? MS. DESELEM: The base density would be the basic four. And you wouldn't get the bonus of the density band if the EAR changes are adopted. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. So if that amendment is adopted, they would not get that bonus. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have one other minor one here. On Page 5 of your report, on the table there under lot area, you show 12 for the duplex. I think that should be 12,000, shouldn't it? MS. DESELEM: Yes. I apologize. There is a typo. The comma is in the right place. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Page 31 May 4, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one of transportation. Just so the record's clear, the southern -- the additional southern access point, has that been funded or -- MR. SCOTT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- has there been a contract issued for it? MR. SCOTT: Not yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Don. Mr. Murray, you had a question of the applicant. And Gary, after his question you might as well -- any rebuttal you have you're welcome to speak it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I'll just restate, my concern here has to do with smart growth principles which has to do with walkability and interconnectivity. And we don't know the configuration that you're setting up there and we don't know a lot of things. But I'd like to understand, you know, we're encouraging it for good reasons, and whether or not you're open to it. MR. BUTLER: We're wide open to it, obviously. There's a sidewalk on our frontage already, and the SDP process requires us to put internal sidewalks. So all of our units will be connected to Whippoorwill. I'm not sure the sidewalk is continuous on the entire length of Whippoorwill, but for all the new section there's a sidewalk. And I noticed them today building sidewalks on all the side roads and THE COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. MR. BUTLER: I'm sorry. Yes, we'll put internal sidewalks, and if there's other items -- THE COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. MR. BUTLER: I'm sorry. We will be building sidewalks. If there's other items like bus stops and things like that that occur in the future, obviously we would work with those because they would benefit our project. Page 32 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm going to slow down a little bit to let her fingers rest a bit. But kidding aside, it is difficult for her. The interconnectivity I'm also relating to has to do with availability to obtain, go through other development areas. Have you spoken with any of the other developments' representatives to determine whether or not they would be open to allowing transit through their communities? MR. BUTLER: I have not, but I will. I would commit to do that, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You would commit to do that. We would encourage it strongly. It's very important, and particularly while walkability is very nice, if it were possible to any vehicular form that would allow transit to move. I understand -- I don't know your configuration what you're going to do, but we're just encouraging you. MR. BUTLER: All of the perimeter tracks along our parcel have been approved. Either they're built or they're in construction right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. BUTLER: The vehicular connections are probably -- there's probably no chance. Pedestrian there probably is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What is in your head is equivalent in mine to what that is over there, it's blank, I have no clue as to how you're going to do it. But we encourage you strongly to do that. It will help the community, it will help traffic if we could do it. MR. BUTLER: Thank you, sir. In reference to the densities and the population in this area, you mentioned 9,000 people. This project is a very small project. We're probably talking 100 people on this particular 10 acres. I do understand that there's a lot of projects under construction right now in the area. Page 33 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the 9,000 all use Whippoorwill Lane. MR. BUTLER: Right, right. But at 100 people, I don't know what the percentage is, I don't have my calculator, but it's a very, very small percentage of what -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, but saying just a little bit pregnant is not very comforting. MR. BUTLER: I understand. There was a third question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein has a question. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Trying to clear something up. You say that Stephanie Mansour is the owner. She's also the agent. Then we say Brian Mansour is the applicant. How does that fit? MR. BUTLER: I'm working for the Mansour family, basically, the Mansour family trust. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not the -- it's the attitude of we have the owner, we have the agent being the same person. Now, how does he become the applicant? If he's the owner and the agent. MR. BUTLER: I think we're talking semantics. I think of myself as the agent for the applicant. But I may have that wrong. And I thought the applicant was the actual family itself. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It came down in that document, it just doesn't make sense. MR. BUTLER: That's either something I transposed or staff, I'm sure. But it's myself acting as agent for the family. There was one other question about Green Boulevard. Again, our construction schedule, if we started today and went as fast as we could go, we're talking about a year and a half to two years out. That connection's going to be required that amount of time anyway. And I think we have another developer at the table wishing to build that right now. And if there was some kind of pro rata share cost on that, you Page 34 May 4, 2006 know, since we're so small we could sure chip in our share towards that. We want that connection ourselves. It will greatly enhance the area. And it's going to enhance the county's plan to cross 1-75 with that boulevard at some point in time. Any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, I think that's all the questions we have of you. MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Ray, is there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there amotion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-8039 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval, subj ect to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein has recommended approval, subject to staff. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Murray. Discussion? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think it would not be prudent for us to approve this until there is more definition relative to the road access there on Whippoorwill Lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just for discussion purposes, I'm having a problem with the transportation issue. I don't believe the rezone findings under one, six and seven are accurate in relationship to transportation. I think that living conditions will be additionally adversely influenced like they already are from so many other Page 35 May 4, 2006 projects; this will just make one thing worse. I consider it inconsistent with Section 5.4, transportation 5.1, 5.2 and Florida Statute 1633180(6). And for those reasons, I'll be voting against this motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just going to say I'll be voting in favor of the motion, because I do trust the concurrency system. There is a lot of flux in what the road's going to be out there, and the decision on transportation is going to come in the future, and I'm going to throw my hat with the trust on the concurrency system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of recommendation of approval, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you raise your hands. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four recommending approval. All those recommending denial, signify by saying aye or raising your hand. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) Four. It's a tie vote. That means the motion does not carry. We can entertain another motion. Page 36 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I would make a motion that we recommend denial to the Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Kolflat. Is there a second to Mr. Kolflat's motion for recommendation of denial? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. Discussion? My discussion would remain the same. I would support the motion in this case for the reasons I stated previously. And I have a feeling we're going to end up closer to where we were before. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we really do have serious road issues here. When transportation gets up and say the road's not even programmed yet, I don't see how we can continue to approve things. And I'm also obviously concerned with the number of units per acre. If this were to get approved at all I would only consider the four units an acre, which we all know that we want for this area at this point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Really nothing different from what anybody else has said. I appreciate that transportation staff are the experts and they know more than me, but at the same time I just can't get it out of my mind intuitively that adding more density in this area cannot be a good thing, so I'm going to vote in favor of the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Kolflat was first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, this in no way is a reflection on the transportation department. They don't know that Page 37 May 4, 2006 because they don't know. They just don't know, if that makes sense. But the point is, it is an unknown, and I don't think we should forge ahead with an unknown, regardless of what we would like it to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: While I seconded a motion for approval in this case, I will join the majority -- or become part of a majority that says no, because if we lean in favor of saving our roads and the issues are our roads for the most part, time being what it is, I would believe that we'll error on the side of safety in this case. Basically I was essentially neutral on it, so if this body -- I think we'll go the other way then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Once again, and Bob, this is for land use. I mean, this definitely should be residential land. It definitely fits in with the neighborhood. The controlling of the roads, whether they could get permits to build this proj ect is down the road in the concurrency system. So if we don't trust that system, then let's adjust that system. But this is purely for land use. This is not allowing the project. They're going to have to go through more gates, more hoops before they can bring these cars on the road. So in terms of land use, I support this thing. Would I like to see the cars on the road today? No. But I'm going to trust that the concurrency system would keep them off. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well -- and while this is not by way of argument in any way . We know now that under Senate Bill 360 we have other issues that will have arisen, and many of the determinations that will be made in the future, which we're looking at a very cloudy future in terms of what growth management will become in this county, and as I said, I was essentially neutral, favoring the developer, but in this case reconsideration is I'm going to error ons Page 38 May 4, 2006 the side of safety. So I'll join. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: By the way, so will 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now hearing all the discussion, I'll call for the vote. Please signify by raising your hands. All those in favor of the motion for denial, please signify by raising your hands. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four five. Am I counting right? No, six. Six in favor. All those opposed, signify by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two opposed. Motion carries for denial. Thank you. Ms. Court Reporter, I see a companion of yours there behind you. Does that mean you need time to change records, or is she there at the request of somebody else? MS. AHRENS: I'm there for one item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to make sure that if the two of you were going to switch, I would provide you the time. Item #8D PETITION: PUDA-2005-AR-7858 Next petition for today is PUDA-2005-AR-7858, Abaco Bay Development LLC, represented by Clay Brooker. It's an amendment Page 39 May 4, 2006 to the Pinebrook Lake RPUD. All those wishing to testify on this particular issue today, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, you can thank Ms. Ford for you guys having to do this. She was the one that started the court reporter. It was a good idea, but I don't think it works well all the time. Is there any disclosure on this issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, the e-mail situation from Kevin Lilly, who claims to be a property owner, yet not listed as a property owner. Dana and -- well, anyway, the Morrits (phonetic) also claiming property owner. Kay Deselem sent an e-mail expressing Phil McCabe's opinion. And I can't read the name, but it's Marlin and Dolores, looks like Graden, also claim to be property owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other disclosure? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Repeating the same thing. I received the same documents. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also received the same e-mails and documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I didn't receive an e-mail, but I visited the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I received e-mails from staff. I can't remember the names on them all, but whatever staff sent me is in this package; it's welcome to anybody that would like it. And I think Clay, didn't I speak to you about this? I don't remember what our conversation was about because it was so brief. But I did speak to Clay about this particular project. And I'm sure that discussion will be further today. Page 40 May 4, 2006 Okay, with that, is the applicant prepared to make a presentation? MR. BROOKER: Clay Brooker, for the record. I'm from the law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson here in Naples, Florida. We do represent the owners of the property, Abaco Bay Development LLC, the sole member of which is Michael Johnson. Before I get into the actual petition, I'd like to introduce the team. With me is Michael Hagar; you might not be able to see him, he's behind the podium here. He is the owner representative and the project manager. And to his left, Laura Spurgeon from Johnson Engineering. She deserves credit for doing most of the legwork on this petition. On the ELMO you have the -- I guess the -- well, now you have the aerial. Pinebrook Lake PUD, what's before you today, is an amendment to this 26-year-old PUD. As you see, Bayshore Drive running along the left side of the picture north and south; Thommason Drive is east and west, beneath the property, one parcel to the north of Thommason Drive. You probably can tell that the aerial is a little bit dated because the property immediately to the north of Pinebrook Lake is vegetated there, but that is Botanical Place PUD, and it is under construction now. The property to the south has been recently approved as Cirrus Point PUD, both of which have affordable housing components in those PUD approvals. As I mentioned, this PUD, the Pinebrook Lake PUD, which is the subject of this petition, was approved 26 years ago, in 1980. It is an old one. And if you saw the PUD document, you probably didn't recognize it, because it's in old format. The property is fully developed at 16 units per acre, which is in accordance with that PUD document adopted 26 years ago. On the property is a combination of multi-family structures, parking areas, open space, water management and a clubhouse and pool facility. Page 41 May 4, 2006 The proposal today is only a text change to the PUD document. Weare proposing no change to the existing development, no change to the footprints, no change to the parking areas and so forth and so on. It's just a text revision proposal. The PUD document, is as it reads now, before this petition, permits only multi-family rental dwellings. Generally what we are seeking through this petition is to eliminate the references to the rentals and the leases, thereby allowing owners of the units to occupy those units, rather than forcing them to rent. Last year the State of Florida approved the condominimization (sic) of this project. Since then, the vast majority of the units have already been sold. They sold in prices ranging from 120,000 to 260,000. That's -- 98 percent of the units have been sold at that price range. Although I can't speak for the individual unit owners now, I think it's a fair assumption to say they would be in support of this petition. Although if there are public speakers, I may be proven wrong. But I still believe the majority would support the petition. However, this petition would be for their benefit. This is a PUD amendment, it is not a PUD rezone. We have utilized, therefore, the strike-through underline method in the PUD document. As a PUD amendment versus a PUD rezone, the county does not open up the entire PUD for review, instead review is limited to the proposed change or changes. If you happen to have reviewed the pre-application notes, you might have been confused -- the pre-application meeting notes, you might have been confused, because it was noted that it was a PUD rezone. There's even a note that requires in those PUD -- in the pre-application meeting notice that requires identification of all deviations from the LDC. Subsequent to the preapplication meeting, the county's staff Page 42 May 4, 2006 determined that this petition should be treated as a PUD amendment as opposed to a PUD rezone. And therefore, for the reasons previously mentioned, it's going to be limited. The review is limited to the proposed changes and identification of any LDC deviations. Current LDC deviations are not required, they're beyond the scope of this petition. You may have noticed that there's no TIS or EIS in your submittal packets. Those were either waived or not required. Again, this property is fully developed. We're proposing no changes to it. And the traffic generated by the project is already in the background traffic of the surrounding road network. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a PUD amendment, we did receive some staff request, which in our opinion were unrelated to the proposed text change. The first was a request that all exotics be removed in perpetuity or -- be removed within 90 days of approval, assuming approval is granted, and then that that removal be required in perpetuity. We have agreed to that request. It should be in your -- in paragraph 16, I think the very last of practice of the strike-through underlined PUD document in your package. Secondly, at the pre-application meeting there was a request for a drainage easement at the very east side of the property. Right now it is a drainage ditch. The county has requested that we grant them a 50- foot wide drainage easement to the county to maintain that area for drainage purposes. We have no obj ection to the concept of granting a drainage easement in that area; however, 50 feet, according to my survey, or the survey I've reviewed, may in fact encroach upon the dry retention area in the back, and so we would simply ask -- we are willing to agree to a stipulation that a drainage easement be granted and that we would do so and that it could be entered into the PUD document, if that's appropriate. We have no objection to that. The only Page 43 May 4, 2006 consideration we would have is perhaps we can talk with staff and figure out perhaps the best width for it so it doesn't encroach into any of our water management facilities. At the pre-application meeting the county informed us that they can't find the master plan for this property and requested that we create one for them. And we have done so. It is attached to -- it's in your package and attached to the PUD document. That PUD master plan was created, based upon a survey of the property. As far as public input, I have seen two letters in support of the petition. I believe they were forwarded to the planning commission by e-mail. One by Dan and Peg Demorette (phonetic). I apologize if I'm mispronouncing that. As well as by Kevin Lilly. If it's not automatic, I would request that those letters of support be entered into the record formally. There was also another handwritten note by Harlin and Dolores Graden, who simply pointed out that they now own one of the condominium units. My reading of this particular document, I can't tell if she's in support or not. She doesn't state, she just says she's writing in regard to it and that they own one of the units. Finally, the developer to the north, Botanical Place, Mr. Phil McCabe has contact both staff and us with regard to landscaping along our shared boundary line. Mr. McCabe, with regard to Botanical Place PUD, along his southern boundary has installed oak trees spaced at 30 feet. That was a type A landscape buffer. We have agreed -- notwithstanding we don't believe it can be required of us under the code and under these circumstances, we have agreed to do the same planting material on our side of the property line. So that would be oak trees spaced 30 feet on center along our north property line, pursuant to his request. I want to be very clear that we're not agreeing to a type A landscape buffer. And the only reason I want to be clear about that is because under the code, that's a 10-foot wide buffer. As you move east Page 44 May 4, 2006 along our property, you run into the lake there along the north side, and there's just not 10 feet there before you run into the water. So I don't want to commit to the technical type A landscape buffer, but we will commit to the plantings of oak trees 30 feet on center, and we will in fact -- I guess how would you call it, intersperse or wherever Phil's tree is, we'll put it 15 feet over and then we'll start our 30 feet so it will be 15, 15, 15, if you look down the property line. I believe if you've seen the property it's been cleaned up quite nicely. I believe it is an asset to the neighborhood now. I believe that is -- it will contribute to the revival, if you will, of this Bayshore area. We do appreciate staffs recommendation of approval, and we would request a recommendation of approval from planning commission as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Kolf1at, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Brooker, when these condos were sold, did the people buying the condos understand what was in the PUD? MR. BROOKER: Absolutely. The condominium documents -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. BROOKER: -- that were approved by the State of Florida expressly state what the zoning is, meaning the rental requirement, and not only were they in the condo documents, but I believe they were also in the contract itself. That is correct. So they did. The answer IS yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, I think this is probably for our attorney. Does this amendment petition open the entire PUD to additional scrutiny? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, it does not. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Next question then: What is the density at Avalon Estates, Unit 1 to the east? Page 45 May 4, 2006 MR. BROOKER: I believe to the east it's -- I read in the staff report that that development directly to the east is RMF -6, so I'd assume it's six units per acre. I will defer to staff, because I've also seen reference to Lake Avalon PUD. And I myself have not reviewed that PUD, so I don't know the density. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Does staff know the answer to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report does say RMF-6. MR. BROOKER: Yes, that's what I saw as well. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Then the only other question I had, Mark, about these documents or letters that he referenced, I'm not seeing copies of the letters. Are you accepting them into the record and will we get copies, or what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We may already have them. I believe there was a bunch distributed by staff. What ones are your -- the authors of yours, Clay? MR. BROOKER: First is Dan and Peg DeMorette (phonetic), dated April 24th, 2006. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that was distributed by staff. I have that one. MR. BROOKER: That was distributed by staff to you bye-mail, I believe, to the planning commission. The second is Kevin Lilly, dated April 21st, 2006. I believe that was contained in the same e-mail to the planning commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And Ms. Student, since those are distributed by staff and they're in the staff files and everything, are they part of the record? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, they're part of -- they're part of the record. And you have them, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, they're part of the record. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I apologize, my e-mail is Page 46 May 4, 2006 out of kilter or something, because I don't get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have AOL, don't you? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Beg your pardon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have AOL? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why. Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's go down the -- I believe it's your PUD document. I'm looking at the index, so we'll just start there. First reference, 15, leases. Now, I understand that currently there were apartments and now it's converted and there's an impediment, as it were, they cannot obtain homesteading because of that clause, that's what I understood. If you're successful and everything is modified according to your desires, will the new owners under the condominium be allowed to rent their units to others, or are they precluded because of what action we take today? MR. BROOKER: They will be allowed. The condominium documents allow annual leases. The minimum period for a lease is 30 days. And each unit owner can rent up to four times a year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's very liberal. Very liberal. Okay, and then the next item, number 16, I'm going to make a little commentary here. When I saw this, I was a bit frustrated. We speak about affordable housing and concern for our families leaving the communities and having no place for them to go, and here we were converting what were apartments for people who were essentially poor, driving them out, we now have condominium and we want children not to be there. What is the basis for that, may I understand? MR. BROOKER: I believe you may be misunderstanding -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope I am. MR. BROOKER: -- the deletion of that paragraph. Page 47 May 4, 2006 For whatever reason, and it must have something to do with the history back in 1980, but it was expressly stated back then that children are permitted. Maybe back then the county didn't like children, I don't know. But we have deleted that because we believe it's irrelevant. Children are permitted there. There's no restriction. It's a children permitted development. We thought that was a little arcane and so we deleted it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't come across that in my reading of it, so obviously -- I'm glad it was a misapprehension on my part. I'm very happy. Now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student had an interruption. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, I just wanted to make an observation that this is a very old PUD document, and in my legal opinion it contains a lot -- it contained, if you amend it, a lot of requirements that do not belong in a zoning document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so that issue is now resolved for my purpose. And the company that now owns it intends to make it available to families? MR. BROOKER: Absolutely, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I need to understand, we're in a coastal high hazard area down there, and I see you have 16 dwelling units per acre. I guess that's consistent because we have 160 units that are already in place. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I believe it was found consistent by policy in our comprehensive plan because it's already developed-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Already there. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- property. Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will there be anything done with regards to the potential for flooding inasmuch as the property is Page 48 May 4, 2006 located pretty low there? Any changes that your organization -- MR. BROOKER: The water management facilities on-site will remain unchanged. And, frankly, there was -- about the drainage easement in the back, there was some discussion amongst ourselves internally, why do we care if the 50-foot drainage easement encroaches into our dry retention. And for that reason, I don't want to mess with our dry retention area at all, if possible. So whether an encroachment of the drainage easement will even make a difference, I don't know. But it just sends a little shingle up my spine to say we probably shouldn't mess with the dry retention pond are in the back. But to answer your question directly, everything you see will remain exactly as it exists today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm on Page 3 of your document now and I'm looking at item C, where it now has been modified from permitted principal to conditional. And I'm just fascinated. Churches, schools, child care centers, civil and cultural facilities, temporary on-site sewage treatment facilities. Are any of those intended? MR. BROOKER: No. They are in the existing PUD document. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I note that you've stricken it as permitted principal and make them conditional. I'm, if you'll excuse the expression, struck by the fact that you wish to retain them. Unless you intend to retain them. MR. BROOKER: Again, the idea was to come before you with as few proposed revisions as possible. The only reason the language has been changed -- the permitted principal use is subject to site plan review has been stricken and in its place conditional uses has been added -- is because that is the phrase or that is the terminology we use today for that type of use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Marjorie, I'm just surprised it wouldn't be struck entirely inasmuch as it doesn't appear to be Page 49 May 4, 2006 applicable to the location, to the facilities or any of the -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think the reason it's still there is that it is used -- deemed consistent with the comprehensive plan, and by making it a conditional use, it would require board approval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That I appreciate. MR. BELLOWS: It could be eliminated, but it depends on the ownership of the property. And who -- if every one of the associated property owners were involved with this amendment, then they could make that elimination. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. We've already discussed the flood questions. The water and sanitary sewer, like situation, that's still in design? That would be under Page 5, item 13. MR. BROOKER: That's correct. It's -- that's unchanged. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Unchanged, okay. And you've answered the question. Now, let's see. I noted here, it said virtually all vegetation has been removed. So under item 16, they still have exotics on the property, huh? MR. BROOKER: My understanding is they do. And they have agreed to remove the exotics within 90 days of approval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I think -- okay, that will do it for me for the moment. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When these sales were made, was there any kind of affordable housing control at all, or these are just pure free market? MR. BROOKER: It is a pure free market; the price ranges of which fell within the affordable housing range. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But I mean, upon success of work on Bayshore, there's no control over the price of these units Page 50 May 4, 2006 anymore? MR. BROOKER: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are they closed yet? Have they closed these sales? MR. BROOKER: The vast majority have closed, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How many people are actually living in there? You stated that you could lease these up to four times a year. So are these investors that bought these, or are these residents that are living within it? MR. BROOKER: There's no way of us knowing that besides our review of the public records, and then even if you had a review of the public records, you still wouldn't be able to answer your question fully. But there is no prohibition in the condominium documents. Some you see that you can't re-sell it within a certain amount of time. You can't flip it. There's nothing like that. So it was purely open to the market to do as it wishes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other question really was for Margie. Margie, since these people are the owners of these things, how come they're not the applicant? How come the applicant is the old developer who owns only 10 percent of the units? MR. BROOKER: If I can jump -- and I don't want to interrupt Margie, but when we filed, we were the sole owner. And that issue did come up in the last two months. And now what do we do when we're in a transition period of turning over the condominium association? We proceeded to move forward with the petition as filed, and obviously all the condominium unit owners of record now are aware of that, are notified. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, Margie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would assume -- I guess I'd have to ask Clay, but is there any kind of arrangement that you have with Page 51 May 4, 2006 the association or the owners to be the agent for them in this endeavor? MR. BROOKER: To be -- I'm sorry? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Their agent, for purposes of the amendment. MR. BROOKER: No, we didn't enter into any type of agreement in that regard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clay, a lot of the contracts for sale include standard clauses that should the developer enter into an amendment to their PUD, the owner, by signing that contract, acknowledges they won't be objecting to it. Did you have any language like that in your contract? MR. BROOKER: Right. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think there might be some de facto agency. MR. BROOKER: I want to clarify. I guess the answer is we don't know, to your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I liked your first one better, but okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, Margie, my concern is do we have the right to change the 90 percent of the owners? But anyway, let's move on. It looks like the people prior to us had the foresight to do affordable housing. So what do you think -- the name of this planned unit development was low cost rental apartments. I mean, why don't we keep that going? I mean, why -- the needs we have today, it would be to our advantage to the community to -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If I may, that kind of language does not belong in a zoning document. If we wanted to utilize our affordable housing provisions in a zoning document, that would be appropriate. But to state that something has to be leased rather than owned and fee simple, it's government intrusion about ownership of property and does not need to be in a zoning document. Page 52 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point was that it is. And at the time that the 16 units -- which is a lot, a lot for this county -- was given, that was I think the intent of the board, that it would be, could they not have controlled the use of the property back then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, if you read the documents, it said that staff -- that was not expressed in the public hearings; that that wasn't a reason for the density increases. They've stated that in -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure. I mean, the minutes aren't that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It was as a companion -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We didn't even have -- I was in law school in 1980. But this is an ancient PUD document. But I can tell you from my historical knowledge of the growth management laws, there was no requirement for affordable housing back then and the growth management laws, we didn't have our program about -- bonus density for affordable housing did not go into the compo plan until 1989. And if somebody's here from 1982, they can maybe tell me -- I don't know what might have been in the 1982 plan, but I can tell you the requirements by state law didn't really get toughened up until 1985, and then we had to amend our plan or do a new plan in compliance with that in 1988, and it was adopted in 1989. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me be clear. What I'm trying to do is get in the mindset of 1980. So I know that we've evolved the legal system since then, but my concern is that I think this was given to the community, the zoning, the 16 units, kind of to before to do low cost rental. I mean, it's clear. Whether it should have been worded or not is irrelevant to me. The minutes are very vague, and I don't think they state what was being said. They're not verbatim. MR. BROOKER: If you'd like me to comment on that, the actual classification, the land use classification that it was entered into at that Page 53 May 4, 2006 time, 1980, it was amended back then, allowed 6.22 units per acre, up to 30 units per acre. This project didn't maximize that density that was permitted. So although today we can't fathom 30 units per acre in the coastal high hazard area, it was permitted back then. Number two, these -- the term low cost is undefined. Under today's code we meet, as a matter of fact, affordable housing standards for the prices that the units sold. And we are well beyond the 15-year time limit that affordable housing restrictions are imposed. This thing has been in place and has done its time, so to speak, for 26 years. So not only is that -- if you tried to apply today's codes to it in terms of affordable housing, we would meet them. But we've gone 10 years beyond what the county can impose. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm actually not trying to imply today's things. I mean, I think what you're saying does. I think that the intent of this was was to be low cost rental housing. And I think that swayed the people before us, and I think that was important. But enough said. Next? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I can offer this, because I was here kind of the bridge between the old plan and the new plan, the densities were a lot higher under our old scenario than they were when the new compo plan was adopted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the 32 units per acre, that's an urban density. That's a High-rise building. At 16, you can see how this is built in. This was a very dense urban area. And again, I think it was given to provide a low cost rental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What percentage of the new owners are the former renters? MR. BROOKER: Are former renters? COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Yeah. MR. BROOKER: None of them. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So what happened? Were they all Page 54 May 4, 2006 displaced? MR. BROOKER: They voluntarily left after given the offer to purchase. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll entertain a staff report. Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with the Department of Land Zoning and Development Review. Again, you have the staff report before you, along with the findings that support it, and we are recommending approval, finding that it is consistent with the growth management plan. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Kay, don't you think that in 1981 when they said moderate income it meant something different then than what moderate income means today? I think moderate income in those days was really moderate income, it was something that was -- a working family could afford; whereas moderate today means high. Low income is even high. I mean, affordable housing, you're talking about 250, $300,000 houses being, quote, unquote, affordable. Do you think that there was a difference in those days by what they meant by moderate? MS. DESELEM: I really don't have any way to know. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the second question I have, you said that the -- that you quoted the objective 1-D of the housing element encouraging the development of year-round rental housing with annual leases for all income levels, and you seem to be implying that the county needs to make sure that there is still enough housing Page 55 May 4, 2006 that's for people of upper income. In my experience the people who have high incomes are very easily able to afford housing wherever they want to. It's the rest of us who can't afford housing. So I really disagree with your opinion that we have to worry about providing housing for persons of all income levels, not just low income persons. I don't think providing housing is a problem at all for people who are not low income. And by contrast, the only place where working people are going to be able to afford to live anymore is in Immokalee. And the final question that I have is you mentioned that the current county LDC requirements require only a commitment to keep it affordable for 15 years. But is this development governed by the current, or is it governed by what was in place when they agreed to go in? MS. DESELEM: Staff was just trying to make a comparison, like Mr. Brooker did, that if this were approved now as an affordable housing project, the requirement would only be to retain that affordability for a period of 15 years. This particular project has retained that affordability for 26 years. So if it had been approved under today's guidelines, it has more than met the requirement. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But which governs it, what went in at the time it was adopted or what -- MS. DESELEM: It was governed by what was in effect at the time. That's why they're in to amend it. We were just trying to make a companson. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's not what was governed, it is governed. MS. DESELEM: Yes. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Page 56 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi, Kay. When you and Mr. Bellows determined that this was a limited PUD amendment document, was any consideration given to the age of the structure? They are reaching their useful life, I would think, at 26 years, getting close. And also the expense associated with a redevelopment of such a thing, turning it over to a bunch of folks to have that issue. I'm just wondering, when you decide that this is limited to that, whether any of those components under those factors apply in this matter. Because basically we have somebody who has decided to acquire property, convert it and leave it to a bunch of folks who just bought it with this incredible potential for God knows, you know, what has to be done in the future. Is that part of your evaluation? MS. DESELEM: No, when we were evaluating how procedurally to treat this petition, we were looking at the issues as to whether there are any issues that need to be addressed as part of the amendment. For example, the extent of what development already has occurred on-site, and how much that would be altered by any changes that are proposed. And because no changes structurally are proposed, it didn't seem viable to make them go back through and change the PUD document, because they weren't going to change anything anyway. It had already been developed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I understand. Procedurally I think that's certainly a logical premise. But I looked at the buildings in my mind and I said to myself 26 years with -- I'm familiar with the property, and I know they were pretty beaten up, and I have no idea whether or not the developer has done anything to structurally modify them or what have you. And I'm just wondering about those folks who have acquired those condominiums and what their future will be. Okay. MS. DESELEM: I can state that there have been massive renovations on the site, and redevelopment of the site -- not Page 57 May 4, 2006 redevelopment, per se -- remodeling of the units that are on-site over the last year or so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, the meeting in question, was that a verbatim minutes that you read? MS. DESELEM: No, those were just the minutes that were provided by the clerk's office, and I doubt that they are verbatim. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when they were using the word moderate and then the PUD wound up with the word very low, do you think that meant that it was less than moderate, or you'd have no way of knowing that? MS. DESELEM: I really have no way of determining that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you tell me if -- in order to be a considered affordable housing in Collier County, do you have to be deed restricted for -- or do you have to be 15 years, is that the way the definition works, do you know? MS. DESELEM: We have several mechanisms to do it. Most of the proj ects that come in now that want to get bonus density by having affordable units, it is by deed restriction and the agreement that's signed with the county, the board, the County Commissioners and the petitioners, the property owner themselves. And that's handled in numerous fashions and then monitored by the housing people here in Collier County. But there are also other projects that we're seeing more and more that come in and just actually offer to provide housing of an affordable nature, but they're not seeking bonus density for it. So in those situations, it depends upon how the PUD document is worded to address that specific situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I notice Cormac was coming up, and maybe I could ask him, since he's involved with the affordable Page 58 May 4, 2006 housing. Just for clarification. MR. GIBLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, if someone comes in and either voluntarily offers to have affordable housing or we have an affordable housing agreement, how does this 15 years come into play? What does it -- how is it meaningful to the county in regards to the timing of that? And then have other projects in this county after 15 years transformed into something else? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. For the record, my name is Cormac Giblin, Housing and Grants Manager for Collier County. The current affordable housing density bonus program has a 15-year deed restriction that is contained in an affordable housing density bonus agreement, which is attached to each PUD as it's incorporated into the PUD itself. The 15 years is significant in that it sets out a specific period of time that those units that are designated as affordable housing are to be restricted in terms of their resale and any provisions that would be triggered by resale and it no longer being utilized as affordable housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the philosophy of the county that after 15 years through standard revolving of new projects coming in, more housing will be online to replace the developer who more or less has paid his penance to now see his property appreciate past the 15-year time frame? MR. GIBLIN: The 15-year time frame was set back in 1989 or 1990 when the density bonus program was enacted. There is some thinking out there that maybe 15 years is too short, or perhaps that the restrictions need to hold more teeth. As we've seen the escalating property values in Collier County, maybe 25 or 30 years is more appropriate, in exchange for those bonus density. As Kay mentioned, there are also other developments come in, Page 59 May 4, 2006 make affordable housing commitments that do not seek density bonuses as the current system allows, and those commitments are for the most part just contained in the PUD language itself as a developer commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, when a project gets benefits for affordable rental, at the end of 15 do they become free market units? MR. GIBLIN: For the most part any affordable rental development built today will also receive benefits from the state government to the low income housing tax credit program, which has a 50-year affordability period. But other -- absent any other layering of financing or incentives, it would be the 15 years that the county would hold them to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then at that point they're on their own, do what they want. MR. GIBLIN: They are. They are. This PUD is a little different, in my opinion, though, because it does state that, you know, the project will provide low cost rental housing. There is no time period. Anyone who bought a unit here or bought this piece of land sees that as the obj ect statement of compliance; number one, the property will provide low cost rental housing. There is no time period on that particular document right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other questions of staff? (N 0 response.) MS. DESELEM: If I may, I just wanted to augment the three items that Mr. Brooker stated that they would be doing: The exotic removal, the drainage easement and the oak trees to be planted on the Page 60 May 4, 2006 one boundary. I would ask that the limit be added to items two and three to state 90 days, that those things would be done within 90 days, which is consistent with the exotic removal time limit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay. Okay, Ray, are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant have any last comments? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like to ask the applicant one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray has a question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For the applicant, please. We spoke of children and families before. Just as curiosity, of the number of purchasers, how many of them have children who purchased the properties? MR. BROOKER: We don't have an exact number, but we do know that there are children. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have at least one family with children? MR. BROOKER: There's more than one family, because the school bus comes to the property to pick up the kids. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate that. MR. BROOKER: Unless that's a very, very large family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to move that we -- against the proposed amendment to the PUD on the grounds that it's against the housing element of our GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Midney, Page 61 May 4, 2006 seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Discussion. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I will support the motion, because I believe that these condos were converted and approved by the state as low cost rental apartments. And everyone who bought, bought under those parameters. And now it seems that the petitioner just wants all the benefits of the old PUD, because they don't want to change anything there. They want all the benefits of the old PUD without any of the commitments to the PUD. And the PUD's major commitment to Collier County, which they bring to us -- we didn't go out and say you must bring forward a PUD and it's got to have low cost rental housing in it. The petitioner originally came and said this is what I'm willing to do and this is what I'll do for my 16 units an acre. And I believe that everybody who has since purchased these condos is well aware of the parameters involved. So I'll support the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Kolflat and Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: First of all, at the time this condominium association was put together, there was no affordable housing. What they were doing was offering to tell people that these things would become -- that were usable and they would be inexpensive. Now we have sold 97 percent of these and these new owners now live in it. And now you're going to try to say that they're going to stop that and make it go to affordable housing again? That doesn't make any sense either. We've got a situation here where they had a right, there was no such thing as affordable housing when they got this together. And there was nothing in here that said that they were affordable housing by the rules under the law. It was a statement that was in there and the only thing they've asked to do was remove that statement. I don't think we have any choice but to go forward with Page 62 May 4, 2006 it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I would concur that the amendment is not necessary, per se, but it seems to me it is appropriate. 1980 original density allowance contained no limitation or requirement to any specific income group. In 26 years as rental uses certainly exceeds the time, 15 years, required for affordable housing density benefits that we have now. The proposed PUD is compatible with adjacent land uses. I would vote against this motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is much like a tsunami. The event is well on its way to conclusion. And irrespective of what we'd like to be the reality -- and I'm glad for the correction that I received with regard to the children, I was upset about that -- it seems the fact we cannot know in truth what it was in 1980. And we know today what is reasonable and realistic, and so I will have to vote in support of approval of this condominium change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Lindy, there really was not testimony that the people that are living in these units actually own these rental units. I mean, they have no information whether these are investors that bought these units and are subleasing them or that these really are the people who bought it who really do need the homesteading. And the children could be the children of people who are renting these units. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think the real issue and the real point is that when these apartments were sold as condominiums, they were sold to these people knowing that they would be rental apartments. There was no deception on the part of the applicant. That's the way they were sold. So everyone bought and understood what they Page 63 May 4, 2006 were buying when they bought. And I believe it should remain that. Because again, I'll say, you can't have all the benefits of the old PUD and take away the one aspect that you may find a negative, when you bought knowing full well that's what it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody seems to be concerned about affordable housing. One of the things we're trying to do is incentivize affordable housing with the development industry. And to do that, we keep telling them they have a 15-year time limit. This would set a very strong disincentive to the industry, to let them know that even after 15 -- after 25 years we don't want to let anybody change what we originally said would only be a 15-year effort. And for that matter, the largest development in Collier County that we recently approved to the east an entire new town that is supposedly putting up about 2,000 units on site of affordable housing was only deed restricted -- was only PUD restricted for two years for 1,000 of these units and five years for 700. So if we want to set an example on years that we should enforce affordable housing, we ought to do it with the new projects as well. And this one put in 25 years. So I definitely am not in support of this motion, and I think it would be a detriment to the affordable housing cause to penalize someone further after 25 years of providing this kind of service to the community . Unless there's anybody else, I believe that's -- I'm the last one to speak. With that, we'll call the motion. All those in favor of the motion to deny this request -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You are denying the request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a motion to deny this request. All those in favor of the motion, signify by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) Page 64 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three in favor. Motion fails. All those against the motion -- I should just for the record say that -- raise your hand. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion fails 5-3. Is there a new motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I moved that AR-7858 be approved to the Board of County Commissioners, recommending approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Murray. And I would assume with the staff recommendations and added stipulations that the drainage easement boundaries would be worked out prior to the BCC meeting and turned over within 90 days; that the landscaping along the north property line, the oaks will be put in at 30 foot on center, but staggered between the ones that are on the property line immediately to the north of that, and that the exotics will be removed within 90 days. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) Page 65 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five in favor. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three opposed. Motion carries. We will take a 15-minute break and be back here at 10:27. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if -- where's Ray? If Mr. Bellows is here, we can turn on the mic; otherwise, I will talk real loud. There, thank you, Richard. That may not necessarily help you today, but let's go forward anyway. Item #8E PETITION: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8918 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll reopen the planning commission meeting with Petition PUDZA-2005-AR-8918. It's the Elias Brothers Communities at Palermo Cove, represented by Wayne Arnold. And it's -- with that, we'll ask anybody wishing to testify on this particular petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that I see the second court reporter is active, that means Richard hired a court reporter today. Okay, now we understand who you're here for. Are there any disclosures on this particular hearing today? I think I had some brief conversations with either Richard or Page 66 May 4, 2006 Wayne. Yes, I had some yesterday with Wayne Arnold, I believe. We went over a couple issues that I will be rediscussing here today. I also received a staff packet with all kinds of information in it that is available for the public to review any time they'd like. Any other disclosure? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move into the applicant's presentation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are Gary Gasperini and Doug Nelson with Elias Brothers; Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, Wayne Jarvey with Vanasse and Daylor, and Mike Delotte (phonetic), also with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, if you have questions of them. On the visualizer is the location of the property. It's near the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard. It has access off -- it will have access off of Wolfe Road and Pristine Drive. The access off Pristine Drive actually connects to Vanderbilt Beach Road, and the access on Wolfe connects to Collier Boulevard. The property -- the request is to amend an existing PUD to add one permitted use, and that permitted use would be multi-family dwellings. The property is 131 acres. It's zoned for 524 units as it exists today. The way the PUD currently reads, the property will be accessed off of Pristine Drive, and there won't be any access onto Collier Boulevard until October 1, 2007, or the completion of Collier Boulevard, whichever occurs first. The PUD was probably the first PUD to address the full range of housing. We have a requirement to construct 10 percent of our units as gap housing. That definition has actually a lower definition than the county currently adopted. The county currently adopted a maximum Page 67 May 4, 2006 of 150 percent of median income. Our PUD currently provides it can't exceed 125 percent of median income. We're not asking for any changes to those provisions. We also addressed affordable housing by making a donation to the Empowerment Alliance, $250,000 donation to the Empowerment Alliance, which has already been paid, and we also donated land to Habitat for Humanity, which has already occurred. So as you can see, when the PUD went through the first time, it was probably the precursor to the PUDs that you're seeing now. We're not requesting any changes to the PUD master plan that was approved with your original PUD. Actually, we're not asking for any changes other than to bring it, the PUD, to more current standards, other than asking for one additional permitted use, which would be multi-family. At our neighborhood information meeting there were some residents from Indigo Lakes, as well as some residents from Summit Place. Some of the residents from Indigo Lakes asked us where the multi-family units would be located. We had told them at that meeting that we anticipated a certain location for the multi-family units. And we have addressed, through their representatives, a provision in our PUD that I'll read into the record to solidify the location of the multi-family. Also, there were some residents from Summit Place who their concern was not with the multi-family, it was per se with the height of multi-family. They preferred two stories versus three stories. So we have some proposed language to address that concern as well. So I'm going to read that language into the record. And I know your staffs comfortable with it, and I know the residents of Indigo Lakes are comfortable with that. Under the definition of multi-family, under the principal uses section of the PUD, it would read as follows: Multi-family dwellings. Multi-family dwellings, developed in accordance with standards in Page 68 May 4, 2006 table two, shall maintain a minimum 75-foot setback from the boundary of the Indigo Lakes PUD. In addition, no multi-family dwelling shall exceed a building height of two stories or 35 feet unless a minimum building setback of 200 feet is maintained from the boundary of the Indigo Lakes PUD and Summit Place in Naples PUD. Except as limited by this paragraph, multi-family dwelling units developed in accordance with Table 2 may be located throughout the project. So what does that mean? Essentially for our entire northern boundary of the property, you cannot have a structure greater than two -- a multi-family structure greater than two stories or 35 feet within 200 feet of the Summit Place project for the Indigo Lakes project. In addition, there's a minimum 75-foot setback for any multi-family units adjacent to Indigo Lakes. So we believe that addresses the concerns raised at our neighborhood information as they were reported to you in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, for clarification, this is only the boundary against Indigo Lakes that you're discussing here, or -- MR. Y A VONOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is this the entire 75 feet for the entire MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, the 75 feet is limited just to Indigo Lakes. The 200- foot requirement applies to Summit Place and Indigo Lakes. So there will be two-story buildings next to Summit Place, which Summit Place is two-story buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the 75 feet does not apply to Summit Place for a two-story building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it doesn't. There can be nothing greater than two stories next to Summit Place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How close will it be to Summit Place? In Indigo Lakes you're saying it will be set 75 feet back. Page 69 May 4, 2006 MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the multi-family. The multi-family exception applies -- the 75-foot setback for multi-family applies to Indigo Lakes only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you do multi-family along Summit Place, you'll put it as close as your PUD allows you to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which would be less than 75 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. And when we met with the residents at the neighborhood information meeting, multi-family was not an issue. It was the height. And that's what -- because they are essentially -- Summit Place is a townhome project. You have eight-unit buildings, they're two-story buildings. We're going to have eight-unit buildings at a maximum that will be two stories. So we're going to be similar to what Summit Place is. The concerns we had was with the third story -- we heard was a third story. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I still want to be clear on this, because on Page 6 of eight of the staff report, the commentary here is proposed three stories of 35 feet limitation, there was no exception provided in that commentary. And in your document, you -- I recorded the information, at least part of the information you referenced. But you are saying that there will be three stories and 45 feet at some locations? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, your staff report was incorrect in their summarizing the height for the three stories. Our development table has always said three stories not to exceed 45 feet. We're further limiting that for a portion of the project today to address concerns raised at the neighborhood information meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it is only because there have been no concerns were raised that you were going ahead with the larger -- and that was what was approved, the 45 feet; is that correct? Page 70 May 4, 2006 MR. YOV ANOVICH: When we did our neighborhood information meeting, we talked to the residents and we said we're asking for three stories not to exceed 45 feet. Some residents from Summit Place said we don't have an objection with multi-family, we don't think it should be three stories because we're only two-story structures, you'd be taller than us. And what we're saying, based on the language I'm proposing today, that a 200- foot depth from their boundary, we will not exceed two stories, okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So there will be structures in between there, and they will comply with or comport to the other adjacent properties. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Further south -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're going to do this; is that right? We're going to have a structure here, then you're going to build a taller structure deeper in; is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We could. We could. If you look up at the visualizer, what we're talking about is the portion to the east. That's what is adjacent to Summit Place. You see the cleared area? That's Summit Place. What we're saying is from any part of that boundary, we will be -- you will not have a building taller than 35 feet, closer than 200 feet to that boundary. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I understand that part of it now. And how about on the other location, there are not going to be any multi-families out there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you go up to the portion to the west, okay, there is a requirement that for the first 75 feet from that boundary we cannot have any multi-family structures at all. And then beyond that 75-foot area for a total of200 feet, we can't have anything greater than two stories. Page 71 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I thank you. It's now clearer to me and I appreciate it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the Indigo Lakes representatives are comfortable with the provisions that we're proposing. We've had no further contact with the Summit Place residents. Based upon what we heard at the meeting, we believe we've addressed that concern. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And this in no way changes density? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not asking for any changes to the density, we're not asking for any changes to any other provision of the PUD other than a -- adding a permitted use which would include multi-family. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the indulgence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I interrupted your presentation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's okay. I was done with the summary and we're available to answer any questions you may have regarding our request for revision of the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, in the accessory structures, you have a three-story, 45-feet height. Can we drop that down? Because I can't imagine what you would -- unless you're going to be doing some jumbo pool cages off of these multi-families. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What would you like to bring that height down to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to 35. I mean, I can't imagine -- you're not going to build a three-story parking garage. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this point? Page 72 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the version that I'm looking at -- and I wish we had these dated to show where -- what time we have. But sometimes I'll see two sets of PUDs, and it's very confusing. I'm supposed to be looking at the strike-out version, am I not? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And so in those cases where they've been stricken, these -- you're asking for an amendment only for the 45 feet, but I see a lot of strike-outs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And concurrency was one of those issues that was struck. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what happened was is, you know, there's a lot of redundancy in the PUD documents as to what our code provisions that are required anyway. What we tried to do was clean up and take out provisions that were already code requirements anyway so that we didn't have the redundancy between the PUD document and the codes. So that's why you'll see a majority of the changes were to bring this into the current format to avoid redundancy. We're subject to concurrency management. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. And I appreciate your commentary. And just for the record, Margie, you review these -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- the petitioners. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And we are trying to eliminate those redundancies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're cleaning the document up. And when we look at that, that's what we're seeing. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the contributions you're making Page 73 May 4, 2006 to these private nonprofit organizations, endowment agency and whatever that company is -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Empowerment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Habitat, are you expecting impact fee credits for those values? Should there be an affordable housing impact fee imposed or anything like that at the time of building permit? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You mean have it applied towards to the -- I would hope we would be like any other organization, it would be a credit against any amount adopted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, can you use impact fees for private contributions like this is being set up in our PUD? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't know. I would have to report back to you on that. I do not handle impact fees as a rule and I don't know. I don't want to mislead the commission. I'll be happy to check back on that. My initial thought would be no, but -- because it's private. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the Endowment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation or Habitat for Humanity under the auditing powers of Dwight Brock? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking is-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would suspect they are not, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we have had various applicants come before us and volunteer to contribute things to help the affordable housing cause. It was my understanding that the county attorney's office was going to work out a process where that money would go into a fund controlled by the county and used for affordable housing. I didn't see that here and that's what spurred my questions. So if you could get back -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The affordable housing items are a work in progress. You know, many of them, inclusionary zoning, ordinance -- I have not been working with those items, and Mr. Giblin Page 74 May 4, 2006 may wish to address it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason is this one's very specific. I've not seen anything like this in a PUD before. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I don't believe this -- isn't this the old language, Rich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, this is the old language. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: This is from the prior-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And there have been other PUDs that have said they're going to make donations to Habitat for Humanity -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: This is for the prior PUD, because we're only making some minor changes on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the first one I've read that I can recall, so anyway -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, obviously, Commissioner Strain, it's to the extent allowed by law. We made these commitments and we are -- we've already delivered the money, and it's already gone to good use in Immokalee and here in the urban area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure the record's straight. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one other question here. On your Roman six, numeral six, our PUD amend, it speaks to intermediate gap housing units. My question is really simple. It references -- and probably that was the number at that time, 125 percent. I believe it's 150 percent today. Should -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not asking for that. I mean, we're not asking you to give us any relief from what we agreed to because the rules have increased the percentage. We're staying with 125 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Now, if you want to make me do that, that would be okay. Page 75 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I ask the questions, I'll let Mr. Schiffer make that suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, thank you. I think that's all the questions for now. I guess the staff report will be next. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, my name is Mike DeRuntz. I'm a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning, Land Development Review. You have a copy of the staff report and the findings. Weare -- it has been found to be inconsistent (sic) with the growth management plan, and the staff is recommending approval. We have reviewed the recommended change to the definition of the multi-family dwellings as proposed in Section 3.3.A.3 of the PUD document, and we agree to that. And the change of the 35- foot for the accessory structure in the table. If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to try to address those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I note in the master plan document, and this was a subject of conversation earlier, that the Wolfe Creek PUD would have to grant rights to cross that property for that road. Do you know whether that's yet occurred, whether they have MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, it has. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- met that agreement? They have. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. In the area bordered by Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard and Immokalee there are, according to your report, about seven residential development units, plus two commercial areas. Of those residential ones, it's about Page 76 May 4, 2006 5,400 residential units, which would come to about 10,000 people. And the access to this property is primarily from Vanderbilt Beach Road via Pristine, and then also from Collier via Wolfe Road. And what is the transportation proj ection time-wise for those connecting links to Vanderbilt and Collier relative to the project time? MR. DeRUNTZ: I'd like transportation to address those. I know that they're working with the developers for Pristine and improvements on Vanderbilt. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning. Do you have a specific connection request? I can go over some of the connections that the different projects are using. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, the projects that I list -- or looked at that was in the report here were seven of them in that area encompassed by Immokalee Road, Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier to the west there. And that came to about 10,000 people using those arterial -- those large roads. The connections you've shown in the transportation impact statement is Pristine, I think is the name of it, that goes from Vanderbilt Beach Road north to this property, subj ect property. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And also from Wolfe Road over to the property. What I'm trying to ascertain is what is the time schedules for the road work in conjunction with the project work? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Pristine Road is being constructed by the developers right now. Vanderbilt is under construction. That tie-in is happening right now. The way it's set up is all development traffic would come down Pristine Road and access Vanderbilt Beach Road. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And that was all crafted in the study on the intersection between Vanderbilt Beach and Collier Boulevard? Page 77 May 4, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Up to the projects that have been submitted now. And as one of the other commissioners pointed out earlier, there's a difference between the PUD section and the SD P or development order section. As different proj ects come along, and something would need a warrant, for instance, a signal or additional turn lane, that's evaluated on a per project base. So right now they're accessing off Pristine down to Vanderbilt. And that intersection is evaluated each time a proj ect comes on. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Nick, don't go away, I didn't have my turn yet. Vanderbilt Beach Road. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it under construction? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When do you expect the road to be six lanes complete? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a tough question to answer. And if I was to put a date, I would say mid to end of next year, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And guess the next one I'm going to ask you about, Collier Boulevard, which is 951 in essence, it's two-Ianed right now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it funded? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's funded for. The project is funded, but it has not gone out for bid again. And we're anticipating -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it funded for the value of the bid that you -- is it funded for the value that you expect the bids to come in at? MR. CASALANGUIDA: There would be -- have to be a funding adjustment done if the bid comes in higher than we expect. Page 78 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And has that funding adjustment been requested? Has it been in the books? Is it in the system? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's funded. And if we have to make an adjustment -- MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. It's funded higher than it was previously with the bid. Is it funded high enough when the bid comes in? We'll find out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I expected you to say that. But at the same time, if it's funded higher than what's in the allowances, you have to go back and ask for more money; is that right? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they have to find the money to give you. MR. SCOTT: Yes. Or steal it from another project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, in your best case scenario, when do you think 951 would be open for business as six lanes? MR. SCOTT: Let me go through the thing. It's going out to bid again I think maybe later this month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the nearest decade. MR. SCOTT: Hold on, I'm thinking. I didn't bring my paper with me. It's April, 2009. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now I know what I need to ask the applicant. Appreciate it. Any other questions of transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick. Thank you, Don. Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Approximately four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get started. Each speaker will have to limit themselves to five minutes. And when you come to the podium, please try to speak slowly and state your name and address for the record. Thank you. Page 79 May 4, 2006 MR. BELLOWS: First speaker is Charles Maxfield, followed by James Schiavone. MR. MAXFIELD: Good morning. My name is Charles Maxfield, for the record. You have to excuse me. I'm here because I live in Indigo Lakes. It live less than 500 feet of this new project that's going in. A lot of things I don't understand about this. Originally they were looking for 534 homes, about six months ago. I turn around and they gave them, approved for single-family dwellings. Now they got the single-family dwellings, now they want to put in two stories and three-story dwellings. I mean, why does this thing end? These are one of the things I don't understand. It's single-family, now they want as high as three stories. Another thing I don't understand originally was they got 131 acres and they want to put down 534 homes originally on this 131 acres. How much of this is for the roadway, how much is it for grain areas? We know nothing. We live right, as I say, Indigo Lakes, right next door -- or I live in Island Walk. And we're not getting no information or feedback on this thing. And, you know, they approved the first 534, and now they're not happy with that, now they want to go higher and higher in density. And for that small area, there's over 2,000 people, just two families -- two people to a family. Getting out, the traffic on Vanderbilt is going to be horrendous. Because I come out this morning and I come over here, and they haven't even developed, you know, Vanderbilt yet. I mean, it's -- where are these cars, emergency trucks got to get in there, fire department? How big are the streets going to be? They all seem to be at the end of a cul-de-sac. Well, a fire truck can't get around some of them cul-de-sacs. So there's just a lot of questions that need to be answered. The attorney, I guess he said the people in Island Walk are -- Page 80 May 4, 2006 everything's okay with them. It's not okay. It's not okay. The people aren't happy. So I think there's a lot of questions that need to be asked and a lot of answers that need to be given about what they're actually going to do. You know, like I say, they went in for 534 and now they're up to triple. So that's all I really got to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And sir, just to clarify some of your concerns or respond to you, the package that we have in front of us provides a lot of information that you just asked about. It is available from the county staff. You can call the Collier County planner, Michael DeRuntz, at Collier County. You can get that information. Ray, could you tell us Michael's number for the record? MR. DeRUNTZ: It's 403-2416. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And sir, that will give you a package of information. So if you want to look at the issues that bother you the most and discuss those in front of the next public hearing, you'll have an opportunity to focus on the issues based on that information in the package. MR. MAXFIELD: You know, this area that's planned for development. I mean, it's unbelievable the amount of homes and the amount of people. This is what creates ghettos, packing people into these little small areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other thing I wanted to mention to you, they're not increasing density that I recall. This is strictly the density they've already got approved. They're just changing -- they're attempting to change the height of some of the buildings. It will not increase the number of bodies in the facility. The number of houses will not increase, just the height of some of them. MR. MAXFIELD: So originally 534 homes. Now they want to double that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Page 81 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 524. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir, they're not. They're staying with the density they originally got approved for. MR. MAXFIELD: 534. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the number. COMMISSIONER CARON: 524. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 524. MR. MAXFIELD: 524. And that's all you're going to have, 524 units? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. That's why I wanted to clarify, so that -- MR. MAXFIELD: Well, maybe -- you know, I haven't got much information on this, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you call Mr. DeRuntz, I'm sure he'll cooperate with you and get you a package. MR. MAXFIELD: I'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: James Schiavone, followed by Barbara Galasso. MR. SCHIAVONE: First I want to say good morning to the commission. I know you had a hard time coming up with a lot of decisions. It's not easy. But I've been here about 56 years in Florida, and I came here when I was about nine years old. And I've seen changes from Dade County, Broward to West Palm. And I came here in the Nineties, and I thought this was like a Utopia. Collier, beautiful, no traffic. It was absolutely out of sight. I just came here by motorcycle and it took me about a good 46 minutes. And that's without the snow birds. They all went back home -- we still have a few more to go back home. When will it ever end? I'm here to ask the commission, maybe you guys should put an Page 82 May 4, 2006 moratorium on building. It has to come to that. We are going to look like Dade County . We're going to start looking like Broward. We don't have the highways to accept all this traffic. It's getting worse and worse. Just for example, I would like to invite everybody to come to my lanai to look at the birds and the deer and everything else that runs around in the preserve. We're not going to have that if we allow these people to build. And like most builders -- because my families are builders also, they're in construction. You give them an inch, they take a mile. My families did the same thing. It's never going to stop, because that's human nature. It has to stop somewhere along the line. Now, where are we going to make provisions for the school teachers, policemen, firemen, and even the people in public service? We have no place for them to stay here. I came here when it was cheap. If I had to buy a place now, because I'm on a fixed income. I'm on Social Security; I'm 65 years old. And I could never afford a place here. The commission has to get themselves together. You guys have to stop this building. We're going to lose Collier County. It's going to become congested, more and more like Dade and Broward. I don't have much more to say. I want to thank you for listening to me anyway. And I hope maybe somewhere along the line we can stop this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In response, sir, just to let you know, today's meeting is not about whether or not this project can be built or not, it's just the height. Because they've already proved they could have not come in here today and gone ahead with 524 units. So I just wanted you to be aware of that. We're not -- MR. SCHIAVONE: All right, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. MS. GALASSO: Hi, my name is Barbara Galasso. Page 83 May 4, 2006 Let me ask you a question: If they have three stories, does that mean they're going to have three -- stacks of three condos? Or are they just enlarging these units so that each unit is going to have more square footage? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, by multi-family I believe they could put separate units on every floor. So they could have three stories of -- MS. GALASSO: Six months ago I was under the understanding when I was here that it was going to be single-family homes that would possibly be two stories. Now we're having multi-families and it's getting higher and higher. It takes on average, and during rush hour, anytime from five to 12 minutes to make a left turn out of Summit Place. We have so many families coming in. My terror is my daughter, who is 14 starting to drive in two or three years, I don't know if they've changed that to 17, I am praying they did. Please, I'm afraid to leave. I grew up in New York City, I learned to drive with taxi cab drivers. I'm terrified to pull out and make a left out of my community. They're going 55 miles an hour, it is two lanes. Six months ago when this started, they were told they could not sell -- they could sell the units but could not start building these single-family homes until the roads were done. That's Vanderbilt, 951 and Immokalee. I don't believe you can convince me that Immokalee and Vanderbilt are going to be done by the time they start moving into these homes. 951, I don't know if they think the price is going to get cheaper since they canceled it because it was too expensive. I think it's going to be more. And now they don't have funding for that and they don't know what the bids are going to be. So this is going to take a long time. You know, no one has any answers. They just sit here and laugh and smile and think it's funny that, well, we can guess. This is getting insane. We have Crystal Lakes, Vanderbilt Page 84 May 4, 2006 Country Club, Brittany Bay, Indigo and Summit that are on the street right now. Coming is Waterway Village at the top. This is on 951. Tuscany Cove is filling up. Bristol Pines, which is a Waterways project, they're in the middle of building and they'll probably start moving in pretty soon. Warm Springs, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it's not -- you know, it's probably going to be more building. I don't know what it is. Palmaro. Wolfe Creek is huge, huge. They've got property all over the place, if you look at the thing. There's a business park there. Bucks Run, I don't even know what that is. Then we have on Immokalee Road right up the street is Heritage Bay and Mirasol. You cannot get out of those roads. There are no sidewalks. Our children cannot walk down to the McDonald's because it's too dangerous. Some kid lost two legs; he was hit by a dump truck. If these builders insist on coming in -- and I know you can't stop them, you already gave them permission to build. You can't stop them because the roads aren't done, yes. Well, you know what? I think they should be made to be responsible to make it safe for us to drive and our children to drive. Let them put lights up. Summit Place is in the middle, it is dead center in the middle between Vanderbilt and Immokalee Road. Put a light up so we can get out and we can make it safe for our kids to drive. I am terrified. I mean, how am I going to tell my daughter I won't let her drive because it's not safe? Because I'm terrified to pull out. Cars do not let you go, they do not stop for you. On occasion when they're slowed down to 10 miles an hour when there's so much traffic during rush hour, someone may let you go and make a right turn. Right turns. You can't even go out and make a right turn. No one is looking at this. Our schools are going to be over crowded when all these are full. There's not another high school coming in till 2010. And things are just getting crazy. I mean, it's getting scary. Page 85 May 4, 2006 And the kids have no place to go. They can't walk anywhere because it's not safe. There's no sidewalks there. And these builders need to take care of this before they go on. Elias Brothers is making a fortune up at Tuscany Cove. They just built that, now they're building this. They need to be responsible for making it safe for us to drive and safe for our kids. Ifwe can't widen the roads, then please, put in some lights to make it safe. This is not right. And I just think, you know, they keep adding and adding. I was under the impression it was a one-story, possibly villas, attached villas. This is six months ago. And possibly some of the single-family homes would be a two-story. That's what I was under the impression. Now they're two and three-story condos. That's a lot of people. A whole lot of people. And it's just -- it's getting scary. And I'm worried about the kids. We've had -- we had a major accident down by Sweet Bay in March, I believe. I believe it was a fatal accident. I was out of town but I had heard. And now they've got cones up so you can't make a left turn there. So to go to Sweet Bay I have to go south, go into Sweet Bay and go even more south out Vanderbilt and come all the way around again. There's no left turns there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. GALASSO: I mean, this is crazy. This is crazy. The building is going way too fast. When I said in the fall to one of the lawyers for Elias Brothers, I said there's no way these roads are going to be finished. He said, oh, yeah -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up, ma'am. MS. GALASSO: Okay. I just think if you are going to allow them to build, you need to allow them to make it safe for us to drive, and our kids. We have over 60 kids in Summit now. There's going to be another 60 when they put in the other 200 units. And a lot of these Page 86 May 4, 2006 are going to be drivers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just to let you know, this commission did hear this project when it came before us a year or so ago. If I remember correctly, the stipulation was that the homes would not be allowed COs until the roads were improved. And at that time, they were tied to a date. MS. PASSIFUMA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What has happened, as you have eluded to, is that date didn't hold. Transportation was not able to award the contract. This commission unfortunately banked on something we thought was a given and it turned out not to be. And so we're -- unfortunately that event has occurred. We now have to deal with it the best we can. MS. GALASSO: Right. But they should be responsible for making it safe for our kids to be able to drive these roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I thank you. I'll take that into consideration. Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker, James Ray. MR. RAY: Thank you, Commission. I'm here as the duly elected representative of Indigo Lakes master association. I'm here representing about 432 units that we have in our development. We held our monthly meeting on April 27th where we had residents that attended our meeting and expressed their concerns regarding this development. Through good faith negotiation through our counsel at Roetzel and Andress, they spoke with the developer and their counsel and came to the agreed upon language that was submitted to you and read into the record this morning. I'm here to represent to you that the board, again as the duly elected representatives of that community, are in full agreement with the language that was recommended, and we approved that language Page 87 May 4, 2006 at a 5-0 unanimous vote. So we are satisfied with the language as it's read, and as far as the totality of our community is concerned. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, Richard, do you have any closing comments? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just in general. It seemed like most of the comments really dealt with density, and that issue's really been resolved and has been addressed and we're not asking for any changes to that. So with that, I'm assuming -- I'm fairly certain there's going to be some additional questions. We're available to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, once again, let's go with the setbacks of the neighboring property. Essentially the PUD boundary line. Could you go over that again? I mean, it's not in our packet. You read it in. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. Could we go back to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you were trying to say something? MR. BELLOWS: The lady here misunderstood and did not hand in her form. She would like to speak, if you would grant it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you want to let her entertain her discussion before or after? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let her go and speak. I mean, there may be something I want to respond -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're here to listen to everyone, so ma'am, please proceed. MS. PASSAFUIMI: Hi. My name is Mary Ann Passafuimi. I live at Summit Place. I was originally going to talk about the three-story condos going up, but apparently that has been changed and we were not made aware of that. Page 88 May 4, 2006 It was mentioned that one of the developments had legal representation. Summit Place does not have any legal representation. That's why they did not hear from us, other than the meeting that they held on April 4th, 2006 for homeowners. With the changes that you guys made, does that mean you will not be constructing any -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you're going to have to direct your -- MS. PASSAFUIMI: Does that mean you will not be constructing any three-story buildings on that site? And then the setback, do I understand it correctly that it will be 200 feet from my home where I'm located in Summit Place on the preserve? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We questioned the applicant a little while ago on this, and my understanding of what he was trying to present was that for the first 200 feet from your property line back, the setbacks that's in the PUD will apply to the two-story structures that -- one or two-story structures they could build there. But they wouldn't have any three-story structures for at least 200 feet from your property line. MS. PASSAFUIMI: From my property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the property line of Summit Place. MS. PASSAFUIMI: At Summit Place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we can get further clarification in the applicant's rebuttal, but that's the understanding that I heard. MS. PASSAFUIMI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I believe her comments are actually germane to what Mr. Schiffer just asked. If we look up on the visualizer, again, Summit Place is the portion of the project, the eastern portion of our project just below the cleared area. And what we've agreed to is that there we will be nothing, no Page 89 May 4, 2006 buildings taller than 35 feet within 200 feet of the joint property line between Summit Place and our project. So nothing will be taller than two stories or 35 feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could you identify that on the overhead? MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is Summit Place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need that speaker, Rich, unfortunately. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is Summit Place right here. This is the eastern portion of our project. We will-- this boundary line right here, there will be no building will be taller than two stories, not to exceed 35 feet for a distance of 200 feet. Okay? And that also applies to this boundary as well. Okay? So that's where the -- nothing will be greater than two stories. Which is exactly what Summit Place is, is two stories. They're two-story townhomes. So that's -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me talk further then. So the boundary along Wolfe Creek, which all these other boundaries you showed actually have preserves that would set these back that far anyway. The boundary along Wolfe Creek you show right up against that property line. So essentially a 45-foot tall building could be built 20 feet off of that boundary line. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is a theoretical possibility, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason Wolfe Creek PUD isn't concerned is that they don't exist yet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, they're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aren't you part owner of Wolfe Creek? If I'm not mistaken, don't you have some tie-in to Wolfe Creek? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have a very small interest in Wolfe Creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think Wolf Creek is being Page 90 May 4, 2006 represented by the owners, at least. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not sure -- I want to make sure it's well represented, because I don't think that's a good condition that you would have a tall building right up against the property line. If there's an accessory structure on that, it could be five feet off that property line. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the -- look, this was done in the sunshine, the public knows what's going on, the developers of Wolfe Creek have not raised any objection to the development standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is for the future owners of Wolfe Creek. Maybe see what they would want. I mean, I have a concern that it's too close. Is it the intent, do you think -- you have a lot of other options to build, and I don't think you're going to turn the whole project multi-family. Could you limit or add some setbacks to that property I. ? Ine, too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. DeRuntz has told me that in the Wolfe Creek PUD we could go to three stories not to exceed 45 feet. So in a sense we're not asking for anything different than we've already -- Elias Brothers is not asking for anything different than Wolfe Creek already has within its PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're testifying that that's the case. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm testifying to what Mr. -- if you want to bring Mr. DeRuntz up, I don't have that PUD in front of me, but that's what he just -- he told me. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Planning. In my research and looking at the Wolfe Creek PUD, it was identified that they can go to three stories and 45 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In their exhibit of the site plan, do they show residential use right up against that property line? That mean no -- Page 91 May 4, 2006 MR. DeRUNTZ: I'm not sure where their preserve is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you can't testify that they could build 20 feet off that property line, a 45- foot high -- or 15 feet like we can -- a 45- foot high building. MR. DeRUNTZ: I can't testify where it -- what the master plan for Wolfe Creek is at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the -- well MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, it actually says 42 feet, not 45 feet. Three stories not to exceed 42 feet. And the setback from the PUD boundary is 20 feet in the Wolfe Creek PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So does the Wolfe Creek PUD document have an exhibit showing the site plan? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know I always get it wrong when I put it on there, so -- that shows all residential in that area, you know, and obviously it doesn't -- we don't identify multi-family versus single- family tracts. So it's -- potentially you could have 45- foot structures next to 42- foot structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you have 15 feet. Would you mind changing -- or having 25 feet to the PUD boundary? I don't think that will hurt you anywhere. MR. YOV ANOVICH: For the three-story multi-family, 25 feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, that's all. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So the other two-story could be 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would be fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mike just asked me to repeat that. My understanding is, is that for three-story structures, the setback has to be 25 feet from the PUD boundary. For two-story structures the Page 92 May 4, 2006 setback stays as currently written. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. It's only the height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you expecting now, as of September 6th of '06, 20 units per acre? As of September 6th of '06, are you expecting 20 units per month through September 30th of '07? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what the current PUD document provides, yes. I mean, I will tell you from a practical matter that I don't think it's going to happen because of where we are in permitting, but that's what the PUD will allow. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Even ifit was permitted, what are you going to do with the cars on the road? Let them pile up there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, first of all, let's not forget, we are still subject to concurrency management. Okay? Everyone wants to seem to forget that we -- we are subj ect to concurrency management. So if there's not capacity on the road, then we will not be able to build. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you, that's what I wanted you to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, when you say if there's not capacity on the road you're not going to be able to build, not capacity when? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not capacity based on the concurrency management system in effect in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah. Which means if it's planned to be built within the next three years or five years, then as far as transportation is concerned there's capacity, so it's okay to go forward. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think that's what the concurrency management system says. I believe it says within two years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't care if it's within two months. Right now the capacity is not there and it won't be there in Page 93 May 4, 2006 September of 2006 is what my point is. Could transportation comment on when -- how this reads, concurrency application of this project in regards to 951? Don, I know Vanderbilt's under construction, funded, we know 951 is not. So under concurrency requirements, even though 951 I believe right now is operating on level of service F -- MR. SCOTT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when could he theoretically start or actually C.O. units? Ifhe had some ready to go today, could he C.O. today? MR. SCOTT: Based on current rules before the EAR changes, he could go today. Based on EAR changes and we don't have an approved contract, he wouldn't be able to go. So, you know, four, five months ago from now we'll know that portion of it. Now, say everything happens like I just said, it will go, we get a bid, they accept the bid, it gets under contract, then he would be able to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In regards to the EAR changes. MR. SCOTT: Right. Now, following the stipulations that are listed there, based on previous assumptions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Don. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I would add, there's a provision that prohibits us for a year until October of 2007 from interconnecting on a project onto 951. So I think the assurances are there. Remember, our traffic has to go to Vanderbilt Beach Road, which is under construction, and we have a year before we can put any trips onto 951 unless it's either completed, or October of 2007. So I think the timing is going to be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my question, Richard, is we just heard testimony today that 951 most likely will not be available and completed until 2009. Do you have any objections to not using 951 Page 94 May 4, 2006 until 2009? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I was not -- honestly, I don't know why you would want to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, because that lady said she cringes every time she tries to make a left onto 951 off of Summit Place. I do too when she does that, because I'm driving north, and it's a disaster. And that whole corridor is a disaster. And so I don't think we need any more traffic on 951 until that road is completed. And I don't see the need to approve any changes until that time, especially one that's going to increase your absorption rates and put you on the road sooner than later. MR. YOV ANOVICH: All right. So you -- let me make sure I understand this correctly . We can't have our interconnection onto 951 until the road's completed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be my -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what you're asking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my request, yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can you give me one second? It's a pretty big commitment. From a general concept, I don't think we have an issue. The only issue we might have is if the county wants us to have an emergency access point for fire trucks or something like that to get to the site. We'd like to leave that open as a possibility. But for general use by our development, we don't have a problem with that commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? I'd like to get his comments. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I just want to make sure we don't prohibit that fire access road that they've agreed to build from the fire station down to Wolfe Road. As part of the second milestone of the 951 project, Wolfe Road is to be constructed for a certain portion of it. So from this meeting to the board meeting, we're trying to figure out the timing of that fire station access road, so I wouldn't want this board to prohibit anything that would allow us to do that.i Page 95 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, how would we control the use ofa road to be strictly for fire access until 951 is open? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Either a gate, or you could put control structures on that portion of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When will Vanderbilt Beach Road be completed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Middle to end of2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Middle to the end of2007. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't -- you asked me for a date, and I think cautiously -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard -- thank you. My next question would be Richard, do you have any problem with holding up any CO's until the end of 2007? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, we have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any even though the road's not completed, you're going to concentrate your density on Vanderbilt Beach Road, in the two-lane under construction conditions, and no, and that's a good thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right now the commitment you've gotten -- under today's PUD document, October 1, 2007, we can fully complete our development and throw our traffic onto 951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Today we've agreed that we're going to just limit our traffic to Vanderbilt Beach Road till 2009, which is a two-year extension from what the PUD says already. So we cannot further agree to a condition that would say we have no COs until the end of 2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When is your first CO expected? Have you gotten your permits to clear? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're still working on trying to get our core permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When did you start? MR. YOV ANOVICH: About two years ago. So we should be Page 96 May 4, 2006 close. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you started Collier County permitting? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: PPL? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's going to be a condo, so you're looking at SDP's on some of the parcels. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And some plats on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you already in for your final plat? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Y es,we're in for our final plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any SDP submitted? MR. YOV ANOVICH: One SDP has been submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you have building permit, then you've got to go into construction. So you're going to be into 2006 (sic) probably before you get much out of that project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2007, I'm sorry. So you're going to be pretty close to when Vanderbilt Beach Road's going to be completed anyway. I'll slow down. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-8918 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation of approval, subject to staff recommendations, and the stipulations that were made here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to go into discussion. We'll Page 97 May 4, 2006 clean it up in discussion. There was a motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Now, we'll go into discussion on stipulations and other discussion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me add in two stipulations. One is on table two, and that is to change the maximum building height not to exceed to be two stories and 35 feet for accessory structures. And then the other one I think would be best covered by adding a parenthesis eight, a footnote eight up in multi-family dwellings and state that no three-story buildings within 25 feet of the PUD boundary. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's all the way around. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it's well less than what they've requested. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and then the other stipulations, you have already read into the record, that you're going to have a 75- foot setback from the boundary along Indigo Lakes, and that you're going to have a 200- foot setback for three-story structures from the Summit Place boundaries, in essence. The language that you provided, I'm assuming you have a written copy you can give to staff? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We already have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and you've read it into the record? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I read it into the record verbatim. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're trying to get a synopsis of that. And the last thing that we're talking about is you've agreed that there will be no vehicle entry onto 951 until 951 is completed, with the exception of a gated emergency access entry only. Page 98 May 4, 2006 MR. yaV ANaVICH: What did you -- '09, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. yaV ANaVICH: Did you say completed or '09? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Completed. It doesn't do any good if'09 isn't hit. 951 is a disaster and it's going to stay that way until it's CO'd. Till 951 is completed. MR. yaV ANOVICH: Are you -- is that going to preclude a construction vehicle access as well, or just being used for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Construction vehicles are probably one of the more hazards than the residents. I can't see any use except for emergency vehicles. That's what we discussed during the presentation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, right now Wolfe Road's being used as a construction access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a mistake. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, no, not for us, other projects. And also now you're forcing all the construction traffic through the intersection and to competing with the Wolfe Creek residents on Pristine. So I thought -- I mean, you're essentially saying all those fuel trucks and construction vehicles that are on 951 anyway are now going to have to go through the intersection, versus being cut off and going on Wolfe Road for construction? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the ones going north on 951, when they stop and make a left turn on Wolfe Road, it backs up traffic for all kinds of distances. So I don't see how that's helping anybody to do that. You've got construction coming in going south making a right, how are you going to control that, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: How am I going to control what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the construction and not residences. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we do it now. I mean, developers do it now with -- you know, using construction entrances versus residential entrances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have a manned gate May 4, 2006 there then to make sure it's just construction personnel coming in going south only at 9 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will police that activity to make sure that it's only construction traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just can't -- I don't know how you're going to -- the construction traffic is one of the more serious elements on that two-lane section of951. The road is all torn up. The road's bumpy as ever. And trying to have people stop every few feet to make a left turn, whether it be Summit House or the nursery -- the nursery's a real problem. We've got how many landscape companies line 951, they're going in and out of there constantly. I was stuck behind them again this morning. It doesn't make any sense. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, they're going away, as you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're not going away before the road is six-Ianed, unfortunately. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Strain, what we're saying is we think it's -- you know, we have no problem saying using it for our residences. We would like to use it as construction access. We think it makes good sense to not make these trucks go through the intersection and further travel on 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, just for your information, Richard, I cannot buy into that and I certainly can't support a motion of approval, but you might still win. Are there any other -- Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. If our bid goes through, you'll have county construction vehicles going down there, and it might be difficult to discriminate between the two. So that might be an issue as well for the commission to understand or take into account. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nick, I don't want to encourage any more traffic on 951. You promised -- not you, but transportation told us a year ago that this thing would be done and open in '07. You're two years off. I cannot live on anymore -- nobody should have Page 100 May 4, 2006 to live through what's going up there right now on this road system. So, I mean, so I don't think it was too much to ask. Anyway, I'm done with my discussion. Anybody else have discussion? I will not be supporting the motion. Okay, with that we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion or the approval with the stipulations as stated and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just confused on the stipulation regarding traffic on 951. We said our residential traffic can't use 951. Is that what's being moved on, or is something different being moved on? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you left on the table that you'd have a gated access for emergency vehicles only, then you threw in construction vehicles. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the only ones that aren't going to be able to use it are your residences, who probably aren't going to be there anyway for a long time, so I'm not sure that really helps a lot. But anyway -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The original discussion was for emergency vehicles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The original discussion was residential, we would not have our residential people use it. And we talked about emergencIes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you said the only thing you needed was for emergency. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And my client said to me, Rich, we're using it now as a construction access. And I got up here and said we're using it as construction. So I'm just trying to clarify that and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's a good time to stop using it for construction is right now until the road gets approved. Page 101 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but I need the clarification as to what the motion is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, the motion is recommended for approval with all the stipulations, including the applicant's -- well, I'll tell you, I would like the first and the second to consider a stipulation that 951 's access be used only for emergency vehicles and it be gated and no one else, period. And lacking that, the applicant has offered to gate it for construction vehicles and emergency vehicles only, but the only people that couldn't use it are residents. So -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One and two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- my request for stipulation is to keep the construction vehicles off of 951 until its CO'd as well. If the first and second don't want to accept that stipulation, then you have a choice to accept the applicant's, if you so desire. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein's motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think I could accept it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The gated community. And the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With or without the construction vehicles? One stipulation would include -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Without. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the access for construction, the other one without -- without, okay. Motion maker accepts the stipulation that the gated access to 951 will only be used for emergency vehicles, not for construction vehicles that the applicant had indicated. Mr. Vigliotti, you're the second, do you second that motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I'm going to have to second that motion. Page 102 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion is still made and seconded with the stipulations we discussed. If there's nothing else -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment that I realized -- there is no answer to the current problem. You can try to make it less of an impact with these trucks and all the rest of it, but I do think that bringing the vehicles up to a corner where there's an intersection and then creating that condition will make it worse in other ways. So I can't support that part of that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just have a question. They've just asked -- they're not increasing the density, they're just allowing multi-family housing to be able to make it somewhat slightly more affordable. Do we have the right to go in and ask for a change in transportation, given what they're asking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess Ms. Student can answer that. The change in use will increase their absortion rates, which will have an impacts on transportation. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think this is being characterized as a PUD to PUD rezone. And it sounds like, too, the conditions have changed since the original PUD was approved concerning when the road was going to be completed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So we do have the right to open this up? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think that is an issue, and I think it's within your ability to address. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, is there a way we could limit the northbound traffic from turning in? That would remove the concept of these trucks having to go further into the intersection southbound to pull right in northbound and -- Page 103 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there was an effective way of doing it, I would be all for it. Maybe transportation, is there any kind of -- and Nick or Don, if one of you could come back up here again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All you'd have to do is put a sign . h? up, ng t. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there is a left turn lane at that intersection. Is there some way we could eliminate left turns into this access point off of the current 951? MR. SCOTT: We could put something up there now. The problem is that right-of-way will be the contractor's right-of-way when they do it. And I don't know how -- you know, their maintenance of traffic and how they're going to switch traffic. Through that whole process it might be problematic to put something in there, you know, through the whole construction job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just drove -- U.S. 41 was just widened through Bonita, and I drove it many times. And the way they kept people from making left turn lanes into places they used to make them in is simply not do the left turn lane right away. It worked out pretty good. Otherwise, you drop off -- MR. SCOTT: Yeah, except they might do something where you have the existing lanes now, build new lanes next to it. Then you'd have two lanes that are light near future lanes that might not have turn lanes into it. Could we put some kind of cones down the middle? Possibly. I don't know how wide the lanes are going to be as part of the construction job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even during construction, if this was left open to construction traffic and it was just strictly two lanes construction road, even then it would have to be -- they'd be using it as a construction access point, so that would even foul it up even more, Page 104 May 4, 2006 or two more years during construction. I don't think there's a way that I can see that transportation can help us, Brad. Okay, with that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the motion again, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion is recommendation of approval with the stipulations that the applicant has proposed that staff has a written copy of, they read them to us, with your stipulations for the table changes that you motioned, plus that there be a gated access to 951 for emergency vehicles only, until 951 is CO'd. And with that, I'll call for the vote by raise of hands. All those in favor of the motion as stated and stipulated, please signify by raising your hands. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven in favor. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. 7-1, motion carries. Thank you. Gentlemen, we have two more projects coming up. We've got a choice of starting one for 10 or 15 minutes and then breaking, or breaking now and coming back at 12:30. What's the feelings of the board? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we will break for lunch, we will be back here at 12:30 to finish the day. Thank you. Page 105 May 4, 2006 (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're running a little bit behind time, by a minute. Can't blame it on the roads for this one. Item #8F PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8126 So we will continue with the planning commission hearing on petition PUDZ-2005-AR-8126, Rock Creek Holdings, LLC, also known as Meridian Village. Those wishing to testify on this particular proj ect, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there disclosures on the part of the planning commission? Mr. Kolf1at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I had a conversation with Ted Soliday from the airport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? I had a conversation with Mr. Anderson. I think this is the one he represents. Yep, there you are, Bruce. He asked me -- he wanted to know if I had any tabs on the project and I said well, I used up two packages. So we will certainly converse about that today. And I also received a package from staff full of all kinds of things, and it's available for anytime anybody wants to review it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me too on that. Except for the conversations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Soliday, I talked to him regarding the airport authority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's Mr. Soliday. S-O-L-I-D-A- Y. Page 106 May 4, 2006 Okay, with that, Bruce, it's all yours. MR. TYSON: Thank you very much. My name is Bruce Tyson. I'm a certified planner and landscape architect with Wilson-Miller, here in Naples. With us today is Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress. And we are representing International Investments, the applicant for this proj ect. And they are represented by Mike Metcalf. We also have our lead transportation planner, Jeff Perry, and our planner in our office, Brooke Gabrielsen. I'll come back to the other plan in just a second, but let me -- can we pull that out just a little bit, Ray? Just to kind of give you an overview as to where this project is. Meridian Village is a proposed 11.68-acre project. And I'll just try to highlight a couple of things here to help you get oriented for where this is. The main roadways you're looking at are Airport Road, which is right up and down the center here, center, meaning the north-south roadway. We have Radio Road. Obviously we have the Airport. We have Davis Boulevard. And then we have the East Trail. We are right now at the government center, which is just a little bit off of this picture. And if I move it up slightly, we are right here. And then I'll pull it back down. One of the interesting things about this project, of course, is that it is well served by some of the major roadways that we have right here in the -- right in this immediate vicinity. The other thing too that I want you to notice is that where this property is located is a mile and a half to a major employment center that the county has, which is right up here at Horseshoe Drive. And also back down here is about a mile again to where we are at the government center. So from that standpoint, it is incredibly conveniently located between these two locations. The other thing, too, is that directly across the intersection from Page 107 May 4, 2006 this on the southeast quadrant of the Estey I Airport roadway, it winds up being immediately -- or right at that location is the C.A.T. transfer station. And right now C.A. T. has nine bus routes that typically run out of that location. So again, it's very conveniently located to those points. To the north, the proj ect is bounded by Rock Creek, and the Rock Creek resort. To the east it is by Airport Road and a number of C-4 uses that are directly across the street. To the south is Estey Avenue and the Salvation Army PUD and a used car sales facility. And then to the west by single-family and multi-family residential dwellings. The other interesting thing about the project is its proximity to the existing schools. It's about three quarters of a mile walk to the Shadowlawn Elementary School. It's about a quarter of a mile to the Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology. And it's about a half mile walk, if you were to go over to the East Naples Middle School. Simply stated, what we are proposing is an excellent residential infill property with an exceptional location. Ray, if we could go to this map then, please. A little bit about the property itself is that it is now again -- north now is being -- is straight up. Estey to the south. Airport to the east or to the right. The property is divided by two zoning districts currently. 4.98 acres of it is in C-4. And the balance, or 6.7 acres, is in RMF-6. So the C-4 is directly to the east. And next to -- of the property, on the east side of the property, the RMF -6 on the west side. The petition requests an overall unit count of 120 multi-family residential dwelling units, and that has been found to be consistent with the growth management plan by the county staff. The density is derived by using the conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning at a rate of 16 units per acre, and that yields 80 units. And then adding to that, the 6.7 acres of RMF -6 land at six units per acre yields 40 units. And the 120 units, the Page 108 May 4, 2006 combination of those, create an overall density of 10.27 units per acre. Now, in addition, the project will have an affordable housing component that is comprised of 15 percent workforce housing which will be provided at a rate of 80 percent of median income, along with five percent of gap housing at 150 percent of the median income. So the project is not requesting an affordable housing bonus. The applicant has simply only requested the expedited review process with county staff. The affordable housing units will be embedded within the multi-family dwellings and, therefore, I think from that standpoint it will wind up being a far better project. As it's not exclusionary in one way or another, it winds up being totally integrated into the entire development. The fact that 20 percent of the units will be affordable, and given the project's unique location with regard to the employment centers, the schools, the transportation networks and convenience shopping is exactly what's needed in this location. Interestingly, the recent articles in the Naples Daily News may have pointed out the issues surrounding Collier County's housing situation. One of the more interesting statistics that was highlighted in the chart indicated that the major employers in the health care, Collier County government and the fire district are looking right now for 841 workers. So this project, while certainly not being a panacea for all of those, is certainly to the point of where it will help out in delivering some opportunities for people to live close to where they do work. And I don't think that there's an agency or firm in the county that hasn't felt the effect of that high cost or local housing. Let's go to this plan. Now, for the PUD itself. This is a plan that you have in your package. The basic layout of this and the concept behind it is that we will first of all be preserving a small quantity of wetland that is Page 109 May 4, 2006 referred to as WP on the project. It is adjacent to Rock Creek. That's only a little over two-tenths of an acre. In addition to that, most of you are aware that the project is wooded at this time and there is a significant amount of native preservation from a standpoint of the native plant materials that exist on the property. And that will be allocated for in a preserve that is located in the area marked "P" on the plan. That area is for one thing: Definitely protects the area that's immediately adjacent to the west where we have some multi-family condominium dwellings at this time. The concept further is that the access will be derived from Estey, about as far away as we can get from Airport on the property, and will head straight in and will form a circulation system that will loop around the proj ect with the residential dwellings and structures, inbound of that looking to the lake -- to a series of lakes. The idea was to create a property that was inclusionary as much as it possibly could, and at the same time, you can appreciate being as removed as possible from the structures that are to the west. One of the features of this property, in conversations with the neighbors, as well as with the East Naples Fire Department and our transportation staff, was to create a turnaround at the end of Steeves, because the residents did not want any through traffic from the proj ect to their project. However, the -- instead of only a turnaround being placed there, the fire department, the East Naples Fire Department requested there to be access granted through that so that at the end of the cul-de-sac on Steeves will be placed a gate with a lock box so that the fire department can gain access whenever they so choose to go through that and connect to the project. That's the only way to get through there. It will strictly be for fire access only. To assist in the shielding of these residents, as well as the preserve that's here, a type B buffer will be planted around the perimeter of the project, adjacent to the single-family and single-story Page 110 May 4, 2006 residences that are on Steeves Avenue. And a type D buffer and probably a wall will be constructed around the rest of the project. It will be tied to Airport Road or Estey, simply because of a perimeter security, as well as just a noise barrier. A neighborhood information meeting that we conducted back in early January yielded a couple of comments that came from that, certainly dealing with the size of the project for what was going on. And consequently, what we did is try to move the buildings as far away from those residences as possible, create that turnaround, and in discussions also make sure that there was no cut-through that went through to the balance of the proj ect from our proj ect to Steeves Avenue. Some of the PUD commitments that have been made, in addition to that dealing with traffic, we prepared the traffic impact statement. There are no issues dealing with concurrency on this property. This project will not create any adverse conditions to any of the intersections that were studied. The applicant has agreed to the conditions that were requested by county transportation. There were a few, but there was certainly no issues with that. And then in addition, because of the location of this access point, what the county required and we talked about was to increase and create a double left-hand turn lane. It's only a single one that starts about here. Now we're going to have two. And that will be built into the plan and will be done as part of the commitment to the traffic and to the PUD. From the environmental standpoint, there are no wetlands to be altered, there are no listed species. That was all concurred with by the people at development services. And we did not go to the EAC because of those two features. There are no specific concerns on the part of the engineering review team. And I think from the standpoint of an extended setback, Page 111 May 4, 2006 we have allocated 50 feet as a setback to the west from any single- family residents -- residential property line that will be adjacent to this property, to this proj ect. And the elevation. And this was a representation of the building that was presented at the neighborhood information meeting. Very similar, we're requesting a height of three stories or 45 feet. And in review of the regulations -- and you can appreciate the proximities that we are here to the airport -- there will be more than likely some height restrictions that could affect the heights of the structures that are in the northern part of this property. However, it will not be that significant. But these -- all of these issues will need to be addressed at the time of the SDP, because you can appreciate the fact of all the details that have to be worked out in terms of total distances from the airport, as well as the heights of the building. Your section in the LDC of 4.02.06 outlines all of those dimensional requirements that the project has within an airport zone. And we are committed to work with the airport and make sure that anything that is required as part of those regulations is met. Generally speaking, that's pretty much of a wrap. The other side of that is that the thing that's important here is the fact that we have gotten approval from staff. And I think at that point in time we'll entertain any questions that you may have. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein first and Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: First of all, I understood this afternoon when I came in that the Naples Municipal Airport had no idea this was going on. And therefore, they'd had no opportunity to know what was going on or what they may need in order to make this thing work for them. Is that true? MR. TYSON: We have had contact with people at the airport to secure their regulations in relation to the FAA requirements. We have not had a direct meeting with them to date. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Don't you think that should Page 112 May 4, 2006 have been done? MR. TYSON: There are so many parts of this that need to be worked out, again, as I indicated from the standpoint of the elevational issues of the buildings exactly their positions. We have the rules. We've looked at the rules from the standpoint of how far back you have to go, the slope ratios, the distances off of the airport. They're all very well worded out right in our own documents. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And by saying that, you're saying they comply to what the airport needs -- MR. TYSON: We will comply with all those rules. But at the same time, I have -- this is the first time I've had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Soliday. We did that in the corridor. I will set up a meeting with him within the week and we'll address any issues he may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have an avigation easement already in place? MR. TYSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You say that you're not applying for an affordable housing density bonus, but 20 percent of your units will be affordable housing. How do you know that they will really be affordable, with market values as high as they are? MR. TYSON : Well, there are specific requirements about that that are written directly into the documents. Actually, the best person to talk to that to give you an answer is Cormac Giblin, who is the one that has to ultimately wind up approving the individual's earning power. That's what it's based on. I'd like to have Cormac answer that for you, please. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So this is something that's completely voluntary on your part that you're just offering on your own. It's not anything that you're going to get anything out of specifically. Page 113 May 4, 2006 MR. TYSON: That is correct. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, Cormac Giblin, your housing and grants manager, for the record. These will be governed by the same restrictions as if -- the restrictions that we have in the affordable housing density bonus agreement. The 15-year recorded agreement, or the recorded restriction against each unit, the affordability period, the recapture provisions. So it is essentially the exact same language that you would otherwise have been approving had they officially gone for an affordable housing density bonus. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And that includes the 15-year turnaround too? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Cormac, don't go away. If this developer had intended to go through the affordable housing program, would they have been entitled to as many units, as opposed to a conversion from commercial, et cetera? MR. GIBLIN: For 20 percent? I don't have the new chart memorized. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, and I don't expect you to. But my guess was is that they would not have gotten as many units as I think that they've offered. And I just wanted to bring that out. I thought that was very good that they've offered this. And then I only have a question for Mr. Tyson, if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, can I ask you a question? And you're going to have to go back. Could you look up what the bonus density would be for 15 percent less than 80 and five percent less than 150. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And my question is on Page 114 May 4, 2006 your PUD document here, having to do with ownership. I'm a little confused by it. I see it's International Investments, which is different than what the county had said. But it speaks to an L. Rogers Wells, Jr., sole owner and chairman at 80 percent. I'm confused. Can you be a sole owner and chairman -- a sole owner and have only 80 percent? MR. ANDERSON: Do you have a disclosure? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I mean, it could be in error, I suppose. I'd love to give you a name of the page, but I don't have a page here. It's something version 051B Tyson. It starts -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he's found it, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Found it? Okay. But does that answer that question, sole owner and chairman at 80 percent? MR. ANDERSON: He's the owner of International Investments, Inc., which owns 80 percent of the property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. My ignorance. I apologize. I see now where it relates. Okay. So they're the holding company, if you will, or the parent company, and then Rock Creek is the -- okay, now I understand it. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant before -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, and again, I'm really having trouble with the conversion, because essentially what that is is isolated commercial zoning. This appears to me to be within a strip of commercial zoning. So why is it do you think you're entitled to that? MR. TYSON: It's very clear in the growth management plan that that is allowable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anywhere in the county? I mean, it's always been explained to us that it's areas in which it's isolated. And I don't have all the words in front of me. So you're saying anywhere in the county you have commercial zoning, you can Page 115 May 4, 2006 immediately convert that? MR. TYSON: There are some specific rules about whether in fact you can. But in this case it is -- the current zoning as the C-4 district, that is allowable in order to transfer that into this residential category at a rate of 16 units per acre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other question is with the community character plan. Did you look at doing any mixed use development here? It looks like an ideal site. There actually is a minor pedestrian traffic in this neighborhood. MR. TYSON: Well, actually, we've looked at a number of different scenarios, as you can appreciate. The fact is that it was very challenging, because -- and you've got to appreciate the fact that this is less than 12 acres in total. And to get the density that would be required in order to make any real commercial venture work would be very challenging. And we figure that there's an awful lot of commercial that's immediately adjacent to it. There's commercial across the street, there's commercial diagonally across the intersection. There's a fair amount of convenient shopping. And we felt that it would be far more valuable to have this property solely in residential and try to get it to its maximum obtainable density because of the face of the necessity of housing in this area. One of the real problems is the fact that we keep moving all of our density and population to the east. And this is where we need to have the density back into this core location to really help out with transportation. So that's why we chose to do it this way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolf1at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could you put that site plan on again, please? Now, that Steeves road there, who owns that? MR. TYSON: That is a private roadway . Well, I'm not sure about the actual ownership. It's a platted subdivision. Page 116 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But it's not maintained by the county or the city? MR. TYSON: I think it's a public road. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Public road. What about Clark Street, where is that located? MR. TYSON: Clark Street was a paper street, so to speak. It was a platted street that ran diagonally through the property. I'll show you approximately where it was. It started right about here and ran through the property in this direction. Let me see, I just turned you around so let me go back and do it this way, because it will help in the orientation. Here's Airport Road here. There's Clark Street right there. Clark Street, Steeves and this road called House Avenue were all platted at one time. And that plat was abandoned in the late Eighties. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, let's start with the PUD. MR. TYSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce Anderson wanted to know about my tabs, so I guess I'll walk through them with you. Page 5, 1.4.D, it says there are no known previous uses and the site is open. Most of the exotics have been cleared from the property and is mowed to minimize exotic infestation. Yet in the staff report it says that this went through the zoning reevaluation program and it was determined to be improved property. There seems to be some kind of conflict in one of the two statements that I've just read. Can you explain why it's improved property when the PUD says it's not improved? MR. TYSON: It was the county that at some point determined that it was improved property. The county -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's because of that determination that it's retained its commercial zoning, which is the issue that's being converted here today. I'd like to know how a determination could have Page 117 May 4, 2006 been made when it's been acknowledged in your own PUD that it says that there are no known previous uses of the site and the site is open. MR. TYSON: Well, I think when you get to the point of -- when I say previous uses, the point was that there has not been a specific use placed on the property. It has been platted, but there's not been a specific use placed on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I guess I'll ask staff if platting signifies improvement. I've always looked at the word improvement as meaning something physical you could look at, and I've looked at this property for 30 years and it's a nice bunch of trees. But I'll take that up with staff when they get up. Maybe they'll be prepared by that point. MR. ANDERSON: If I might, the zoning reevaluation ordinance had its own definition of improved property, and my recollection is that it related to the platted status. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I want to just to confirm it, Bruce, because when you all say it's not improved and someone thought it was, I'd like to know why. On your development table, Page 3-3, Bruce, you have a Meridian Village development standards for "R" residential areas under the minimum rear yard setback accessory. For the townhouse you have five feet. And then you have for accessory uses, 10 feet. I think they're conflicting one another. If accessory uses have to have a 10- foot setback, then why don't they have a five-foot setback under townhouses? Or is that intentional? MR. TYSON: There's nothing that comes to mind that was specific about that. I think that could have been a carryforward from some -- that can easily be changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five should be 10 feet? MR. TYSON: Well, why don't we make that 10 and be consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Further down you've got a maximum Page 118 May 4, 2006 height, three stories or a maximum of 45 feet. Well, you know we have two definitions now of height in the LDC. Which one are you referring to there, zoned or actual? MR. TYSON: Those are actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your actual height is 45 feet? MR. TYSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Your proposed actual height. On Page 13, 4.4, development standards, A, building setback for principal structures, and you have 25 feet. This is in the preserve district. It says you have -- are all those considered principal structures? It says principal uses and structures. So a boardwalk is a principal structure in a preserve district, is that what you're referring to? I'm trying to understand what it is you're trying to get to that has -- MR. TYSON : No, we were talking about the building setback for principal structures for buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the preserve area? MR. TYSON: Adjacent to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, this is under the preserve district. MR. TYSON: That's correct. And development, meaning a building cannot get any closer than 25 feet to that district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, see, nonnally I would have expect to have see that -- is that in your development table as well? Okay. So that's the same standard you're referring to in your development table, last line? MR. TYSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under Page 15, when you spoke earlier, you talked about different percentages of the affordable housing market being implemented in this site. We're talking about paragraph 5.4. In there it seems to be focusing on 80 percent or less. Didn't I hear you say you were going to have some in the higher range than that? And if so, why aren't they mentioned in this paragraph? Or Page 119 May 4, 2006 should they be? MR. TYSON: This is totally consistent with what I said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then -- MR. TYSON: I said 80 percent -- 15 percent will be at 80 percent or less and five percent will be at 150 percent or less. Between 80 -- the five percent of gap housing will be between 150 and 80. And 15 percent will be at 80 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the fact that you say you're going to have 20 percent of the dwelling units -- well, I'm still trying to -- 20 percent of the dwelling units -- I don't follow what you're saYIng. MR. TYSON: Mr. Strain, you may be looking at a different version. What are the first words in the version that you're reading? COMMISSIONER CARON: Twenty percent. MR. TYSON: Okay. Should be 15 percent. The corrected pages were sent to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, for the record, since I'm reading from something, can I have the right one? This is the one we had a lot of things sent to us on. Thank you, Kay. Well, okay, this one reads more to what you said. No wonder why we were at a disconnect. I'll look it over as I get a chance. MR. TYSON: That, by the way, is totally consistent with what I said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 16, is that page changed as well? Yes, it has. Never mind. I'll have to read that before -- MR. TYSON: There are a few changes on Page 16. Mainly in paragraphs two and three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll look at them quickly during time here. On Page 19, you talked about your archeological assessment results and conclusions, and you say that no archeological or historic Page 120 May 4, 2006 sites were found. I read the response you got from the Division of Historical Resources. It said something that may mean something different. And it said, Dear Mr. Guglielmo: In response to your inquiry of July 7th, 2005, the Florida master site file lists two recorded archeological sites and one historical standing structure in the following parcels of Collier County, township 50 south, range 25 east and section two. Your thing says there are no archeological historic sites were found. I know that was done by your private -- I read the gentleman's report. But were there any -- archaeologically the state still thought there was something there. Is that -- MR. TYSON: That happens to be off-site and probably about 1,000 feet to the west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was going to ask. Okay. The last thing, and I mentioned it earlier -- I shouldn't say the last thing -- the last thing I have to ask of you at this point is the avigation easement. It's -- Collier County has used those before for properties that they've approached near airports. And they do define heights, restrictions. They also provide a notice included in contracts to any potential buyer that an airport's nearby, and it provides the airport with the ability not to have to worry about being sued by those people because this easement's in place. Do you have any objection to something like that if the airport director, who happens to be here today, speaks and requests such a thing? MR. TYSON: Well, what we will commitment to is doing absolutely everything that the rules require us to do. So if that happens to be one of them, we will do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure it's a rule. I'm not seeing it that way, but I know that other developments have provided those as something necessary to avoid future litigation. And it's a pretty handy little tool to have. Page 121 May 4, 2006 I'm wondering, based on our intergovernmental coordination element of our GMP, Ray, why wasn't this coordinated with the City of Naples? Maybe Kay or whoever could answer. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. I'll respond to that. That was my oversight totally, and I apologize for that. I did not contact the Naples Airport, and I -- Bruce and I had spoken about the overlay and the noise ordinances, or the noise site that -- if you see on your site plan, there's a very small portion of this particular site that's within the noise zone D. And I must admit that I neglected to contact the airport people. And he did show up today, and we are working towards getting the information to him. And he will be involved in the site review of this particular project when it comes in for site plan review. And we will work with him up until the point that it goes to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand the site review aspects of it. But that's kind of like after the fact. So I guess we'll try to see how much we can accomplish today, and if we can't accomplish enough, we'll just have to proceed the best way we can. MS. DESELEM: He had to leave and he asked me to note that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's here. MS. DESELEM: Oh, he's back, okay. I'm sorry, I didn't see him come in. Because he said he was going to try to be back, and he did make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you familiar with avigation easements? MS. DESELEM: Yes. To some extent, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was one ever discussed with the applicant as a possibility on this site? MS. DESELEM: Not that I recall. We just discussed the fact that it was a very small portion of this particular site that was in that airport noise zone and they would comply with whatever regulations were in Page 122 May 4, 2006 effect that would affect this particular proj ect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Regulations don't necessarily help stop lawsuits. So thank you. I have no questions of the applicant at this time. I do have plenty of staff. So is there anybody else have questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Bruce, thank you. And Kay, if you could proceed, we'll be all set. MS. DESELEM: Again, for the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I'm a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. You do have the staff report and the findings that support it. And I apologize for the confusion on the documents that you received. The pages that were under discussion a few moments ago where you didn't have the right pages, those were the ones that were sent to you that actually triggered you to realize that you didn't have the whole thing. So you got the missing corrected pages before you got the whole PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when I got the second e-mail from you that was the whole PUD document, I just assumed that the corrected pages would be in the whole document you sent me. MS. DESELEM: No, unfortunately I sent you the one that should have gone out initially. So that's where the confusion lies, and I apologize for that. You do have the staff report. Weare recommending approval. And it's been recommended that it be found consistent with the growth management plan. I will note, in regards to the one question about the zoning reevaluation plan and the discussion in the staff report on Page 3, if you notice in that last paragraph, the phrase improved property is shown in quotation marks because, as Bruce Anderson mentioned, it did have a different designation and was defined as part of the zoning Page 123 May 4, 2006 reevaluation program. And I believe his interpretation is correct, that it meant that because it was platted, it did have some standing, and that's what that was trying to recognize. And that's wherein the conflict lies, because the property's vacant but still has been deemed to be consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Strictly because it was zoned -- I mean, it was platted. MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any questions of staff at this point? If not, I will. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, are you comfortable with the fact that this is a removal of an isolated commercial zoning? MS. DESELEM: You mean in the conversion of-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the conversion, yeah. MS. DESELEM: Yes. If you note, it states in the staffreport, again on Page 3, that you can't do that conversion if you're in a mixed use activity center or an interchange activity center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And we're in an urban mixed use district. MS. DESELEM: Right. So it would appropriate in this particular situation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But isn't it required to be isolated? I mean, we debated the intent of that. At one time we were trying to take it out, it came back in. But we really discussed it with David Weeks. And the point was always made that these were isolated little bits of zoning. And this is a strip of -- the whole street's commercial zoning. This will be the isolated piece of residential zonIng. MS. DESELEM: My understanding of the infill policy is a little bit different from this, but this particular parcel can qualify and utilize Page 124 May 4, 2006 this concept, noting, of course, that it may go away, depending upon the EAR findings and how that turns out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I don't think the future EAR is going to take it up. But again, we discussed it and it's always been strongly shown that these are isolated little pockets and we're trying to convert it back in. The other thing that was discussed is that the affordable housing, there's no -- they're not asking for anything, they're just giving it to us. Yet in your report, you're discussing how you're allowing certain things based on the affordable housing. On Page 4 in that -- it would be third paragraph, there's some of that. So, I mean, we are giving them something for the affordable housing, aren't we? He said nothing. But aren't we giving them at least an accelerated permitting process or something? MS. DESELEM: Correct. They do not, nor are they seeking bonus density units, but they can take advantage of participation within an expedited review program by having those affordable housing units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this comprehensive planning, they've signed off on the 16 units? MS. DESELEM: Yes, they have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, this site is within the coastal high hazard area? MS. DESELEM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you think it's appropriate to be granting 16 units an acre for the conversion of commercial so that we will now not only have property -- potential for property to be affected by storms, but now we'll have property and people. MS. DESELEM: That's discussed basically the way you said it, within the staff report. Because we understand there is a balance. You Page 125 May 4, 2006 know, how do you provide for housing and still recognize coastal high hazard areas and conversion of commercial. This particular proj ect has a lot of different components to it, and staff believes that this is the appropriate mix for this site. And the affordable housing units will benefit overall Collier County. And the drainage that will be put in place by this developer, should he proceed with this project, could very well enhance the drainage in the area. But we do understand that it is a coastal high hazard area and it is a balance. And that's discussed as far as persons -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What I'm saying to you is I'm not seeing the balance here. You've gone right to the full amount on the conversion, which again is not an entitlement. They are not necessarily entitled to 16 units an acre. But you've allowed them to go right to the max, and you think that's appropriate. MS. DESELEM: In this case, yes. And comprehensive planning has reviewed this application, being fully aware of the proposed changes with the coastal high hazard EAR amendments, and they have recommended approval and found it's consistent as well. The situation might be different later if the EAR amendments are adopted. But as of to day's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: We're putting 10 pounds in five pounds early on before the rule is changed here, that we all know and have all accepted is going to be changed. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, why didn't this go to the EAC? MS. DESELEM: Because an agreement was reached by the wetland areas and the preserve, and it was determined by environmental staff that it did not require review by the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought there was specific exemption criteria and they centered around a certain level acreage, and then if you're above that acreage, staff decision, they had to simply go before the EAC. So that means any size project that staff can decide doesn't need the EAC? Page 126 May 4, 2006 MS. DESELEM: I'll have to admit, I don't know exactly why they determined it did not need to go to the EAC. The applicant's agent was working with our environmental staff. They may be able to give you more information. I did try to contact the environmental staff person, but unfortunately they're out in the field today. But they were comfortable with reviewing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any -- the EAC requirements for exemptions, do you recall those at all, or is that something that probably I shouldn't put you on the spot? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, I think it would be best to find out what the rationale was from the environmental staff in making that determination, since they're the ones that made it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe Bruce can shed some light on it. MR. TYSON: Sure. I did make that comment earlier that we didn't have to go to the EAC. The two rules about that -- and I'm not sure about the one dealing with the size of the property. If you have wetlands and they are not going to be impacted, and if you have no list species on the property, it does not have to go to the EAC. That's what I was informed by the environmental staff. And in this case, this proj ect meets those two requirements or classifications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't recall without the book in front of me, so that's why I need to ask. Thank you. Kay, this Steeves Road is -- or Steeves Ave., what are those units there? Are those single-family; do you recall? MS. DESELEM: It's a combination of single-family and multi-family and duplex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, because on your surrounding land use in zoning, on Page 2 I didn't find -- maybe you can show me. Well, that's the -- you consider that south of the project, not west, huh? Page 127 May 4, 2006 MS. DESELEM: Yeah, because this -- it's difficult when you have an unusual shape. Without having to repeat what it is, you kind of have to look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the maximum height's allowed in that particular district? It looks like it's RMF-6. MS. DESELEM: Yeah, it's RMF-6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the maximum height allowed in RMF-6; do you recall? MS. DESELEM: I don't recall off the top of my head. I can go back and look. I do have the LDC. Mr. Bellows might recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before the meeting's over, I could use that information. Then let's go on with some other issues. In your rezone findings, you talk about it being consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the future land use map and elements of the GMP. And you talk about the FLUE and transportation element. I notice that you didn't reference the CCME particularly in that. I know that the CCME has some very specific language about density in the coastal hazard area and it's not as flexible as that found in the FLUE. Is it consistent with the CCME, based on the fact that the same flexibility that the FLUE has I don't believe appears in the CCME with regards to density bonuses in the coastal high hazard area? MS. DESELEM: I must admit that I didn't specially look at the CCME, .but I know that environmental staff did, and their recommendation is to go forward for approval. Again, comprehensive planning also looked at it, but they normally just look at the FLUE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, okay. MS. DESELEM: But I don't think that they're necessarily inconsistent with any policies, or I'm sure it would have been brought to my attention. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I know a little bit of the history of Page 128 May 4, 2006 that, and unfortunately the conservation coastal management element contains a statement of what the density is. If my memory serves me correctly, in the plan, in the future land use element is where that's set, and there's an internal inconsistency in the plan as it's currently written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In reading documents, when you find inconsistencies, how do you determine which one dominates? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Future land use element, in my legal opinion, controls, because that's the element that's supposed to use the densities and intensities and land uses. And that purports to be a statement. I don't think it's worded quite that way, but it purports to be a statement of what the future land use element is supposed to be doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Marjorie. And I just got my response on RMS, it's 35 feet. MS. DESELEM: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this project's looking at 45 feet. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. Noting also that the C-4 is a 75- foot maximum height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's quite further away from Steeves Ave., too. I think that's all I have, Kay. Wait, I think there's one more. Under a document that was provided by Wilson-Miller -- and I'll just read it to you and I'm sure you'll be familiar with it. The Meridian PUD project will preserve 25 percent of native vegetation. Approximately 1.23 acres of existing native vegetation will be preserved, and 0.96 acres of native vegetation will be restored/created on the site for a total of 2.19 acres. The 2.19 acres that's being restored and created, is that consistent with our Land Development Code when you have native preserve there? Are you allowed to restore it to meet the minimum requirements of the code? Page 129 May 4, 2006 MS. DESELEM: If I may ask what you're reading from? Is it part of the PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, something you sent us. You sent me so many things, it's going to be hard for me to describe it. It looks like it's the applicant's information. It's titled 10.02.02 submittal requirements for all applications. It's on Wilson-Miller letterhead and it's on Page 6 of that under goal six. I can give you the document of that, if it helps, but I -- MS. DESELEM: I understand from Bruce Tyson that you're reading from the EIS that was submitted. It sounds very similar to the language that's in the environmental review section of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, did anybody check this out? MS. DESELEM: Yes, that -- I'm sure that Bruce Tyson would admit that it was gone over with a fine tooth comb by environmental staff, and they were working very diligently to resolve the issues of disagreement about the acreages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, when this -- we had some issues come up in the EAR in which I think the applicant's representative, Bruce Anderson, was there. And he was trying to have the EAR be stated in certain ways. And I think somebody from environmental, was here at the same time, had indicated that, you know, this is all being done at the same time as a result of some interaction with this particular project. I'm not sure all of that's perfectly accurate, but I think the concept's there. Knowing that this was coming up today, why isn't anybody from environmental staff here if there were such issues on this proj ect that apparently appears to be? MS. DESELEM: In all candor, I wasn't aware, obviously, of the airport issues. And I did not ask them to be here. I'm sure if I had asked them to be here, they would have been here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, environmental staff. Page 130 May 4, 2006 MS. DESELEM: That's what I'm saying. If I had asked them to be here, they would have been here. I did not ask them, and that's my oversight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, you do a really good job. I'm certainly not trying to lay anything on you. I'm just wondering why they're not here. It would have been a lot simpler if we could get the questions answered. Yes, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, community development, environmental services division administrator. My staff, the environmental staff and I, along with Bruce Anderson and Bruce and his team from Wilson-Miller met probably at least three or four times on this project. I have numerous e-mails. When the applicant agreed to remove one of the buildings, they had another building on this site which they removed, and met all the requirements for preservation, met the requirements to avoid any jurisdictional wetlands, they met all the preservation requirements in regards to on-site preservation, there were no other environmental issues, and pretty much the issue was resolved and solved. I know we're opening that door. I did not expect it to be opened, so therefore I did not require any environmental staff to be here, because there are no environmental issues. The paperwork that was submitted with this project, and basically, as Bruce pointed out, there was no requirement to go to the EAC because, frankly, there were no jurisdictional wetlands impacted and no listed species. I don't know if that answers your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does, and I thank you, Joe. But I think part of the issue that rang in my mind is the fact that during the EAR -- I'm starting to remember more of it now -- there was a discussion about clearing of understory. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what brought I guess this Page 131 May 4, 2006 proj ect into light during the EAR, which I thought would mean that there was some controversy; otherwise, why would it have been such an issue during the EAR process? MR. SCHMITT: There was, amongst my staff, controversy over whether or not that property was deemed to be native vegetation, and how much was actually ruled to be native vegetation. There's a long history on this site. There were code enforcement issues on this site. There was a requirement placed upon staff, I believe in the late Nineties requiring the property owner to actually go in and do clearing and mowing, because there were a lot of vagrants who were on site. And so there was those issues. There were discussions about what was really deemed to be native vegetation. And there are still some ongoing discussions as to whether or not there was -- I'll call it -- I don't want to use the word illegal clearing, because it wasn't really cleared. But whether it was cleared and too many underbrush and too much clearing was done. And I basically directed my environmental staff, if they still had information in regards to that, to turn it over to code enforcement and we would pursue it through code enforcement. But the issue here is I can't use that in a application to hold up the applicant. That's kind of two separate mutually exclusive issues. If it's an illegal clearing and if it's an issue involving past deeds that had been basically unpermitted, then we'll pursue that through code enforcement. But we pretty much resolved -- in fact, I believe, if I'm not mistaken in this case, and I didn't look, you exceed the requirements for preservation, if I'm not mistaken; do you not? Okay, but the issue here was the redesigning of the site, and I do recall you eliminated a building, or moved a -- moved a building, thank you. So pretty much that was all kind of handled between my staff and the applicant and pretty much resolved all the issues involving Page 132 May 4, 2006 environmental impacts on this site. I understand what the issues in regards to the coastal high hazard area. Again, as staff, I cannot enforce those rules. The board certainly can because the board is aware that those are part of the EAR based amendments. But as Kay said, until those amendments are adopted, I do not amend the GMP, therefore, I have to apply the rules that are in effect at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. That does answer my question. Appreciate it. Is there any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Soliday, please. You've already -- MR. SOLIDAY: Ted Soliday. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You've already been sworn in? MR. SOLIDAY: Yes, sir, thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you satisfied with what you've heard and the promises made to you today? MR. SOLIDAY: No, sir. First of all, I'd like to indicate to you, Ted Soliday, I'm the executive director of the City of Naples Airport Authority. I'm not very well prepared on this, because I don't even have the package that you have in front of you. City of Naples Airport Authority staff have not had the opportunity to review this in any detail. And all this stuff about environmental assessment and gone over it with a fine-toothed comb, everything we do environmentally looks at noise, looks at height restrictions and all that very, very -- and just flat compatibility with your neighbors. The airport is not even listed as a neighbor. We are a neighbor. Believe me, we are a neighborhood. And our flight paths and approach Page 133 May 4, 2006 paths to that airport Runway 14/32 are neighbors to this structure. Now again, I want to point out that airport staff has not had the opportunity to review this in detail, and so I don't want to commit the airport or staff to any statements obj ecting to this without us having the opportunity. First of all, I should introduce -- I do have a board commissioner with us today who hurried over here when he heard what was going on, Mr. Eric West. And I'll just say that, you know, it is very close, the comments about agreeing to -- I think the challenge I have right now is the -- I need to work with the county staff, to make sure that we are coordinating and getting -- so that you all have input in advance. I think somebody said a little while ago, your cart before the horse. I'm not comfortable because there's too many questions that you're asking that are very key questions to me. And it's not fine-toothed comb to me, SIr. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Would it bother then if -- it would bother you if we voted on this today; is that right? MR. SOLIDAY: I would recommend it be set aside for a future date. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Soliday, the idea of an avigation easement does carry with it some legal entitlements that won't have such negative impacts on your airport by any future residents. Have you -- are you familiar with those? MR. SOLIDAY: Oh, yes, sir, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that something that you would possibly introduce to these gentlemen to -- MR. SOLIDAY: Yes, sir, absolutely. We'll give them the documents. I believe, though, your own code, we've worked very hard with you all a few years back in making some major amendments of the land use -- county land use code as it relates to the City of Naples Airport Authority and airport. And I believe your code would already Page 134 May 4, 2006 imply that. But, you know, again they've been very clear in saying if it doesn't specifically imply that, that they're not going to accept that. That would clearly be a recommendation for us is an avigation easement, but we also need to look at those height restrictions very much. They're very close to the flight paths and corridors. And indeed, notification is something that's typically separate from the avigation easement, and that's something that's very important to us also. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to make a motion to move to continue this to another date after Mr. Soliday has had his opportunities to talk to his parties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a point of order, Margie, is this something we can request in the middle of the meeting? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think it would be -- if you want to close the public hearing and do it just to do it in a most orderly fashion. You might want to take comment from the public and so on before you do that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- since people came today, and then close the public hearing and do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going. And at the same time, I wanted to get the applicant's reaction to this request. MR. SOLIDAY: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for what you're doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Mr. Adelstein, would you mind withdrawing your motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will withdraw it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce, do you want to comment on this issue now, or do you want to hear the public first? Page 135 May 4, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: I'll wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: You have five public speakers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I have one question for transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's finish with our questions then. I thought we were done. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's okay. Don, reviewing the transportation, there's no mention of bus routes or anything. Isn't this site extremely accessible by the bus system? MR. SCOTT: Yes, it is. There's a transfer station now just off of Estey on the other side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you do me a favor? In the future when you see sites that have bus, you know, availability, I think that's important for us to know. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, we are in portions of what we're doing, particularly in the TCMAs, asking for, you know, bus stops, things like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else before we go to the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, if you could call the public speakers. And for those people wishing to speak, you'll have five minutes. Please try to limit yourself to five minutes in front of the microphone. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: First speaker is George Mallis, followed by Denise Rupert. MR. MALLIS: Hello, Commissioners, or county staff. I live on Steeves Avenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: State your name for the record. Page 136 May 4, 2006 MR. MALLIS: My name is George Mallis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell that for the court reporter. MR. MALLIS: M-A-L-L-I-S. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. MALLIS: I live on Steeves Avenue right here. It's predominantly single-family house. And the whole area is single- family house. I don't believe that it's going to fit in -- a three-story condominium project's going to fit in with the character of our neighborhood. The traffic already backs up Airport Road -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I hate to keep interrupting you, but if you walk away from the microphone, she can't take the words you're saying. So you'll need to carry that with -- MR. MALLIS: The traffic's already backing up during season, during, you know, the wintertime. It backs all the way to Shadowlawn. We can't even get out of our street, Steeves Avenue, much less putting 120 units here, which will add another 240, you know, cars on this avenue. They're proposing to put one right near the light and adding in another 20 feet, maybe 30 feet of turn lane. I don't think that's going to cut it. Originally that property also, 15 years ago, they came and had it rezoned commercial. It was residential. Now they're asking for 16 units per acre. Before it was only six units, all right? So they gave them that 16 units 15 years ago, and now, you know, they want to fully develop it. Eagles. I walk that property every day, twice a day. There's eagles that roost on that property. I don't know if that has anything to do with environmental things, but they come at night during the evening, two of them. And I think we need some green space, you know, in this county somewhere. And basically that's what I've got to say. That's my five minutes. Page 137 May 4, 2006 it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That was helpful. Appreciate Next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: Denise Rupert, followed by Ted Soliday. MS. RUPERT: Hi. My name's Denise Rupert and I live at 1190 Mockingbird Lane. That's west of this location, near Brookside Drive. I live on the corner of Mockingbird and Estey where the speed bumps end. I came here today because I was concerned about the traffic that this project would generate. Already traffic's being forced down Estey. After sitting here today, I have many more concerns. I'm concerned what the Conservancy thinks about this proj ect. I'm concerned of the awareness that Estey is a two-lane, 25-mile-an-hour road, both west of Airport where I live and east of Airport where they speak of the transfer station for the buses. There was a 78-year-old woman that was killed at the intersection of Estey and Airport about four or five years ago. Somebody ran her over, they never solved that. To have children crossing that road regularly -- there's already school crossing guards there in the morning. I don't want to see the children. I've seen the eagles, I've seen the hawks, I've seen the ospreys in the neighborhood, I've seen the owls. I'm concerned about what will happen to the wetlands if you build. I'm concerned about evacuation that you brought up. That is a flood zone. I live in that neighborhood. I've had the fire department stop me and tell me, you must leave. I don't leave. I have animals. I won't leave without my animals. I'm not rich. I've lived in Naples for 22 years. I had my eye on that community when I moved here 22 years ago. I worked very hard. I saved my money. I bought a lot. I saved. I built a house on that lot that I could never afford to buy today. I watch people dragged through that neighborhood. I watch semis come through the neighborhood, a neighborhood where there are signs Page 138 May 4, 2006 that say no trucks. I've spoken to traffic trying to get that enforced. I'm very concerned about the traffic that will be forced through Estey Avenue when that happens. I realize the need for affordable housing. I know, I work in the healthcare field. I know we have to bring people in to take care of us, we need people to wait on us. We need some solutions, but we don't want to bring these people into danger, as you said. We don't want them in a flood zone. Where are they going to go to evacuate? They're going to clog the roads. We're not going to be able to all get out. And I thank you for listening to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Ted Soliday, followed by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ted's declining. He already spoke. MR. BELLOWS: Kenneth Humphries. MR. HUMPHRIES: Good afternoon. I'm Dana Humphries. I live at 1150 Steeves Avenue. I'd like to first point out that we have met with the developers on a couple of occasions. They have come to our street. To this date they seem to be pretty cooperative. They've agreed to just about everything that we've asked. But there are some concerns. Just like the young lady before me mentioned, the height of the buildings. You know, it would really set a precedent I think in the area. We don't have three-story buildings or condominiums. We do -- there is one three-story building up by Davis Boulevard. It just does seem like you guys -- or you all spoke earlier that all of a sudden they just went right to the top there. So that is a concern. Traffic is a concern. Where they plan on exiting out of the property is only about 100 feet or less from the stoplight. There is an area right off of Airport Road that's already been cut into the property, and I don't know why they can't use that as an entrance or exit. And Page 139 May 4, 2006 that's about all I have to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your point about Airport Road, I drove here this morning, I happened to look at that site, and I too saw that, now that you reminded me of it. I did see that right turn in. But it goes nowhere. And it looks -- on this it looks like they're taking it out. We'll have to ask that question of transportation after the next speaker. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. HUMPHRIES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker, L. Christian Mogelvang. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you better spell your last name for the court reporter. MR. MOGELVANG: Yeah. It's M-O-G-E-L-V-A-N-G. Okay, my name is Dr. Christian Mogelvang. I was the first plastic surgeon in town. I had my office on Pine Street, which is going west from Airport Road, on Estey would be the second road, take a left, and I had that area -- that area was zoned I think RM -6, and I got it down to C-4 and built my office there. So I have a lot of experience in the area in that way. My home is on North Road, which is on the other side of the creek and just past the airport passenger terminal entrance. On the left is the property that I've built my house on. Just as an aside, I went down to an old sheriff who used to live just a little bit to the east of me and asked him how things were during Hurricane Donna. And he told me that the water came right up to his back steps. I did a topographical map study, and so I lifted my house one foot above that, and then the floor of my house on that pad is one foot above that. So I think that there's a lot of over-reaction to the possible wetlands thing. In fact, some of my property was defined as wetlands, and I can tell you, it ain't wetlands. I'm a biologist and studied the State of Florida from Fort Moltry Page 140 May 4, 2006 to Alabama to Key West when I was in college, and was paid for doing that, and disappointed by mentor in deciding to go into medicine instead of botany research. So I'm pretty up on than that. I think there's a lot of argument as to what's wetlands over there and what's native species. And they've got the -- they've got the -- I can't say the name, downing myrtle is growing everywhere in there, and that's a piece of awful stuff that needs to be cleared. A lot of the native vegetation in there needs -- there's a lot of -- I'm not going to get into all of those details. I would like to offer myself free of charge in any way I can. The wetlands -- you want to know where the wetlands was, that car lot that's on the south side of Estey was a cypress head and the cypress head extended into the lot -- the area we're talking about now. If you go over and look at the north -- excuse me, the southwest corner of that, that was part of the cypress head. And the street went right through it and there were cypress trees in there, the bottom of the trunk was this big. I think in a sense that's been improved because somebody brought some fill in there and filled up the cypress head. But this is a natural retention area right back here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, when you go away from the mic, you can't -- MR. MOGEL V ANG: Right back here. I think I'm talking loud enough for her to hear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the TV that picks up your voice doesn't get it. MR. MOGEL V ANG: I gotcha. Yes, sir, got it. Okay. Anyway, what I wanted to say was that I have a lot of interest in the details of the development, and I think there are a lot of little things that could be done differently that would not only add to the quality of water retention. And their definition of wetlands there is in my opinion, it may be that way in black and white, but it's not that Page 141 May 4, 2006 way in reality. The airport concerns, I live right across the street from the passenger terminal at the airport, and went out there and camped out with my family from Friday night until Monday morning one weekend before we decided whether we were going to really buy the place and build a house there. My position on that would be that anybody who buys there is going to know where they are in relation to the airport on the one hand. On the other hand, those buildings are not going to be as tall as the dense pine growth that is in there now. I do know that some of the neighbors get nervous about it. I know that when some -- when the project that's just to the west of me on North Road was built, I worried about it, too, because I liked looking across there at the trees. But if we want to preserve all of those trees way out there in the woods, then we can't go live out there. We have to do a little bit of concentration of the people in the already basically urban areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to wrap up a little bit. MR. MOGELVANG: Yes, I shall. Okay. I support the proposed change. I feel that the height in densities are not near the possible capacities that could exist and do exist very much and very extensively in other living spaces in other states, and especially in other countries. And I would just add one more thing and that is that if the people who are trying to develop the project, which I am for, want any input or suggestions, I'd be glad to do it for them. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. That's the last public speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, there's one lingering question that -- sure, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt. I just want to make sure and put on the record, just so you have Page 142 May 4, 2006 it, this one, and then I want to follow up to Ted. There is a requirement that when we're in what is called the Naples Municipal Airport noise zone map, a requirement for the airport to review. Unfortunately when -- well, I say unfortunately because my staff and I both made an assumption. That is the only piece that is in the zone, and I'm going to show you the zone in a minute. But I highlighted it in yellow. And then considering where the preserve is, it pretty much ruled that there were no buildings impacted in the airport zone. This is the airport zone. Out of the -- Ray, can you zoom in on that? This is the airport zone requirement out of the LDC. And frankly, we're talking about right there at that corner. And I just want to make sure for the record, certainly it is a technical issue and you can direct that we take this back and send it to the airport. But the impacted area and the area being considered is -- that line indicates the noise zone that you saw in the overlay, and as you can see, this is all preserve. And I'm not petitioning or in any way, shape or form supporting what is required. I just want to make sure for the record you understand that a decision was made that pretty much that this was not an impact at all in regards to the airport. But if it's your call and your direction, we'll send this back to the city staff at least for review and for their recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for the clarification. Appreciate it. Mr. Scott, I did notice, as the gentleman pointed out, there is a right turn in. MR. SCOTT: It's actually I think a long time ago there was a left turn in, too. We had discussions with the developer. My assumption was all that was built with the assumption it was going to be commercial at one point. When -- they came in and talked to us, when we were Page 143 May 4, 2006 talking about residential, we'd rather have it come off the minor street instead of the major street. And that's why their access is off of Estey. I believe we've talked about distance. It's not as close as the gentleman talked about. But it is closer than we would like. I mean, obviously if we had our preference, it would come in off of Steeves, but that was -- you know, we discussed a lot about those issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it closer than -- I think your criteria is 600 feet? MR. SCOTT: It's closer than that. And I don't remember, do you remember the -- yeah, I thought it was around 300. It was about 280, something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the access off Airport Road was good enough for commercial, which would have a higher traffic count, most likely than this project, why isn't that good enough for this proj ect? MR. SCOTT: Well, realistically I'd like to have commercial, everything come off the side street. But we're looking at compatible uses, things like that, too. And if it had too much traffic, then obviously I can't get it to work on Estey either. If it had a commercial and it had a lot of -- we -- I mean, we're just -- you know, essentially because of what's been said, Airport and operations, we're trying to make the best operations we can on the roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but back to my question: If it was good enough for commercial, based on the fact commercial with this particular plat as it is today would have probably generated more traffic than the request today, why wouldn't you still want them to bring them off of Airport Road? MR. SCOTT: Well, even ifit was commercial and I would want to come off Estey, this was something that was approved 10, 15 years ago. So asking me that question, I don't know why. I mean, in some of the history, I believe they actually took money for those improvements that are in there. Page 144 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because you've got a -- you can see the decellane here. And all you would do is if you put an accel. lane on that, right-in, right-out only, I don't know how you'd -- I don't think it affects as many people or flow of traffic as you would by stacking them -- trying to get them to take a left on Estey with only 300 feet from the intersection. MR. SCOTT: Well, and then trying to also allow them to get out at the signal versus doing -- you know, crossing across and then doing U-turns, too. But, I know, you make your recommendations as such, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, there's no other speakers, Ray? Are there any other comments from the planning commission before we close the public hearing and entertain a motion? MR. TYSON: If I could make a couple of comments -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you may. MR. TYSON: -- it might help you in your deliberations, because of the way in which the conversation has been going. Even to the point of this last topic -- Ray, if you could put the zoning map up there. It has some -- it's very difficult to read it on that plan. It's a little bit easier to read it on the -- no, no, the PUD map. You'll notice that the relationship of where that access point is, which is right where the star is in the plan, that happens to be right here. And that's what we're talking about, that access right now. You'll also notice now the left-hand turn lane for Estey from Airport to make an eastbound turn on Estey extends all the way back to that point. And that would make a very dangerous weaving condition for people coming out of this project. So that was one of the significant reasons. And probably the most challenging reason that we had to be faced when it came time to put the location of this project and where it was to be. So we gave people the greater opportunity, figuring that it would Page 145 May 4, 2006 be the easiest way in the long run to get in and out of the property. There's been some -- and as a matter of fact, if you would like, I'll have Jeff Perry come up and describe that even more. You made the comment that this is probably the case, that the commercial would have more trips. If you'd like us to explain it, we'll show you clearly that we've got an 80 percent reduction in trips over the current zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I've got your traffic report. I was just saying that to make sure that -- MR. TYSON: Just want to be clear. We can do a lot of scenarios. If we could pull that one off and put the same one you had back on there. Yeah, great. Ms. Caron, you had made a comment about 16 units per acre. I want you to recognize that that 16 units per acre is on the C-4 only. It is blended into the portion of the project that is RMF-6 as well. So we have a grand total of density on this project of 10.27. Just in case you're worried about that, you have approved in the last couple of years two projects within the coastal high hazard area with higher densities. One in Botanical Place, which was 10.99 units per acre for 218 total units, and one at Cirrus Point, which was 10.89 units per acre for 108 units. So I think we're being very consistent with those. Precedent is not being set. Yes, it is within the coastal high hazard, but it happens to be immediately adjacent to the evacuation road. So I think from that standpoint it carries all of those, the balance and the benefits of that situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just to respond to that very fact, both of those projects, number one, I can tell you that my vote was not cast for them. And secondly, they were both in an overlay district for which I had no control over the density. MR. TYSON: I understand. But I just wanted to let you know that the -- Page 146 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: I had no control over the density here. MR. TYSON: -- density was there. That's a consistent -- I'm just letting you know the consistency with the density. Also from the standpoint of the wetlands, South Florida Water Management District came out within the last few months, we have received a jurisdictional wetlands map for that project. And your staff, the environmental staff, as well as of course the south Florida staff has looked at this and determined what is jurisdictional wetland. So we have that on record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What about the question of the eagles that folks have testified there are eagles here? I'm a little confused. MR. TYSON: Yeah, one of the requirements of an environmental impact statement is to review this and to go out on the site for -- you do a minimum five visits. Let me just read you directly from our environmental impact statement from this: The American bald eagle has a potential to occur on the project site, but no individuals or nests were observed during the listed species survey. The Meridian Village PUD is not located within the limits of any primary or secondary protection zones established for bald eagle nests. The American eagle -- the American bald eagle is listed by the FWC and the FWS, Florida -- Fish & Wildlife Commission, and the Federal Wildlife Service, I believe has -- and they are considered to be threatened by them. So the point being that we went out and we did that survey and did not find -- there were no nesting -- there's no nests on the property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that information was made available to our environmental committee? MR. TYSON: Correct. And they had the opportunity to go out Page 147 May 4, 2006 and observe -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Observe it. MR. TYSON: -- that as well, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll-- oh, Bruce? What is this, going to be a double rebuttal? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce squared. First of all, I'd like to also address myself to the coastal high hazard issue. Number one, if there is ever any -- a valid public purpose reason to allow higher density in the coastal high hazard area, it's for affordable housing, where so many of the employment centers are. Number two, just putting my lawyer hat on for a moment, the comprehensive plan changes that you all forwarded to the board have not yet been transmitted by the board. That law is not in effect. Weare entitled to be treated under the law as it exists today. And it's not like we were trying to rush something through. Despite the expedited review, this project was filed last July. So it's not like we were trying to, you know, rush this in after we found out you were going to change the compo plan. Two, with Mr. Adelstein, we prefer not to continue, and I'm sure that's a surprise. And I want to explain why. Number one, the application was filed last July. And if anything, the cost of construction continued to rise all the time. And this is going to have an affordable housing component. We have pledged to work with the airport authority and to meet with them as soon as possible. And as Mr. Schmitt pointed out, it's only a small sliver of the property that's in preserve that is even within the airport noise zone area. And also, I would point out that under the existing zoning today on the C-4 portion of the property, the zoning allows a 75-foot Page 148 May 4, 2006 building height. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now, could I answer you? MR. ANDERSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The answer came out as your statement was, and I understand. The point is the documents state that the airport had to be notified. That was already told to us. Now, I don't make it a fact that somebody did this purposely, but the actual fact was, they were supposed to be notified. They were not. Now he has to have an operation to figure out whether or not everything you're going to do will be in their germane as to what they need. I didn't really want to make this go on forever. If this had not come up, I would have been very happy to get it done today. But the truth of the matter is we didn't give them the opportunity to find out what they were going to need. Under that circumstance, I don't thinl< there's any other option but to say we have to continue it so that they can get the information they need and satisfy themselves and satisfy you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For the purposes of equity at the minimum, Mr. Soliday in his statements stated that they were -- aside from the one significant matter he believed that passed over there, the property, that there were a number of questions that he has. And if the Chair will allow, I would just ask if Mr. Soliday can convey to us whether or not as a result of this hearing the preponderance of those facts have been aired and whether or not he's satisfied or absolutely needs additional time and effort. If that would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Mr. Soliday doesn't mind and he wants to address the issue, that's fine. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I already asked him the question just before he sat down. Page 149 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're trying to accommodate everyone. MR. SOLIDAY: Ted Soliday for the record. Again, I am concerned. And I understand where Mr. Schmitt came in and said it's just a small area, but it is part of the property. I'll remind the board that the City of Naples Airport Authority, the City of Naples and the county worked very hard to be sensitive to noise. Converting commercial property in a vicinity of the airport is something that should be looked at very carefully. As far as the height's concerned, it might have been commercial zoned, but it does have an overlay on top of it that would have definitely held it down close to the airport. And I don't know what that does to this parcel, I mean as far as this development. I don't know what the 45 feet -- I heard Dr. Mogelvang and I think he's probably right when he says the existing trees don't violate, and they don't. So this probably doesn't also. But that's -- I don't know, and I'm sorry that I don't. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Soliday, is it within reason that if this board were to give it approval to go forward, is it within reason that you could, working with the development interest, come to some conclusion within the matter of what, several weeks before it comes to the BCC? Would it take longer than that to resolve your issues, or do you believe these are issues that could be -- MR. SOLIDAY: Well, clearly I need to take it to my board. We are part of the city, and I make sure that Joe knows it doesn't go before the city, it goes to the airport authority as a state agency. But the bottom line is, I think we can work with them pretty quick. But I was concerned about the statement that they made that they were only willing to go as far as they were required. We would pursue, and we would probably take it to the Board of County Commissioners that if they were -- we did not get the avigation easement and the deed notification, we would request of the county Page 150 May 4, 2006 board. Again, remember, we spent millions of dollars before the federal district court of appeals to protect our community, and zoning and protection on the ground is another element of that. The fact we haven't looked at this very carefully was because it was C-4. C-4 is not as sensitive to noise as multi-family residential. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you so much. MR. SOLIDAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, you had a comment? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Just to get back to Mr. Anderson for a moment and his comment that he's entitled to the density as they stand today. MR. ANDERSON: No, I said entitled to be treated under the existing law. COMMISSIONER CARON: Treated under the existing law. Yes, let's be specific here. And yes, you are entitled to be treated under the existing law. However, 16 units an acre is not an entitlement. That's my point. MR. ANDERSON: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Anderson, are you finished? MR. ANDERSON: Just one final point about the noise issue. There are also requirements in the code that we have to comply with about soundproofing the buildings. And if we're required to give an avigation easement, certainly we will. And we will be happy to discuss an avigation easement. I just can't agree to it today because I haven't seen the document. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the same position the airport has at this point, they haven't seen these documents. MR. ANDERSON: If you are so inclined to continue, I would ask you to just do it till your next meeting, if possible. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would think so, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, any other questions? Page 151 May 4, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnone, we will close the public hearing and entertain motions. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that we continue this PUD until the next -- our next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? MS. DESELEM: If I may, before you vote on it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get a second to the motion and then we'll discuss it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Caron. Discussion? Okay. MS. DESELEM: Yes. For the record, Kay Deselem. I think our staff report for that meeting is already due to you, so we don't have any time to prepare anything additional to get to you. It would have to be strictly verbal or extremely late. So I wanted you to understand that as you consider what date you're continuing to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the motion carries, the only issue I think that's left on the table is the issue of the airport. And if Mr. Soliday were to come back on the 18th with the applicant and at least tell us they verbally worked something out and subj ect to refinement prior to the BCC meeting, we could stipulate things like that, and at least that would get us off the dime, and on rolling to get this thing done one way or the other. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. MS. DESELEM: Okay, I just wanted you to understand that whatever you might get would be extremely limited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I also would like -- okay, that's it, that's the only discuss -- is there any other discussion from the planning Page 152 May 4, 2006 commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, on this point, isn't (sic) these things we can make as a condition of our approval that they do work these things out prior to the -- going before the board? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We'll never know if they did in the way they should. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, do you think they could work them out in a way we wouldn't be happy? I mean, it's going to be pretty straightforward the workout, isn't it? I mean, that's my opinion. And I'm going to vote against it. If you feel that it isn't, then you'll vote for that. So make it simple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other comments, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the continuance until the March 18th meeting to resolve the issue -- May 18th. I'm sorry, May 18th. I wish it was. May 18th meeting to resolve the issue of the airport review of this project, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 5-3, the motion carries. This will be continued to May 18th, we'll wrap it up on the airport issue. Thank you. We'll take a 10-minute break for the court reporter right now. We'll be back at 2:10. (Recess. ) Page 153 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will resume their seats, we'll move on to the last item on today's agenda. Or last item on today's projects or hearings. Item #8G PUDZ-2005-AR-8901 Petition PUDZ-2005-AR-890 1. Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., project represented by Laura Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering. Proj ect known as Liberty Landing. All those wishing to testify in today's hearing, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any there disclosures on the part of the planning commission? Other than the staff report full of all kinds of things that we got. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll proceed with the applicant, ready for a presentation. MS. LEFKOW: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record my name is Lisa Lefkow and I'm director of development for Habitat for Humanity. Pleased to be with you this afternoon and bring this proj ect before you. This is our Liberty Landing PUD. As you know, we are certainly dealing with the throes of an affordable housing crises here in Collier County . I hope you also know that for 28 years Habitat for Humanity has been doing the good work that today so many are talking about with the success of 800 families living in simple, decent homes that they own on which they pay property taxes and participate as full members of the community. Page 154 May 4, 2006 We hope to continue to build on that success in building 162 single- family units in Liberty Landing. This is a property that has the capacity to come before you for a much higher density . We are not asking for that. Weare part of the Ave Maria building and development in this property. This is a component of their mandate, their county mandate to provide affordable workforce housing, and so we are pleased to be a part of that. It is partial fulfillment of their mandate. We come before you with a new design, a new home design which we are building at the moment out in East Naples at the Trail Ridge neighborhood. It is a new design and has included a garage, which is something that we've discussed with you before, and you've been encouraging us to do that. We have added that and are very pleased with the look and the structure. Weare hoping to begin building here as we complete building in Independence, which is just nearby . We hope this is a noncontentious it. We see the good of building affordable housing for the workforce and the community in Immokalee, bringing folks out of rental units. This is their first time in homeownership. We want to bring them out of particularly the substandard units that exist in Immokalee that were so highly impacted by the hurricanes and the storms of the last several years and put them in a stable structure. The fact that none of the Habitat for Humanity homes in Collier County suffered any structural damage through the storms is important and a source of pride for us. Shows that our county codes work. And we want to ensure more families' safety in those structures in the future. We have the Johnson & Johnson Engineering team here to answer any technical questions, and would be pleased to continue the conversation with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of the applicant to start the day? (No response.) Page 155 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do. First of all, you're with Johnson Engineering. MS. SPURGEON: Yeah. For the record, my name is Laura Spurgeon, I'm the agent for the applicant, along with Johnson Engineering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I tried to call you yesterday. I had a question about one of your reports. But you weren't in your office, Mr. Hodges wasn't in his office and the other person, Gina, I think, or something, nobody was in their office yesterday. The question I wanted to ask you is you provided in your EIS a supplemental report for contaminated soils that showed there weren't any contaminated soils. MS. SPURGEON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It looked to me like you were asked to do that by county staff. MS. SPURGEON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did that cost anything? MS. SPURGEON: There were expenses associated with it, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why you were asked to do that? MS. SPURGEON: Because the site was a former agricultural field. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was there a code that provides that to be required? I mean, there's lots of agricultural fields. Half the county is agricultural fields. Why was your project asked to do this? Is there a code reason? I couldn't find one, and there might be. I was just curious so I could use it for future reference in this particular room. MS. SPURGEON: I don't recall that a code was cited. Just at the preapplication stages of our petition we did go through a couple iterations with the environmental staff on whether we would qualify for an EIS waiver. We went through that application process because there are no wetlands on the site. Page 156 May 4, 2006 We were denied that request. And then a request for the soil testing was also forwarded to us. So we were trying to expedite the application process the best we could, so we complied with that request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll quit on this line of questioning, but my concern was this isn't a project that is overly wealthy. And I know plenty of projects come before us that are agricultural fields that have not been asked to have environmental soils analysis. So I thought why would Habitat be asked that. I could not find a code reason for that and I may have missed it. And I certainly would like staff to follow-up at some point in the future with me and tell me why and who could demand an expense like that without -- on a whim, basically. And so maybe Ray or somebody, you could fill me in on that at some future date. I sure would like to know it. MR. BELLOWS: I'll coordinate and get you that response as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : You mean all of us, so that we can all know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, would you let -- if there's a code requirement, I'd like to see it. I'd like to make sure that everybody does it. If there's not a code requirement, then we shouldn't be asking people to do things of that nature that are that costly unless there's a good reason for it. And a barren farm field with no historic buildings on it that I could see didn't seem to comply. As far as your deviation number one, do you know that staff is suggesting that that be denied? MS. SPURGEON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any issue with that? MS. SPURGEON: Yeah, we're still in the position that it's an appropriate request. The main reason for the request evolved from our Page 157 May 4, 2006 neighborhood information meeting where a property owner to the immediate west of us was very concerned about the impacts of this development on his single-family homestead that he has there. As a result of his comments, we adjusted our site plan to remove a strip of housing that would have put several backyards right up against his property. It was an effort to appease those concerns and put the right-of-way adjacent to his property to further the distance of any impacts or people or noise that would affect him; at the same time, having a sidewalk butt right up against his property on that west side of our entrance road would be contrary to that effort to make it a softer edge along the west property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this map that you've got in front of us, I see where the west edges up against the property line. Then it veers into the site a little bit, so you have some residential up against the west property line as you move into your site. Would you have a sidewalk in front of those residential units? MS. SPURGEON: Yes, we would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that you'd have a crosswalk then crossing over where the road turns and picks up the sidewalk again where the houses would be on the southern side of the site? MS. SPURGEON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which I thought made sense. Also, at the 1M -- yeah, the informational meeting that was held, it says Mrs. Spurgeon concluded the meeting, stating that she would relay the neighbors concerns to HFH's principals. Did you do that, and what were their reactions? MS. SPURGEON: Yes, I did. I gave a summary to the president of Habitat with all the concerns that were raised. A lot of the operational kind of concerns that we couldn't address with this specific rezoning request like, you know, comments about incidences of noise or cars being parked in certain location associated with other Habitat projects, those were the things that got relayed. Page 158 May 4, 2006 That can't really be resolved with a new rezoning project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They weren't physical changes you could make to the proj ect, they were more or less -- MS. SPURGEON: The physical changes were the ones I just described. There's also an addition of a pedestrian access for children to get to the Lake Trafford Elementary School. Because there were concerns at the neighborhood meeting about children getting to Lake Trafford Road and the congestion there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How have you suggested to help that situation? MS. SPURGEON: We added a pedestrian access from within the Liberty Landing master plan-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see it there. MS. SPURGEON: -- to the rear of the Lake Trafford Elementary School property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What will that do then, go through some of the -- right between a couple of lots or something like that where the arrow is? MS. SPURGEON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you do the traffic report, or is that someone else in your -- MS. SPURGEON: Someone within Johnson Engineering did the traffic report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While we're still with you guys then, could I get that person? I bet it's Alan. He went to the dark side. I don't know, the way transportation is, sometimes I wonder who's the dark side. No offense, you guys back there. MR. EL-URFALI: Good afternoon. Alan EI-Urfali, Johnson Engineering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. On your table for trip generation summary -- MR. EL-URFALI: Yes. Page 159 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the ITE code has NA. Then you came in with a trip rate per unit of 4.39. Well, what ITE code corresponds to 4.39? MR. EL-URFALI: Okay, we were using a -- by the way, if I can just say, that was not the updated TIS that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that works good for today. We've been having this kind of day here. MR. EL-URFALI: I have some correspondence and e-mail over here that I sent Nick Casalanguida. But I believe I dropped the ball and I didn't transmit all the information to everyone. But I certainly have the updated TIS, if you'd like to take a look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think for the record you want us to have it. I'm sure Nick would want that, too. MR. EL-URFALI: He has it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He does. But I'll pass this to the commISSIoners. Is my question answered in this particular TIS? MR. EL-URFALI: Yes. We went back -- it's basically transportation's request, Collier County transportation, that we go back to the multi-family ITE 230 designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, which increases your trip rate generation and increases the trip rates in and out. It would have been nice if I had the right one to read. Does either side want to look at this right now? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you satisfied, Mr. Chairman? MR. EL-URFALI: The TIS is still in support-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't read it. MR. EL-URF ALl: -- of consistency with the growth management plan and the transportation element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have more questions of transportation when we get to that. On the back of your transportation report, you had an attachment Page 160 May 4, 2006 A. And basically -- I'm sorry, it wasn't the transportation report. I'm trying to think of what it was attached to. It looks like it may have been attached to the application for public hearing. Okay, I think that's the only transportation question I had, Alan, at this point. Thank you. MR. EL-URFALI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Spurgeon, since you seem to be the head person for the firm, there was an application for public hearing provided for the PUD rezone. MS. SPURGEON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Behind it there was an attachment A. Says Liberty Landing RPUD, and there's a long legal description. Are you familiar with that page? MS. SPURGEON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Turn to the next page. What does your next page say? MS. SPURGEON: Independence, Phase II. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah. Is Liberty Landing Phase II? MS. SPURGEON: No. We provided that as an attachment because the re -- there's an area where you fill in any property that's owned or controlled by the applicant, and they ask for data associated with any adjacent property that's in common ownership. And we stated please refer to the attached Independence Phase II plat, because that's property that's also controlled by Habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Usually behind the legal description there's a graphic. I was -- didn't want to assume that you had given me the wrong graphic. MS. SPURGEON: Yeah, they were serving separate purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your RPUD master plan notes we keep getting into redundancy in our code, in our PUD language. Some of that gets cleaned up. But in your master plan you have a table, it says master plan notes, and you have quite a few things on Page 161 May 4, 2006 here that are redundancies or are unneeded. And I'm just wondering, and maybe staff would answer the question for me when they get up here, if it's a requirement that you had these on here. Seven, eight, nine, 11 are all referring to the LDC's, basically which you have to abide by anyway. And number 13, I'm not sure if that's consistent with anything else that I found. Is that for that little preserve, that one tiny little preserve on the east side of the project? I'm assuming that's what it refers to. MS. SPURGEON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll ask staff if they need all that language in there when they get up here. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions of the applicant's representatives? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, will staff maybe then-- MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Heidi Williams, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. I'd just like to start by saying that this area, the proposed PUD is contained within the Immokalee area master plan. It is a little bit complicated on how we get to the density of this site. There are three different designations on this particular parcel: One is called low residential, one is neighborhood center, and one is mixed residential. This is a transitional area, if you are strictly looking at the growth management plan future land use map. When you do the calculations of acreage and the allowable density for each of those categories, the overall project, base density permitted is 5.1 units per acre. The applicant has requested and submitted an affordable housing density bonus agreement that would make up the 0.9 units per acre necessary to get to the six that are requested. As was alluded to by the applicant, a much higher density could Page 162 May 4, 2006 be granted for this property at your discretion. It's not part of the request today. The project is proposing 100 percent affordable housing units and is intended to meet a requirement of the Ave Maria DRI. The land was donated by the Collier Corporation to fulfill one of their requirements. The environmental review staff found that there are no impacted wetlands or listed species; therefore, the proj ect was not heard by the EAC. They do find it consistent with the growth management plan. Our transportation division reviewed the project and the associated transportation impact statement. And I apologize, you didn't get the most current information. I think we had two versions within a month of each other, and you got the previous one. Regardless, transportation does find that the application is consistent with the transportation element of the growth management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Heidi. Is there any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let Mr. Midney go first. MS. WILLIAMS: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, you weren't finished? MS. WILLIAMS: I have actually just a couple more things to go over. There are three requested deviations, and if you'd like me to outline those and provide the staff recommendation for each one, I'll go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're in our report and I hope all of us read. I've read the report -- MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah, they're all in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only one I think you may try to counter is the comments that I brought up on deviation one. I don't necessarily see the need for denial by staff in this particular case, so -- MS. WILLIAMS: The information provided to me by the Page 163 May 4, 2006 transportation division is that a roadway can only be accepted for maintenance if it meets code, but I will let them -- I will defer to them for more information to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Midney had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let her finish her deviation issue and then we'll-- MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Caudill Scott, Transportation Engineering, Pathways Proj ect Manager. My concern with the deviation for removing the sidewalk is that the applicant is requesting that the county maintain the roadway. So in essence the county would be accepting a roadway that's not built to our standards. And if any of you have been in Immokalee, there are plenty of areas where sidewalks are needed, where in the past we may have made these judgments to where we have it on one side of the road, then you go out there and you see that there's a path where people are walking. In Immokalee people do not walk because they want to, they walk because they have to. And I strongly do not agree with this, the fact that people have to walk, they have to get to the C.A. T. bus system, they have to walk to get to their jobs. Furthermore, it's much more expensive later on for me to go back in and put that sidewalk, as opposed to just doing it when they're out there. It's a few hundred feet of sidewalk, but for me to go back and put it in later will be much more expensive. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Heidi, was there anything else that you had to add before we go to questions? MS. WILLIAMS: The staff recommendation is of approval. It's all in your staff report. I would just put on the record that that recommendation of approval is with the three stipulations that a bear management plan be Page 164 May 4, 2006 provided at the SDP or plat stage, that transportation reserves the right to deny maintenance of the roadway, and that the first deviation be removed at the transportation division's request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's a pretty simple question. Why did you want a bear management plan? MS. WILLIAMS: This was requested by our environmental review staff. It is an area that they feel is in bear habitat or close to habitat. And they thought that it was appropriate at the site plan stage, because it can be -- or platting stage, because it has just things like where dumpsters would be located. And actually, since this the single family, the trash cans could be inside. They thought it would be relatively straightforward, but did request that that be a stipulation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of commissioners? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to be asking Ms. Spurgeon, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Heidi. Johnson Engineering, Ms. Spurgeon, you have a couple more questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- having to do with -- if we could put up that other -- that shows the master plan or whatever. What I'm particularly interested in is that tot lot location. Right by a road there. And I'm just wondering what consideration was given to that. Now, I recognize that it's somewhat adjacent to the Trafford Elementary School, more or less. I just -- I know it's not a factor for me, for us here, particularly. But the tot lot location right by that road, was any consideration given to that particular -- MS. SPURGEON: We did give consideration to locating the tot lot number one not close to Lake Trafford Road where -- a heavily traveled road; not close to a lake where accidents could happen associated with water body; and in a convenient location so that no, Page 165 May 4, 2006 you know, house is at a disadvantage in having access to the tot lot. So those were centrally located, safe -- considered for be a safe place for the tot lot. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would there be bollards or some other kind of protection? Oh, there would be. Okay. So you've given-- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have two questions. One is them is very -- I'm just sorry he's not here. The Doctor and I go through this every time we've done this. It's the fifth time. Are we going to get garages there? MS. SPURGEON: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now, how long are the driveways? MS. SPURGEON: The driveways are required to be 20 -- well, there's required to be a distance of 23 feet from the sidewalk to the garage door. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If you don't get deviation, number one, would you still be able to complete the project as it is written? MS. SPURGEON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. I had one other question of Heidi. Heidi, in the RPUD master plan notes, one of -- there's several of them that are pretty redundant. They basically say they're going to do this and that pursuant to land development. I'm not sure why we have to have that on a -- clutter up a master plan. Number five says all common open space, water management areas and roadways will be owned, operated and maintained by the developer. Does that go on forever? I thought -- wouldn't they want to assign that to a homeowners association at some point down the road? Page 166 May 4, 2006 MS. WILLIAMS: I believe in the text of the document there is the possibility of an assign in the future. And to answer to your question about the notes on the master plan, anything that is redundant, staff would be supportive of removing for brevity on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope so. And I think that if you have a conflict between what's stated on the master plan and what's shown in the PUD document, you might still have a challenge. So if this developer references the developer in assigns, maybe it needs to be the same language in both places or taken out on the master plan. MS. WILLIAMS: I see that Margie wants to answer that, but I'm pretty sure she'll tell you that the text overrides the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we don't need that conflict to come up in the future. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would suggest that we make sure that they're not redundant and make sure that anything in there is consistent as well, because it could present problems. Yes, our position would be the text that would override it, but there's some counter arguments that could be made, and then you get into all kinds of statutory construction things that would seem easier to remedy up front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number nine says, the site shall meet minimum landscape buffer requirements of the Collier County Land Development Code. Yet we're showing a deviation from the landscape buffer. Again, a conflict. So please, before this goes to the BCC, clean it up, if we could, to keep it consistent. MS. WILLIAMS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have one question for transportation. Transportation is asking that deviation one be removed. And the reason for that is that staff is advised that a road would not be Page 167 May 4, 2006 accepted for maintenance unless it fully meets the LDC requirements. But yet here under staff recommendations, you want to reserve the right anyway to deny them maintenance. If we forward this with deviation number one removed, does that mean you remove number two? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon. Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning. I think we discussed -- I don't know if it was with the applicant, but it was discussed internally, once the roadway plans are submitted, there's a reason why we wouldn't want to maintain that road. We want that right. It wouldn't be automatic as part of the PUD. If there was something in the design of that roadway, didn't meet requirements, didn't meet something that the county required as part of the turnover, that we want to maintain that ability to do so. COMMISSIONER CARON: How could it not meet your requirements? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Construction standards. If there's something that's built that doesn't meet county requirements, we don't want to be forced to take over that road. So there was that requirement that we want that opportunity to review the construction plans, have that bonding period for one year. We always have that right as part of our review for a roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have the maintenance responsibilities in the project next door which was built by the same owner? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe they could answer that same question. Because if you're not going to end up maintaining this, they're going to retain the maintenance anyway, then why not let them have deviation number one? I mean, if it's only being done on the chance you guys might maintain it, but in essence you probably really won't. Page 168 May 4, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the issue was the sidewalk as well, too, though. Those were intertwined in a sense. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, exactly they're intertwined. MR. SCOTT: I believe over time that we have taken on maintenance of their roadways in different spots, so I think next door we do. But what he's saying is that yeah, they're saying we're going to build to these standards. What he's saying is essentially we're just making sure that they do over the period of time. You know, construction firms, too. You know, it's a check, essentially. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, when he started working here with you his hair wasn't gray. MR. SCOTT: And don't encourage him to go to the dark side either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now that we've had the applicant, we've had staff, is there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have about five public speakers. First one IS -- MS. LEFKOW: Before we go to the public speakers, if I might just address one more time that sidewalk issue and the roads. We certainly do want to be able to turn the roads over to the county. Obviously if we are required to put that sidewalk in, we will do it. Again, our intention, our desire is to be a good neighbor. And this was part of our agreement, part of, you know, making -- meeting the requests of our neighbor. Additionally, you recognize too that it is an expense. And because we're working here to build 100 percent of this neighborhood for very low-income families, all of those things add up. So twofold are the issues. So all of that has gone into the decision. But in the end, we will do what is required to turn those roads over to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 169 May 4, 2006 And Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Either now or I can describe when you're done the issue in regards to the soil sampling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You already started, might as well do it. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Section 10.02.01 part of the pre-application conference required for subdivisions under the preapplication written statement, 10 copies. Unless otherwise specified that a county manager or designee of a written statement generally describing the conditions of the property and the property -- or the proposed development of the entire subdivision. The statements shall include but is not necessarily limited to data on existing covenants and restrictions, location of utility facilities and public facilities, and here's the word, general soil characteristics. And under general soil characteristics, it's determined by staff to imply that soil sampling and groundwater monitoring reports for those sites that were deemed as old farm fields or old golf courses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that's a stretch. You know, FLUCCS maps were made for that -- respond to that answer, not -- oh, my God. So now instead of using soils maps and general maps, now they're going to the interpretation that that opens the door for whenever someone decides they can have a soil analysis required. MR. SCHMITT: I don't argue that. Nobody's ever raised it before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, nobody has. And it's -- MR. SCHMITT: Nobody has. And it's been pretty much pro forma at almost every preap. I looked it up, and frankly, if you all believe it's an issue, an over requirement, overkill -- I cannot discern whether the applicant can afford it or not. That's not an issue here. The issue is if I do it for one, I do it for all. If I waive it for one, I waive it for all with regards to the requirement. Page 170 May 4, 2006 I think that certainly the applicant, if they have the technical data to prove otherwise, can certainly provide that technical data without having to conduct the soils sample. I would have to have to turn to Johnson Engineering and ask if they ever disputed that. But that was the case in point in regards to the preap. I could probably certainly clarify that in an upcoming LDC amendment cycle that would clarify the requirement and clearly describe where soil sampling is required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, when you run the search for soils, that's the reference you come up with. I read it. I immediately thought, well, they couldn't have used this to get to where you got. Apparently now that's the interpretation. MR. SCHMITT: And I don't know if the pollution control department was involved in that during the preap, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just an added expense that -- I mean, if there was a reason that might have sprung it, like a shack on the site that could have stored fertilizers or a hole where somebody was dumping stuff, and some sites are like that in Collier County, then I would understand that happening. It's just surprising it's -- MS. SPURGEON: And I'll just restate that at the pre-application stages we even went to the effort to defend ourselves that an EIS waiver was appropriate, that there were not conditions there that would require extensive environmental review. That was found not-- you know, it was a sufficient request, but they found it -- they didn't agree with it, and they further asked for the soils sampling. That's how it transpired. And I know like if there's a dipping vat or something like that on some sites, those things come up. But this was just because it was an old ago field. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, let's go to the public hearing. And those people wishing to speak today, please remember that we have to limit your discussion to five minutes. Thank you. Page 171 May 4, 2006 MR. BELLOWS: First speaker is Jack Johnson, followed by Barbara Brister. MR. JOHNSON: Could we put the aerial back up, please. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's Jack Johnson. I have been a resident of Immokalee since 1961. And my concern here today is having been the leasee of all of this land previous to this point for 25 years, I think I have a little better idea of what goes on on it than county staff, obviously. I, having been on the planning board before, understand the need for affordable housing. Nobody does it better than Habitat. We're not here to argue that. And I'm not here to really gripe at them, I'm here to gripe basically at the county staff. Once upon a time when they built Lake Trafford Road, if you're familiar with it on the south side -- I don't have a thing to look at, do I? Okay. I'm not that technically advanced. Right there, that's where I want to be. Thank you. There is a branch of water that flows north and south. It comes under Lake Trafford Road. Whoever designed it new how much water flowed through there. There's two box culverts that are probably eight by 12, carry a lot of water. Never flooded that I can remember. That branch drains approximately 4,000 acres of land to the north. Okay, all the way to highway 82, if you're familiar with Immokalee, everything south of 82, west of 29 comes down that branch. There's no other way to go. The only other possibility is on the east side of this project there is a little ditch that runs down to the south, dumps over in the pond that you see and then crosses under Lake Trafford Road through two culverts, goes through the new Arrowhead project. That's the only way it can get away. That's a lot of water to come down through there. At some point in time somebody designed a sidewalk to get the kids to school. Lovely idea. I'm for it. Used to be a bridge over it. The homeowners behind me will attest to that. Never was a water problem while the Page 1 72 May 4, 2006 bridge was there. Several years ago, they took the bridge out, put in two 48-inch culverts. Those of you who are mathematically inclined can understand that two 48- inch culverts cannot handle the same amount of water that two box culverts of the size I've described. Ever since then we have a problem. I went to the original rezoning petition before the Board of County Commissioners, brought up the fact to the board that even though county staff said there was no sheet flow across this land at that time at that rezone, three of the previous five years there had been extensive sheet flow. The water can't go down the branch so it spreads out over the entire width of this property about a quarter of a mile from Little League Road all the way to the east side of this rezone petition. And sheet flowed so it could get over the sidewalk, get in the road ditch, run back around the two 48-inch culverts, go under the box culverts and go away. Sheet flow, bunches. Came in. I said I'm opposed to the project, the Independence project because it dams off sheet flow possibility, okay? To no avail. We got that. Spent a lot of time with, oh, my buddy, the engineer who was previously on the project, Mr. David Wilkerson. Sat with him, sat with water management district officials, sat with Collier County stormwater management officials. Discussed things you wouldn't even believe. It was about like a bear preserve. But, you know, the problem is the water can't go down the branch because of the two culverts. I'm concerned now we're going to restrict the rest of the sheet flow. And not only -- I'm not here just because it kind of floods out my cow pasture, but everybody that lives on Westclox, everybody that lives on Carson Road, all of those dwellings were permitted and built before we required this project to have three foot of fill dirt. And, you know, you stand in the pasture ground level, their pads for the previous project -- and I'm sure the ones to come will be even higher -- but, you know, it's three feet tall. Page 173 May 4, 2006 So we've damned off a quarter of a mile area of potential sheet flow with these two projects, backed up all that water all in the area. And it concerns me, because people A, have accused me of pumping. The young lady that did the Carson Lakes proj ect who was the engineer there called me up and said, where are you pumping all this water from. I go, I don't own a pump. So this water's coming from the north down a ditch. Interestingly enough, that what your staff said was a county drainage easement in the rezone petition for the sand mine to the north of the Collier property that came I think a year ago, I believe one of their restrictions was they could not dump their water into the county drainage ditch that flowed to the south. Interesting enough. What I don't understand and what I'm really here for today is what does it take and how many staff planners does it take to take the two culverts out of the sidewalk and put in something that would take the water flow into the box culvert and make them go away? You know, I'm frustrated. Water management wanted to build retention ponds and retention areas. I know there's been at least three complete massive surveys done about how the water flows in this area. Mr. Crews will attest to that. No telling how much money we've spent to find out that the water actually does flow this way down that branch. Stormwater management, same thing. You mayor may not be aware of, the county commission approved 300 and some odd thousand dollars to extend the box culverts to the north and I guess do away with the culverts. That was promised to be done by July of last year, September of last year and December of last year. For your information, the holdup is the Immokalee water sewer district has a water main and a sewer line that goes on either side of Lake Trafford Road, so that stopped that whole project. Which doesn't get me back really a good answer to why don't we just replace the two culverts. I've heard staff arbitrarily say okay, you need to do a -- you need Page 174 May 4, 2006 to spend the money to do a survey on the soil testing. Farm field hasn't been farmed in 35 years I know of. You've got to have a bear preserve. I've been there 25 years, I've never seen a bear. Never seen a bear in that country. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure there was a code somewhere that says it was required. MR. JOHNSON: No, they could require it because they could require it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. MR. JOHNSON: And I'm not fighting Habitat, honest to goodness, because they've been good neighbors. I've had issues, I call Ms. Lilly, Miss Lilly takes care of it, it's done. So the problem I got is with the county. How many people does it take to figure out how to make the water go away? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get a -- I think transportation indicated they had some information. So Mr. Johnson, if you'll let us pursue your questions -- MR. JOHNSON: I'd appreciate that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Trinity, yes, why don't you address this while it's still fresh in our minds. MS. SCOTT: Okay. For the record, once again, Trinity Caudill Scott. I'm not a stormwater engineering. I know enough to be dangerous. But I will let you know that I do know a little bit about this proj ect because it does involve a sidewalk. The gentleman is right, the project has been in our work program. It was delayed because Immokalee Water and Sewer does have lines on either side of which they did not have any funding to move. The project is going forward at this time. We have a design consultant on board and we are looking at alternatives to not having to move those lines, one of which is just extending the existing box Page 175 May 4, 2006 culvert. I have the project manager's name and number, and I will get this to this gentleman so he can get in contact with them and get additional information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When is this slated -- is it funded? MS. SCOTT: It's funded, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it contacted? MS. SCOTT: No. It's under design currently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When is the estimated time table that you know of, or do you know a time table? MS. SCOTT: I know they don't want to do it during rainy season. I mean, that's obvious. MR. JOHNSON: Here we go again. MS. SCOTT: I know, I know. And I asked the project manager this the other day. And my concerns are the school children getting to school as well, because it does affect that. So I would defer to our stormwater department. I'll try to get ahold of them and get an answer before the end of this hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the reference, the job number you guys are using for this? MS. SCOTT: I don't have the project number. The project manager is Val Prince. And I'm going to go call him right now and see if I can get some information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the name of the project is? MS. SCOTT: Fish Branch Creek Stormwater Improvement, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if we make a motion on this, it might be something to include a reference to that so the BCC gets the same highlight of the issue that we have here today. MS. SCOTT: Yes. I will go get additional information for you right now. Page 176 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Barbara Brister, followed by John Brister. MS. BRISTER: Hi. I'm Barbara Brister, and I have lived on the property that's adjacent to the west for this project since 1967. And my family has lived there since the early Sixties. And this is an area of extensive water flow. And we are concerned about the water flow. Just recently we've had some problems with the Habitat people actually pumping water onto our property, which we don't appreciate, and I'm sure that code enforcement will be happy to get that information. I do have the pictures today. We don't necessarily have a problem with Habitat other than we do oppose the density, primarily because we think there is going to be issues with water management and that they do need more areas for water management and wildlife management. You know, they are building this property up extremely high. And we already have problems with washouts. They do not have adequate ditching around the Independence proj ect. And I want to make sure that this project is not going to have the same issues. Because if it does it will flood my front yard, my backyard and my driveway. If they pump the water especially like they were doing last week. You know, it's during a drought and we have 10 inches of water in our pasture. I also have a problem with the fact that we don't have a code enforcement person who works evenings in Immokalee. You know, they're talking about putting in garages in these people's houses. I grew up in Immokalee and I know that a lot of these people have enormous families, and you're building a three-bedroom, one-bath house. That garage is going to be a bedroom, or they're going to rent it to their neighbor down the street. There will be no cars parked in any garages that are built on this property in 10 years. They'll all be boxed Page 1 77 May 4, 2006 in and turned into a bedroom. You'd be better served by taking the space and turning it into an additional bathroom or additional bedroom for these people. The other thing is, is that, you know, they're talking about this being low-income housing, which we got a whole project going across the street for low-income housing. You know, and then I've been told, well, this is for migrant housing. Migrants don't need houses, they need rentals, because they leave. There's also problems because -- especially with the -- you know, I don't want Habitat getting cut any slack as far as infrastructure because it's going to affect me. Now, they obviously do not have their stormwater management plan up to date. And I'll submit these pictures, if you'd like to see them. Or submit it to stormwater management, whatever. Their backyards are washing into our pasture, along with the dirt and the debris and the trash and everything else that comes off the back of that property because they don't have it adequately diked or whatever they're supposed to do in order to manage their own water. Now, I don't have a problem with water running down Fish Creek, which we own and is part of our property. It's always been a water management area and it has never been a severe problem until they put the two little dams with the two little eye holes for the water to go through. And now we do have a little bit of problem during the extreme rainy period. But even during Hurricane Wilma it cleared in a couple of weeks. The other issue is, is that we oppose the duplexes. And I know that that's what Habitat is wanting to do these days. But, you know, we feel like the Habitat dream is to own your own home, your own property and your own four walls and roof. And we just think we're doing these people a disservice by creating duplexes and future slums in Immokalee. Because eventually these people will own these properties, eventually they will sell them and eventually they will Page 178 May 4, 2006 become rentals. And also the size of the families. You know, the way they're doing it, there's no chance that these people can actually add on to their home and their property that they have paid for at any time. And I don't know how it works over at Independence, but they have big yards and stuff. If they wanted to add on an extra room, I think that they're probably far enough away from their property line that they could. I may be wrong on that matter. I guess that's pretty much all I wanted to say. Oh, and the other thing, like I said, about code enforcement. I'm concerned about that. There's not any code enforcement people. And there's problems with noise, extra -- many, many cars in the evening parked everywhere. And too many people per square foot in the existing homes in Immokalee. Not necessarily Independence, I'm not accusing them, but a lot of homes in Immokalee there is way too many people per square foot in them. And we need a nighttime code enforcement person to take care of that kind of thing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I know I for one will have some follow-up questions with the applicant after we hear the rest of the public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: Tom Brister, followed by Floyd Crews. MR. BRISTER: Scott Brister. How are you doing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, sir. MR. BRISTER: I for the last five, six years have pretty well maintained this piece of property that Habitat is planning to build on. I've kept the creek clear of debris during Wilma. I am still clearing some debris, so this creek will flow as it should. Habitat, if you take a look at the overall picture of Independence and its new subdivision that is planned, they have messed with the creek. They have put a retention area in an area and they have raised it up probably about two feet, three feet, which would be to the north of this picture. Basically 300 feet from the northwest corner. That area Page 1 79 May 4, 2006 right there is a retention area. A creek pretty well flows right down to the -- on that top half right beside Habitat. The density I do not like, for the fact that Habitat started out as a single-family home for these people that need low-income houses. I, for one, if I am buying a house, I would not like to share a wall with somebody else. And that's exactly what they're doing. They're becoming renter -- just basically buying or sharing a house with someone else. I believe they need to be single-family homes. I believe Habitat and the engineers that design these proj ects need to look a lot closer at the land around them and make sure that they're not impacting people to the north, south, east or west of them. They're not looking -- they are wanting to do something good, I believe that. I believe they need to put more affordable housing in the location that these projects are, such as Collier, Collier donating this project for Habitat to comply with their low-income housing for Ave Maria. If they would like to do that, why not put more affordable housing where Ave Maria is going into, instead of moving it out of? It's like let's keep Immokalee low rent for the higher, more educated people. That's basically -- you know, you have to look at the whole issue with roads in Immokalee. They're terrible. And if the board does not take a good look at it, it's going to wind up being just more and more congested every year. Lake Trafford Road is terrible now. And if they put more and more houses, which they are in plans, what, three more projects, I believe, down Lake Trafford Road? You're piling it -- I believe there's three more. In the future, you're piling a lot of people onto Lake Trafford Road. Raising the property up, there's a lot of drainage going through Fish Branch Creek. It really needs to be addressed. Fish Branch Creek does not need to be messed with. What needs to happen is control of the water going into it, not speeding it up and going into it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Page 180 May 4, 2006 Ray, the last speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker, Floyd Crews. MR. CREWS: Yeah, I'm going to try to stay out of trouble today. We've got to have some roads, folks -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you need to identify yourself. MR. CREWS: -- there ain't no two ways about it. My name is Floyd Crews. I'm from Immokalee. There's -- we hope one day we're going to have a road that's going to go from Lake Trafford Road out to 82. This is going to put the outlet of this new subdivision possibly on one of the busiest intersections that could be in Immokalee. Immokalee is two lanes. Today, with the exception of the little road that comes that Arrowhead has put in -- and Arrowhead is not open. If there's a wreck on Immokalee Drive -- on Lake Trafford Drive before you get to Carson Road coming from the Lake Trafford in, there's no way out. That road is sealed off. That's a one-way road. It needs to be four-Ianed. And according to Arrowhead, they are going to four-lane it. It is almost impossible to get emergency vehicles down these roads in the afternoons whenever we have traffic. I would hope that somebody would put this subdivision outlet on another road. Earlier when they started out with this bunch of subdivisions, it was implied that Independence was going to empty out onto Westclox. Well, it was implied. It's not been done and it never will be done until somebody in the county forces some of these things to be done. And it gets harder and harder to get right-of-ways as land gets more expensive. We've got things that are happening to us that are faster than any of us can realize. There's more subdivisions coming in there, there's more houses coming in there, there's more development. That's all I'm going to say about the roads. But we need roads. The sidewalks. Where did she go? There you are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to stay close to the mic. Page 181 May 4, 2006 MR. CREWS : We can't tell -- I'm sorry, I'm not used to talking in one of these things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. MR. CREWS: We can't tell if the sidewalk on Lake Trafford Road is a bicycle path, a sidewalk, a turning lane or a parking spot. We have got to have some sidewalks up and down that road. Are they talking about putting in some duplexes in there? MR. SCOTT: Two-family. MS. WILLIAMS: Two-family. MR. CREWS: Are they talking about it for the aged, for the older people? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you'll have to direct your questions to us. The conversation's got to be between the board and -- MR. CREWS: I understand that. But I've got to make out what I'm going to ask you all or tell you all. Whenever you have an older population, fire service and emergency services become a real important thing as time-wise is. If we can't shorten the time by having good roads, we're in trouble. I'll leave that one alone. Our impact fees are deferred. It takes a while before we ever get money to work on roads. The county's going to have to find some money for some roads. And I agree with her, we need some sidewalks. Jack Johnson brought up the point about Fish Branch. Fish Branch, before the Pipers -- anyhow, before we could have Andy and built the grove to the west of where we're talking about, the water actually divided and some of it came down Fish Branch and some of it went to the west to Lake Trafford. When they diked up the -- with the grove, that stopped that water flow. Because you used to be able to take a boat, an airboat from where Barbi's talking about living around the back way, and whether it was wet or not, and go right on out and come out down there at Lake Trafford right there at the old fish camp. When they built the grove, that stopped it. The county and water Page 182 May 4, 2006 management now has this as they're using for a spoil bank for the Lake Trafford mud or sand or pump, whatever they pumped out. And it is a good opportunity for you all to help everybody else in getting a drainage plan for the north side -- I guess we're going to have to call it Little League Road. Because Little League Road turns and goes out and turns into farming area road, all the way down to Lake Trafford. And if any of you all would like to see it and what I'm talking about, come see me. I've shown two of the county commissioners. I've had Clarence Tears out there and shown him, from water management. I've had Margaret Bishop out there and shown her. But that is an alternative for this water. Fish Branch at one time flowed year round. And that's not happened in many years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Crews, we're running out of time, so could you move it, sir? Thank you. MR. CREWS: I hope that whenever they do get this subdivision in place, because my hat's off to you all for -- the Habitat people for building this low-income housing. And as Paul can tell you, I'm -- help everybody else and we try to do as much of this as we can. But we need to have some sort of vehicle in the counties to be able to keep their yards and houses in a presentable manner. I'm going to quit. Thank you all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Is that the last public speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That was the last speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. I'd like to get some of these issues addressed by transportation as best we can, and of course I have some questions of the applicant. Trinity, why don't you proceed. MS. SCOTT: I spoke to Eugene Calvert, our director for stormwater management. The project name is Fish Branch Creek. The Page 183 May 4, 2006 project number 510211. They are looking at right now doing a separate pedestrian bridge. Removing the box culvert under the sidewalk and putting in a separate pedestrian bridge. That is the most cost-effective and the quickest improvement that they can do. Weare looking at -- the pedestrian bridges are prefabricated. Once we go out to bid, it takes 12 weeks to construct. I communicated this to the gentleman, that will would probably be out there in the fall constructing, actually getting the bridge in place. They have cleaned the box culvert in the past month, the existing box culvert not only under the sidewalk but the large one under the road, as well as they are scheduled this week to go clean out the silt from downstream. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're thinking this will start in the fall and be completed in what matter of time? MS. SCOTT: A pedestrian bridge takes a couple of weeks to put in, maybe a month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? MS. SCOTT: It's set in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've been waiting all this -- this has been going on for how long? MS. SCOTT: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No wonder why people are frustrated. MS. SCOTT: Well, a lot of the delay was working with Immokalee Sewer and Water District in trying to get them to relocate their pipes and all that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by the end of'07 you expect this to be complete? MS. SCOTT: I expect it to be complete by the end of '06. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: '06, I'm sorry. I keep getting the-- MS. SCOTT: Definitely it will be complete by the end of'07. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Trinity. For the applicant, there's some issues raised, and I kind of want to Page 184 May 4, 2006 run through them. Not all of them pertain to what we're discussing here today. But I think you heard there were some complaints about Independence and the way it's operated, and I-- MS. LEFKOW: Sure. May I remind you just ofa couple of parameters about Habitat for Humanity. This is the most successful affiliate of Habitat for Humanity in the nation. Weare building more homes than any other affiliate. In fact, the reason that I'm here before you instead of Sam Durso is because he's in Washington D.C. teaching other affiliates how to be successful and helping them to build their capacity as well. A couple of issues that came up, and allow me to address them. We do have a very strict and stringent application process. Our application requires that the only persons that are allowed to live in the house are those that are on the original application or that are naturally born into the family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, when you make these kind of statements, they're good statements, but how do you enforce that? MS. LEFKOW: We see every homeowner family every month. Every family is required to pay their mortgage in our office every month. The families are -- we're in and out of every neighborhood all the time. And the families, the neighborhoods, are in large extent self-policing. Again, we are turning over neighborhoods that are PUDs to homeowners associations, as we referenced before, and they are very, very careful, cautious. They want to maintain a good neighborhood, just as much as any of us want to have of our own neighborhoods look nice, be a good and safe place for us to raise children and to live. So the same is true of every Habitat neighborhood. We definitely have very strict regulations as a part of our Page 185 May 4, 2006 mortgage documents that do require that families maintain their property, maintain their homes. Again, we are very, very aware of that. As director of development, this is important for me because I'm taking donors in and out of neighborhoods all the time. So this is something that from a lot of different perspectives is very, very important. And certainly we want to respond to the concern about a neighborhood not being well kept. It's highly important to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of the concerns was a quantity of people living in the units and a possibility of conversions of garage MS. LEFKOW: Again, restricted in mortgage documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me finish what I was going to say. Do you have any problem if we added a stipulation to your PUD that said garages could not be converted to living space? Do you have any objection to that? MS. LEFKOW: They can be converted, but only if they go through a permitting process like any of the rest of us. If you were going to add on to your home, you would have to go through county staff permitting regulations to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the issue here is that they get converted, they have more population in the homes than were started out to be, and we're approving this on the condition they have garages, which is an issue that this board has brought up many times, and now MS. LEFKOW: Very definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're saying that they can be converted, that eliminates the garage. MS. LEFKOW: Where are we going to draw the line then? Do we say that they can't make an improvement on their house? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just said would you mind with a stipulation that says garages may not be converted into living space? Page 186 May 4, 2006 MS. LEFKOW: I would mind that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You would. MS. LEFKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's almost telling me then that you intend that to happen -- MS. LEFKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but that's not the intent of what this board has previously looked at in the past. MS. LEFKOW: We certainly do not intend for that to happen. And it is a part of our documents that, you know, there cannot be any improvements made on the house, additions made to the house, things like that, without coming before the county. Now, if the county were to determine that we can't make any improvements on the whole neighborhood, why that's up to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: When I first started, and the garages started with me, the idea was that basically on many nights and especially on the weekends there's no place to put a car. They need garages and need it to look like a community. The minute you turn them into houses, you go back to where you were, and that's not what I want. Now, the answer is this: As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to be allowed to change those garages into bedrooms, I'm not going to vote for this. I can't. Because I'm tired of watching what I've seen before. And I'm not going to let it start again. So really, it's up to Habitat to make their decision. I certainly can't. I'm telling you this, if we have garages that can be turned into bedrooms, I'm not making a vote here. MS. LEFKOW: We agree. We agree. We don't want those garages turned into bedrooms either. That is not our intention. That is not our desire. Weare not going to encourage that. Page 187 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But you let them do that if-- MR. O'FALLEY: But isn't that a county decision when they would come before you with permitting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, we can stipulate anything we want to stipulate and recommend it to the board. You're, though, objecting to a stipulation that garages not be converted. And I think that's the crux of the point that Mr. Adelstein's trying to make. And go ahead, Mr. -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and I have to add to this. Because I'm aware, as you are aware, of homes -- generally you start out with a family with young children, and those young children get old enough to drive and they have to have a car. So you will have defeated your own purpose. And you're saying it's free market, they're okay . Well, it isn't free market, okay? So I think that I too would vote against this. And I certainly don't want to vote against this if you feel that anything goes. And I use that term to describe that particular thing, because I think that represents anything goes. MS. LEFKOW: Certainly we do not feel that way. That is -- you know the history of Habitat for Humanity, you know our history in Collier County. And again, we are very, very cautious about anything that happens within the boundary of Habitat for Humanity neighborhoods, with Habitat for Humanity families. My concern is how much we are stepping into an area where we really don't belong. If you were buying a home in your neighborhood that said that you were not allowed to make an improvement on your home, you would not have an issue with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I live in a condominium. There are many, many, many restrictions that say I can't do that or I can't do that, and I went into that understanding that. And I do not understand why those folks who are essentially beginning -- these are beginning houses for them. Lord willing, they improve themselves enough to Page 188 May 4, 2006 buy a larger house later on, perhaps elsewhere. So I don't see it as -- you see it as the end-all be-all, whereas I see it as a starter opportunity. Because if they have families, those families are going to grow. And if you have no place to put them, you haven't achieved what you intended. Should we go back to having no garage? Because what was an advocation then by Habitat that if you build a four-bedroom -- or four-room house or a five-room house, did you advocate that they should add a room on? You don't have enough parcel space in most of your places to do that. MS. LEFKOW: We certainly didn't advocate that they do that, but if that's what they choose to do and they find the permitting allows them to do that, we have Habitat houses that have put in additions or have added a screen room. Obviously they have to take that through the county. And as their -- as the county permitting determines, they're allowed to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, are these -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bellows has been trying to-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that, but without argument I need to finish this. I recognize there are two different kind of homes that Habitat has been building. Some, like in Naples Manor, are a different configuration and sty Ie than the ones that are in other areas like Charlie. MS. LEFKOW: They're the same. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're the same house? MS. LEFKOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are the parcels the same? MS. LEFKOW: No, the parcel-- the size of the property is different. Very different. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we're -- MS. LEFKOW: As it would be for-- Page 189 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- talking a development area versus spot building for my purposes in this conversation. So obviously in an area where you have a larger parcel, the potential exists. But is that the case what you're doing in this particular thing? Or are you building like another Charlie? Are you building -- MS. LEFKOW: It's not-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- something that is maximizing the space by having the structure take up most of the space? MS. LEFKOW: They're not zero lot lines, they're-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. I'm going to have to ask you, you can't interrupt. MS. SPURGEON: The PUD lists permitted uses including single- family, two-family, zero lot line and duplex. The type of unit projected for Liberty Landing is the two-family unit, and that is a shared wall, and two units. The property itself is fee simple ownership under that -- under single unit ownership. The lot size accommodates the unit and there is expected to be not -- we're not going to meet every -- just do the minimum. We're not just going to be at minimum setbacks on every corner of the building pad. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're going to have adequate space to expand outward? MS. SPURGEON: We will not be right at minimum. So I don't know -- we're not far enough along in the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't want to make it seem like I'm arguing, because I'm not trying to. I just want it to be clear, I think the people who have spoken today have represented their view that they're concerned with Habitat, as you should be, and I know you are, of being somehow construed as creating something that we don't want for the future. And I think our -- I know Mr. Adelstein has said it and I'm saying it now, that our position is, hell, I want these homes, but I want some Page 190 May 4, 2006 sense of it that what's going to happen is not going to be a burden. I look at Naples Manor, I go down there sometimes, and it's obscene with cars all over the place because their families grew. That's not what you want, is it? MS. LEFKOW: Perhaps I can address the issue a little bit better. The homeowners -- the neighborhood will be turned over to the homeowners association, and Habitat maintains control of that. We have a seat on the homeowners association board. We will absolutely move forward with making sure that those garages are not inappropriately used, that they are -- that they maintain their purpose as garages, that -- they're certainly not going to be rented out. That is absolutely not an option in any stretch. No part of a Habitat home can be rented out. So to address that previous concern. And then finally, the concern about the duplex, and the shared common wall. Obviously there are many situations, and we live in Collier County where many are buying condos and living very well in such situations. A duplex site, I'm not sure what the concern about that is. The backyards will be fenced with privacy fences. I'm not sure what else I can do to address those concerns. But to come back to the garages, we will do all that we can do. And if you want to stipulate in your recommendation that that be included, why, we will have to accept that, won't we? My hope would be that we would send a clear message to all of Collier County and to the Board of County Commissioners with the unanimous approval that Habitat for Humanities work is important, that we have confidence in Habitat for Humanity, as evidenced by 28 years of success and 800 successful families. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bellows, you've been waiting patiently with a comment. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Over the years of being involved with affordable housing projects, a lot of issues like this have arisen in the Page 191 May 4, 2006 past. And this may be an issue for the attorney's office also is that when government imposes stipulations or conditions that could be deemed discriminatory, I think that could fly in the face of federal law or state statutes. We have to be careful how stipulation are placed that one development that would not be appropriate if it's -- because it is an affordable housing project and wouldn't be applied to say a fair market rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what stipulation do you think you're referring to, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The prohibition on converting garages into -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the whole premise that's here today before us isn't possibly being approved, it's simply that the PUD that they're proposing will include garages. If they eliminate them, as far as I'm concerned, that's not the project we're approving today. So that's -- I don't know why that would be a problem. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't see -- I don't know of any -- I think it would be very difficult if not impossible to approve. And I don't know that there's any discrimination in requiring somebody to have a garage in which to put an automobile, now that they've started to build that type of product. So I don't know that it's discriminatory. MR. BELLOWS: I just seem to recall that on another project. MR. GIBLIN: Perhaps I can shed some light, Marjorie. Cormac Giblin, Housing and Grants Manager. I think what Ray might have been referring to as discriminatory is the requirement that garages be provided in the first place. It's not a requirement of any county code whatsoever. So that that requirement is being imposed on these houses because they are seen as affordable housing could be viewed as being applied in a discriminatory manner. And then further restricting that those garages, once constructed, are not able to avail themselves of the regular county process that any other property owner in the county is able to avail themselves through Page 192 May 4, 2006 proper permitting to convert that to living space, if they so choose, could further be discriminatory. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't know, I've never seen any cases like that. And I would add, this is a PUD which is a special zoning district, and it's not straight zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. You're going to pass? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm just basically saying that unless the staff could show me if it's discriminatory to give a garage to a home, which is where we started, to make sure that the property maintains itself and now say that if we -- once they have it they have a right to do something else with it, I'd like to see the law and the statement that makes that statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I'm sorry, you're not going to be able to speak. You'll just have to hold off, okay? Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: It's also my understanding that they're not listed as a requirement in the PUD at present. So you would have to make that as part of the motion that garages have to be built. I think it's been discussed as a general template of building design, but there's no guarantee in the PUD as it currently is written that garages have to be constructed. MR. GIBLIN: And Commissioners, perhaps let me make myself a little bit more clear. If this were any other project, take Pelican Bay, Mediterra or Pelican Marsh, there would be no requirement that they build a garage. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exactly. That is what -- you're saying absolutely to his no requirement. Do you know what you just said absolutely to? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if I may, I recall quite Page 193 May 4, 2006 clearly, Mr. Durso, Dr. Durso stating okay, we get the message, you folks think we should have garages in order to make things better, we're going to put garages in from now on. And, by the way, we're going to do duplexes. That was a choice that was made, not a requirement. We asked that it happen, and he acquiesced to that. Now, what you've made it seem, to me at least, is that it's a means by which they can expand their building. So why bother calling it a garage? Why don't we just put another bedroom on. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Excellent point. MR. GIBLIN: I just would like to caution the Commission in any decision that may be viewed as a potential lawsuit down the road. And maybe your county attorney can research it further at some point. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just -- you know, I've just never heard of a case like that in my life. There's fair housing act amendments and things like that. And I've got to tell you, as an attorney, discrimination is a very hard thing to prove. And I think -- I'm just going to put -- I'm not a planner or a builder or anything else, but I'm just going to put a lay observation on the record. It would seem that in higher end communities, because the price point is higher, that it's a given that there will be a garage, because the price point is higher. And that's all. And perhaps then a lower end community it's not a given that there's going to be a garage because the difference in the price point. So we're just trying to ensure that these folks have the same amenities at a lower price point than folks -- you don't have to put in because the price point's higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now, wait a minute -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Somebody out there in the building trade correct me if I'm wrong, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie, stop. Page 194 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In this situation, I think most of you don't know this. But it wasn't the fact that I brought him the garages, it was him coming to me, because he realized that Atlanta wouldn't allow it. And the only way they would be allowed to put a garage in is if the county made them put it in. So we did it in a reverse. I made the commitment that he wanted made because he couldn't do it. Atlanta wouldn't let hem. So this whole situation was to put that garage in because he knew in order to make a community look like a community, you couldn't make it look like a parking lot. And that's what he was trying to do. It was the only thing he could do, he had no other power to do it. So we did it this way. Now, as far as I'm concerned, he didn't want them for -- garages for bedrooms, he wanted to keep them to keep the cars off the street. MS. LEFKOW: You're correct. You are correct. And the mandate from Americus used to be that we are indeed building -- still is, our goal is to build a simple, decent home. So we're not putting a lot of high-end amenities in. We are building a simple, decent home. It used to be that the county had to mandate, there had to be some deed restrictions. That is no longer true. Weare doing this now because of our relationship, because it's the right thing to do. Our desire is for those garages to be garages. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And we have a right to say that they must maintain them as garages -- MS. LEFKOW: Garages. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- period, because they're being given in, and there's no argument to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I respect your point of view, Lindy, but I also disagree with it a little bit. I mean, I think that if I buy a house, whether it's a Habitat house or my own house, which I have which is not part of any development, if I want to convert my Page 195 May 4, 2006 garage to a room or maybe a work room or maybe a bedroom, I mean, if it's my house I should have the right to do it. That's my point of VIew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead and finish. Paul, you may finish your statement. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm done. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Most people don't have that right because they'd -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Now listen, you wait till you're recognized to be called upon, Margie. You know that. You're an attorney, and Lindy, you're an attorney. I know you guys are all getting hot on this issue. Calm down. We'll get to everybody. One at a time. If we're going to be here for all day, I don't care. So Mr. Schiffer, did you have a comment you wanted to make? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just wanted to quickly join Paul. I mean, all the times we've talked about garages, remember all the conversations about 23 feet? That means we were talking about a garage. We never once worried about whether these people would enclose it. So I definitely think this is a -- we're kind of suspicious and discriminatory here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Adelstein, then Margie. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, first of all, this is a PUD, and a PUD is custom zoning. And we can put in the requirement to have a garage and have it remain a garage. I live in a PUD myself. I also live in a duplex in a PUD. So I can tell you a lot about the restrictions that are placed on anybody who lives in a PUD. And you can put on whatever restriction you want. I can't change the color of my house, I can't replace the roof on my house. There are a thousand restrictions that be put on PUDs. They are custom zoning, and that's what we're dealing with here. And I think we've already been through the reasons that we have Page 196 May 4, 2006 garages in the first place. It was an agreement with Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Durso to get to a point that Mr. Durso wanted to get to. And putting it in this PUD is totally appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You said exactly the proper thing. It's something he wants to do, it's something he wanted to do and that's the way he wants it, as garages. That's how we came-- MS. LEFKOW: We agree. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, did you have anything you wanted to add now? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick thing. Donna, don't confuse deed restrictions. I live in the same kind of community, and those are controlled by deed restrictions. Habitat for Humanity has the right to do whatever they want to with their garages via their own deed restrictions, and I think we should leave it to them. We don't force anybody else to have a restriction like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think we've had a great time discussing this particular issue, and I hate to open a can of worms for another one, but one thing we need to address is stormwater. Can you tell me -- before you walk away from the mic, I'm not sure who might want to respond to this. You're now coming to us today for a PUD. Are you in the county system for a PPL or an FSP or anything like that? MR. EL-URFALI: We will be soon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you state your name for the record again? MR. EL-URFALI: Yes. Alan EI-Urfali, Johnson Engineering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You will be soon. MR. EL-URFALI: Yes. Page 197 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not in yet. MR. EL-URFALI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any idea how long that process takes? I do, if you don't. MR. EL-URFALI: Oh, you mean the PPL process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. EL-URFALI: Oh, yeah, 90 days or so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's pretty good. What firm do you work for? MR. EL-URFALI: Johnson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ninety days you get your PPL or your first rejection? MR. EL-URFALI: First rejection in 30 days, next one, another 30 days. Ninety days is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you go with your SDP's and FSP's and you get your first permits. Do you think you'll be out there putting in homes before the end of this year? MR. EL-URFALI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see one, two, three heads saying no, and you too. Okay. So do you have any objection to a restriction on any building permits being issued prior to the end of '06? And the reason I'm suggesting this, it gives time for that structure to be put in that everybody's complained about. And if it isn't in, then you guys will put some pressure on the county to see that that happens, and you can do that through your commission and other people. So you have no problem with that? MR. EL-URFALI: No objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Anybody else have any issues in that regard? Page 198 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is it true that there was pumping out of Habitat onto their yard? MR. KOULOHERAS: I think I might be able to address that. Greg Kouloheras with Habitat for Humanity. Weare in the process right now in Independence Phase II of putting the roads in, and they have been pumping some groundwater, but it's been on our property, and any water that's seeped over to the Prices, I'm not aware of. We would correct that immediately, if that has happened. One quick note. The berm that goes around Phase II of Independence has not been put in yet, so any sort of seepage that comes across, you know, if it's brought to the our attention, if we don't know about it right away, will be corrected. We've tried to work with the Prices throughout our construction of Independence to try and, you know, help with, you know, trash over the -- onto their property and so on. So if that is an issue that -- and Barbara I think had said she has pictures on, and I've spoken with Barbara before, we will address immediately, if that's the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So could you address those on your way out of here today with her? Because if she shows those pictures to the BCC after having you asked to meet with her and there's no resolution to it, it will carry more weight with the BCC. MR. KOULOHERAS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would -- hopefully you'll follow up with her after this meeting. MR. KOULOHERAS: Absolutely. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your name, please. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes. It's K-O-U-L-O-H-E-R-A-S. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as we -- do we have any other Page 199 May 4, 2006 questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public-- oh Ray, did you have something? MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Schmitt wanted me to relay some information you had asked about where in the code it talks about soil sampling requirements. And he -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He already did that. MR. BELLOWS: I think he had additional information. I can show you afterwards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine. Let's go on with the hearing. We'll close the public hearing then. There's no more public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No more speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, public hearing's closed. Mr. Midney, did you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. I would like to make a motion that we approve this Liberty Landing sent forward with a recommendation of approval. And I would like to approve the first requested deviation that county did not agree with. There's no houses on the side of the street where they're proposing not to put a sidewalk, and I don't see how that really is a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's a motion made to approve the project. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded. Stipulation is that they -- I'm assuming it's staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I'm going against staffs recommendation on deviation one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but staff recommendations for Page 200 May 4, 2006 deviations two and three -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and any other recommendations they have, okay. I think we all understand the motion. Now discussion. Is there discussion amongst the commissioners? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Was there a stipulation introduced regarding the garage, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we need to be discussing. We have a couple issues. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, you're right. It seems to me the consensus of this group, even though I'm not in favor of it, but that the garages be kept garages. And I don't know the mechanism for doing that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just make a recommendation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'd just suggest that you put a requirement in there that you have a garage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a garage-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That takes care of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that may not be converted into-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, that takes care of it. Because if the garage is converted, then you don't have a garage anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. Okay. So the project will carry a requirement, added PUD stipulation to reqUIre garages. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And also what you were saying, Mark, about that they fix the drainage before they get the certificate of occupancy; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I actually said building permit. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that the -- those two stipulations, that's exactly where I was going. Page 201 May 4, 2006 So they would be required to have garages, which means they'd have to retain them, they couldn't convert them. And that they would have to -- the bridge issue would have to be resolved before they get building permits. The Fish Creek Stormwater project, No. 510211 is the one we're specifically referring to. It's the one that the young lady said could be done in a couple weeks. MS. SPURGEON: First you identified the end of2006, but now you want the stipulation to just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, she said that it would be done at the end of 2006. The stipulation would be that it would have to have -- the building permits couldn't be attained until that's done. If they don't get it done -- MS. SPURGEON: So it's not a time certain because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. SPURGEON: Could we alternate from building permit to CO? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be just as good. I mean, one way or the other, you're going to have to put pressure on the county to get it done, and that's the objective here. MS. SPURGEON: It allows some work to be done. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the COs will not be issued until Fish Branch Creek Stormwater project 510211 is completed and the units are required to have garages. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, I just have one for the motion maker. You are saying that you accept deviation number one; is that correct? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I accept all three deviations that they've requested. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Well, my question is then transportation is going to deny maintenance, and they would like Page 202 May 4, 2006 transportation to have maintenance. So I think they're less concerned about having number one removed than they are eventually turning it over for maintenance; is that correct? MS. SPURGEON: We were just discussing this. Actually a BCC decision what roads come under the purview of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you only-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So you're willing to take your chances. MS. SPURGEON: So at that point if the arm is twisted and there has to be something done to accommodate them, then we'll make sure it gets taken over for maintenance. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I just wanted to be clear, because -- MS. SPURGEON: But as a land use decision -- as a zoning and land use decision, we feel like it's appropriate that the sidewalk not be required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I do recall that at least one and perhaps more instances where we have stipulated that any road that would be built would be built to county standards, which in that context would allow the county then to want to acquire that and maintain it. So I think if we were to put that in there, that would go the distance toward helping the county in that regard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think they're going to build to county standards if they want to be maintained. If they're not maintained -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure we need to add -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I grant you, right. Is that redundant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it is, Bob. Page 203 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, fine. As long as they've agreed that it's going to be -- I think it's moot then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First of all, does the motion maker accept the accept the amendments that have been suggested? That is-- COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the garages being required and that no COs can be issued until the stormwater management project 510211 is completed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we understand the stipulations already in place concerning the deviations and the fact that this motion does not concur with staffs recommendation of denial in deviation one, but it does concur with staff in the other deviations. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the second in favor of that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the second does. And thanks, Margie, for the wise wording on the garages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, no further discussion-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have just a comment to make. I really sympathize with the residents who live out close to this. You know, normally a Habitat to me would be a slam dunk. But I do have reservations, because -- and I think that it's a situation where Immokalee is being dumped on by the rest of the county, because they won't be -- there's such a resistance to affordable housing anywhere else, Habitat is having to put in probably a little bit higher density than they normally would. They're looking to an area which used to be very rural. They're putting in an area with mediocre roads, and the drainage is not that great. So on the whole I'm in favor of it, but I certainly understand where the people in the audience are coming from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of this motion as stipulated, signify by Page 204 May 4, 2006 . saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you all for today's meeting. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS Next item on the agenda is old business. There isn't anything listed -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- nothing was suggested. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, one question is that when last week we had new business -- when last week we had new business, shouldn't that be on the agenda for old business this week? And the concern was that Ray was going to look into getting some summaries of all the different departments of what they're doing for long-term, long-range planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if you have an issue you want to bring up on old business, then I suggest that you bring it back you. I have no problem with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is now the time? Page 205 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now is the time. Ray? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies, would you please move away from the speaker? Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, last week we brought up what we wanted to see some summaries of what the different departments are doing for the long-term planning. You felt you needed to go get permission or something to do that. But where are we on that? MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Weeks has indicated that he wants to include the planning commission early on, and my understanding is he sent some e-mails out to the board. I do believe I was copied on one of these. And I assume that you'd be getting something soon from them on the east of 951 study. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the question kind of was, is all the different departments, what everybody is doing for planning within their own domain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen in the audience, your conversations are getting too loud for us to carry on a conversation up here. Could you take them to the hall, please. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what Dave is going to do is just give us, you know, a summary of what he's doing. But how about is everybody else, the different departments, everything -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that's part of the -- all the departments are involved in the study. So my understanding is it's more than just giving you copies. I think at some point the discussion is that there may be some attempt or discussions to make it more involved in other planning commission early on, not just at the end of the game when you've got a full-fledged plan. My understanding is that they want your comments early on so-- Page 206 May 4, 2006 as the plans are being developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe by next meeting or whenever you could, come back with -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I'll follow up with David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- some kind of implementation idea and how that could happen, and that might satisfy the concerns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm fine with the old business. I've got new - Item #10 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any new business? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: New business item is the e-mailing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not to public comment yet, sir, give us just a few minutes. MR. CREWS: I don't think I'm public comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's when you'll have -- the new business is the business of the planning commission. Give us a few minutes and we'll be right to public comment and then you can have your turn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, what I'd like to do is try to get control of some of these e-mails that are coming in. They're mixing different agenda items on the same e-mail. It's get getting a little bit clumsy. What is the requirement -- for example, Tor here was saying how he didn't open the e-mail. So essentially if we do a lot of e-mailing -- and I remember when Ken was around he wouldn't open his on purpose. Could it throw the commission off balance as to who's making decisions? And is everybody getting the exact same Page 207 May 4, 2006 information? And some of the dates on these things that we're getting in e-mails, they had prior to the package going out. So can't we work to not have that kind of shotgun blast at the end? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I might suggest, Ray, we've been for a long time suggesting not to give us stuff at the last minute. Once our packets go out, if you don't have a timely way in which to mail or deliver items to us, you can e-mail as well, but if you can't deliver it to us by hand in hard copy, I think we shouldn't be accepting it as part of the record. Maybe if it's that critical, move whatever issue you have to the next agenda. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I think there's a wide range of planning commission ability to receive e-mail on a uniform basis. Some people have particular restrictions on their computer, and so it makes difficult for staff to get you that. So we'll just make it a blanket policy that anything that didn't make the package to go out will have to be followed up hand delivered. And if it's -- we could put it that nothing before a day before the meeting or two days before the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree, at least a couple days before the meeting. MR. BELLOWS: Two days? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And if it's so critical to a project, then delay the project. That's as simple a way it should be. MR. BELLOWS: No, I agree. I think today was a good example of how -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, at least two of them. MR. BELLOWS: Ifwe had that policy, it would have been-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the problem, especially since Margie ruled that we have to disclose it, you're going to have a lengthy -- if you shoot out six e-mails, we're going to be spending the first 10 minutes of a hearing disclosing. Page 208 May 4, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, I have no argument. If you have a question -- if I have a question of Ray that I can e-mail him a question and he can respond by e-mail. Because it's like leaving a message on your answering machine, you can make responses either way. As far as any copies of information, I would much rather support your position that we get only hard copy, and if it isn't in time to get a hard copy, it get deferred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Or have -- Ray, if you could put-- Joe Schmitt's got such a big budget, maybe he can put in for nine computers, nine printers and nine sets of paper and full office supplies. Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENT Okay, with that, we move on to public comment. MR. BELLOWS: Well, we also have -- after the close of your meeting, we have Catherine Fabacher here to help anybody learn how to navigate the LDC on the website. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get the gentleman's attention here. Mr. Crews? MR. CREWS: My name's Floyd Crews again. I've had numerous people come in there and ask me to ask you all to have these meetings in Immokalee that pertain to the Immokalee urban area. Because there was about 30 or 40 people that come through my shop asking me to ask you all to consider that. Because they cannot get off at a time -- at 8:30 in the morning, because they have to lose a whole day's work. Scott and Barbi both lost the whole day. Jack was away from his feed store. I'm away from mine. But we really need to have these meetings in Immokalee. I think you all Page 209 May 4, 2006 would get a whole different aspect of what's going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like your suggestion. In fact, when I came on this board four years ago, I brought the issue up, I suggested it to the staff at the time, and it hasn't happened. In fact, there's an item in our code that says when we have issues with Immokalee we can hold the meetings there. I suggest strongly that we do that. But our suggestion can only go as far as staff scheduling it. And the problem we have is we don't know it's scheduled until we get our agenda. And by then it's already public notice. So Ray, in the future if we even have to have a day where we drive to Immokalee and we handle one case and we come back here, why don't we try to find that day? And if it means another special planning commission meeting inbetween others or something like that, I'd highly recommend that is a good thing to do and we should do it. So thank you for reminding us. I appreciate it. MR. CREWS: And I want to thank you all for you alls participation. Habitat is the world's best thing. And Paul knows I stay in trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, that's a code requirement, too. That isn't even a suggestion. It states that you're supposed to group stuff to be heard in Immokalee and we're supposed to hear them in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not a shall the way it's written, but I think we can make it that way, so -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, historically we've grouped them when we had three or four. And if there was only one, it was some previous board that said let's not go if it's just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but if it's just one, then we need to separate that out so we can continue with a full day along the coast. We'll pick a special day for the planning commission. Advertise it just Page 210 May 4, 2006 for Immokalee and if it's in between the two Thursdays we have now, second and fourth Thursday, send us out there and we'll take care of it. That needs to be done. Okay? MR. CREWS: I'm going to quit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the last thing on today, I guess Catherine's here to help those that want to use the system. Margie, are you still here? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need to stay for this because to me I'm too busy at the meeting to breathe. So are you -- can we adjourn the meeting, or do they have to adjourn the meeting after I leave? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think that -- I'm not quite sure. Catherine, is your thing a presentation, or are you just going up there informal? Because we've got to be in the sunshine, I think it would be a good idea not to adjourn the meeting but have the vice chair, you know, just be around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The chair is gone, the secretary is here. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay, have the secretary here, since we need to be in the sunshine when we have a gathering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, it's not that I don't want to hear you, but I have no reason -- MS. FAHBACHER: No problem. Not a problem. Just so you guys can have -- for the record, Catherine Fahbacher, Zoning. Just so you can pull up the code when you're sitting there at your desks, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Catherine, step one, I don't -- did anybody learn how to log on this morning? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I wasn't here. MS. FAHBACHER: I wasn't here for that part either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was here and I didn't -- MS. F AHBACHER: Did you bring your password? Page 211 May 4, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know my password. But my computer, I don't know how I would log on to this. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How do we get this thing up and running? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I honestly don't -- you think this is part of a public hearing, really? MS. FAHBACHER: I don't either. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Since you all are together as a group -- MS. FAHBACHER: It's a training. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- the Sunshine Law. But they're still together as a group. And it's county business. MS. FAHBACHER: Okay, let's get another one. If you don't have your password, you can't -- okay, is everybody else logged on? (Off-the-record discussion with the court reporter and the secretary. ) MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We don't have a quorum anyway. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's perfectly appropriate. We will adjourn this meeting and we will keep the recorded portion running, and that way we satisfy the Sunshine Law, which we all want to do. So thank you, Margie, and thanks. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:52 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 212