Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/18/2006 R May 18, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 18, 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 Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer 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 MINUTES & RECORDS ------------------------------------------ AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 18,2006, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND 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 AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 6, 2006 REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS -APRIL 25, 2006 REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8337, Joseph Filippelli, of Sembler Florida, Inc., represented by Dwight Nadeau of R W A, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a proposed commercial shopping center to be known as Brooks Village CPUD. The subject property, consisting of 22.7 acres, is located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. ( Coordinator: Melissa Zone) 1 B. Petition: CU-2005-AR-8748, Ashraf Fawzy, represented by Alan V. Roseman, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a conditional approval in the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to allow aquaculture per Section 2.04.03 "Table 2" of the Land Development Code (LDC). The subject property, consisting of 15 acres, is located at 2060 Tobias Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) CONTINUED TO 6/1/06 C. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8126, Rock Creek Holdings, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson, ofRoetzel & Andress, LP A and Bruce Tyson, of WilsonMiller, Inc., requesting a rezone from the C-4 (Commercial) and RMF-6 (Residential) zoning districts to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to allow development of a maximum of 120 multi-family residential dwelling units, to include a maximum of24 or 20 percent of the total dwelling units as workforce housing units for a project known as Meridian Village RPUD. The subject property, consisting of 11.68 acres, is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Estey Avenue, in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED FROM 5/4 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 5-18-06/CCPC AgendaIRB/hr 2 May 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. It's 8:30. The Planning Commission will start with today's meeting. Would you all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron, would you please take the roll. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff is absent. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Page 2 May 18,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to the agenda. First item I want to make note of, that Item B, Petition CU-2005-AR-8748, AshrafFawzy, and it's a rezone from the ago district. 2060 Tobias Street. That has been continued to the June 1 st, '06 hearing. So if anybody's here for that one, it will not be heard today. And with that, are there any other addenda to the agenda or comments to the agenda? (No response.) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move on to Planning Commission absences. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next meeting will probably be a lengthy one. It's going to be scheduled for June 1 st. Is anybody here knowing they're not going to be here on that date? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: I've been asked to inquire, the Planning Commission plans on meeting the Thursday after the 4th of July. That would be the July 6th meeting. I think you've traditionally taken that meeting off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What day of the week is July 4th? If it's the 6th, that means the 4th's on a Tuesday, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see why we wouldn't be here, but I don't -- Page 3 May 18,2006 MR. BELLOWS: I'm just checking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We ought to just keep up with everything and -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I won't be here that day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe have a quorum, I think we ought to be here. How's that for the rest? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's just continue. Staffs going to be here, aren't they, or -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- are you guys just going to -- is that a paid holiday? Do you get the whole week off or something? MR. BELLOWS: No, we'll be here. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 6, 2006, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have approval of the minutes of the April 6th regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I had a correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On Page 10, I was present and voted aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sure that will be noted then. Any other corrections to those minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. Page 4 May 18,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. BCC recaps, Ray. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - APRIL 25, 2006 REGULAR MEETING MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we had two items heard at the last board meeting. The PUD amendment for the Carlisle Regency was approved on the summary agenda, and so was the conditional use for LaPlaya, that was also approved on the summary agenda. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And the Chairman's Report. I have some issues I need to discuss Page 5 May 18,2006 this morning. It will take a few minutes, so we'll get into them. The first one is the Liberty Landing's project that came before us I think our last meeting, I questioned the need for the soil testing. At that meeting, staff didn't have all of the LDC references available. Not because they didn't know them, it's just because the staff that was here didn't have the book available at the time. Since the meeting I have been shown by Joe Schmitt the correction that I needed to have at the meeting, and staff did do the right thing. They were asked required to ask for soil tests. The reading of the LDC is the word shall. So as much as it is an added cost, it was something that was necessary and staff did the right thing in that regard. The other item is I was going to ask Ms. Student if there's any penalties for citizens impersonating the chairman of the Planning Commission. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I've never heard of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because Monday night Mr. Murray-- someone mistaked (sic) Mr. Murray for me. I guess the argument must have been the guy with the beard is Mark Strain. They say the guy with the long hair, they're going to pick on Brad, so I feel bad for Mr. Murray. Monday night, though, he had a nice item on the news channel. On Tuesday's meeting at the Board of County Commissioners, some things came up that I think need to be cleared up. And this will involve staff, so I need Ray to finish discussions, and then we'll -- Ray, were you at the meeting Tuesday for the BCC? MR. BELLOWS: No, I was not -- oh, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt was. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I did. I was part of it, yes, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need some information. At least some clarification. And I know that developmental services is a large department and not everybody will have knowledge of everything Page 6 May 18, 2006 that's going on, but the way that some of the recommendations from the Planning Commission were presented to the board, one in particular, and that's the one on the changes to the EAR that this panel recommended to use the affordable housing definition that was most recently approved by the BCC throughout the EAR, instead of limiting it to the old definition. I watched bits and pieces of that day on streamlining video, so unfortunately it cuts out periodically. But I thought I saw a chart and I thought I saw an insinuation that some of our recommendations were construed to mean we wanted all gap housing in particular paragraphs referenced in the EAR. Mr. Schmitt, do you have any reference -- any knowledge of that issue? MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development, Environmental Services Division Administrator. And I know Ms. Caron was at the meeting, so -- as both in the capacity as an observing citizen and recognized during the meeting as a Planning Commissioner, so she can chime in as well. What was explained to the board was the attempt to make uniform throughout the future land use element, the FLUE, the definition of affordable-workforce housing, which was communicated to the board that was the Planning Commission's intent. But also staff, when we threw up the chart, we were trying to explain we were also trying to keep with the intent of the recently changed LDC. And that was staffs initiative, to try and make sure it was -- that the LDC was compatible with what was being proposed in EAR-based amendments, or vice versa. So when you saw the chart being presented, there was some confusion in regards to the application of the term affordable housing. And I believe when Cormac Giblin, my housing manager did speak -- housing and grants manager did speak, he referred -- or he referenced the Planning Commission as the agent desiring to keep consistency of the application. Page 7 May 18, 2006 However, we did note the application did provide, I'll call it, a loophole, to -- and this was in the rural villages, that if one were to take the application literally, one could apply the term affordable housing and could in fact build all gap housing the way the definition was presented. We pointed that out to the board in trying to get the board to define in the GMP specific language to make sure that that would not happen. That in fact if -- and I don't have the reference in front of me, but just thinking off the cuff here, the -- when you read the rule and it was a half a unit per acre bonus, but if you applied it basically you could do all gap housing. We wanted to make sure that the GMP defined limits, statutory limits as to 80 percent and below and then 81 percent and above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know that that specific question was asked of Mr. Cormac at that EAR meeting by the Planning Commission? MR. SCHMITT: I do not know that. I wasn't here at that portion of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have all the minutes. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have read all the minutes. We specifically asked the question. He specifically answered to us that the matrix that was developed by the BCC would apply. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that matrix produces a ratio of different types of units. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was our intent is based on Cormac's response to us when we recommended the definition be implemented, it was based on the fact it would be pursuant to what he told us and that was the matrix would be utilized. MR. SCHMITT: In fact, he was incorrect, because -- maybe at Page 8 May 18,2006 your meeting. Because that matrix does not apply in the rural fringe. The rural fringe deed -- the density bonus is very specific is that it's on -- am I correct now, a half a unit per acre affordable housing density bonus. So that's all. The matrix only applies to anything but the rural land stewardship and the rural fringe mixed use district. They have separate rules for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wish that was made -- noted to us during our meeting, but I can only tell you what the minutes reflect and what my understanding of it was, and it certainly was not to provide an emphasis on one part or the other, it was to provide the BC -- provide consistency with what the BCC had wanted in a prior meeting. MR. SCHMITT: Well, I'm glad you pointed it out, but it was not staff s intent, but somehow the media or whomever spun it -- and you saw what the affordable housing commission alluded to, that it was the Planning Commission's recommendation, when in fact it was not. It was a -- and now I understand the misperception, because it was really -- you based your vote on information you got from staff, but when staff went back and looked at it they realized, no this chart does not apply. We in fact -- the way you, after -- certainly now after you were led down that path, but the verbiage did allow for that, I'll call it, loophole to only build gap housing, we wanted to close that loophole and define specific criteria. Ms. Caron, I think maybe you can highlight on that, because I know you spoke about that in that portion. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, what I'd like to highlight most of all was that when that was initially mentioned at Tuesday's meeting, I went immediately back to Mr. Schmitt and said I don't think that that's what the Planning Commission did at all. I then spoke to David Weeks and to Cormac Giblin who said oh, no, that's the way it's going to read. And I said I guarantee you that that was not the intent of the Planning Commission. Page 9 May 18,2006 MR. SCHMITT: Well, I guess for that matter, it -- I mean, I would -- I offer our apologies in the way it was presented, because it may have led you down that path which now was not your intent. And I realize, frankly, even after reading the media recounts of it, that was not your intent. I mean that was something you would not have done. I just -- from the Planning Commission. But the end result was to try and define specific criteria for low income, mid-income and then gap housing. And that's what we did in the end result in the amendments. You can see those amendments when they come back for adoption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, my purpose here today is not to say staff did anything wrong. The commission, of course, we're here at their will. I'm not ever going to say they did anything wrong. All I'm trying to say is that for the record we did not propose all gap housing for any portion of this county . We basically relied on the matrix as we were told to be the proportionate settling of that issue. So there are a couple other issues that came up I want to clarify, too. There was this sense that we were trying to dump all the density for affordable housing in Immokalee. That is so far from the truth it is ridiculous. MR. SCHMITT: Right, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Midney was here at that meeting. He said they wanted the density. In fact, we were still wanted (sic) to make sure that with his statements we were doing the right thing. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you recall, that was done on the 16th of March. And on that date we said come back to us on the 30th, staff, after you go back out and ask the citizens in Immokalee if they want that for sure. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Page 10 May 18,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if they do, we're here to try to serve the people of this county. And when staff came back, they said the consensus was that they did want it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Midney was upheld. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why we awarded it the way we did. We didn't do it out of just say let's dump everything out in Immokalee. We did it because we carefully evaluated it were given the input again in which we made our evaluation. MR. SCHMITT: And for the record, Commissioner Coletta was very aware that the Immokalee community then recanted that support and basically said they no longer supported it. Basically their statement was amended saying well, if it's not going to be density by right in the county, then it should not be density by right in Immokalee. Mr. Thomas spoke that afternoon and then pleaded or basically petitioned the board for density by right. So as you well know now, that is now in the EAR based amendments. But Commissioner Coletta did make it a matter of record that he will go back to the Immokalee community to verify in fact do they support it or not before it comes back for adoption. So that is not a done deal, I can tell you right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I realize it isn't. But it's again one of these things that the Planning Commission -- MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- weighed the consequences very carefully. We did what we thought was the due diligence needed to investigate it, we were given responses we relied upon, and that's why our vote came out the way we did, not the way it's trying to be spun. MR. SCHMITT: Understand. And I believe the commissioners Page 11 May 18,2006 fully understood that. But again, I think it got spun out of proportion. But it does not surprise me. But if you read the article this morning in the paper, there's errors again in what was reported. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and speaking of errors again in what was reported, during the meeting Tuesday, I heard time and again people stand up and proclaim certain projects in this county have done not only their fair share but beyond it. Ave Maria was mentioned four times. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This panel dealt with Ave Maria in detail and it's a DRI. Eleven thousand units, over a million square feet of retail and office -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Hotels and a bunch of other amenities, including a 6,000 student university. F or that, they put 200 units, deed restricted for 15 years on-site, 150 units to a Habitat for Humanity project in Immokalee. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That leaves 1,700 units out of their 2,050 contribution. Of the 1,700, 1,000 units of those on-site were deed restricted for only two years. MR. SCHMITT: Two years, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is not typical to what Collier County considers affordable housing in its program. MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it's 15 years in its program. The other 700 units by Ave Maria on-site are only deed restricted for five years -- MR. SCHMITT: Five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- again, inconsistent with what Page 12 May 18,2006 everybody else is led to believe is affordable housing. MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that's fine. They're doing this affordable housing in the years that they are. They got approved that way, and that's fine, too. But I want to set the record straight. It's not typical to what everybody expects when they hear affordable housing, because most of the time the county tell us, to be in the program it's 15 years. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And just to highlight again, what they say is 2,100 affordable housing units, and it's broken down as exactly what you said. Only 200 for 15 years, 700 for five years, I believe. The 200 for two years and then 200 off-site, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or 1,000 for two years and 200's for 15. And if they're approved that way, they're good to go, I understand that. But in the stewardship area, we have huge densities yet to come forward. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think during the meeting the Saranoa proj ect was mentioned. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how many, 6,000, 8,000 units that could be. We've got the Big Cypress stewardship area, that's going to be two massive or more DRI's that's going to be coming soon. That one's huge. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I don't know how you're going to look at those projects and say they're going to be held to a stricter standards than Ave Maria, when Ave Maria set the sampling of what's going to be for affordable housing. So I'm not sure anybody's dumping density in Immokalee, but maybe the proj ects that are going to be surrounding Immokalee are Page 13 May 18,2006 going to end up having to put their workforce housing there. MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, and was passed by the board on Tuesday, there was no mandate for affordable housing in the rural land stewardship. And staff proposed to put a criteria in there. It was positioned to the board that there was an agreement that that element would not be touched for five years. I debate whether or not there's validity to that. But the fact is, that was what was stated to the board. And the board is moving forward with that, of course with the understanding that any issue involving affordable housing is a policy decision that comes before the board when any of these future amendments -- because they will be either DRI's or stewardship receiving areas, which will require actions by the board, similar to a PUD rezoning, and the board will have the option to enforce affordable housing standards at that time. But staff, based on the GMP and the LDC, cannot mandate affordable housing in the rural land stewardship overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I heard -- everybody was trying to mandate it everywhere else. I think that's pretty interesting -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when the most rural area we have -- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's the most wide open for application is inconsistent with those statements. So those three issues came up. And I have a couple more I'll try to get through quickly. The staff of developmental services is the professional staff of the Planning Commission. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's in the Land Development Code. As such, I would think it would be important for the staff to correct statements inoffensively (sic). Obviously you're in a very ticklish Page 14 May 18,2006 situation talking to the five people that are elected to oversee the government. But if something is inaccurate, as I believe some of these statements were in regards to the Planning Commission on Tuesday, I would hope that as the team that staff and we are supposed to be, that maybe those statements could be clarified for the record. Nobody has to blatantly get in someone's face about the whole issue, but maybe a clarification once in a while would be better served for this panel. MR. SCHMITT: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The staff reports that the staff provide to the BCC for proj ects that come through the Planning Commission. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any way that we could receive that staff report electronically to our site so maybe before the meeting we could review some of the statements made or positions taken so we might have a heads up on it? MR. SCHMITT: You mean the executive summary? Just to clarify, you can get the staff report -- just terminology-wise -- they get the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They get the executive-- MR. SCHMITT: -- the board gets the executive summary, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm only talking about the projects we're involved in. I mean, they get a lot more than we ever could dream of wanting to be involved in. But it would be nice to know how things change or if they change from here to there. MR. SCHMITT: I'm just trying to think of the mechanics of it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, could you look at that and we can talk about it at another meeting, if you don't mind? You don't have to answer me today. Page 15 May 18,2006 MR. SCHMITT: Well, for instance, Tuesday's board meeting goes to the printer today. It was finalized late yesterday by the county manager. We're doing -- I'm doing reviews now. And for the next week I'll be doing reviews for the meeting in June. So I really trying to figure out the mechanics. You're asking for something that I could give you electronically. I mean, you're not convening as a board, I'm just sending it out to you. I don't know from a standpoint of getting feedback -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it wouldn't be feedback to you that I'm so concerned about. If there's something on there that is concerning in the way it's worded, it may inspire some of us of to need to be at the BCC meeting, as Ms. Caron was. And thank God she was there Tuesday to stand and correct issues that were inaccurately made so that she -- we may want to have somebody there or somebody may want to attend the meeting. MR. SCHMITT: The documents for Tuesday's meeting go to the printer today. They're available -- actually, they went yesterday. I stand corrected, they went yesterday. They're available Friday morning to the general public. I mean, the printed document is available. I'm not sure if they're on the web, but they're eventually supposed to be on the web. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you take a look at it and the next meeting maybe we could just see where it could go? And the last thing I have to ask is, a meeting or two ago, Mr. Scott said they were doing a study for -- the east of951 study, I think he called it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we would be given it some day. I don't like the idea that residents east of 951 have seen and -- or have gotten that study and are now questioning me about my thoughts on it when I don't have it. So I want that study and I want it immediately. Page 16 May 18,2006 So can it be e-mailed to me today or can I pick a hard copy up tomorrow? MR. SCHMITT: It's still being finalized. It will be distributed tomorrow -- it should be distributed tomorrow to the Board of County Commissioners. Understand this is an initial study asking the board for direction on what they want to study further. It's nothing more than a composite basically of all the essential public services and levels of service and attempting to capture some costs associated with that. There is a workshop next week with the Board of County Commissioners where we are going to ask for policy guidance from the board. This is not in any way a conclusive final study. It is nothing more than staff's assessment of pointing out what we think needs to be evaluated, whether it's -- well, basically it's all the essential public services: Water, sewer, transportation, EMS, police, libraries, parks. And it is the first look by the Board of County Commissioners in regards to asking for their policy. The intent of that study is also the second phase of that will be the public vetting process. This is not in any way a definitive document. The second piece of this will be to go out to the public, and asks specifically those impacted communities their assessment as to what levels of service they want. That's the guidance we're looking for from the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It sounds like it's a planning document. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is the Planning Commission. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would seem logical that the board might benefit from comments we may make to a document like that, even if it's in draft form. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? Page 1 7 May 18,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Finish up your thought. MR. SCHMITT: I understand fully. Difficult situation right now, because frankly that's a decision of the board in regards to how we're dealing with this study. And I think this panel, if they have objections to how staff is dealing with it, ought to take those up with the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have an objection. It was a suggestion. But now that we're at it, it is a public document. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How can I get a copy of it as a member of the public? Do I have to file a Freedom of Information Act request? MR. SCHMITT: I will get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can I get it e-mailed to me? MR. SCHMITT: No, it's too large. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to second what Mark is saying, because this east of 951 desperately affects Immokalee -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- and it's going to be huge, because things are planned in our backyard. And if I don't know as a Planning Commission member what things are contemplated, I won't be able to get my comments to the commissioner in time. And, you know, even though you talked about it's, you know, just temporary, it's not written in stone, decisions are already being made in the sense that, you know, things are sort of being guided in a certain direction. I need to have that information. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And it is appropriate for this panel to have that information and be part of the process. The first piece of this, though, is to present this, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners, to bring it to the board, and we are seeking nothing other than direction from the board as to how they want us to proceed. This is truly the 5,000 pound elephant in the middle of the room. And it really is. I can tell you, it identifies frankly the train wreck that Page 18 May 18,2006 we're going to be dealing with. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's true. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: And it identifies a huge amount of investment that is going to have to be made if in fact we pursue levels of service that are similar to what is in the urban area. And basically the first piece of this is to identify to the board what do you want to do in that part of the county. And that's all this first piece does. It does -- it isn't even a land use document. We're asking the board to reevaluate the land use, frankly, east of951. Not the rural fringe or the eastern lands, but frankly other elements east of 951 to look at land use to identify what we think are shortfalls. So it is a planning document, but it is not making any proposals. It's only identifying where we believe the needs are and asking the board for policy direction on how to proceed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, the thing is that in the last week or two I've been hearing all these rumors. Some of them sound crazy, and a lot of them are very scary. And yet I don't have anything concrete to go on so it's hard for me to really know what's going on. MR. SCHMITT: Well, none of that -- and probably the rumors as far as what's going to be developed out on Immokalee Road, none of that is in this document. It doesn't address that, because we don't even have those applications yet. We've only had one pre-ap for a large DRI. Sonoma, or whatever it's called. Sonoma? Close enough. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: They're talking about roads bisecting Immokalee and, you know, they're talking about going through wetlands. They're talking about a lot of stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome to Golden Gate Estates. Mr. Schiffer, you had a comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. I was just curious, Joe, when -- we're the local planning agency. When would we be involved in this? I mean, I've been begging on Ray to find out what's going on for weeks. I mean, is this -- I mean, I find out what's going on in a Page 19 May 18, 2006 planning meeting from the newspaper. MR. SCHMITT: I can't answer that. That's a question this panel would have to ask the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they've instructed you to not involve us in the process? I mean, ask them what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that that's a question we may want to ask our individual commissioners. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I would prefer that you ask your . . commISSIoners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other thing, I think it's interesting that this does not involve -- does not involve the rural fringe or the stewardship area -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but its east of951, so the only place left is Golden Gate Estates. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it identifies the stewardship areas, but most of the essential services I discussed are already incorporated in the land development regulations for the special districts. Special districts have to be self-sufficient. They have to comply with stormwater criteria. They have to have their own central sewer, water. They have to have all the other services. One of the shortfalls we identify, though, in the special districts is the lack of sufficient industrial or some of the special districts not having the industrial zoning required to support some of the large developments out there. Meaning, you know, your tile manufacturer, those types of things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A place to work. MR. SCHMITT: A place to work, yes. Other than a commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A copy of this plan, I mean, I would certainly like one as quickly as I can possibly get it, because I would Page 20 May 18,2006 like to read it immediately. I'm sure some of the others will. When can we pick these up? MR. SCHMITT: Tomorrow. The final copy will be distributed to the board tomorrow. I'll have copies if you want to pick them up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I come by in the morning late tomorrow, will that be sufficient? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I will. Who do I see? MR. SCHMITT: Myself or Mike Bosi, Randy Cohen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be there, sir. And Mr. Schmitt, thank you very much for answering our questions. MR. SCHMITT: I'll get direction. We'll make copies. And those who don't want to pick them up, we'll have them sent. I mean, it's a public document. Basically they're distributed to the board tomorrow, and we'll have them sent. If you don't pick them up -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Send me one. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're not picked up, I'm assuming they can be sent the following week. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll be by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I will be by tomorrow. MR. SCHMITT: It's about a, if I recall now, almost a 300-page document. It's pretty comprehensive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm done with my questions. I want to thank you very much for giving us the answers you have. MR. SCHMITT: I appreciate the grilling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, it wasn't intended to be that way. MR. SCHMITT: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are one of the few people who I Page 21 May 18,2006 believe answer us honestly, and I appreciate that very much, so thank you. Now we'll resume. We're into our advertised public hearings. Item #8A PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8337 The first one is Petition PUDZ-2005-AR-8337, Joseph Filippelli of Sembler Florida, Inc. And it's for the Brooks Village CPUD at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road. All those wishing to testify today on this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Filippelli, who called me not regarding this matter, and we never did discuss this matter, but he was talking to me about something that may come up in the future in the East Naples area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you have a disclosure, but it's not quite. Okay, I had an e-mail from Mr. Anderson, asking for my thoughts on this. I told him I -- we didn't really have time to get together, unfortunately, so not a lot transpired there. I was in the offices ofRW A yesterday, I ran into Mr. Nadeau and he asked me my concerns on it, I said I certainly had traffic issues that bothered me, and that was my extent of my contact on the issue. But now that we're done on disclosures, I have a legal matter to discuss -- or actually not a legal matter, a practical matter. The staff report relies heavily on references to a DCA. A DCA is not the Page 22 May 18,2006 responsibility of this commission, but its impacts on the concurrency elements of a project are crucial. The project itself is apparently relying on the DCA for some of its concurrency issues. It's referenced in the staff report. We do not have a copy. And for me to be expected to fully evaluate a project on which it's relying on a document I do not have I believe is extremely unfair to this commission. Now, I guess we could ask why don't we have it. I know that we aren't the ones that review those and approve those. But when a project is relying upon those and it becomes a planning consideration that this board must rely upon, it certainly seems important that we should have it. I don't know who to ask that -- I don't know who can explain this to me. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. My understanding, talking to the principal planner involved, is that the DCA was not completed in time for a packet and they're still I believe in the process of finalizing the language for the DCA. And it just wasn't ready for this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I don't believe I'm ready to review this proj ect today. (Audience applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I note, too, that in reading staff document, I'm very uncomfortable -- the use of the word exactions is in there. And I'm very uncomfortable. This board I do not believe intends to be involved in exactions from any developer. So I'm really unhappy to see that word in there. Perhaps another approach might be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any comments from the panel? I don't know, as far as I'm concerned, I would like to see this matter continued until a date after we receive the DCA. And I don't know if the rest of the board feels that way or not. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. Page 23 May 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to continue PUDZ-2005-AR-8337, and motion was seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm afraid that at this point the only discussion I can entertain is from the panel. And my comment is that next hearing date for this will be scheduled after we receive the DCA. Until then, I don't see the need to hear this. With that, I'll ask for a motion. All those in favor, signify -- MR. ANDERSON: You said you had a legal question, but no lawyer ever answered your question. I'm prepared to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said I didn't know ifit would be a legal MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Mr. Strain corrected it and said a practical matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, as far as us legally proceeding in this manner, I don't see a problem with it. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't see a problem. I think you have several choices that you could hear part of it and continue it until you have the DCA. I think you could continue it today and wait until after you've had the opportunity to look at the DCA. And so I think you have several options. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and my thoughts are -- MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me, I just wanted to point out, we do have people registered to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to hear the public. Can we do it after the motion's made to continue, or do we have to table the motion? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, because once you've continued Page 24 May 18, 2006 it, it's gone away. So you might wish to take public comment and then make the motion to continue the rest of the hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then in that case I'd first like to table the motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Table the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion maker and the motion second agree to table? Yes, they do. And if we're going to hear the public for their portion of it, I'll at least let Mr. Anderson say what he's got to say. I want to tell you, Mr. Anderson, I strongly believe that this needs to be resolved after the DCA is in our hands. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If I could just add something. I think if Mr. Anderson wants to rebut anything that the public says, he should be allowed to do that at this hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine, we'll do it that way. Mr. Anderson, you want to open with a brief comment? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The developer contribution agreement relates solely to donations, contributions, some call them exactions, but I'll call them donations and contributions. And donations and contributions that affect how this project does or does not get adequate public facility certificates for roads, which is something that occurs after the rezoning process normally anyway. And so I don't really see any reason why you all should not hear and act upon the rezone petition, because the DCA relates solely to matters which normally and typically occur after the rezoning process is complete. And all the DCA allows them to do is to donate about a half million dollars worth of property and other improvements, and in exchange for that they get to pay 50 percent of their road impact fees early and get adequate public facilities certificates for the first 60,000 square feet of retail commercial uses. That's it in a nutshell. Page 25 May 18,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. And I have this strong tendency to feel more comfortable with things when I see them in writing. Not that I'm doubting what you're saying, but there's going to be more detail in a document and more paragraphs than what you've just said. And road concurrency is a big issue in this county, and it's a huge issue in that location. So if this has an impact on road concurrency to make it better or worse, to me that's an important document for my evaluation. You may not believe its necessary, but I do. And now with that, Ray, let's hear the public speakers. And I wish speakers to know they have to be limited to five minutes, and we ask that you not be redundant if it's possible. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: First speaker is Beth Lamb. MS. LAMB: I've never done this before. I'm Beth Lamb. I'm a property owner on 951, 500 feet from the proposed project. I'm not a speaker but I'm a homeowner. I have four children and I intended to raise them in Golden Gate Estates. That's where we purchased our residential property. And now I'm under the impression that our property is also up for grabs for the county to put some type of commercial development there. My children stand at the proposed corner for the bus stop, and there's always a lot of traffic there. It's not a safe place for them to stand as it is. When I moved out to that property, we bought it approximately eight years ago, unlike many of my neighbors who have lived there 10, 15,20 years. The people of our community are all workers. Very few retired people live in our area, and everyone's working today. This meeting isn't exactly convenient for everyone to come out and speak for their selves. I've written some notes down. And I just want everyone to know, it doesn't mean those people who aren't here don't care. I personally have gone door-to-door because I was one of the recipients of the Page 26 May 18,2006 invitation to come to this meeting. I've spoke with almost everyone in the neighborhood and I've come up with two people who want this to happen and have access to the shopping center on our corner. One thinks it would be convenient for him to go buy beer and cigarettes. He won't have to get in his car. Another one hopes he gets the landscaping contract. He does our landscaping. I hope he gets it if they put it in. We don't want access on 11 th Avenue Southwest. The traffic is terrible. We sit in line for 15 to 20 minutes on 951 when we come home from working all day long and we're providing services to this community. We don't have a lot of money, but when we moved into this community -- we could have lived closer in. We didn't want to. We wanted to live out where we could raise our families, they could stretch out, they could yell, they could scream, they could throw a ball without breaking a window. We wanted our kids to grow up in Golden Gate Estates. And you're turning our property into commercial property. And we're not going to stand for it. We don't want it to happen. We feel like you're selling out on us if you go forward with this property and this proposal. My husband and I are active with a lot of things with four children, ranging from 22 to 12 years old. For 22 years I've been in this county. I've been a scout leader, a church Sunday school worker, we've done things with the Boy Scouts, baseball, softball, 4- H. Know a lot of people in this county with children. Out by Everglades, Wilson, those people, when they get home, yeah, they'd like a convenience store. They don't want to have to run back into town. But they also live out there. They don't want a high-end shopping center. We go to Fifth Avenue, we go to Third Street, and we go to Waterside, just like everybody else in this town, when we want name brand products. That's the thrill of our lives, going shopping in town. Page 27 May 18, 2006 We don't want it closer to us, we don't want it to invade our property. We don't want the traffic. We don't want people moving into our neighborhood that don't live there. And people will do that. And also, because I've worked in the retail business in this town for a long time, I've had my own business, people from in town aren't going to come out to Golden Gate and spend their money. People in Golden Gate aren't going to go right to Pine Ridge Road and 951 to spend their money. It's a ridiculous proposal that you're going to put a high-end shopping center on that corner. People want to get past that corner and get home to their two and a half acres out in Golden Gate Estates. They don't want to stop there and buy something. I hope that you understand, this is very emotional for me. I'm sorry that more of my neighbors weren't able to come and express their feelings about this. But I tell you, I took an oath standing here, no one on our street but two people I spoke to wants this to happen. And we do live there. This isn't happening where the developers live and their children stand. If it's about money and it's a business, I'm sure they've failed at some projects before and moved on. We don't have the money to fight them with lawyers. And, you know, I'm very unprepared, because I wasn't planning on speaking today. But I would like to reserve the opportunity to speak at the next meeting so I could be a little more prepared and maybe bring in some diagrams and some video and some graphs of that traffic on that corner, if nobody else can. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. And by the way, the people who come up to us and say they haven't spoken before and they're worried, they usually do the best. MS. LAMB: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Only one thing -- I Page 28 May 18,2006 appreciate everything you've just said so I'm not negative in any way towards you. But you mentioned something at the beginning of your comments that you believed that some of the property's up for grabs with the county? I'm not sure I understood what you were referencing there. Is there a rumor or is there something you know that the county is also going to be grabbing some of the land out there by you? MS. LAMB: I went on a website that talked about the projection of what they planned on doing, and my property was included in that overhead picture of where they were eventually going to be developing in Golden Gate. Now, it wasn't a real close-up and I couldn't zoom in, so what I could see, it looked my side of the road was also going to be affected. And even if it's not, even if I'm sitting there in the middle of a shopping center, that's not what I bought in Golden Gate Estates for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MS. LAMB: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: John Lamb? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you guys are related. MR. LAMB: Yes, we are. My name is John Lamb. I live at 4060 Lambs Way. Again, I wasn't as prepared as I'd like to about this meeting. I do -- would like to convey some very important things as a homeowner there. The safety of our kids, number one. Most important thing. Other thing is undue -- you can pretty much drive up and down 951 any time after the store's closed on 951 between Golden Gate Parkway and Pine Ridge Road, and you can see all the kids parked in the parking lots. And this is what's going to happen as soon as you put a parking lot right next to our home, okay. They hang out there. It increases crime in the neighborhood, okay. I think there's a lot of issues here. And I haven't really seen Page 29 May 18,2006 anybody show the need for a shopping center there. You know, I'm happy that the developer would like to come into Collier County and develop and do something, but I think there's a lot more appropriate land and opportunities farther out in the estates for what the purpose of this is. You know, I'm a local business owner here. I'm kind of appalled that we had a meeting at the Golden Gate Civic Center -- Community Center and that the developer basically said to us in the room that this is going to happen whether you like it or not. We're here to listen to what you have to say and that's about it. And I was pretty much taken back and appalled at this, that it appeared as if this is already a decision, and that this is just an opportunity for you to hear what we have to say and this thing's going to go on. I would like to think that you all were voted in to really listen to what we're saying, okay? And you can go to any community in Florida or across the country at any larger metropolitan area or city, and you can see the ghost shopping centers that are there. And I ask you, do you want to sit there and look back at this shopping center in five or 10 years when it may be a ghost center and say wow, you did a really good decision, didn't you? You know? I mean, really, I want you to really think about that. You can go right over to Miami, five, 10 miles before you get into town, you can see dead shopping center after dead shopping center. And all of those developers had good intentions, right? They all thought that that was going to be really servicing the community and profitable and prosperity for them. But look at it now, okay? And I'd really caution you to think about this. And I just -- you know, it just kind of in the process this has happened we understand that there was a civic organization for Golden Gate Estates, which none of us in the room at the time even knew about except for the guy that was there representing them. And that these were the people that were giving you information about our corner to develop it. You Page 30 May 18,2006 know, not one person on our street knew about that community development civic association. And it was -- you know, it's weird that, you know, you stand back and you say hey, these are the guys making the decision for us. And I've got to say that, you know, this is something that there's over 60 people. My wife, you know, didn't mention that there's about 60 addresses on our street. And only two people, right -- one person really doesn't care, but one person was adamant that he would have liked it, right? I think that's a pretty strong statement, you know, that 58 people out of 60 on our street is against this, you know. And I think that if you came out and visited our street and saw what we had to deal with every day getting out onto 951 and where our kids catch the bus and now you want to put commercial traffic going onto 11 th Avenue where they have to also exit onto 951 at the same area in which we have kids catching a bus, right, I think that you might just see a little bit more of it our way, you know, as property owners there. You know, many of you, you know, personally aren't right there. You know, it's hard for you. But many of you could possibly, you know, imagine what it's like, those of you who live out there. Just imagine if it's at the end of your street and they go to put a shopping center in there. You know, what if you lived down on Fifth Avenue or Park Shore or Pelican Bay and they come right in on your street and put a shopping center, how are you going to feel? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to wrap up a little bit here. MR. LAMB: Okay. I'd like to close with saying that, you know, I believe in trusting the government system, right? Again, I was taken back by the appearance that this was a done deal. I hope that you stand up for the community and the residents that live there, and don't let this happen. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker is Mark Wernham. Page 3 1 May 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say last speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Ray. MR. WERNHAM: Good morning. My name is Mark Wernham. I'm a property owner on 11 th Avenue, close to the proj ected proposed commercial rezone. At the meeting that took place at the Golden Gate Civic Center there was discussions between my neighbor, who has the property closest to the proposed commercial area, and representatives from the Sembler Company. And I was sitting next to that discussion. And basically it would appear the Sembler Company are trying to buyout my neighbor and also have his property rezoned commercial, which would then give them another four plus acres, bringing the rezone closer to my property, within 100 feet of my property. I don't know how true this is, but my neighbor has basically intimated that yes, there are ongoing discussions. I just want to make that known for the record. Maybe you don't know about that. Maybe these are the things that go on behind your back that you don't know about. But that would put this commercial property so much closer to my house. Commercial. I asked the question at this Golden Gate Civic meeting, what is going in there? We had a plan that showed there's a great big building in the center with all these little commercial out-buildings. I asked them, are we getting a Publix, are we getting an Albertson's, are we getting something like that, a major draw in with all these little ones? We're not at liberty to tell you. Well, I think you should be at liberty to tell me because it's affecting my property. Publix, Albertson's, all these big stores, they take their liberties throughout the middle of the night. When I moved out to 951 eight years ago, I bought my house out there, it was quiet. You couldn't hear anything on 951. 4:00 in the Page 32 May 18,2006 morning those dump trucks start now. I'm awake before 4:00 in the morning because they go back with their air brakes and their this and that and the other. The traffic on 951 is horrendous. And if we now have an access on 11 th Avenue Southwest, an access on 951, and an access on Pine Ridge Road, which is proposed by the map, basically another issue will -- that nobody has addressed, that commercial property will now become a cut-through, and they will be cutting through the commercial property to cut out the corner of Pine Ridge Road, 951 to head back down 951. Nobody's going to say well, that's not going to happen, because I see it happening. You go to Airport Road and Vanderbilt by the Picture Factory there, by the Stonebridge, they do it all the time because they don't want to sit at those lights. They cut through the back of Walgreen's, onto Airport Road and then they're back on Airport Road. I don't want that on my street. I have an 11-year-old. My son, he's the most precious thing in my life apart from my wife. I don't want a commercial property at the end of my street. I didn't buy commercial, I bought in a residential area, thinking that I would be in a residential area. If I wanted to be in a commercial area, I would have bought downtown. I didn't even look down there, because that's where I didn't want to be. I knew where I wanted to be. My wife and I scoured those streets for many, many hours, just driving up and down trying to find our little piece of heaven. We thought we had it. And I hope you're not going to take it away from us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, is that the last public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, did you want any rebuttal? Page 33 May 18,2006 MR. ANDERSON: No. If you're going to continue this, I'll just wait. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's been a motion tabled. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I remove it from the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the motion-maker has removed it from the table. The motion's back on then to continue this until a date after the DCA is received by this Planning Commission. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, this matter is continued. MR. ANDERSON: How about a date certain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about a date set by staff after we receive the DCA, like we said in the motion. I don't think it's your prerogative, Mr. Anderson. We don't have a document, we're not going to hear it without the document. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. If the DCA is completed and we can get it on the next agenda item, we will do so. MR. ANDERSON: So it's just a matter of being continued to June 1st? MR. BELLOWS: Well, that wasn't the motion of the Planning Commission. If the DCA is completed on time, we'll put you on the very next agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Bellows. Page 34 May 18,2006 Item #8C PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8126 Okay, next petition is Item C, Petition PUDZ-2005-AR-8126. It's the Rock Creek Holdings LLC. This has been continued from 5/4 to today's date. Would all those wishing to speak on behalf of this project, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any disclosures on this matter from members of the Planning Commission? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I spoke to Mr. Anderson in regards to this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I spoke to staff since the last meeting. Do I have to disclose that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I had a conversation, Mr. Anderson, only to the effect that I didn't have any comment at that point because I had to go back and refresh everything, but I can't remember if I did or not, because it was so brief. But I wanted to make sure that if that's the case, it's on the record. With that, I guess the issue we left off on last time was the Airport Authority's review of this. And I'm sure the applicant's going to address that. And before I forget, Kay, after this is over, can you stick around for a minute? I had one other item I wanted to discuss with you after the meeting. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Tyson, I think it's all yours. MR. TYSON: Good morning, Commissioners. Bruce Tyson, Page 35 May 18,2006 land planner, landscape architect with Wilson-Miller. You are correct, we will focus today on the issue of the airport if we can as a continuation of the hearing. I have a couple of new diagrams that may help to describe some of the work that we have done within the last two weeks. I'll just refresh everybody's memory here. Ray has actually put up the plan that shows the location. This just may help a little bit. If you can recall, its location in proximity to our project's proximity in relation to the airport. Now, in the meantime, what we have done is -- as a matter of fact, Mr. Soliday, who came in and made a presentation concerning the airport and the Airport Authority's concern with the project, immediately after that hearing I set up a date with him and the following day we met in his office to run through and give us some of his concerns as what they may have been as it related to the airport. We've also in the meantime done a very thorough search of the Land Development Code, some of the FAA regulations that affect the property, just to make sure that everything that we stated when we were at this hearing two weeks ago was correct. And in fact I think all of those things have proved to be true. From Mr. Soliday we received a plan that showed the runway protection zones that come from the airport. And what we've tried to do was do our best to overlay our project as it relates to those protection zones. So that -- I'm going to keep turning it so we get to the point of where it's in the same orientation as what you've been looking at. There you go. So north is up. There's the Meridian Village project that is in the hatched area, and the runway protection zone, which is that dark line which comes down and goes into the property. So we did that. And we did our best to match up the two data bases. The problem being that they didn't match perfectly because the Page 36 May 18,2006 one that comes from the airport was based on the 1997 base. The one that we have is the now frequented and used state plane coordinate system. So it was a little bit difficult to marry them together, but they're very close. So when we were doing our review of the numbers, I feel that we're certainly within a real close number as to what was required. The other thing we received from Mr. Soliday was a copy of the Bay Front Condominium document, and the first page or the second page out of that which was a point of noticing to the future purchasers or the purchasers of the property exactly what the airport was looking for from a standpoint of notification. So I think we got all of those facts and figures straight. In addition, we also received a copy or blank copy of an avigation easement that the Airport Authority would like the Meridian Village owners to sign that basically describes the fact that this project is within close proximity to the airport and it's very similar in terms of its context -- or content as what is typical with projects like that. And details about that I'll let Mr. Anderson describe, if you have any questions about that. The only thing that we found in going through this project was very similar to exactly what we had shown before and talked about. And now what you have is a diagram that shows you the relationship of that runway protection zone as it relates to the -- our master plan. You'll notice in the far upper right-hand corner of that sketch, I'll point to it, right at that location. That is that -- what's referred to as the noise zone boundary for the noise contour that proj ects from the airport. A fascinating thing is when you read the Land Development Code, it requires that if any portion of that -- the noise zone is touching the property, then the entire property must be considered within that zone. I want you to know that that is less than one-half of one percent of the entire property. Page 37 May 18, 2006 But what you'll learn and what I'll describe is the fact that the clients, or our clients for Meridian Village, will comply with all of those requirements or requests that have been made by the Airport Authority. So there's no question about the fact that we will follow and adhere to what is in the Land Development Code, as it relates to the requirements to the airport for all of these issues. In addition, the Airport Authority asked that there be written notification given back to the airport from the people who are purchasing the property. That's over and above any requirement of notification that is in the Land Development Code. And secondly, that they will in fact sign the avigation easement once the project has been approved by the board. So we had sent a letter that you have a copy of on the -- which I put on top for you that was sent back to Mr. Soliday. And I understand he can't be here today because of all of the issues that are facing the airport right now with the city. However, we had indicated our acceptance of all of those points. To include on the second page of that is a new section that will go into the PUD that indicates that we will place that statement, which is a statement that he had requested, go into the condominium documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go, Mr. Tyson, you're submitting this for the record then? MR. TYSON: It's going to be amended. Because what happened -- and I sent this one off to -- off to the county on the day after we sent this letter. And then we received a letter yesterday from the Airport Authority with additional requests that we will meet, and it will modify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything that's submitted for the record needs to be admitted as evidence. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I would move that Page 38 May 18, 2006 the two documents that were provided to us this morning relative to this matter be entered as evidence, and any testimony be amended orally, as has been just done. And reference will be made to the record in writing as well at a later date. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, motion seconded by Mr. Vigliotti to accept the two documents we received today. One is the Meridian Village Rock Creek Holdings, LLC May 16th, 2006 letter with a second page. That is a new section of the LDC -- or the PUD, or proposed PUD. And the second letter is from the Naples Airport Authority dated May (sic) 27th, 2006. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Okay, Mr. Tyson, you can continue. Sorry. MR. TYSON: I believe that is in essence what we are talking about. We do need to talk a little further about the letter that the Airport Authority did send to the county planner, Kay Deselem. And I think you -- we'll talk about that once that is given to you as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have it. It was one of the items that was just added to the record. So if you want to talk about it, you're more than free to now. Page 39 May 18, 2006 MR. TYSON : We can -- yes, certainly, we can go right into that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This is the May 17th letter? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. MR. TYSON: There's seven points here on that letter on May 17th written to Ms. Deselem from Mr. Soliday that was signed by Erv Dehn, who is a director of the engineering planning at the airport. The first item we've indicated that the client will by all means go ahead and do that. The -- first of all, let me back up and start to -- I'll go through the exceptions that we have to this. The opening statement we cannot agree with because until this project is approved, none of this will occur. So we've got a little chicken in the egg statement with the way in which this was worded here, that the City of Naples Airport Authority cannot support this project until all of these are agreed to or all of these are done. And the way in which that is written, none of these will occur until the projects approved. And we're not going to make condominium documents until we have a condominium. So, you know, it's one of those kinds of things. But we're agreeing to the fact that we are going to do it. So let that be understood as we get into this. The avigation easement we will sign. And then secondly, the disclosure to the buyers, that will be done to include a copy -- the last sentence in there, a copy to be signed at the closing. It will simply be a letter, as has been described to me. We will work that out in form and have that as part of the SDP. And we will talk about that -- as a matter of fact, Mr. Strain, that is one of the points that we need to add into the PUD to the point of making it clear as to exactly what the commitments will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will. MR. TYSON: Item number three is exactly the same thing as item number two, as has been described to us. Page 40 May 18, 2006 Item number four is -- the way in which that occurs is by signing number one, the avigation easement, which then turns it into a permanent and irreversible deed notification, because it is part of the deed. I will let the airport talk specifically about item number five. Item number six, you can see on your plan the -- or that plan that's before you on your screen or up on the monitor. That is the dark hatched area. And if I'm not mistaken, that represents about -- the area that is affected by the flight line, that is about 65 percent of the total area of -- that is affected by that runway protection zone is already protected. And of course that will be in a preserve. That will be -- it will be in a permanent conservation easement, as required by the regulations. And we take exception to number seven in that no additional -- the word additional in there needs to be removed, as we will provide sound attenuation simply because again one-half of one percent of the property fits within the noise zone, we will provide that for everyone but not additional soundproofing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I understand the conceptualization there, but the statement was made earlier that the Land Development Code now considers all of the property within that because of the way it's written. And the additional sound, I guess we'll have to ask the airport people what they really mean by that. But it's clear to me -- and I want you to confirm it, that you're going to build with sound protection anyway, you're going to make sure that there is attenuation. MR. TYSON: We have to build it to the point of what the sound attenuation requirements are for Zone D, according to these requirements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Now, do you intend to have any difference -- just for the record, because I think you've said Page 41 May 18,2006 it. You don't have -- I'm going to make it as a statement: You do not intend to make any difference in the soundproofing anywhere in your proj ect, they will all have the same level of soundproofing; is that correct? Because you have that line -- MR. TYSON: There will be a minimum that has to be met by this across the entire project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm asking. MR. TYSON: Whether the developer chooses to exceed some of those minimums in certain locations of the property is up to -- it will be his discretion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. TYSON: But at a minimum it will go across the entire property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And the question obviously is for the Airport Authority. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you deleting item five? Or what is it? MR. TYSON: No, no, no. No, I'll let them -- I would love to delete that, but I'll let them talk to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the Planning Commissioners? I have one on this particular issue. Back to number seven again. Are you -- I'm not sure how Ordinance 2000-43 -- 2.2.23.4.5 reads. But if it reads that it's applicable to only those units within Zone D, does that mean then you intend to apply it only to that portion of the project within Zone D, or are you going to apply it to 100 percent of the proj ect? MR. TYSON: It doesn't allow us that flexibility. Since the property, any portion -- any or all of the property is within Zone D, and that's that half a percent that I was talking about. If it was a platted lot, for instance, this would be moot. Because Page 42 May 18,2006 we talked about one lot and the other 50 or however many lots you could put on there would wind up being unaffected by this situation. But because it's a single lot, we are brought into the regulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Careful due diligence would have cut that little piece out of the purchase. MR. TYSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's pretty useless. Okay, are there any other questions at this time of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On this particular issue or anything else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point we're going to be -- we have to discuss the whole thing prior to voting on it, so if you've got any questions that you want to ask the applicant, I think you should ask them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I have a question of staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else at this time? Because we can always call the applicant back. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Tyson. MR. TYSON: Yes, I would like to have the opportunity to come back after the presentations have been made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Kay? MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. This is kind of a hodgepodge presentation. For that I do apologize, but we're trying to put it together at the last minute, having just recently received all the documents from the airport and from Mr. Tyson. In going over the seven items, staff was kind of concerned by the way that number five was written, because we don't know what lowest Page 43 May 18, 2006 density allowable might be. Is that one unit per acre, is that four units per acre, is that the base density minus the traffic congestion area of three? We don't know exactly what that is. So we would ask that that be qualified and quantified somewhat more so that we know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guarantee that before this meeting is over that will happen. MS. DESELEM: And as Bruce mentioned, we will be adding some additional items to the PUD document. I don't have one that I can share with you, because we haven't gotten it formalized yet. But he has added that last section. And we will probably be putting in there a requirement to ensure that the SDP or any site plan approvals that are sought by this petitioner are also provided to the Airport Authority for their review. And as an aside, after the last meeting I did some research to determine more about what notification might have been sent to the airport. And I was able to ascertain that the airport was notified as an adjacent property owner. They should have been notified by the applicant as far as the MIM (phonetic) was concerned and invited to participate in that. And they were notified as adjacent property owner of the upcoming hearings. So even though they did not get the review packet, they were notified of the upcoming hearing. But I will attempt to answer any questions I can. And I know that there is a gentleman here from the airport that is anxious to speak with you as well, and he can represent the items that are included in this letter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, is the timing okay for your question now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it is. And it's not to do with that matter. Kay, we've been talking since the last hearing that there was a quote in the report that isn't exactly accurate. I'd kind of like to make Page 44 May 18,2006 everybody in the commission aware of that. MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you said we've been talking since the last hearing, you mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay and 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good. Because I was going to say-- thanks for the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's on Page 3 of eight, and it's the quote referring to conversion from the FLUE. And the reason I think it's important is that I asked the question of the applicant and he said that well, this is not in the mixed use or activity center, the interchange activity center, and that's not the requirement that's in the FLUE. So Kay, I guess did you print out a hand-out for everybody, showing them what's in the FLUE? MS. DESELEM: What I have, this information, as far as the growth management analysis, is taken from a memo that is prepared by comprehensive planning staff. In this case Michelle Mosca is the person that prepared that. And she has provided to me a new memo dated May 17th that clarifies it. Basically what it's clarifying is the mixed use activity center and interchange activity center quotes that are contained in here. And that was changed in 2003. So I'm providing you the entire memo so that you can see where it fits in context to the rest of it. And that particular citation is at the bottom of Page 1, and it's highlighted so you can see the correct language. So if I may, I will submit that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Kay, it also didn't refer to a neighborhood village center subdistrict either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, this is a three-page -- four-page Page 45 May 18,2006 pretty intense memo to read here at today's meeting, so I'm hoping you're going to come to a conclusion on it. And before we go that far, is there a motion to accept this into evidence? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MS. DESELEM: Zoning staff, in their cumulative analysis of the project, puts together the comments from the various staff members. And we take portions of the memos from the Comprehensive Planning Staff to put into the staff report. And as I noted, I draw your attention to the last paragraph on Page 1, and it's kind of just lightly highlighted. There's a quote that says, if the proj ect includes conversion of commercial zoning that is not consistent with any subdistrict allowing commercial uses, a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units may be added for every one acre of commercial zoning which is converted, end of quote. That is the correct language that should be considered in place of what is quoted on Page 3 of the staff report. That cuts to the chase of Page 46 May 18,2006 what's in that memo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, did you-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the reason I thought that was important is that when I did ask the applicant if he felt this was really -- the property was available for conversion, he said well, it's not in the mixed use activity center, and that isn't the requirement in the FLUE, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it's important, that's why I just asked if you had any follow-up questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's really important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I agree with you. Okay, are there any questions of Kay at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll-- I have questions of transportation, but I think we need to hear public speakers first. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Should we not hear the Airport Authority representative? MR. BELLOWS: That is the public speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- I'm trying to get the public speaker. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's what you mean by public speaker? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He certainly is. He's not the applicant and he's not staff, so he's got to be something. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought he became connected to it because of the interrelation. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Ervin Dehn. MR. DEHN: Good morning. My name is Erv Dehn. I'm the Director of Engineering and Planning for the Airport Authority, and I've been asked to represent Mr. Soliday who could not be here today, he's at the Airport Authority meeting downtown. And Mr. Midney, I can appreciate and empathize with your Page 47 May 18, 2006 concern about scary rumors, believe me. We compiled a letter in response to this particular request for rezoning. And I think before I go through the details of that letter, I want to kind of explain a couple of things to you. First of all, as the Airport Authority, we accept grants from the F ederal Aviation Administration, both entitlement grants and discretionary grants. And each time we sign and accept a grant, there's the fine print on the last few pages of those grant acceptance that's called sponsors assurances. And one of the many sponsors assurances is that we will operate this as a public airport for 20 years and we will protect the airport from encroachments of development. Having spent the last four decades of my life working on and around airports, it's amazing to me how people can knowingly or unknowingly buy a house or property right next to an airport and then a year later want to move the airport away from their house. And this happens time and time again. And so one of the things that we've tried to do through the organization of airports, various organizations that we belong to, is to develop some notification letters that would go into the -- become part of the homeowners' covenants that says basically we understand that we're buying a piece of property that is approximate to an airport, a busy airport, and that we can expect to be exposed to noise and the smell of jet fuel and whatever else goes along with that. So what we've tried to do is to comply with the guidelines that we've been given by FAA. And one of the things that we cannot do, therefore, is support the rezoning of property that's commercial use which is basically compatible land use near an airport, support the rezoning of that to residential use, and particularly high density residential use. So what we tried to do was to put a letter together. And in a flurry of activity, I've got to admit that my wording was probably not the best here. And in the opening paragraph, I did not deal with your Page 48 May 18,2006 protocol in that we cannot obviously ask for these things to be done before we can deal with the -- before we can either not object or object to the rezoning itself. So we are prepared to rewrite this letter in the proper format. I've agreed to talk with Kay outside, and I've talked with the developer's consultant, and we will basically change this to say that we will not object to the rezoning if these items are taken care of forthwith after the rezoning is done. And I think that will put the horse properly before the cart. Some of these items, as the consultant rightfully noted, are somewhat redundant. I was given a list of things from several of the directors at the airport, kind of over their shoulder on the way out the door, and said put this in the letter. And so I tried to make a comprehensive list. And in reading it, in fact I do agree that the avigation easement mentioned in item number one is repetitive and redundant with the permanent and irreversible deed notification in four. So those two will be combined in the revised letter. Also, the disclosure that we're asking for in the constructive notice -- the disclosure we're asking for in item two in the constructive notice and item three are essentially the same in that if we can agree after the fact that a reasonable notification can be written into the bylaws of the homeowners' organization and that a simple form letter that when a home buyer is purchasing the property and going to closing, it's one of the 200 sheets of documents that they've got to sign, but still it's an acceptance of the fact that they are buying property in proximity to the airport and they have read the homeowners' association bylaws that deal with that particular topic. That just gives us some insurance and comfort and some ammunition at a later date if that homeowner comes back to us and says we object to the airport noise or whatever we're doing on the airport property. And I do admit that item five was given to me and it's very Page 49 May 18,2006 ambiguous. And as a former consultant and engineer, I have a hard time understanding it myself. What was intended there was that if in fact this property must be rezoned from commercial to residential, we cannot stand in the way of that, so to speak. But we're recommending that it be rezoned with residential density compatible to what's surrounding it -- which basically what was intended by that comment -- that we not go to a higher density than what's surrounding the property now. That's simply our recommendation. That's not something that we can kind of dig our heels in and fight with. The rest of these items are pretty much issues that have to be done, or else we will have to fight the petition for rezoning. Items six and seven are things that -- requirements that you require anyway and not something that we can stipulate. All we can do is simply remind the developer that these need to be done. The word additional is ambiguous there, too, in the sound attenuation. All we meant was that the additional sound attenuation requirements required by that section be complied with. Not that we wanted to impose additional sound attenuation above those requirements. So hopefully that somewhat explains our letter. And we will get a revised letter to Kay this afternoon to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it does explain everything. But I think number five is not nearly explained. Mr. Murray, we'll start with your questions on that. And then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, with regard to the lowest density issue, I think you have no standing in that regard. And I appreciate the desire of the airport to minimize the number of complaints that we'll hear ultimately. But I don't think you can make it a contingency in any form. Have you -- I think you've stated that you will withdraw that. At Page 50 May 18, 2006 least you alluded to that. And if you haven't stated it, I'd like you to do so, because that's a matter for this and other boards to determine. Inasmuch as you anticipate and they have agreed that you will receive documents by the initial owners and deed restrictions, et cetera, et cetera, will be in place, I cannot imagine the need for you to become a part of the density issue. So if you'd explain for us, please, whether or not you intend to continue that particular part of it. MR. DEHN: We would pull this out as a conditional item -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. DEHN: -- and simply say that we recommend that this happen. Would that be acceptable? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, it's acceptable. It doesn't have any import to it, but that's fine. MR. DEHN: I understand. Okay. We certainly can't go on record on a document and say that we are in support of high density residential rezoning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And in the matter of number seven, additional attenuation of sound, on what basis would you make a judgment as to whether they've been effective in the first instance in making the base attenuation and then qualify any additional attenuation? MR. DEHN: Well, that's the point entirely. We're not asking for any additional above the base attenuation required by your ordinance that's mentioned here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're satisfied. Those things were just put in because you -- MR. DEHN: By reference, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, sir, you have every right to object to anything you want to. So you can have an objection in this letter if you'd like to. Now, we -- you're a citizen like anybody else, your agency should be looked at that way. So you don't have to take Page 51 May 18, 2006 that out. But what's important is, it's obvious that this project is not going to be the density that you indicated you'd recommend. It is going to be more than the density you are recommending. Now, based on those terms, are you in favor of the project or not? MR. DEHN: It looks like, in talking with the developer's consultant, that they will meet all of the terms and conditions of the avigation easement, the height restrictions. We have an airport overlay zone that we've worked out with both the city and the county, and looks like they will meet all of the requirements of that criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the density now is not really an issue for you. MR. DEHN: No, sir. It's just we can't go on record as saying we accept it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm trying to get to the bottom line, and it's a little hard to understand the politics -- MR. DEHN: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or the rules. Okay. Are there any other questions of this gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, thank you, sir. Ray, are there any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers have registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'd like to address something with transportation, if I could. Nick, you don't need a jacket for us. MR. ANDERSON: A flack jacket. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, we've got the input from the airport which was missing at our last meeting. Last meeting we had Page 52 May 18,2006 left off and we had covered quite a few issues, but after the meeting I reread the documents, and the part that I feel most uncomfortable with -- well, there's two items, but one that involves your department -- and that's the access onto Estey Avenue. I know that standard policy requires a longer, let's say, separation between openings. I just think putting an access there where the people coming out will most likely make left turns to get onto Airport, then the stacking problem that would be backing up on Estey would-- and people coming right off of Airport onto Estey trying to get past the jam that's stacked up trying to get back onto the light, what kind of solutions are there to a problem like that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I've got a couple of exhibits we can bring up and we can talk about some of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This one's going to be tough to read, but I'll kind of walk you through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's upside down, it makes it hard. There we go. Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. You look over here on Estey when you come in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, we're not on Estey yet. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We can't see it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You can't see. Oh, I guess you can't see over there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See that picture there, that's what we can see. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. MR. CASALANGUIDA: All right. If we're here on Estey, there's about 330 feet at that point from where the access point of where they're looking at and the turn lane starts. As part of the review, we've asked them to increase that to dual Page 53 May 18,2006 left-turn lanes. The issue we have on Airport Road is right now you've got a turn lane that extends coming down southbound, and you also have a directional opening on that point as well, too. Over here. So none of the access points, whether they be on Airport or Estey would be ideal in transportation purposes. Typically you'd like to have them take access off the minor street, not the main road. Right now the distance back to Steeves is about 450 feet. So shown on the PUD, they didn't detail exactly what they were going back, but I think in discussions with Jeff Perry and Bruce from Wilson-Miller, we looked back at about 330 to 380 was their access point. If I'm incorrect, please correct me. That is about where the taper is to that existing left-turn lane. So we pushed him back as far as we could and we've asked for an additional left-turn lane. One of the options we've discussed internally in reviewing comments from the last time we were here was to provide them a right-out only on Airport. But we still have the issue of a weave. And if you're going to do a right-out, you might as well do a right-in. So it's one of those where you don't have an optimal solution either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put that prior plan you just had on, the aerial you just showed a few minutes ago? Could you right side it? There you go. See where Poinsettia Ave. is? Look across Poinsettia Ave. to the left of the picture. And that's where your in-point is to this parcel. Seems to line up with Poinsettia Ave. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to put a light at that intersection with a traffic controlling device so that people coming in or out of either Poinsettia Ave. or that project, the light would start its responses, wouldn't that be a help to the situation? Or not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It wouldn't meet signal warrants at that Page 54 May 18,2006 point. It wouldn't meet spacing requirements either. I could never support a light at that point -- or a traffic signal on Airport there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the entrance onto Estey doesn't meet spacing requirements either, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's an existing light. And as Bruce just mentioned, he's going to add a phase to that, a dedicated left, as part of the submittal of this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the one that I'm just speaking of on Airport seems to be much farther separation from the Estey intersection than the one that you're proposing on Estey from Airport. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Problem with the Estey signal or the spacing that Estey provides is that back access down to 41 as well, too. So you're getting quite a bit of cut-through traffic that goes there, as well, too. So that signal there is probably in a better location to serve cut-through traffic in general as opposed to the one across Poinciana (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wasn't suggesting taking the Estey signal out. I was suggesting adding another signal on Poinsettia. But that doesn't meet your criteria. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, it would not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many feet back from Estey Avenue about do you think Poinsettia is; do you know? I mean, you're looking at one, two, three, four lot depth, at least, plus one, two, three road widths. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Probably about 600 feet. Maybe a little more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is your spacing criteria? MR. CASALANGUIDA: On that access road? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd like it to be a quarter mile to a half mile. But in many places it's been less than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 55 May 18, 2006 Okay, I was trying to explore a better idea. Because for the amount of density going on that project, I don't like the situation on Estey Avenue. MR. CASALANGUIDA: One of the things we could do is we could review it. If there was an issue, we could put a median separator in there and force them to take a right on Estey and make a U-turn somewhere down, or talk about a second access and egress out onto Airport. But we'd like to not add too many access points to this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of transportation? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: We're converting here commercial land zone to residential land. Does not the commercial zone require less traffic or result in less traffic than a residential zoning? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, the commercial here would have many more turning movements than the residential would here and more traffic -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I see. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- than the zoning that this is asking for. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, thank you, Nick, appreciate it. Mr. Anderson, I have a question for you. MR. ANDERSON: My pleasure, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know it isn't, but we'll do our best. Page 56 May 18, 2006 Bruce, you're dealing in a piece of property that's in the coastal high hazard area. You're dealing with a density conversion that brings in maybe a higher density than would otherwise be allocated if that conversion ratio wasn't there. Would you have any objection to retaining the density of the RMF -6 across the site instead of the -- adding as much as you're adding, cutting your density down to 72 units from 120? MR. ANDERSON: Won't work. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the excess density that you've asked for in regards to what is the base density for the property, you're looking at a portion of it being for some mix of affordable housing that you've provided in the PUD. Would you have any objection if all of the additional density provided by the conversion was affordable? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. That's not how the thing is structured. That's not how the county's incentive is structured. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which incentive is that? MR. ANDERSON: Well, affordable housing density bonus, even if we were taking advantage of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're not, though. MR. ANDERSON: I know, we're not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ANDERSON: But even when you do that, not all of your density bonus is limited to affordable units. You get some market rate to help make up for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're getting -- but that bonus isn't on the table here today . You're asking for a conversion bonus from commercial to residential. So I don't think there's any rules that say that the request I'm asking of you can't be asked. Do you know of any? MR. ANDERSON: Oh, no, no, certainly it can be asked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're saying that's not going Page 57 May 18, 2006 to work for you. MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. No, sir. I would just remind you that the overall density of this project is 10.27 units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And in counter of that, the RMF-6 zoning that's adjacent to it, should that zoning be spread onto that property as a conversion ratio, you would end up with 72 units, approximately, instead of 120. So you still are getting a discretionary bonus. MR. ANDERSON: Well, if you, you know, want to strip away all the numbers and pick it apart, approximately half of the extra units that you would get over the six units per acre wind up -- five percent. N ever mind, I'm not going to go there. Lawyers are poor with math, especially on the fly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard Yovanovich can't do directions, so you two guys make a great team. MR. ANDERSON: That's why we're in separate law firms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not always on separate cases. Mr. Adelstein, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, I've got a problem, I've got a problem. You're putting in affordable housing, which I'm of course in favor of. What is this rental idea? That you can rent them? That's what it said in here, that there was a rental ability. There was a rental ability in your statement. If I can find it. Are you saying there is no rental available? MR. ANDERSON: Well, no different than you or I being able to rent our homes. But this is not a rental project, no. This is for sale. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But I can buy one if I qualified, and then I could rent it out. MR. ANDERSON: Not the affordable one. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, that's what it seems to say here. Page 58 May 18,2006 Let us say then that you are not going to be able to rent out your affordable housing. MR. SCHMITT: Again for the record, Joe Schmitt. The affordable housing program, the applicant -- these are not affordable housing density bonuses, but the applicant has agreed to put these in the affordable housing program. And as such, there will be a deed restriction that will prevent -- or I'll sign a 15-year deed restriction that will make these affordable housing. And basically they're affordable housing units purchased. They cannot be rented. You cannot buy one and turn around and rent it. It has to be a qualified purchaser purchasing that affordable housing unit. Now, if a qualified purchaser purchases it, again, we'll have to deal with that. But there are restrictions that will prevent renting and other type of things. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions from the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, did you have any closing statements you wanted to make? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. And for better or worse, I also want to take another stab at that math. All right, let's say you -- it's all zoned RMF-6. Let's pretend that. What -- of the additional units per acre above six, 10.27 compared to the six, that's what, 52 units, I think, somebody calculated, and I'll accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-eight. MR. ANDERSON: Forty-eight extra units? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Above -- if you have 120 units, 72 under the RMF -6, that leaves you 48, I think. Yeah. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. Page 59 May 18, 2006 Exactly half of those extra units, those extra 48 units, are devoted to affordable housing. So please think of it in that perspective. Half of the density bonus, when you spread it out all over, is going to affordable housing. There are some pending amendments to the conservation and coastal management element that would allow for mitigation off-site of native vegetation. I don't know whether that will finally become adopted or not. I spoke with Ms. Rois (phonetic), and I just -- I don't know the language that we want to the have, and it may already be addressed in the PUD, but I did want to make you aware of it. This project would want to have the flexibility, if the new amendments were on the books when their SDP came in, to utilize those for off-site mitigation, if they so chose. I don't know that they will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that if you were to utilize them, then it would change your master plan to some degree. There's a certain trigger that would require you to come back here anyway. And I think you'd have a hard time taking away the preserves, I don't think your intention would be, in the area that the airport has indicated in their letter are a concern to them. Is that fair to say? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, yeah. Secondly, I wanted to make sure that it was clear. Mr. Schiffer, has your question been answered so that you understand that this property does meet the requirements for the conversion of commercial density bonus? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm really not comfortable that it does. I mean, the intent of that was is to remove isolated and strip pieces of zoning that actually don't comply with the area you're in. I mean, the actual -- there's commercial all up and down that road. This is not an isolated piece of commercial. I mean, the wording of that is kind of clumsy, because it really doesn't say that you have to be within the district to have commercial Page 60 May 18,2006 like the subdistrict. But I mean, it's up to us. I mean, the most we could give you is 12 on it anyway. So it's up to us to bargain what we think it is. Residential on that street will be the isolated thing. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Lastly, I -- just general closing comment. If we are ever going to solve the affordable housing problem in this county, you've got to work with property owners like this one who's willing to offer it up, or the problem is simply going to get worse. This is a great location for affordable housing. It's in close proximity to East Naples Middle School, the V 0- Tech Institute, this government complex, Development Services, Transportation Department, and the Collier Area Transit bus transfer station. It's a perfect location. The bottom line reality is, if we want affordable housing, sometimes we actually need to vote for it. And I respectfully ask you to do so. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce. Are there any other questions of anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll close the public hearing, and I'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-8126 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move -- second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Discussion? Mr. Schiffer, I was going to bring up the fact that last meeting we had made some notes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Page 61 May 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I wanted to make sure that those were included in the motion. But go ahead and I'll entertain your thoughts first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, one thing I'd like to talk -- and it seems like the motions always come from the left side of the Chairman, so I have a voice of protest from the right side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I will pay more attention to looking your direction. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in terms of the density, what I'd like to propose you do is give them six units on the commercial to bring the commercial up to par with the rest of the site, and that the rest of the units, to bring it up to the 120 units, come from the affordable housing density bonus, not to be less than 15 percent. They're proposing actually 20 percent now, so alls it is for them, it doesn't hurt their unit counts, it's just a matter of them playing with the value of the units to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, for the conversion, it's up to us to discriminate how much we want to give them. Do we want to give them the full 12 units per acre? I'm saying let's not. Because this is not an isolated piece of commercial. Let's give them six units per acre, which makes the whole site at six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's 72 units. Let's just figure it out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's actually 70 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's say six units per acre comes to approximately 70 units. That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the balance of the units, up to the 120, we'll give them the full density, come from the affordable housing table. With not less than 15 percent. The reason I'm saying 15 percent, they could get the additional -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you stop right there for a minute so I understand you?a Page 62 May 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the balance of the units will come from the affordable housing table. That first seems to me that the remaining 50 units then would all have to be affordable housing -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but then you threw this 15 percent in. VVhat does that mean? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the way the table's set up is that, you know, for a certain percent of units you get more density. The density is not as great as the affordable housing. In other words, for example, the 20 percent or the -- if you did the highest thing for 10 percent of the units, they would get four more units per acre, which you give them exactly what they want, or approximately what they want. And alls they'd have to provide is 10 percent of the 15 percent housing. In other words, the table isn't all affordable housing, it's a percentage that gives you so much market, so much affordable. So I'm saying using that ratio system to bring it up to the 120 number. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm confused, because they're not getting -- the density is not coming out of the affordable density bonus program. There's a -- to do that, you have to have an agreement. This is coming from another density, if you will call it, enhancement program, and they're voluntarily doing affordable housing. So I think we're kind of mixing apples and oranges. And that's why I have a concern, because they've done no agreement for this board to consider, it wasn't advertised that way, and I'm concerned. Unless you want to put some criteria on -- I don't understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what I'm trying to do is actually, you know, bring them into the affordable housing program to get density. The way you have it now, you have no density being derived from affordable housing. But you're assuming that we're going to give you the full 12 units per acre. Page 63 May 18,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I think maybe if this motion were not to succeed, maybe that's another motion we ought to entertain, or if the motion makers want to withdraw and move into Brad's discussion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it seems like they're going in one direction and you're trying to move them into another. And I don't see anything wrong with being creative, but I'm just figuring how they do it at this meeting. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I'd just like to point out, we can't switch to a density bonus agreement that hasn't been advertised. There is a separate application process and it has to be advertised as an affordable housing project, getting affordable density bonus. This has not been done. So you're effectively continuing this item. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's not go that way then, I don't want to do that. But let me ask, how many affordable housing units are going to be built on this site, 20 percent? MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other discussion items before I list some things that we talked about last time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These are for the motion makers to consider. First of all, we have a letter from the City of Naples Airport Authority dated May 17th, with seven items on it. Number five on the list has been dropped by the Naples Airport Authority. They're going to rework the introductory language of this letter to indicate that they wouldn't object if the items are addressed right after the rezoning is accomplished. And they'll still retain in some concept form items one, two, three, four, six and seven. So that, I think, is part of the discussion we Page 64 May 18,2006 had today that we seemed to think was favorable. The letter from Meridian Village to Mr. Theodore Soliday included a property purchaser's notification as an addition to the PUD 5.11. That was brought forward and put on record as consideration today and might want to be considered in the motion. At the last meeting we talked about revising the table for the accessory units where they were all to be at 10 feet. I think there were different standards there. And through Brad's review, I think Brad was the one that brought it up, limiting them to 10 feet. And the height of the structures were to be 45 feet actual, but two stories with 35 feet as the zoned height. Now, those are all the notes that I see from my meeting -- or from my papers from the prior meeting. Is that consistent with -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And I would accept them into the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I recall those the same way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the motion maker accepts them and the second accepts them. So any other discussion from the rest of the members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none -- before I call for the vote, I will be voting no on this. I'll be voting no on it because I believe it's too much density, based on the traffic conditions and the fact that density, if it all is going -- if there is a density for a bonus, I think it should be all for affordable housing. Therefore, my concerns are that it's not consistent with CCME Policy 12.1.2, the FLUE Policy 5.4, the LDC 4.07.02.D.3(d)(t)(g), Transportation Policy 5.2, Florida Statute 3160(6), rezone findings 1, 6 and 14, and findings for the PUD 1, 3 and 4. Now, with that, there's a motion made to recommend approval. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 65 May 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Three opposed. Motion carries 5-3. Thank you, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, my opposition is exactly what you said. They should be in here with the affordable housing, not the conversion. MR. TYSON: Mr. Strain, could I just ask one question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. TYSON: You introduced something there at the end that talked about zoned height of two stories and -- where was that introduced and what is that applicable to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last meeting we asked the question, I believe that was the answer. MR. TYSON: And that's all you're -- the zoned height? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You asked for -- the question was, what was your actual height. And I believe you said 45 feet. MR. TYSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the zoned height -- we asked the zoned height and it was two stories or 35 feet. MR. TYSON: And it's three stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, three stories? I thought it was -- my note said two stories. And I can't remember without going back and reviewing the minutes of the meeting. MR. TYSON: I'm just letting you know, it's very consistent with the LDC, is three stories, you know, in terms of height. Page 66 May 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we need to revisit the motion so there's no mistake -- MR. TYSON: I just wanted to make sure we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in clarification, because I did say two stories at 35 feet. If it needs to be corrected that it's supposed to be three stories at 35 feet, then we certainly need to make sure that's correct in the minutes. MR. TYSON: And then just one statement beyond that, then. In the PUD it states three stories or 45 feet, whichever is less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's where the question came up, because didn't you -- again, I'm going on notes. I cannot remember what occurred at the last meeting. Didn't we discuss the actual height of the proj ect? MR. TYSON: We did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't it going to be 45 feet? MR. TYSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if the actual height is 45 feet, you're saying your intention was zoned height of 35 feet? MR. TYSON: No. I'm not sure where you came from with the question when you said -- when you had asked -- or you made the statement of zoned height of 35 feet or two stories. I'm not sure where that statement, you know, is -- had originated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a staffreport on Page 7, the RMF zoning district limits building heights to a maximum of 35 feet. Meridian Village proposes three stories for a maximum of 45- foot high structures. I think that's what spurred the question last time. And I may have taken the notes wrong. I may have written them down like I intended to ask you of those, so I'm pleased that you came back up and questioned it. I'm thankful that you did, because I want it explicitly clear. My additions to the motion that were accepted were at actual Page 67 May 18,2006 height of -- zoned height of 35 feet, two stories, with an actual height not to exceed 45 feet. If that's not your intentions or if that's not what was discussed, you need to tell us right now and we'll try to see if the motion will be changed. MR. TYSON: What we want is exactly in the PUD and I believe you approved, it's three stories and 45 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TYSON: Actual height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, with that, I need to -- and Margie, do I open the last motion up or entertain a new motion to consider -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : You can amend the motion. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. I think that you can open it up to be amended and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein, would you open your motion up? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will. I will allow it to be amended. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Murray will second that. So the amendment will now be -- can someone state it for me so that it's explicitly clear when this project moves forward? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thirty-five -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Three stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both of you -- I think what Mr. Tyson's indicating, it's three stories or 45 feet. That they did not want to specify actual height or zoned height, it was simply going to be what the table says; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what we talked about, and I think I was the one doing it, the only change to the table was to cull out that the 45 feet is the actual height, which is our zoning definition of the -- MR. TYSON: Correct. It's the maximum actual height. The only Page 68 May 18,2006 change to the table happened in the minimum rear setback where we changed the townhouse to 10 feet from five feet, as noted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in terms of height, there was -- I don't think there was ever any mention of -- MR. TYSON: There was no change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- what the zoned height would be. MR. TYSON: Right. I just wanted to make sure that that's clear for everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So actual height in the table is 45 feet, and that's what the intention is of the -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The motion should read that way, the maximum height of 45 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have any comments to add to that? If you don't -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I just find it strange that you would want to increase the RMF -6 zoning district limits to building height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe that's why I wrote it down. But regardless, the motion maker has -- does the motion maker and the second then accept the statement that this will be actual height of 45 feet, as written in the table in the PUD? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I certainly do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the motion maker accepts it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I'll call for the question: All those in favor of the motion that's just now recently amended again, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 69 May 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three opposed. Motion still carries 5-3. Mr. Tyson, thank you for clearing that up. The last thing we need is to go forward with things that aren't clear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I've just got an idea. Maybe we could solve affordable housing by giving a height bonus. If you put affordable housing in, you can get additional stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I can imagine there are a lot of ways, but we don't have the time to work them out. The remaining item on the agenda today, old business. There's none noted. New business, there's none noted. We've had public comment. Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you all. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:36 a.m. Page 70 May 18, 2006 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 71