Agenda 02/26/2008 Item #12A
Page I of I
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 1 of 133
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item Number: 12A
Item Summary: This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m Discussion regarding Richland PUD (Pebblebrooke)
Meeting Date: 2/2612008 900.00 AM
Approved By
David C. Weigel County Attorney Date
County Attorney County Attorney Office 2115/200811:22 AM
Approved By
James V. Mudd County Manager Date
Board of County County Manager's Office 2116/20089:59 AM
Commissioners
c-
file://C:\AgendaTest\Export\ 10 l-February%2026, %202008\ 12.%20COUNTY%20A TTOR... 2/20/2008
-
.- ._---_._~----
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26,2008
Page 2 of 133
-----
ORDINANCE NO. 02-~ :1
.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 91-102, THE COlLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVEWPMENT CODE, WlUCH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR
THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COlLIER
COUNTY. FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING ATI.AS MAP NUMBERED 8627N AND BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
HEREIN DESClUBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "PUD"
TO "PUJ)" PLANNIlD UNIT DEVEWPMENT KNOWN
AS RICHLAND PUD, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON >" ,....,
<>
THE SOUTIiWBST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD r-M ~
,..-.r: ,-."
(C.R. 846) AND COlLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 9SI), IN ",,,. .." -n
::i::~ '"
:>=-' ""
SI!CTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOum. RANGE 26 (,.') ~ . N -
BAST, COll.!BR COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING <. <:::> j-
~-.:
OF 1 SO ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF rr:--r m
.. c') ,..
"'rl",;, ::i:
ORDINANCE NUMBER 97-27. THE FORMER b~ :::: 0
R1CHLAND PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN ::tl~ '.
6~ ~
EFFI!CTIVE DATE. ~'" ..,
i
WHIlRI!AS. Karat Bishop of PMS. IDe. of Nlpl... repnIICI1IiDc Kal<:o Development IDe.,
pelitiOlllld the _ of Couoty Commiaoionon to change the zoning clauification of the Iunin
d....ribed real pIOperty;
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY the Board of ColIIIIy COIlIDliuionera of
CoUier Couoty, Florida;
~"P.rI10N ONE-
The Zoning Clauificatioo of the Iunin deocribed real property located in Section 27.
Townohip 48 SoUlb. IUnp 26 Eut, Collier Collllly, Florida, i. cIwIpd from "PUD" to "PUD"
P__ Unit Developmatt in occordancewilb the PUD Document, IIIIICbedbereto u Exhibit"A",
which is inccxporated herein and by ",f.....,. JIlIde port bcRof. The Official Zoning AtIu Map
DlIIDbored 8627N, u deocribed in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier CoIIIIIy Land
Development Cod.. .... benlby lIDeruled acconIinaIy.
SECTION TWO:
OrdilW1CCl NlDDbcr 97-27 known u the RichIand PUD, adopted 011 Juoe 10. 1997, by Ibe
_ of County Commiuioncn of Collier County. is bcrcby repcaled in its entirety.
~FrTION TI-lRPl::
ThiI Ordinance sball become cHcc:tivc upoil filin& wilb the DeportmcDt of Swc.
-
i
I
---. I :
,,--. ~-.. . ._-~-- ---
_'._,"U' __ __"'~
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 3 of 133
. PASSED AND J:?ULY ADOPTIlO by the Board of County C~;..u.-. of Collier .
CoUDty.l'1~ Ibi.~day of .z ~ ~...,. .2002.
.~~~~~:.'~:~:~~~:,. ~:~,
:....th:J'!sT: .. .':.. ' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I f~GH1' B,. ~tjcK, Clort COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
.;;!. ,f ,,-.~ ~
... .. i... ..
('".. . ~ '(~'
~~'?J1ir "<I' JA.C BY:
'M "CIIII,-', JAMESN.COLE'ITA,CbIinnan
'1rl!lln .1,...
Approvocl U Ib I'arm IIId
Lcpl Suffici"""Y llllo ardI_ f110d _ tlIo
~5ko~
""1)u ~.:. , "Yh . (Jt-" b. .{,- ~.<k. ~ ~
Marjo M. Student Ii':}. ....Iwd thl. ~
Auillanl County Attorney .f ~A 2lc
. ...... Jf .
PUDA-ZOOI..JI.R-14941CB1\o
-;
'\
. . . i I
--..-.-."
i -~-----,l\gei1C1<rlterrrt-io-:+.2A-----~
February 26,2008 .
Page 4 of 133
!
,/
,
PLANNED UNIT DEVelOPMENT DOCUMENT
FOR
RICHLAND
A PLANNED RESIDENTIAl. COMMUNI1Y
Prepared by:
PMS, Inc. of Naples
2335 Tamiami Trail N. #408
Naples, Florida 34103
Date Reviewed by CCPe: 1/17102
Date Apploved by acc: 2/12/02
OrdIn8nce Number: 2002-07
OrdInence Number:
Document Date: 1/24102
.-
. -
-
-
Exibit "All
i
:/
.._" , I
, !
- '---.-,-.--..-----
-- !11l
Agenda Item No. 12A ~ ! I
'i
February 26, 2008
Page 5 of 133
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES i
STATEMENT OF COMPUANCE AND SHORT TITLE Ii
SECTION I Legal Description. Property Ownership and General
Description 1-1
SECTION II Project Development 2-1
SECTION III Residential District 3-1
SECTION IV Community Commercial District 4-1
SECTION V Reserve District 5-1
SECTION VI General Development Commitments 6-1
'\
LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES
EXHIBIT "A" PUD Master Plan
EXHIBIT "B" Conceptual Buffer Plan
TABLE 1 Development Standards for "R" Residential Ant..
i )
-
.----------- ,'I
Agenda Item No. 12A !
February 26,2008
Page 6 of 133
~
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The purpose of this section is to express the intent of Kenco Development, Inc., hereinaf-
ter referred to as the Developer, to crute a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 150 +1-
acres of land located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be Richland. The development
of Richland will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County
as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the
growth policies and land development regulations adopted thereunder of the Future ~nd
Use Element and map of the Growth Management Plan and other applicable regulations
for the following reasons:
1. The SUbject property is within the Urban Mixed Use DistrictlUrban Residential Sub
district and the Activity Center Mixed Use District/Activity Center Subdistrict as iden-
tified on the Future Land Use Map as required in Objective 1, of the Future Land
Use Element (FLUE).
2. The proposed density of Richland is 3.1 dwelling units per acre which is less than
the maximum density pennitted by the FLUE Density Rating System and is
therefore consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 5.1. The entire subject
property qualifies for a base density of four dwelling units per acre. Certain parts of
the subject property lie within a one mile radius of an activity center qualifying the
area for an additional 3 dwelling units per acre, while an additional dwelling unit per
acre is available because the project fronts on two arterial streets.
3. Richland is compatible with and complemantary to existing and future surrounding
land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element.
4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development
regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element
5. The development of Richland will result in an efficient and economical extension of
community facilities and services as required in Policies 3.1.H and L of the Future
Land Use Element.
6. Richland is planned to incorporate natural systems for water management inaccor-
danee with their natural functions and capabilities as may be requirad by Objective
1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element.
7. The project will be served by a complete range of services and utilities as approved
by the County.
ii
.- - '11:..
I .
.- -" _._-~'_._-'
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 7 of 133
8. The subject property includes an Activity Center Designation, which is a
preferred location for commercial and mixed-use developments.
9, The project shall be in compliance with all applicable County regulations
including the Growth Management Plan.
SHORT TITLE
This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "RICH LAND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE",
I
iii
)
....-....- -. ----- --nt-
-'..,-~- ~---
-------~
Agenda Item No. 12A I
February 26,2008
Page 8 of 133
-
~ECTION 1
Y:~L DESCRIPTION. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. and GENERAL DESCRIPTION
1-1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the legal description and ownership of
Richland, and to describe the existing condition of the property to be developed.
1-2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The northeast 1/4 of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, less the East
and North 100 feet for the purpose of road right-of-way, located in Collier County,
Florida.
1-3 TITLE TO PROPERTY
The Property is currently under the ownership of Kenco Development, Inc., 8610
Pebblebrooke Drive, Naples, Aorida, 34119.
- 1-4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
A. The project site is located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
and is bordered on the north by Immokalee Road (CR-846), on the east by
CR-951, on the south by Oakridge Middle School and on the west by
undeveloped agricultural land and Laurel Oak Elementary School
B. The zoning dassification of the subject property as of this submittal is PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).
C. The site's vegetation includes pine flatwoods, saw palmetto, slash pine and
sabal palm. It also contains areas of cypress, fem and sawgrass. Soils on
the site are Immokalee fine sand and Arzell fine sand. A small area of
pompano fine sand is located in the southeast comer of the site.
D. The surrounding area is generally undeveloped, and is located within the
Activity Center Designation and Residential Density Band of the Future Land
Use Map to the Growth Management Plan.
E. Elevations in the area range from 13.0 - 15.0 feet according to U.S.G.S.
quadrangle maps. The site is outside of the flood plane and requires
development to be sited 18 inches above the crown of the road according to
flood insurance rate maps.
.-. 1-1
- -m~
-"-".._,~, ."~ '.,-.----."
Ii
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26,2008
Page 9 of 133
1-5 PROJECT DENSITY
A. The total acreage of Richland is approximately 150 acres. The
maximum number of dwelling units to be built on the total acreage is 400. !
The number of dwelling units per gross residential acre is approximately 3.1
units. The density on individual parcels of land throughout the project may vary
according to the type of housing placed on each parcel of land.
Commercial uses occupy approximately 23 acres. These described land
uses are set forth on the PUD Master Plan, Exhibit "A".
B. At all times, property included within the Richland PUD shall be included in
determining project density including property reserved or dedicated for
public uses, such as, but not limited to, public roadways, easements,
reserves and landscape buffers.
!
I
I
1-2
)
, I
__0- 'l
'~ii
I'
-,--"--- - ~'-
Agenda Item No. 12A .:
February 26, 2008 '
Page 10 of 133
,--..
1,1
~ECTlON \I ' .
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
2-1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of development f~r
Richland, and to identify relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies,
and procedures.
2-2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES
A. Richland, a private community, will include a broad range of Single-family,
Multi-family, Community Commercial, Hotel/Motel, Stormwater Management,
Open Space and Reserve areas. Each single-family, multi-family and
commercial parcel will be served with publicly provided utilities, including
potable water, sewer and electricity. Amenities proposed to be provided in
the project include, but are not limited to, structures designed to provide
social and recreational space, lakes, natural and landscaped open spaces.
..- B. The Master Plan is illustrated graphically on Exhibit "A". A land use
summary indicating approximate land use acreages is shown on the plan.
The location, size, and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined
at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval with minor adjustments
at the time of Final Plat Approval, in accordance with Article 3, Division 3.2,
Section 3.2.9 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
2-3 GENERAL COMPUANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES
A. Regulations for development of Richland shall be in accordance with the
contents of this PUD ordinance and applicable sections of the Collier County
Land Development Code (to the extent they are not inconsistent with this I
PUD ordinance) and Growth Management Plan which are in effect at the I
time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate
which authorizes the construction of improvements, such as but not limited
to, Final Subdivision Plat, Final Site Development Plan, and Excavation
Permit. Where this PUD ordinance fails to provide developmental
standards, then the provisions of the most similar zoning district or section
of the Collier County Land Development Code shall apply.
2-1
-
---., .-.--. ---t..
-
"-.- -,.- -~'-_._._.._--
-"._--~-_..-
\11
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 11 of 133
B. Unless otherwise defined herein, the definitions of all terms shall be
the same as the definitions set forth In the Collier County Land
Devalopment Code in effect at the time of development order i
application.
C, Development permitted by the approval of this PUD will be subject to
a concurrency review under the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,
Article 3, Division 3.15 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD or by subsequent
requests, the provisions of other applicable land development codes
remain in effect with respect to the development of the land which
comprises this PUD.
E. All conditions imposed herein or as represented on the Richland
Master Plan are part of the regulations, which govem the manner in
which the land may be developed.
2-4 LAND USE
The Master Development Plan (Exhibit "A") shows proposed land uses of
development for each parcel. Minor variations in acreage shall be permitted at
final design to accommodate vegetation, encroachments. utilities, market
conditions, and other hereto unforeseen site conditions.
LAND USE SCHEDULE
LAND USE TYPE ACREAGE
RESIDENTIAL 127 +/-
(open space. reserve, water management & lakes)
COMMERCIAL 23 +/-
(open space. reserve. water mllll8gement & lakes)
TOTAL 150 +/-
2-2
'\
.---- -' L
_~..__'O_"'~_ ---_...,....._--_.._~ _.~___H_
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 12 of 133
-
'I
"
i:
2.5 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL
The provisions of Article 3, Division 3.3 of the Collier County land Development
Code shall apply to the development of platted tracts or parcels of land prior to the
issuance of a building permit or other development order.
2-6 RESUBDMSION
Resubdivlsion shall comply with Section 3.2.7.5 of the Collier County land
Development Code.
2.7 EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES
A. Easements shall be provided for water management areas, utilities and
other purposes as may be needed. Said easements and improvements shall
be done in compliance with the Collier County land
Development Code.
B. All necessary easements. dedications. or other instruments shall be granted
to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in
compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time
,--, approvals are requested.
2-8 MODEL HOMES
Model Homes and Model Home Sales Centers shall be permitted as provided for in
Section 2.6,33.4 of the Collier County land Development Code.
2-41 USE OF RIGHTS-oF.WAY
Utilization of lands within all project rights-of-way for landscaping, decorative
entrance ways and signage may be allowed subject to review and administrative
approval by the Collier County Planning Services Director for engineering and
safety considerations, during the development review process and prior to any
building permits.
2.10 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN
Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in Article 2. Division 2.7.
Section 2.7.3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
2-3
-,
,.,-l
------
_.~_. _.._,_,-.",_.__m.__ --.-.......
--- 'II
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 13 of 133
i f
2-11 LIMITATIONS OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
This PUD is subject to the sunsettlng provisions as provided for within Article 2.
Division 2.7. Section 2.7.3.4 of the Collier County Development Code.
2-12 PUD MONITORING
An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Article 2. Division '1..7,
Section 2.7.3.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code. i
2-13 DEDICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES
The Developer shall create appropriate property owner association(s), which will be
responsible for maintaining the roads, streets, drainage, common areas, and water
and sewer improvements where such systems are not dedicated to the County.
2.14 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
All off-street parking and loading facilities shall be designed in accordance with
Division 2.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
2-15 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS
A. A minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the project's gross area shall be
devoted to open space, pursuant to Article 2, Division 2.6, Section 2.6.32
of the Collier County Land Development Code. The total project is 150 +1-
acres requiring a minimum of 45 acres to be retained as open
space throughout the Richland PUD. This requirement shall not apply to
individual development parcels.
B. Of the project's total 150 +1- acres, the following acreages represent 30% of
the total site, all contributing to open space.
Lake 11 +1- acres
Reserve: 31 +1- acres
Buffer 7+1- acres
TOTAL: 48+/. acres of open space
2-4
,
I
.- Il
Agenda Item No. 12A I [I
February 26, 2008
Page 14 of 133
2-18 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to Article 3, Division 3.9. Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land
Development Code, 25% of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on
site shall be retained.
2-17 POLLING PLACES
Pursuant to Article 3. Division 3.2. Section 3.2.8.3.14 of the Collier County LaOd
Development Code, accommodation shall be made for the future use of building
space within common areas for the purposes of accommodating the function of an
electoral polling place.
2"18 SIGNS
Signs shall be in accordance with Article 2, Division 2.5 of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
, 2-19 LANDSCAPING
i
Landscaping shall be in accordance with Article 2, Divisions 2.4 and 2.8 of the
Collier County Land Development Code, as amended. In addition, a 30-foot Type
"B" Buffer shall be provided along the tract boundary line separating the commercial
and residential land use tracts. (See Exhibit "B") This buffer shall contain a 6-foot
tall pre-cest concrete wall along the entire buffer.
2-20 LAKE SETBACK AND EXCAVATION
The lake setback requirements described in Article 3, Division 3.5, Section 3.5.7.1
of the Collier County Land Development Code may be reduced with the
administrative approval of the Collier County Planning Services Director. All lakes
greater than two (2) acres may be excavated to the maximum commercial excava-
tion depths set forth in Section 3.5.7.3.1; however, removal offill from Richland
shall be limited to an amount up to 10 percent per lake (to a maximum of 20,000
cubic yards) of the total volume excavated unless a commercial excavation permit
is received.
2-21 EXCAVATION AND VEGETATION REMOVAL
Improvement of property shall be prohibited prior to issuance of building permit. No
site work, removal of protected vegetation, grading, improvement of property or
construction of any type may be commenced prior to the issuance of a building
permit where the development proposed requires a building Plilrmit under the Land
Development Code or other applicable County regulations.
- 2-5
--,'"--.. ....^_.~"_~'_m
"
Agenda Item No. 12A i!
February 26,2008
Page 15 of 133
Exceptions to this requirement may be grented by the Community Development
and Environmental Services Administrator for an approved Subdivision or Site De-
velopment Plan to provide for distribution of fill excavated on site or to permit con-
struction of an approved water management system, to minimize stockpiles and
hauling off-site or to protect the public health, safety and welfare where clearing,
grading and filling plans have been submitted and approved meeting the standards
of Section 3.2.8.3.6. of the Code. Removal of exotic vegetation shall be exempted
upon receipt of a vegetation removal permit for exotics pursuant to Division 3.9 of
the Land Development Code.
2-22 SUBDIVISIONS
Subdivisions shall be in accordance with Article 3. Division 3.2 of the Collier
County Land Development Code.
I
!
2-6
-- -.-
, ,
I !
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26,2008
Page 16 of 133
-
SECnO~ III I I
RESIDENTIAL
I
I
3.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to identify permitted uses and development
standards for areas within the Richland PUD designated on the Master Plan
(Exhibit "A") as "R" Residential.
3-2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS
A maximum number of 400 residential dwelling units may be constructed on lands
designated "R".
3-3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
A. Areas designated as "R" on the Master Land Use Plan are designated to
accommodate a full range of residential dwelling unit types.
B. Approximate acreage of land use tracts have been indicated on the PUD.
Master Plan, in order to indicate relative size and distribution of the
residential uses. These acreages are based on conceptual designs and
must be considered to be approximate. Actual acreage of all development
tracts will be provided at the time of permitting. Residential tracts are
designed to accommodate internal roadways.
C. Single-family lot sizes and development regulations shall be in accordance
with Table 1 of this section and shall be identified by the Developer at the
time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval pursuant to Collier County
Zoning Regulations set forth in Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
D. Multi-family uses and development regulations shall be in accordance with
Table 1 of this section and shall be identified by the Developer at the time of
Site Development Plan approval pursuant to Section 2.5 of this document
and applicable Collier County Regulations set forth in Division 3.3 of the
Collier County land Development Code.
3-1
i ..i
ie' .
.11_
...-., .~_.."'~---"'^" -----,,_.__..-
- _._~..-
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 17 of 133
3-4 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered, or used, or land
or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following:
A. Pennitted Principal Uses and Structures
1) Single-family detached dwelling units,
2) Single-family attached and townhouse units.
3) Single-family zero lot line dwelling units.
4) Duplex dwelling units.
5) Multi-family dwelling units.
6) Nursing, rest homes and adult congregate living facilities.
7) Recreational facilities including but not limited to parks, playgrounds,
commonly owned open space, pools, tennis courts, community
buildings; guardhouses; essential services and utility structures.
8) Model homes. sales centers, and temporary
development/construction offices shall be pennitted in
conjunction with the promotion of the development.
9) Water management facilities and lakes.
10) Any other use which is in comparable in nature with the foregoing
uses which the Planning Services Director detennines to be
compatible in the "R" district.
B. Pennitted Accessory Uses and Structures
1) Customary accessory uses and structures, including but not limited to
covered parking, attached and detached garages and swimming
pools.
2) Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Director
detennines to be compatible in the "R" District.
3.5 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
A. Except as provided in SeCtion 2.5(B), property development regulations for
land uses in the "R" Residential District are set forth in Table 1.
B. Site development standards for categories 1-4 uses apply to individual
residential lot boundaries. Category 5 standards apply to platted parcel
boundaries.
3-2
-
--
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 18 of 133
-
C. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area
standards apply to principal structures.
,
D. Development standards for building relationships set forth in Table 1 shall I
be established during site development plan approval as set forth in Article
3. Division 3.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code in accordance
with those standards of the zoning district which is most similar to the
proposed use.
E. In the case of residential structures with a common architectural theme,
required property development regulations may be waived or reduced as
provided by the provisions in Article 2, Division 2.6, Section 2.6.27.4.6 of
the Collier County Land Development Code, Common open space
requirements are deemed satisfied pursuant to Section 2.16 of this PUD.
F. Off-street parking required for multi-family uses shall be accessed by
parking aisles or driveways which are separate from any roads which serve
more than one development. A green space area of not less that ten feet
(10') in width as measured from pavement edge to pavement edge shall
separate any parking aisle or driveway from any abutting road.
G. Single-family zero lot line dwellings units are identified separately from
single-family detached dwelling units with conventional side yard
requirements to distinguish these types for the purpose of applying
development standards under Table 1. Zero lot line dwellings shall be
defined as any type of detached single-family structure employing a zero or
reduced side yard as set forth herein, and which conform to requirements of
Collier County Land Development Code Article 2, Division 2.6, Subsection
2.6.27.4.4.1 through 3.
H. No housing structure containing three (3) or more dwelling units may be
located between two detached, single family structures which are less than
300 feet apart if they are a part of the same platted block. Approval of the
location of multiple family structures relative to existing single family
detached structures shall rest with the Development Services Director
and shall be detennined at the time of Site Development Plan pre-application
meetings.
I. No nursing, rest homes and adult congregate living facility shall be located
within three hundred (300) feet of any single family detached or attached
dwelling units. Generally, multiple family dwelling structures with dwelling
units above dwelling units shall act as a transition area between nursing,
rest homes, adult congregate living facilities and single family detached and
attached dwelling units.
3-3
-
.._--"- i-_
IlL
"'___w__~~~_ . "~"-r" .__~"_M"~ _"m~_._..,___.__
Ii
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 19 of 133
TABLE 1 I
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
"R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS
SINGLE
FAMILY
SINGLE ZERO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI-
FAMILY LOT ATIACHED AND FAMILY
DETACHED UNE DUPLEX TOWNHOUSE DWELLINGS
Ca.ry I 2 3 4 5
MIaIDmm Lot Area 5,500 SF 5,000 SF 3,500 SF 3,000 SF lAC
MiDimum Lot 55 50 35 30 150
Width *5
.,....tVanI 20.3 20 *3 20 *3 20 *3 25
F....t Yard for Side 10 10 10 10 15
Eatry Garqe
S1deVanI 5 *6 o or 7.5 Oor.5 BH 0.5BH
Rear Vard Priacipal 20 10 20 20 BH
Rear Yard Ac.... 10 5 10 10 15
lOry
Rear VanI *1 10 5 10 10 .5BH
MalI:llDDm BuIIdIuc 3S 35 3S 3S 35
Hellbt *:Z
DlstaDCe Batweea 10 10 o or 15 .5SBH .5SBH
PrlDdpal Structures
Floor Area Mill. 1200 SF 1200 SF 1200 SF 1200 SF 1000 SF
s.F.\
III' --..
11II' .... fit........ HeIgId): c............ of................... fOr.... .......11I....___..... .......--..
Ail...... aN...,....................,.....
.., ....,............. ....I'M......-y............... ...........-......... MIa 11 .. ..... .......1,J.IA.'r.J alltui LDC. as..-....
~,.,..... ...-..............:
A- ...,..... II........ by........................................... ___.~ I .4.......
L .................~. """'r'IIM._ II ___.... eM'" rtt......CIIIiIMI).........,..- ,...........
1-...............U be........a ____ .............. fnt ~..................... to ____~.............. filii............
,... t' . lilt.................. ~fDt J paddnO ~....... .......................... ..-..............-.a In,.....~.., -....
"'JIIIII.~ lto r Ior..............'r..,.. _.............
... bell...... .....1IfIllI......... /III _........ 011.110.,.............. lot.. _7._.i I,D........ __ aIIoaeon.......ItnM..
..... ....., ............ ........... ...... .... ... J,IIO .................. ...... ...........,......... ......... ...... ......
.. . ......... ..... ...,.. ....... ., .,.... .......c ... ........ ........... .--a, ..--
'6. ZMllMt (0') or a minimum of ftve _ (51 on ailhor _ oxcept hi""'" ... ZII'O loot (0') yard option Is U_, the lJllPOIile
aide of the atrucb.n ehall haYe. wn.faot (10') YJlrd. Zero foot(a'),.-,.,......IDIl........-.c:e.nptOWiOed..IlleCQllCleileWlIoat(10'))f8I'd
ilJIfOWiMd.
3-4
I
-_..- - l-
I I
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 20 of 133
-
~
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
4.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to identify permitted uses and development
standards for areas within Richland designated on the Master Plan (Exhibit .AW) as
.C. Community Commercial.
MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ACREAGE I
4-2 I
A maximum of 231,000 square feet (gross floor area) of Community Commercial
uses may be constructed on lands designated .C. on the Master Plan (Exhibit "A").
The Community Commercial tract is limited to a maximum of 23 +/- acres.
4-3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
A. Areas designated as .C. on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate
a full range of commercial uses, hotel/motel, essential services, and
customary accessory uses.
8. The approximate acreage of the "C. district is indicated on the Master Plan.
.- This acreage is based on conceptual designs and is approximate. Actual
acreages of all development tracts will be provided at the time of Site
Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance
with Article 3, Division 3.2 and Division 3.3 respectively, of the Collier
County Land Development Code. Community Commercial tracts are
designed to accommodate internal roadways, open spaces, lakes, water
management facilities, and other similar uses.
4-4 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES
No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land
used, in whole or in part, for other than the following:
A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures
1) Agricultural Services (Group 0742, except no outside kenneling)
2) Amusement and Recreation Services, Indoor only (Groups
7911-7941,7991,7993)
3) Apparel and Accessory Stores (Groups 5611, 5621, 5631, 5641.
5651,5661,5699)
4) Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations (Groups 5511,
5531,5541)
,,_. 4-1
I
-._- -~_._,-- ..----If
_ ._<"___.u__.... _d___"'_ '-'_.
Agenda Item No. 12A :Ii
February 26, 2008
Page 21 of 133
5) Automotive Repair, Services and Parking (Group 7542) I
,
6) Building Materials, Hardware, Garden Supply with no outside storege
or display (Groups 5231, 5251, 5261)
7) Business Services (Groups 7311.7323, 7334, 7335, 7336, 7338,
7352,7371-7379, 7384, 7389)
i 8) Communications (Groups 4832, 4833)
9) Depository Institutions (Groups 6011-6(99)
10) Eating and Drinking Places (Groups 5812)
11) Engineering. Accounting and Management (8711-8721, 8741, 8742,
8748)
12) Food Stores (Groups 5411, 5421, 5441, 5451, 5461, 5499)
13) General Merchandise Stores (Groups 5311. 5331, 5399)
1~) Health Services (Groups 8011-8049)
15) Home Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Stores (Groups 5712,
5713,5714,5719,5722,5731.5734,5735.5736)
16) Hotels and Motels (Group 7011)
17) Insurance Agents, Brokers and Service (Group 6411)
18) Membership Organizations (Groups 8641, 8661)
19) Miscellaneous Repair Services (Groups 7622, 7629, 7631)
20) Miscellaneous Retail (Groups 5912, 5921, 5932, 5941-5949, 5992,
5993, 5999)
21) Motion Pictures (Groups 7832)
22) Museum, Art Galleries (Group 8412)
23) Non-Depository Credit Institutions (Groups 6141,6159,6162,6163)
24) Personal Services (Groups 7211-7212. 7215, 7219, 7221, 7231,
7241,7251,7291)
25) Real Estate (Groups 6531, 6541, 6552)
26) Social Services (Group 8351)
4-5 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
A. Uses and Structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted.
B. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing
uses and which the Planning Services Director determines to be
compatible.
4-2
-- I-
~._.
-- !I
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 22 of 133 '
-
4-6 Development Standards
A. Minimum lot area: Ten thousand (10,000') square feet
B. Minimum lot width: One hundred (100') feet
C. Minimum yard requirements:
1) Front yard: twenty-fIVe (25') feet
2) Side yard: zero orten (0' or 10') feet
3) Rear yard: twenty (20') feet
D. Distance between principal structures: One half the sum of walls opposite
one another but not less than ten (10') feet.
E. Minimum floor area of principal strudure: seven hundred and fifty
square feet (750') per building on the ground floor
F. Landscaping and Off-Street Parking shall be in accordance with the
Collier County Land Development Code. All parking lot lighting shall be low
intensity and shielded from residential areas.
G. Maximum height: fifty feet (50') and not to exceed two stories for commercial
structures within 60 feet of the residential trad boundary line.
H. General application for Setbacks:
Front yard setbacks shall comply with the following:
:1
1) If the parcel is served by a public or private right-of-way, setback is
measured from the adjacent right-of-way line.
2) If the parcel is served by a non-platted private drive, setback is
measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement.
3) If the parcel is served by a platted private drive, setback is measured
from the road easement or property line.
I. Maximum density of HotellMotellodging facilities:
1) The net platted density of hotel rooms per acre may not exceed
twenty-six (26) units per acre.
J. Commercial trash dumpsters shall be located or placed within 100 feet of
any residential tract boundary line.
4-3
,
r-
I
". --
"_...~-,-",...",-_._,_. -~......
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 23 of 133
SE~nOU 'I
RI;'~I\YE gISTRI~
5-1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development
standards for areas within Richland designated on the Master Plan (Exhibit "A"). as
Reserve.
5-2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Areas designated as Reserve on the PUD Master Plan are designed to
accommodate a full range of conservation and limited water management uses and
functions. The primary purpose of the Reserve District is to retain viable naturally
functioning wetland systems. to allow for the restoration and enhancement of
impacted or degraded wetland systems, and to provide an open space amenity for
the enjoyment of Richland rasidents.
5-3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected. altered or used, or land or
water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following:
A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures
1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks, and recreational shelters.
2) Nature trails. excluding asphalt paved surfaces
3) Water management facilities, structures and lake bulkheads or other
architectural treatments
4) Mitigation areas
5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which
is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the
Planning Services Director determines to be compatible in the
Reserve District
5-1
-.- J
.,
-'
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 24 of 133
--
s-. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. All setbacks from preserve areas shall be in accordance with Section
3.2.8.4.7.3 of the LDC, as amended.
5-5 RESERVE DISTRICT CONSERVATION EASEMENT i
I'
I
]
A non-exclusive conservation easement or tract is required by Collier County Land
Development Code, Section 3.2.8.4.7.3 for preservation lands included in the
Reserve District. In addition to Collier County, a conservation easement may also
be required by other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over Reserve District
lands. In addition to complying with provisions of the Collier County Land
Development Code. said easement shall be provided in accordance with the terms
set forth in the applicable permit grented by said agencies. The Richland
Commons Association shall be responsible for control and maintenance of lands
within the Reserve District.
.-
5-2
-
---
_._e ..-- --------r-. -- .-.
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 25 of 133
I
~
GEtlliRAL DEViLOPMENT COMMITMENTS
8-1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to set forth the standards for development of the
project.
,
6-2 GENERAL
All facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the final site
development plans, the final subdivision plats, and all applicable state and local
laws, codes and regulations relating to the subdivision of the land, except when
specifically noted or otherwise set forth in this document, or as otherwise approved
by Collier County. All state and federal permits shall be effective according to the
stipulations and conditions of the permitting agencies. Final master plans, final site
development plans or final subdivision plats, and standards and specifications of
the Collier County Land Development Code relating to the same shall apply to this
project, except as otherwise set forth herein.
6-3 PUD MASTER PLAN
A. The Master Plan (Exhibit "A"), is an illustrative preliminary development plan.
The design elements and layout illustrated on the Master Plan shall be
understood to be flexible. so that the final design may satisfy the
Developer's criteria and comply with all applicable requirements of this
ordinance.
B. The Planning Services Director shall be authorized to approve minor
changes and refinements to the Richland Master Plan upon written request
of the Developer.
C. The following limitations shall apply to such requests:
1) The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the
Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Richland PUD
document.
2) The minor change or refinement shall not constitute a substantial
change pursuant to Article 2, Division 2.7, Subsection 2.7.3.5.2 of
the Collier County Land Development Code.
6--1
-.- ---- I=-
-"-"-_.",_._. -. --"~~,.,,~._~ ,-~.."..
1 '
:!
I
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 26 of 133
-
3) The minor change or refinement shall be compatible with adjacent 1\
land uses and shall not create detrimental impacts to abutting land
uses, water management facilities, and Reserve areas within or
external to the PUD.
D. All necessary easements, dedications or other instruments shall be
granted to ensure the continuance operation and maintenance of all
service utilities.
E. Agreements. provisions or covenants which govern the use, maintenal1ce
and continued protection of the PUD and common areas will be provided.
6-4 DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
A TRANSPORTATION
!
1) When deemed warranted by the County, the Developer shall provide
fifty (50') feet of additional road right-of-way along the south side of
Immokalee Road in accordance with the procedures and standards of
I Sub-section 2.2.20.3.7 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
Road Impact Fee credits will be allowed for this right-of-way to the
maximum extent provided in the Road Impact Fee Ordinance and in
accordance with the approved conversion fonnula.
-
2) When deemed warranted by the County, the Developer shall provide
left and right turn lanes at all project accesses on both Immokalee
Road and CR-951. If median openings are permitted upon the four
laning of either road, the Developer shall be responsible for the cost
of all intersection modifications needed to serve project accesses.
3) The Developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the
capital cost of traffic signals at any project access when deemed war-
ranted by the County. The signals will be owned, operated and main-
tained by Collier County.
4) When deemed warranted by the County, the Developer shall provide
arterial level street lighting at all project accesses.
5) The road impact fee shall be as provided by Ordinance Number 01-
13, or as may be amended. and shall be paid at the time building per-
mits are issued unless otherwise approved by the Board of County
Commissioners.
6) Access improvements shall not be subject to impact fee credits and.
excluding traffic signals, shall be in place before any certificates of
occupancy are issued.
6-2
-
_.~. 1,\r
...___0 -'-'-~-
- 'I
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 27 of 133
7) All traffic control devices used. excluding street name signs, shall
conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as
required in Chapter 316.0747. Florida Statutes.
B) The commercial tract shall provide an intemal vehicular cross access i
to the residential trect. Sidewalks shall be provided on one side of the I
interconnect road. A metal security gate shall be placed on the com-
mercial tract to allow for the stacking of a minimum of three vehicles
on the commercial tract. Gate maintenance shall be the responsibil-
ity of the commercial property owners andJor their property owners
association. No construction traffic shall use this interconnection.
9) Access locations to Immokalee Road and to Collier Boulevard are
conceptual and subject to review and approval at final site plan
submittal consistent with the Access Control Policy (Resolution
01-242). as may be amended, and the Collier County Construction
Standards Handbook for Work Within the Public Right-of-Way
(Ordinance 93-64), as may be amended. All access and median
locations are subject to modification and/or closure at the discretion
of Collier County based on safety, operation or capacity reasons.
B WATER MANAGEMENT
1) Excavation permits will be required for the proposed lakes in
accordance with Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development
Code, as amended. Excavated material from the property is intended
to be used within the project site.
2) The Developer shall be responsible for the installation of properly
sized culverts at the proposed entrance road locations placed on the
relocated swale centerline, at such time as driveways are installed.
3) Detailed paving, grading and site drainage plans shall be submitted to
Engineering Review Services for review. No construction permits
shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed
construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by
Engineering Review Services.
4) In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management
District, Chapters 40E4 and 40E-40, this project shall be designed for a
storm event of 3-day duration and 25-year frequency.
6-3
.-"-..-
iL
-..---.-.--. .- Ii
-'--
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26,2008
Page 28 of 133
.-- !i
5) Design and construdlon of all improvements shall be subject to
compliance with the appropriate provisions of Division 3.2 of the ' ,
,
Collier County Land Development Code.
C UTILITIES
1) Water Distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim
water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the projed are to be
designed, constructed. conveyed, owned and maintained in
accordance with Collier County Ordinance No, 97-17, as amend~,
and other applicable County rules and regulations.
2) All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage
collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County
and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's
established rates. Should the County not be in a position to provide
water and/or sewer service to the projed, the water and/or sewer
customers shall be customers of the interim utility established to
serve the projed until the County's off-site water and/or sewer
facilities are available to serve the project.
3) It is anticipated that the County Utilities Division will ultimately
supply potable water to meet the consumptive demand and/or
--. receive and treat the sewage generated by this project. Should
the County system not be in a position to supply potable water to the
project and/or receive the project's wastewater at the time
development commences, the Developer, at its expense will install
and operate interim water supply and on-site treatment facilities
and/or interim on-site sewage treatment and disposal facilities
adequate to meet all requirements of the appropriate regulatory
agencies. An agreement shall be entered into between the County
and the Developer, binding on the Developer, his assigns or
successors regarding any interim treatment facilities to be utilized.
The agreement must be legally sufficient to the County, prior to the
approval of construction documents for the project and be in
conformance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17, as amended.
4) If an interim on-site water supply, treatment and transmission facility is
utilized to serve the project, it must be properly sized to supply
average peak day domestic demend, in addition to fire flow demand
at a rate approved by the appropriate Fire Control Dlstrid servicing
the project area.
5) Public Service Commission Territories: Prior to ~pproval of construc-
tion documents by the County, the Developer must present verifica-
tion pursuant to Chapter 367, Florida.
_. 6-4
: I-
t I
-.- -.
.-..-.---.--.--,-- --.... .-~__~~....._...-T .__..._--,-~--
!!-'
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 29 of 133
Statutes, that the Florida Public Service Commission has granted , i
territorial rights to the Developer to provide sewer and/or water service i
to the project until the County can provide these services through its
water and sewer facilities.
D ENVIRONMENTAL
1) Petitioner shall be subject to Division 3.9 of the Collier County
Land Development Code. requiring the acquisition of a tree
removal permit prior to any land clearing. A site clearing plan
shall be submitted to the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator for review and approval
prior to any substantial work on the site. This plan may be
submitted in phases to coincide with the development
schedule. The site clearing plan shall clearly depict how the
final site layout incorporates retained native vegetation to the
maximum extent poSSible and how roads, buildings. lakes,
parking lots and other facilities have been oriented to
accommodate this goal.
2) All exotic plants. as defined in the Land Development Code, shall be
removed during each phase of construction from development areas,
open space areas, and preserve areas. Following site development.
a maintenance program shall be implemented to prevent re-invasion
of the site by such exotic species. This plan, which will describe
control techniques and inspection intervals, shall be filed with and
approved by the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator.
3) If during the course of site clearing, excavation or other constructional
activities. an archaeological or historical site, artifact or other indicator
is discovered. all development at that location shall be immediately
stopped and the Code Enforcement Department shall be notified.
Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to en-
able the Code Enforcement Department or a designated consultant to
assess the find and determine the proper course of action in regard to
its salvageability. The Code Enforcement Department will respond to
any such notification in a timely and efficient manner so as to provide
only a minimal interruption to any constructional activities.
4) Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the state of
Florida Environmental Resource Permit rules and be subject to review
and approval by Current Planning Environmental Review Staff.
6-5
II
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 30 of 133
-
Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be counted towards mitigation II
for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands.
5) This PUD shall be in compliance with Division 3.11 of the LDC, as
amended, which provides protection for Endangered. Threatened and
Listed Species.
E SUBSTITUTIONS TO COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
i
1) Section 3.2.8.3.19: Street name signs shall be approved by I
the County Engineer but need not meet U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W A. .
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Street pavement
painting, striping, and reflective edging requirements shall be
subject to the County Engineer's approval, but need not meet
standard county requirements.
2) Section 3.2.8.4.16.5: Street rights-of-way and cross-sections for the
roads shall be as designated by developar at time of final construction
plans.
3) Section 3.2.8.4.16.6: The 1.000 feet maximum dead-end street length
requirement shall be waived.
,
i ~-. 4) Section 3.2.8.4.16.8: Back of curb radii may be reduced to thirty (30')
feet at local intersections.
5) Section 3.2.8.4.16.10: The requirement for one hundred (100') feet I
tangent seetlons between reverse cuIVes of streets shall be waived.
6) Section 3.2.8.4.21: The requirement for blank utility casings shall be
subject to County engineering approval, but need not meet standard
County requirements. i
F MISCElLANEOUS !
1) Access to the project shall be restricted to those access points
shown on Exhibit "A".
6-6
,_.-.
~
--
-"-"- ...._<~,..-~..r-..'"" ~--"-'-.. _.
--
, I
. ,
lJ-----. --- _. ---.-.-.--
I
I
<(CO,,",
NO,,",
.,....0"- I
.N ''''' ,__._ _ . _
OeD ..... - - ..mus' 12ZI'J'Cao~ I....
ZE'::' _I""' ...._""'''',:u.... JOI^~a W'i I_
e "Iff.....,...'..__
2 ro .......IIW_CIW --... !l1rW'L16' ...-. ....SS...U...A
- ::l 1ftI__...-r'l' . "'I. J_ _U...."'I 'CO w w _
co.o -- -_ D~"""..ara' __
DO)
:i3u..
Jf ........ J _ 11:; Ql ..w .DMG
/--"'----_...... ... .--. -~ .....II--~
(-:)t' 'F(JI;l) brlCll .... ...__ ,... ....... ....__
~ J:J7OlId 9
(."" >'" ) S3JIYI
r.w on ) '''''-,b-JH!>>I ~ e ,001> .. .L :31Y:>S
(""'>'1[') -- 0 S
(-:)t' >'u ) (S3>/Y7 """"7:I.Q) 'MIHillISlIlI 0 -,,,oo,,/: *
f-\ ~ -1'''' 3 M
("", 'Fl'~ ) .............., \!!./ 0"'::> 0,-rJ "-
,,0 ,0
GN3[)31 N
III" " " " " " "l
: 0
I I I
~ ,! 0 q i) \-! \1 \'
MLif 1: :::: '".._) J i I 0 ,
I ~ U (!) }}t::::::::::::::::.- ( : I )
II" ~ .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. \.....___/ 1 I
it .'. .'. ....::::::{iIiI!III:!:!:!I!It::::: ..-/'..-' :
Ii \ ~~:1:j:j~~~j~~~1~1f:~111lj~1'jjljj!i~1j~!ilil1:ii~:~1~1:lj!1!j!!lj~::t::
I I 0 ..................................... /7:\
: .::::::~:f{{}{{}}{~{~~~~{t{{{.. I!!.J
II I ;t ................................
II iI .:~:}}?~:~:?~{{:}~{{{{::;;.# ..
I .. ..........r.;............. #' C"'-' -
~ :::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::.:-. + ."" /' I
........................1 .
.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: ")
I ........................ .
I I .::~:tttt)tt)t~//~:: I~ ..' \
. . '-mrmrrrrrmn:rr. ..._..._.~.J. :
eW I. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ,L._.._..._..", I I
O :~~~~~~rrrr~ttt~}{ · "1 '\
:1 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:
I .....................~ 0 .
: ~- ..t{t//tftff:',. :~--.J'
'J I ---. -. ~.. :~:I~~IiI~I~~~:I~I:I _ . ~..
-- _................ --
- ----
~ -- __..I.IJ. ~ )
---- -
,
<(COM
NOM
_O~
" ,,-
.0
.oN
NM j .
E~ '
~~~ rIll
"'.e(L IIJII
J~ Ill!
. Cl CIJ I-
1,.1 i 11I0
II I~ .!~
ill ~I ~Q
I I ~
~... . I '
. h
OQ
I.l_
'r.l~
~~;? ~
0- ~
d I!
_ J-'~ @).:9
. ~i
.
--~-~----------_.- ....
...
('.nt~MIrJ"IOO .._.._ I ~
I ~ II
___ ; 1ol.1
· fi::~ ~
t~:i:i, I I . ~8
~~ I
I;,;,i; , 2
- ___ ~ I
r l::'::: ffi
(i:: I I I e
W ffi -
1'1 I I:"::: iil "'- I
i IIII l'!:!~ ~ ~ ~
I Iii I I?:. I Iii ....J..l
III If~;; ~ ;Jt ~ i! i
_I bd t:l '.].~ 8~!:i'
'\.J ~ ';,;:,: . - ... =.!
~I,;:~:: !. =: ~
I . I -I
.,.--' I ~ Z ~..... ,R
. ~~ -~ 3
~_./ n I e ~ F; ~....J .,
0-.- '-...../ i'; !J liS J =
..-J ~ I!JI @ ~8
-_......._"""",..-~~._.-
"-''''>''~'---''-'-
Agenda Item No. 12A- -rn---
February 26, 2008
Page 33 of 133
I
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, C\fc .....
=
r-l""l =
r--e .....
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and corre~~ .... ."
,..,
:>:=: co -
(J)--' N
copy of: tf)!:} -
,..,~ 0 j
,..,- ::- m
. C'
ORDINANCE 2002-07 ~-.-, ::: 0
0'" -
;:2CI~ ..
-> N
=..... ~
;.'"
Which was adopted by the Board of County Commiss1oners
on the 12th day of February, 2002, during Regular Session.
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 19th I
day of February, 2002.
'" '-'"''''
..~;~'.r:'.:'i.13. ;:~""
DWIGHT E. BROCK.;.... .,"""~\. '~~
Clerk of court~:a~.Cl:e;k i'
Ex-officio to B1:laia 'of. "" '.'
County commissi~eti. :-:~ J~.' ;;.:
t..H.W;a~' "iJ J' .. " ~~).,
~"'~J' (.I~
, .
By: Ellie Hoffman.
Deputy Clerk
""
--'
i
,
-- --"--'-
----_.-
---
l -_._._~ ----
---
A enda Item No. 12A
c.c.~C- February 26, 2008
Page 34 of 133
January 17, 2002
involved with these before. And if you get above a height, a sight-to-
sight, you are probably a little better off. I don't understand why the
145 or 155 cannot do. Yet it bothers me that I cannot get a definitive
answer to that question.
MS. MURRAY: I think that was answered. I think the only
remaining answer is whether or not there is a lease that is going to
terminate in the near future that might make that space available.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not only for 145. Let's say
150 or 160.
MR. MURRAY: I think Miss Flagg says she needs 145 feet.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This flagpole is 165 feet
high.
MR. WHITE: There could be potentially interference issues that
arise from the location of the antenna at any other height regardless
of whether it's better on a site-to-site only. That is based upon my
prior experience with similar issues.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which brings up -- I think we
also requested back on the 20th, I believe it was, that we see some
sort of frequency allocation due to the potential interference. All I
see that is new here is a letter dated January 9 from a David Quinlen
of Nextel that says that it should not cause significant interference.
Well, "should not" is hardly strong enough for me.
I have been involved in an awful lot of "should not" statements
and it usually is. So I would like to see a frequency allocation chart
for the people that intend to go on there and the ones from across the
street
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Are we ready to move on to
Agenda Item D? That is PUD-2001-AR-1494, PMS, Incorporated,
representing Kenco Development. Any -- all persons intending to
testify on this matter, raise your right hand to be sworn.
(All parties sworn.)
I Page 33
::r- "
--.- il
._.~ .. .~_._-~,~- ----,....._.__.~--
-
Agenda Item No. 12A -- r IT--
Feb~~~~ 3255~1~~~ .1
January 17, 2002 "
I
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any disclosures? -'II
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have quite a
few. I spoke with the applicants agent PMS, Inc., and we discussed
__ she described to me the concerns that she saw with -- the last time
it was brought forward to us concerning the -- some of the
inappropriate things that were in the report versus what they had
intended to submit, so I think hearing it today was probably a good
idea.
Also, we discussed my concern over some of the commercial
uses that were to be applied for, and I suggested she relook at those
commercial uses strongly.
I also spoke to Marjorie Student and Ray Bellows in a
conference call concerning delaying the last meeting because of the
lack of sufficient information.
I have various e-mails gone back from Dawn Wolff and I. -
Dawn's department had not reviewed the final package in this case. I
-
They had just gotten it, I believe, on Wednesday or maybe Tuesday,
from what I see in her e-mail. I'm not sure how much transportation
-- she did have some comments from transportation regarding some
of the uses not qualifying pursuant to the traffic impact statement that
was done.
And I have an e-mail from a Mr. Ardenhalt from the
Pebblebrooke Lake Subdivision. He asked that his e-mail be
submitted to the record.
Is that okay if I do that, Mr. County Attorney? MR. WHITE: I i
don't have any objection.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Who do I give it to?
MR. WHITE: I believe the court reporter.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Other disclosures?
Mr. Wolfley. -
~
Page 34
I
!1-
~---
Aqenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2
Page 36 of 133
I
1
,
January 17,2002 I
,
I
,I
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. I spoke with Ms. Bishop
as well regarding the uses and -- within the Pebblebrooke
community. And also I may have to abstain due to an appearance of
conflict of interest with the applicant.
My question to Mr. White is, would my abstention would that --
should I or should I not comment throughout the --
MR. WHITE: If your intention, Commissioner, is to abstain
voting because of a conflict --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Potentially.
MR. WHITE: -- a potential conflict. you still have the right to
participate in the discussion on the matter. You just must abstain
from the vote.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Other disclosures?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I spoke with Karen Bishop.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, sir. I spoke with
some residents of Pebblebrooke; Jerry Brosso, Craig Haas, and Jeri
Buehler. I also spoke with Karen Bishop, the owner's agent, and
received an e-mail from Russell Ardenhalt that was submitted to the
record by Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I received an e-mail also.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No other disclosures?
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: No.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Richardson, anything else?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I received an e-mail. I
didn't realize it was on this one.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I did too. While we are on this
subject of disclosures, ex parte communications, Ms. Student advises
me that the county attorney in response to our question about ex parte
communications has reiterated his earlier advise that each of us as
individuals can decide not to engage in ex parte communications,
I Page 35
I I
._.<.,. ... -......."..-----.--..-, ----~--,>-------
- -
- ---- ----
O. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 37 of 133
January 17, 2002 -
)
period. GI
SO that being the case, I'm going to take the county attorney up
on it Henceforth I do not intend to engage in ex parte
communications on matters pending before the Collier County
Planning Commission. And I invite each of you do whatever your
desires are in the matter. I don't think you need to make it a matter of
record.
Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, current planning
staff. The petitioner seeks to rezone the subject site from PUD to
PUD for the purposes of amending the Richland PUD. The purpose
is to reduce the number of dwelling units from 650 dwelling units to
400 dwelling units and reducing the residential acreage by
approximately 3.2 acres and increase the commercial tract by the
same amount. i
.-'
As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on I
the southwest comer of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. ~
This is currently a development -- or PUD that is currently under
development. We have a copy of the currently approved master plan.
As you can see, the existing commercial tract comes in and is i
,
i
predominantly oriented in the -- down.
Along the frontage of County Road 951. The proposed change
to the master plan increases the commercial tract by 3.2 acres along i
the southerly direction shaded in this cross-section area, resulting in
the final master plan to look like this (indicating) with the i
commercial tract here.
This is an existing subdivision being developed to single-family
subdivision. There is requirement by transportation to provide an
interconnect from the residential portion into the commercial tract.
This would allow residents within the development to access the
commercial portion without having traffic to head on to County Road
-
Page 36 ----
-~--_._- ;1-
Agenda Item No. 12A I'
J February 26, 2008
Page 38 of 133
January 17, 2002
'. :1
951 and back out -- back into the commercial tract there. That would
really drastically improve traffic circulation at that intersection.
The petitioner has not requested any changes to the list of
currently permitted commercial uses within the PUD. Those will
remain the same.
The future land use elements indicates the project's located
within an activity center. This is the future land use map (indicating).
As you can see, it's located within that activity center, which is the
place where county encourages commercial development. So this
particular commercial tract is solely -- wholly within this activity
center and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan for a wide
range - full range of commercial uses.
The transportation review indicates that there was an estimate
done by Chahram Badamtchian concerning the possible difference in i
traffic growth. His estimate was that the project could -- this
proposed amendment could increase traffic by 3,750 trips. That's an
estimate based on the increase of square footage possible with this
additional acreage of approximately 75, 000 square feet versus the
reduction of dwelling units. However, it should be noted that this
estimate may be -- not taken in all the factors, such as reduction of
trips due to the interconnection of the residential tracts to the
commercial tract, which would reduce the traffic volume coming in il
I
and out of the PUD. So we have a revised traffic estimate that I
indicates that, in fact, there may be a slight decrease in traffic as a
result of this petition based on the reduction of dwelling units and
interconnection of this project to the commercial.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The report said there was an
increase. I
MR. BELLOWS: The environmental review by staff indicates
that the subject preserve area, as you see here (indicating), will not be
encroached upon by the change in the master plan. They have
I Page 37
'I
I
: It-
-'~'~---"~_. .------....-.".--.-.- ." .-.-=.-----r'..-...."
- --
_.~_._--
February 26,2008
Page 39 of 133
January 17. 2002 \
I
,II
recommended approval. The staff has had discussions with many of I
,I
i
the residents within the community of Pebblebrooke.
Some of the concerns raised by the residents was the
interconnections to the site may cause a lot of traffic in front of their
homes, and they were concerned about the landscaping between the
two projects.
The petitioner also had a public meeting with the residents there,
and I think there was some agreement as to how the landscaping and
buffering and the gated entrance into this commercial tract should be
handled. And it's my understanding that some of the agreements that
have come out of those meetings with the residents included -- if I
can show you on this one particular map, this is the location of the
interconnect into the commercial tract (indicating).
The county's planning staff is recommending that the gated entry
occur approximately 20 feet north of this tract boundary line to allow
for any stacking of cars to occur on the commercial tract and not on
the residential tract in front of these lots here. We also are requiring ! !
additional landscaping and buffering, a wall along this tract line to
help buffer this commercial from the residential units.
Staff is recommending that that stipulation be added to the PUD
document.
Staff has received three letters in support of this petition from
residents within Pebblebrooke, and I have received one complaint,
basically, because of the location of the gated entry into the
commercial tract that would be on their road in front of their house.
They prefer to see that interconnect on the other road.
I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ray, before we get to substantive
questions, let me ask sort of a housekeeping and procedural one.
This item is denominated PUDA -- so forth. Does that not connotate
a PUD amendment?
Page 38
-------"
------ - -
NO.12A
February 26,2008
Page 40 of 133
January 17,2002
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. PUD is amending -- we are amending
an existing zoning district, the Richland POO, but we are amending it
through a rezone process of repealing the old ordinance and crediting
a new ordinance; so technically it's a PUD.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Going PUD to PUD.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That becomes a PUD
amendment. Really, you are scraping the old PUD.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. But--
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You are not amending it.
MS. MURRAY: Technically, I will agree with you,
Commissioner. It should read, "PUDZ, which is the acronym for
PUD to PUD rezone. In effect you are amending the PUD but --
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But the way you do it -- Ron
Nino taught us so well -- was to go from a PUD to a new PUD.
....- MS. MURRAY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Then my question is, if this is a
PUD rezone, should we not have the findings necessary to support a
POD as a part of the package?
MS. MURRAY: Are they contained in there, Frank?
MR. BELLOWS: This was intended to be a PDA. It's a
process -- yeah, the PDA, we're amending an existing zoning district,
and it's minor changes. We have a strikethrough and underline. It
was just a housekeeping method of going from PUD to PUD. So
therefore there was no need to do the findings for rezone because that
was already done when the project was rezoned.
We're not re-inventing the wheel. We are basically making
minor changes to the existing zoning district. The changes were
minor enough it was determined to be a PDA. Now, there should be
some question whether this should be a Z or an A -- it's my
understanding -- and I have been here 12 years -- that we do it as a
.-
Page 39 i
. --~-~ _._--~---~~. .... --~,-_._"--_..,.-
- ~-~~
^g8nd" It..", ~IO 1?A il
February 26, 2008
Page 41 of 133
January 17, 2002
PDA. It's just a form of convenience that we repeal the old ordinance
for the new ordinance.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It seems to me that the questions
that you have to answer for a PUD, the answers might be different
considering all of the changes that are made.
MR. BELLOWS: The changes aren't to the uses of the land.
The uses still remain the same.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right
MR. BELLOWS: It's just switching acreage around and
reducing dwelling units. So those conditions were already reviewed
and approved by this board and board of county commissioners.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, let's get to substantive.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, would that
argue then that we can ask no questions about anything except just
what you consider to be insignificant?
MR. BELLOWS: No. As previously stated to this Planning
Commission, any PUD amendment whether it's PDZ -- repealing the
ordinance or PDA, amending and just repealing the old ordinance
with the new, it still opens up the entire PUD document for review,
and it's distributed to all of our review agencies, and they look at it as
a new zoning action too.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In that spirit, then, was I
,
this -- does this subject to the public participation process since it's a
brand-new PUD?
MR. BELLOWS: This petition was submitted prior to the
adoption of that ordinance, so they did not go through the public
information process as currently adopted by code. However, the
petitioner has on their own accord held public information meetings
to make up -- since they submitted prior to that ordinance being
adopted.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, we don't have
Page 40
,
lit-
, I'
A enda liem No. 12A ' '/
February 26, 2008
Page 42 of 133
- January 17. 2002
any record of that; that's part of the public participation process or
any commitment --
MR. BELLOWS: This was in the works prior to the adoption of
that ordinance.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This change in the traffic
impact is kind of curious because the document that we have says
there is going to be 3,750 more weekday trips.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I don't have any other
information, except what you have given us verbally, that this
number may be a lesser number or may be even be a negative
number.
MR. BELLOWS: The applicant has their traffic consultant here.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No, I'm wanting to hear
what the county's traffic people have to say about it
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And I believe we have Dawn Wolff
here to answer specific questions.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That would be helpful.
MS. WOLFF: Dawn Wolff, transportation planning department
director. We did review a specific transportation impact statement
provided by the applicant's consultant. We required some
modifications to it to include additional detail.
They will be increasing the overall traffic. We were not
included in that specific write-up, which was referenced that
Chahram had calculated the number and had since been recalculated
between Mr. Bellows and the applicant's consultant, Mr. Jarvey, on
that.
The specific change in the square footage area, I believe that is
contained in the information, although I cannot attest to it since did I
not see the specific numbers that Mr. Bellows was referring to. i
I am assuming based on the fact they were confirmed with Mr.
I Page 41
'I
,'H-
-~~~----_.,-, _ '-._--',".._---,- --~--- - ---
-----~
--
-~-~
L1genQ? Itom I\IIi 1?A Ii
February 26, 2008 I
Page 43 of 133 I
January 17.2002 ~
-
Jarvey and we found that there traffic impact statement was sufficient
and consistent with the requested applications, that those numbers
would be consistent with their impacts on the system.
It is greater than what was previously approved. However, with
the board's direction from the December 18th meeting and the
commitment to make improvements within a 3-year time period on
both Collier Boulevard and lmmokalee Road within the impact area,
they were deemed to not have created a significant and adverse
impact on any of the roads based on the current growth Management
Plan policies and procedures.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ms. Wolff, I'm sorry. I
didn't catch the number.
MS. WOLFF: I don't have that specific number right here,
because I was not afforded the opportunity to put those numbers
together for you. "'"
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is it a number higher than "-
3,750? Is it less than 1O,000?
MS. WOLFF: It's less than 10, 000.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's your considered view
that the condition of 951 and Immokalee Road are such that they can
handle that much more traffic before the improvements are actually
made?
MS. WOLFF: I didn't make that specific statement.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Cannot say that, no.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But I would like to hear
some assessment on your part.
MS. WOLFF: Based on the level of evaluation that we are
allowed to do because of the information that we have at the time of a
rezoning application. which is extremely general, the evaluation is
made on what potentially is a presumed level of impact for a i
maximum land use of that area.
,-.
)
'--
Page 42
I
- _."-- III
----- - - ~- ------
-.----
--
--
February 26, 2008 . ,
Page 44 of 133
!
January 17, 2002 III
We were provided a square footage number of 231, 000 as a
total commercial square footage with some reductions in the
residential units. We allowed some compensation and reduction of
the difference between what had previously been approved as the
commercial total square footage, which was 125, 000, and the
reduction of residential units to come up with a net new traffic
number. We did allow them, because we are requiring -- since this is
a singular PUD project. It's a mixed project. It's supposed to be -- to
have circulation throughout that it includes an interconnection to the
residential portion. We did allow for a partial reduction in external
new trips from that commercial because of that interaction between
the residential trips that they wouldn't be going out on the major road
system. So there was some allowance for that
If this is built in the next two years and becomes active, will it
have a significant impact on the roadway system before those road
improvement go in? Yes, obviously it will. However, we are
required under statute and under our Growth Management Plan to
consider the capacity that will be created for projects which are
committed for construction within a three-year time period.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Did you read Brent Batton's
article in Monday's Naples Daily News about the three-year grace
period?
MS. WOLFF: No, I did not.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's instructive. He claims that
the county chose the most pennissive of the three options available
and in that a catch-up period of three years is allowed. and the county
didn't have to do that. The state gave some choices that you could
make. If what he says is true, then, perhaps, some of us might want
to go back and take a look at -- at the Land Development Code
inasfar as how permissive we really want to be at this stage of the
game.
Page 43
i
I I
I
...- ~'"_. .-.. .-_.~--,,'~
-~----- - - -------
--
- - ~
^ I
,
I February 26, 2008 ,
Page 45 of 133 i
January 17,2002 .,.;.".
MS. WOLFF: Actually, it's not the most permissive. The
statute allows for five years for the local plan. Only three years for
the state plan. The county has chosen through its policies and
procedures to be consistent with that which is allowed for the state
program, which is to only consider the three years, because of
financial availability, because of priorities which may need to change
due to changing traffic patterns that aren't necessarily specific to
development patterns that allows us the flexibility to address issues
that may arise beyond that three-year period.
If we go all the way out and commit ourselves a full five years,
we are really pegging ourselves into a series of absolutes and leaving
very little room under our revenue availability to make any
adjustments which need to be made to address additional new system
deficiencies -- ones that may come on line that aren't necessarily
specific to new project development coming on line. I
,,-'
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But some more restrictive
option. Five is the least restrictive. Three is next. What is the -- if
you wanted to tighten up, what is the option?
MS. WOLFF: The county could have the option of anything
which is within the current fiscal year capital program. Some areas
of the state have been that restrictive. However, we would still be
forced under statute to recognize three years of the State's program.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ms. Young. ,
i
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Brent Batton says, "Instead of
using the three-year window, a county can elect to count only
facilities that are actually built That would effectively slow
development while roads, drainage systems, and so on catch up." So i
we could change our concurrency law to that effect.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If he's right.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Is that right?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It is the newspaper, after all. .~
Page 44
Ir-
AOl=mrl~ !tpm Nil 1?A !
il February 26, 2008
Page 46 of 133
January 17, 2002
( ;
MS. WOLFF: I would not speak to saying if that is or is not
correct. I don't have that specific statute in front of me to say that
that is absolutely correct. I believe we would be in a legal situation
to say we would only presume that level public facility availability is
__ has many definitions, and what is legally sustainable. I believe -- I
think Patrick could support me in the fact that I think that could put
us in a situation of not really meeting the intent of the Growth
Management Plan. However, I will not speak to that in regards to
what Mr. Batton's article states. I did not review it. I have a
tendency not to.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here, here.
MS. WOLFF: But the fact is that there is current policy onboard
in regard to what and how we may address it. Yes, staff is currently
reevaluating what thresholds are and will be coming forward with
Growth Management Plan amendments, as well as Land
Development Code amendments in regards to determination of
adequate public facilities. Yes, they will all be drastically different
than what is there today, and that is consistent what we spoke with
the Board of County Commissioners about during our late November
and December meetings with them in regard to AUIR.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Could we then maybe -- staff
could do some intensive study on the possibility of reviewing and
revising our concurrency --
MR. FEDER: For the record, I'm Nonnan Feder, transportation
administrator. What I would like to point out as Dawn mentioned,
we are looking at a number of things, very significant things.
Modifications of that whole provision that is annual update into the
report and our concurrency management system 315 of the Land
Development Code.
One of the things we will look at is the issue -- and we are
already looking at our time frames. But as Dawn pointed out, the
I Page 45
I
I
----.---..-.. ..-'..--,....-..'
-- -~._-
- --
Aoenda Item No. 12A
February 26. )
Page 47 of 133
January 17.2002 ...J
State has a three-year time frame. They provide for five years. -",
i
,
Collier had already gone to three. The option of whether you go to a
lesser time frame and what the implications of that are and how much
it meets your needs versus many of the other things you are looking
at are things that we are looking at right now. We will be bringing
issues back by mid March based on direction, if that's what we are
given from the board, the 22nd to set up a specific schedule for next
round of land development changes.
There are a lot of issues we brought forward. One we brought
forward to you with PUD, provisions with access management -- that
is already moved forward. But there are quite a few other things we
are looking at
As Dawn points out. there are issues we have to look at. and we
have to weight those back and forth. We will do that in a public
forum and obviously seek your input on those before they go ~
forward. '--
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, just to close up,
my last little thought with both Dawn and Mr. Feder -- perhaps, there
is -- back to the incident case here which is, perhaps, there is a way
we can find a middle ground here. I wonder if you would be kind
enough to craft or consider crafting a development commitment that
we could give to the applicant to consider that they would not bring
on line this additional commercial capacity, which is creating extra
traffic, until our growth facilities are in place. It would be, in effect.
a denial of COs until that would occur.
MS. WOLFF: That is something within the purview of this
commission to make such a recommendation that no COs would be
issued until such time as there is availability of the capacity of the
multi-Ianing of these roads. It would be somewhat similar to what
was imposed upon a PUD in November. I believe it was in regard to
a phasing of it. Perhaps a phasing might be considered upon that ,-
i
'-
Page 46
- ,,,.
----_.~ --
.,
^ ~
February 26, 2008
Page 48 of 133
January 17,2002 I
I
As we said, our program identifies a design construction phase
in the next fiscal year to start. Such construction would start within a i
,
three-year window to meet our obligations. The condition, as I said,
might be such that they would only be permitted to construct but not
receive certificates of occupancy until the capacity is available.
Which in this case, such as Immokalee Road is not yet fully
completed, but the capacity is available, you won't say, "Until such
time the contractor turns it over to us, " but there is some -- there is a
difference between.
Being done and done done with some roadway projects. You
have a couple of months sometimes of cleanup, but you have the
capacity available such as -- Pine Ridge Road has been open for
awhile with multi-lanes on it but which are not completely finished
with it That would be an opportunity that allows the capacity
necessary improvements.
One thing that I would like to point out, though, is that we do
have a couple of other phases and stages that we will be having them
address when they come in. When they come in with a site
development plan, when that site development plan requires them to
do a specific site traffic assessment with the particular land uses they
are going to be putting in, we are going to be looking at things like
how much -- how many access points do they really need, what kind
of access points do they need, what kind of geometry do they need.
what kind of impact in this particular instance, what kind of impacts
are they going to have at that intersection of 951 as it exists today,
and can they fully function with it prior to those improvements
coming on line? We may make limitations they can move forward,
but not CO at that time as well. So there are a few triggers in there
yet. And if the direction is followed in regards to concurrency and
some reason the project was not yet built within the time it needs to
be and the capacity is not available when they come forward,
I ,
Page 47 I
I
I
--.- -"- -' --.-'T -....--,., --------.--.
- - - --.. -- -.- ..---
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26.2008
Page 49 of 133
January 17. 2002
someone else can come along after them and be on faster track and
consume all the capacity under a checkbook method they can come in
and need six lanes before -- under an extreme situation.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Dawn, back on this case.
MS. WOLFF: On this case --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm asking on this case, as
our expert in this area, craft that language for us to consider
including. At least from this commission's point of view I would like
to see that.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question for you about
the traffic circulation elements significant test of 5 percent impact
You say that projects have less than 5 percent increase, then it's
acceptable. How do you take into account the accumulative effects
of many different projects having less than 5 percent? Because what
we see when we drive down that road now is that's a very busy
intersection, and there is a lot of traffic delays there and also danger ~
because of the congestion there.
MS. WOLFF: The cumulative impacts of the --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. You have 5 percent I
Each one can contribute up to 5 percent extra. What about the
cumulative? That does not address all the cumulative effects of all
the ones that have already impacted the road and all the ones that
may that may be less than 5 percent
MS. WOLFF: We are addressing that through our traffic impact
statements in regards to we don't just let them say, "We have X
percent background growth in there. " Weare also requiring them to
look at other projects which have come into the pipeline as well, and
they have to consider the guy up the street who has already just
gotten his approval for his 5, 000 units. he had to add those into his
background trips as well in detennining whether or not -- whether
they are -- 5 percent is not the issue here. Because, yes, in point of 1
,
r"
) .
'-
Page 48
January 17.2002
fact they are 5 percent, the problem is they are not adverse. They I
don't create a deficiency based on the committed road improvements
that we have in our program.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But where is the math for that?
When I read the reports, it just says it passes the test because it's less
that 5 percent. Where do we have a documentation about the prior
impacts to the road so that we can address where we are at?
MS. WOLFF: As stated previously, I did not make those
statements in that write-up. I did not have a participation in what was
written in your staff report. What I can tell you is that part of the
submittal as they provide -- and they provide a lot of documentation
and backup that is not necessarily included as part of the package that
you see before you because of the level of technical detail that is
supposed to be more technical staff to do, but this is the traffic impact
statement that was provided to the county for review and evaluation
along with supplemental analyses as requested of the applicant in
order to make it a complete submittal for review. In it is included
increases in the background traffic for the duration of the build-out as
well as other projects which would be consistent with that time
frame.
All I can tell you is that we are doing a better job at getting the
projects that are corning on line and their representative to be more
inclusive. We are not letting them come in one after another and
everyone using the same baseline number. We are watching that. It
is not something that is necessarily included such -- as I said, this
thick document -- in each one of your packages for each.
Individual review. What is contained in your staff summary
report was generated by another staff person. And so I cannot speak
to how those numbers or statements were made.
MR. FEDER: Let me add, for the record -- again, Nonnan
Feder, transportation administrator. In addition to requiring in the
Page 49
il~
----.- ~."_'_-_'_-'-""-'" . "'-'-
! Agenda Item o. i L .
February 26,2008
Page 51 of 133
. r
January 17.2002 i
traffic impact study that they look at background traffic, taking into
account other developments that has already been approved, part of
what we are looking for in change is we are looking in moving
changes and going to checkbook method .- I know that you have
heard that terminology -- but basically what that means is that every
time one is approved it becomes a debit to that basic service volume
remaining capacity out there. Once we go to that process, we will be
in a lot better shape to specifically identify to you link by link what
that remaining capacity is, what this new development is asking for
under that capacity, and therefore what the balance in the checkbook
will be after that
The other issue that you asked us to craft relative to that, we can
work some language. Again, also on that issue you have a five year
-- we are working on three years, we said here, in the county
consistent with the state's, but there is also the issue of whether or not .-
that is when you are programmed for approval, which is typically
what has been looked at in the past or when you anticipate your
construction will be basically open and that capacity available, which
is a different statements -- which is another year and a half out
further. There is a number of things that we are going to look at
there.
But in answer to your questioning, I think Dawn pointed out we
are not allowing them to do the traffic impact statements now as we
look at them without looking at that cumulative impact based on the
background traffic that they start off with an analysis. And the 5
percent rule, we are looking at some modifications there as to test the
significance, you can have, basically, a smaller project that always
comes in under 5 percent every single time and still have significant
impacts.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think Mr. Strain is straining to
ask a question here.
Page 50
--.. ---,-'----_.._---- ,. rr
---
---- -
, - --
I
February 26, 2008
Page 52 of 133
?-- January 17, 2002
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I have quite a few questions.
I will try and keep them short. Page 1 of the traffic impact statement,
which I know the rest of the commission did not receive too, shows
that there is going to be a shopping center use. It's called LUA~20.
It's calling for 231,000 square foot, and it says it's going to be built in
the year 2003, which is a year from now, not three years from now.
So the impact is going to be a year from now. Dawn, I
think -- I know you have read the synopsis that I did on the zoning
; issues. Can you tell me if shopping center LUA-20, the calculation
included used by that designation included used car dealers, boat
dealers, gas dealers, drive-in theaters, movie theaters, shooting
ranges. bowling alleys, motion picture theaters; items like that?
Because that's what -- if we approve the commercial uses that are
asked here today, that's some of the uses that could go there.
MS. WOLFF: Those uses that you listed off, there is only one
in there that I can say is consistent with the Institute of Traffic
Engineers, the trip generation manual handbook's definition for Land
Use A-20 Shopping Centers, and that would be movie theaters, but
that would be indoor movie theaters, not drive-in movie theaters.
The other land uses should be calculated under a separate trip
generation rate and are not consistent with the definitions contained
in that normally accepted manual in regard to trip generation.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What about hotels and motels?
MS. WOLFF: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Based on that then, is the TIS -~ I
thought you previously said the TIS was acceptable. Is the TIS now
acceptable, because if they get approved today with those commercial
uses and they have a TIS that references an LUA-20, what is it that
we are approving?
MS. WOLFF: The land uses that are inclusive of that series
were not explicitly identified in regard to the traffic impact statement.
I Page 51
I
I
I I
, I
- I I
-_..,------, -~..~.
I t m No. 12A I)
J
I February 26.2008
Page 53 of 133
January 17,2002
It was identified as a shopping center. To a great degree we try to
rely upon the professionalism of those who are submitting these
applications in providing us what is contained in the application for
approval and consistent with that application for approval.
The additional land uses, some of which you have read off, such
as used-car dealership, boat dealership and the like, have independent
land uses and trip generation rate that in some cases are higher than
that of a shopping center. A shopping center is generally a
consortium of multiple-land uses, which can include a supermarket,
storefronts with post office facilities, dry cleaners, tax preparers, and
the like. If you take and look at the trip generation as individual land
uses, they are going to vary widely. A shopping center rate tries to
average them, and it's how you apply that shopping center rate is
really dependent upon what your ultimate design and layout is, which
is -- since we don't have that level of specifics at this point -- this is -
just a range of uses. The intent is to identify as shopping center uses,
yes, several of those uses which you have stated would be
inconsistent with it being explicitly a shopping center would have
different rates. Some of them twice as much as what would be a ,
shopping center, but if you have an equal balance, they tend to
average out for what would be a shopping center rate. If, for
instance, you have a supermarket, which is your primary square
footage, it has about a three times rate of an average of an overall
shopping center, and therefore it skews your actual trips coming out
of there. That is one reason why the specific details of how you
access circulation, requirements off site need to be left until the site
development plan stage. We try and deal with the best information
that we have.
I would agree that certain of those land uses should not be
considered as part of -- as being consistent with the application that
was prepared and submitted to the department. ""-...
..../
Page 52
I
I
~
l ------
A 8nda Item ND:1-~~---
e ruary
Page 54 of 133
January 17,2002
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's kind oithe bottom line I
was wanting to hear. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Dawn, when doing the traffic
study that we did that -- was it taken into account not only the
increase in commercial but the decrease of 250 units in residential?
MS. WOLFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd. I
COMMISSIONER BUDD: I have got a question relative to this
square foot of commercial space. rm looking at the PUD document
dated 9/11. It has the sttikethroughs and underlines. It's clear under
project density that the maximum gross leaseable floor area is no
longer 150, 000 square feet -- that has been struck through. And
maybe you can clarify for me, I couldn't find anywhere where it says
what the new commercial square foot area is in the documents that
we have received, which would somehow seem to be relative to the
traffic input.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We will have the petitioner place that
back in. Really, because the traffic impact references certain square
footage, the PUD document should be consistent with that. We will
request that that number be placed --
COMMISSIONER BUDD: The PUD document, if I read it
correctly, is silent on that issue and does not cap the commercial
space.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The documents just -- base the density
based on the acreage of the commercial area and the required
setbacks and parking requirements dealing with the size of the
structure. The older PUDs was a sttict square footage limitation. But
given the nature of the traffic concerns these days, we will request the
maximum square footage be placed back in the PUD document.
i. I
Page 53 I
-.----
--
---------- ---
. --------"
'J
,
February 26, 2008
Page 55 of 133
January 17. 2002 ----
.-/
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What will that be?
MR. BELLOWS: Prior to the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. What will that be? What
square footage are you going to request? There is 231, 000 in their
TIS. Is that what you are looking for?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Whatever their proposal will be based
on the traffic study.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The traffic study that Dawn has
said is inaccurate for all the uses that they have applied to use?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, based on the square footage.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Richardson.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, I have some
other staff questions, if we are through with traffic, which is a
fascinating subject and one that we hopefully go through many times.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead. ~
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm interested, Ray, in -
your assessment of the substitutions to the county subdivision
regulations. I'm -- of course, I was not around when this originally
went through, so I'm happy to have an opportunity to look at it as a
brand-new PUD. On page 6-6 of the PUD it says things like you
waive the requirements for a 1, 000 foot maximum deadend street.
Now, I thought There was a reason we had that as -- for instance, was
a fire and safety reasons, not to have long cuI de sacs.
MR. BELLOWS: This is currently approved in -- the PUD was
approved prior. That is not what they are requesting now. This is an
approved condition. It was already approved.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Why?
MR. BELLOWS: Why was it approved at that time? We'll
have to pull their staff report at that time to find out what was
discussed. This is an approved condition. This is not what they are
requesting now. And the subdivision is mostly built that.- the -
~
Page 54
i
-
genaa tern o. L
February 26,2008
Page 56 of 133
January 17, 2002
I
: :
Pebblebrooke single-family subdivision is nearly built out. I
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You are saying --
MR. BELLOWS: This is an approved condition; that why this
is an amendment to the PUD.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Wait a minute. We have
been through this. It is not an amendment to the PUD. This is a new
PUD, and we have a chance to look at -- and all the agencies should
have within the organization had a chance to look at it. If you are
saying this is an as-built condition, then we are, in effect, providing
cover for them to let these conditions stay in; is that correct?
MR. BELLOWS: Given the fact that the subdivision is built,
yes. The subdivision was built consistent with this condition that was
approved prior.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we are to take on faith
there must have been some good reason that that happened in the
past, even though it's against the county subdivision regulations?
MR. BELLOWS: It went before the Planning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners. It was approved. Preliminary
subdivision plans were approved and built and constructed to these
standards.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anyone else? I do think, Mr.
Richardson, there may be two issues there. One of them is whether
PUD to PUD reopens each and every item of a prior PUD. Mr. Nino
used to try and convince us that that wasn't so, but I don't think the
law supports that. I think we can go back. But in this case it's moot
because it's already built. So two issues.
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I would remind you you have
six registered speakers, as well you have not heard from the
applicants.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Are we ready for the petitioner?
I Page 55
. --.--..-
--
--.- "---
-- '-i--
February 26, 2008
Page 57 of 133
January 17. 2002 '.....
MS. BISHOP: Good morning. My name is Karen Bishop. I'm -i
I
an agent for the owner. I'm not going to give a presentation, but I
will try and address some of the things that I was hearing, specifically
the traffic issues.
When you look at these traffic statements, they do them as if I
everything is completed and in place at one time. There is an
absorption rate that goes through this. For instance, this project was
zoned, this PUD was created in 1990. The first person didn't move
into this place until around '97. So you are looking at a seven year --
even though at that time the traffic impact statements says, here is
how many trips you are going to have, it's seven years before the first
person has moved in.
Right now we have approximately 200 residents living there
now. So out of the 350 units that will be left in there residential, only
200 of them are currently living there. The commercial, which was -- -
as I said, the first PUD was 1990 was not finished until this year. It --
took 11 years for that commercial to be utilized. So you are looking
at phasing of sorts just because of the market. That comer will be an
activity center at sometime, fully operational, hopefully, a lot better
shape than Pine Ridge and Airport, but that is what it's destined for
there. But I dare say that it doesn't pop up instantly. You are going
to see a phasing just by virture of rents and markets -- and even right
now the Publix shopping center is not at full capacity. They have
plenty of spaces that are available for rent
The master plan, the commercial master plan itself all through
our existing documents -- when you put these things together, you try
to anticipate what your needs are going to be. You try and anticipate
the acreages you are going to use. All through these documents are
verhage that says approximates, that the final lines will be determined
at final pennitting and platting.
If I were to change uses -- Dawn Wolff now is looking to have -
~
Page 56
II
: II
------ ._'---'~ _..'--~
J Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 58 of 133
January 17, 2002
each applicant at SDP level do another update of TIS, so that gives
you -- if I said there was going to be 200 single-family in a certain
area but then I change my mind and I make it 200 multifamily, then
that traffic statement changes. I would have to update that each time
that I make those kind of changes at the time of permitting, at the
SOP or platting level.
The current commercial acreage includes 2.75 acres of right-of-
way that we have dedicated to the county. Essentially, even though it
says 25 acres, 2.75 of that is right-of-way that belongs to Immokalee
Road and 951.
The kind of situations, the interconnect, which is I think a very
important -- from a traffic standpoint as well as what we are looking
at throughout all of these projects where people have to go outside
the road, there are projects around the Carillon Plaza, because
Carillon would not allow them to interconnect -- have to literally go
out on Airport Road or Pine Ridge Road just to go get milk and
bread. So these kind of things are good and things that we need to
do. Finding a good transition between commercial and residential are ,
I
something that we pretty much see everywhere. We don't see people I
doing crap anymore.
You see -- with our new community character plan, you see
commercial facilities that have four-sided architecture, that have
garbage areas that are covered. You see a lot more vegetation. You
see shielded lighting. I mean, these are things that people are doing
on their own based on the new criteria.
In our case the buffer between residential and the commercial
we have some cross-sections that we have prepared, which are shown
right there (indicating). I can give you each a copy of those of the
kinds of things we are looking to do here.
When we started our permitting, we had intentions of that
commercial road running through the middle of the preserve.
I Page 57
._~~---
- .--~~_...---<-"-, ---~.
~_____u______ ----- ---~
. ~~--- -- --~------,-,.---...- --- -..- Agenda Item-No. 12A I
February 26. 2008
Page 59 of 133
January 17, 2002
\
I
Unfortunately, South Florida Water Management disagreed with that
and the Corps of Engineers disagreed with that, we had to waylay
that connection, which would have been from our perspective a better
interconnect. This is all we have left is this one piece to interconnect.
And because this is a one unit -- one planned unit development, the
internal accesses are important to be complete.
Now, of course, at the same time being here on the comer of an
activity center does not behoove us not to have gates because we
would get all kinds of cut -through traffic there.
As a matter of fact, I live in the subdivision and so does the
owner. We both live there. I can't imagine not having my gates
there, because every high school kid at Gulf Coast, you know, at 2:25
that doesn't like that line in front of 951's intersection is buzzing
through our subdivision at, like, 80 miles per hour. Those gates go
automatically down at that time and come up a little later. At night
they go down. So we would like to keep that privacy. The gate we
are proposing is intended to be inside the buffer. It is not intended
for the residents at either side of that gate to have to look at this gate
go up and down and the car stop in front of their yards.
Weare also looking at traffic calming devices in there that,
perhaps, in front of this gate 100 feet or so we would put a speed
bump so that you are almost at a dead stop by the time you get to this
area as it is.
I did bring my traffic engineer to try and go through all of these
issues with traffic with you because, unfortunately, this staff report
that are -- Chahram.'s original staff report we did not receive until the
day after the Planning Commission was postponed last time. So we
did not really have the opportunity to address what the heck was
going on. We have since then looked at it and have addressed it.
And, unfortunately, I'm not sure how Dawn was left out of the loop--
I can't speak to that -- but we are here to discuss those things.
Page 58 I
---~--
----..- --_..~
--~-
m No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 60 of 133
-- January 17, 2002
~
Some of those uses that you have discussed, Commissioner
Strain, certainly we're amenable to remove some of them from that
area.
When we did this six or seven years ago, those were the kinds of
uses -- I mean, this was out in the twilight zone at that time. Nobody
- who would have thought that everyone would have been moving
out here? Those are the kinds of uses at the time that seemed
appropriate, especially hotel/motel. You are on main drags -- two
main drags, and you're not that far -- three miles from the interstate.
It seemed appropriate at the time. We are willing to remove some of
those uses to be more in tune with what you might consider what we
see when we look at some of these commercial intersections.
Car dealers certainly does not seem appropriate. The drive-in
theaters, perhaps, not also. But I dare say, though, a gas station
- would be appropriate, because I have seen them at every activity
center pretty much in town, and -- at least at one of the comers.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yours says for gas dealers; bulk
liquified petroleum.
MS. BISHOP: We don't want that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's right.
MS. BISHOP: I just want a gas station up there so I can go get
gas on the way to work.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You have that one, too, but you
also have the bulk gas.
MS. BISHOP: We will be glad to remove the bulk gas from
that. It was not intended for that use. Really, when you put these
things together, you throw the smorgasbord together trying to make a
decision on something that mayor may not happen -- in this case --
11 years later. So what we need to do then at -- certainly at your
request and some of the residents' request is remove some of those
uses, which we are willing to do.
II Page 59
.-- ~------- ---,,--....
---- -- - -----
- - 'TT---
,'-\qerl~~d !tt;,~iri !"l'_ ,=>.
26.2U:JE!
C"I of i 3J
January 17,2002 -
-
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How would you propose doing
that at today's meeting?
MS. BISHOP: What is your list?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here it is right here. There are
about 170 uses. You are welcome to have a copy. I have a copy for
the Planning Commission members as well and for public record.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just pick out two that you
would like.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any residents who would like a
copy, there are some extras up here.
MS. BISHOP: The used car dealers, no problem.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, she needs a copy.
MS. BISHOP: The fIrst three which is used car dealers, boat
dealers, and gas dealers, no problem.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: One for the court reporter. ~
MS. BISHOP: So far going down your list -- well, ~-
unfortunately that is not going to happen. Used car dealer is dead.
Boat dealer, dead. Gas dealer, dead. Drive-in theater is dead.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Excuse me, Karen.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The court reporter needs a break.
Why don't we take 10 --
MS. BISHOP: Oh, good.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- and you can work down that
list.
MS. BISHOP: Great. I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Recess for 10 minutes.
(A short break: was held.)
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Meeting will come to
order, Ms. Bishop.
MS. BISHOP: I want to go on the record to say that I spoke r
. )
'-...
Page 60
ij-
-"- -~------- -~
I /\CJ~nd. It..", ~19 12/\
February 26,2008
Page 62 of 133
January 17, 2002
with Commissioner Strain during the break just to look at the list
along with the transportation director. Actually, it's a lot easier than I
thought it was going to be. The uses at C-l, C- 2, and C- 3 except for
retail nursery seem to be all fIne. I do want to clarify that under the
veterinary we would have no outside kennels which was already
mentioned in the PUD. And the hardware store would not be a stand-
alone like a Home Depot; that would not be allowed either.
When we get up to the C-4 and C-5 uses, some are appropriate;
some are not. I will read that list of not appropriate uses.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Starting at the top?
MS. BISHOP: Certainly. Starting at the top, we have used car
dealer, boat dealer, gas dealer.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Those are inappropriate?
MS. BISHOP: Inappropriate. Drive-in theater. Then we get
down to hotels and motels, equipment rental, refrigeration service,
furniture repair, miscellaneous repair services, bowling center, and
the shooting range and water slides; which I'm personally going to
miss. Those are the ones that do not appear to be according to the
transportation director -- don't fIt in a shopping center stuff.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Dawn--
MS. BISHOP: It's Karen.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Karen, I'm still on my.
Last question. You said C-l, C-2, and C-3 are not appropriate?
MS. BISHOP: No. Those are appropriate uses, and those fall
under the shopping center guise of what Dawn was talking about with
the current TIS. Even though if somebody had come in with one of
these other uses not covered under the current TIS, they would have
to -- like I said, at the time of permit -- Dawn reassesses your traffic
agam.
So if anything was funky, at that point they would have a
problem. But we will remove the ones I mentioned off. The rest of I
i
Page 61
'~'''''-'----'-.' __"nO
----- -----_.'-,---_..--
ill
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2003
Page 63 of 133 : !!
January 17, 2002 ,
these uses are appropriate for shopping centers.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
MS. BISHOP: My kids are going to miss the water slides.
Can -- I have my traffIc guy here to discuss traffic. rm sure
you-guys want to hear from him, and specifIcally he's here to answer
questions for you.
Is there anything else, though, Commissioner Strain, that you
want to address?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will wait until I hear the public
and see if they have any other concerns about the other uses.
One of the things that I wanted to know -- I guess your traffic
engineer will discuss it. I heard the property is being considered for
sale. If that's the case, the new -- one of the new companies that may
be purchasing, as I know, is a quick mover. This might get built out
rapidly. Do you know anything about that?
MS. BISHOP: I know there is a contract on it. As of this point,
I know that it is with DeAngelis Diamond.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes.
MS. BISHOP: Do I know what their schedule is? No, sir. It
could be soon. It may not be soon. It's all based on the market
Nobody wants to build commercial that does not get rented. I can't
speak for them, and I don't believe they are here. Maybe the owner
later on can discuss, if he has any knowledge, as to what their
schedule would be. But I do know they build quality product. At
least I have that comfort level.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No problem. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Miss Bishop, one last
thing. I'm interested in the traffIc numbers, as we have all expressed,
but my eyes will tend to glaze over with a lot of numbers. What I
would really like to hear is, as represented in the applicant, that you
would agree to the conditions that we talked about earlier -- because ~
~
Page 62
:j-
February 26, 2008
Page 64 of 133
- January 17, 2002
of this absorption rate that you so eloquently defined -- it's probably
going to be slow building out anyway. that you would agree to not I
bring these projects on line until the capacity in the road was actually
available.
MS. BISHOP: No, sir, I would really like not to have to do that.
As much as I appreciate what you are trying to do, which is certainly
to be commended, all we have to go by when we do these projects is
what the rules are today. When you change the rules, we will adhere
to those rules.
In this case, you know, we had this being an activity center, the
-- what could have been permitted here and built here would have
been a 4O-acre commercial center, which is the typical size of the
activity center, commercial areas on all four-comers which will be at
some point a seven-unit-to-the-acre density band goes around that,
which means my project could have had 800 units in it and 40 acres
of commercial. So that's not what this owner did. This owner
decided to do something that was quality.
So his density at 650, I believe was -- is right Around 5 units to
the acre. He has since then brought that down to 350 with this
commercial-- and then we have this commercial comer. We have
done so much already to give up for that -- lessening the impact on
the roads and creating a better neighborhood. It was -- for all intents
and purposes, this area was intended to be maxed out; that's what
these activity centers are intended for. But as we are seeing that's just
not what the market bears. We are doing less and less. We are
making those choices by not utilizing the maximum zoning abilities
of these areas.
In this case I would suggest that I would not really want to do
that
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, you would
agree it's within the purview of the Planning Commission to --
I Page 63
..'.__.~_d~__"____,..,. ~~_._....- . -'" -------~
----- ~--
-~~-- --- -,~.---.'Tj_..
Februarv 26.2008
Page 65 of 133
January 17.2002
MS. BISHOP: Certainly. If that's what you want to ~!
recommend, but, yes, I would say -- I would not want to do that.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Karen, I just have one quick
one. You say the total commercial was it 237, 000 --
MS. BISHOP: 231,000.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 231. 000. Is that including
what is currently there?
MS. BISHOP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What is currently there? How
much?
MS. BISHOP: One hundred twenty thousand is what is
permitted currently. We were allowed one hundred fifty maximum.
And like Ray said, they used to put those numbers on there -- but
typically it's 10,000 square foot an acre is typically what you do for
commercial. At that time we were still going through environmental ~
permitting, and we did not know what we were going to be left with ~
in the end, so we put a number up there.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You are saying that Publix
center now is 120,000?
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So you are looking for
110,000 more?
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You mean that little strip
of land is going to give you another 120,0001
MS. BISHOP: No, sir. We had a lot more commercial land set
aside for the least amount of density on it.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You are increasing the
density someplace else?
MS. BISHOP: We are increasing the commercial density on the
tract what was already designated for commercial is what we are ~
~
Page 64
-..
-, - --~
1 Agenda Item ~o 1 ;;--rr
February 26,2008
Page 66 of 133
January 17,2002
(
doing. It was already designated. The tract was already platted.
What we are doing is increasing the density on that tract only and
reducing the density internal to the residential.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you for clarifying.
It's very misleading in terms of the depiction of showing a little strip
being added. I thought that's where the new commercial was going to
be added.
MS. BISHOP: No, sir. It's going to be spread out over the rest.
MR. JARVEY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Reed Jarvey. I'm a transportation engineer with the firm of Vanasse
Daylor. I prepared the traffic impact statement for this amendment,
rezoning. whatever the procedural -- exact procedure is.
I will tell you also in a later life -- an earlier life I did prepare the
original Pebblebrooke back in 1990 --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Surely, you will have a
better later life.
MR. JAR VEY: Let me address a couple of points here and just
from a clarification standpoint -- from a technical standpoint. I will
try not to get into too much detail. I do know when I start these
traffic numbers and eyes start glazing over and people pass out -- I
will notice when you fallout of your chairs. I will stop at that point.
We will look at the traffic impacts to this as Dawn Wolff
presented earlier. Just for your clarification, I know you are not privy
to the traffic impact statement. It was reviewed by Dawn and her
staff. They had some comments in the fall sometime, and we
resubmitted it in November. And it was approved in November.
At that time we did a level service analysis for the proposed
project, and what we felt a prudent approach would be to look at a
fairly quick build-out, as was mentioned earlier to see what the
impacts would be now. So we felt that with our experience in land
development that roughly a year would be a potential -- or as quick as
I Page 65
. i
~,.. ,,----....-.
- --
Agenda Item No. 12A TIT
February 26.2008
Page 67 of 133
January 17,2002 '"
-r'
it could be, so it really would be not this year -- it might be done this
year, but it would not affect the peak season 2003. It would affect --
2002, excuse me -- it would affect peak season 2003; roughly a year
from now, you know, 13 months or so from now. That's what we
addressed in our traffic impact statement.
At the time we did it, Immokalee Road was being four-Ianed
under construction and 951 was in its current two-lane condition. So
we looked at impacts with a two-lane condition. Our impacts showed
that both Immokalee Road and 951, Collier Boulevard, would operate
within level service standards in the two-lane condition for Collier
Boulevard and four-lane for Immokalee Road. From my standpoint I
don't feel a phasing was necessary as was suggested; that's for 2003.
Now, to talk about some of the differences of the staff report,
which was the 3,750 units additional, I tried to replicate that number
and, unfortunately, Chahram who did it was not with us. I talked to -
Ray Bellows, and I talked briefly with Dawn, and I could not ,-
replicate the number. If I just added from one hundred fifty to two
hundred thirty-one thousand square feet, period, I came up with,like,
2,800. So I don't know where the 3,750 came from. But I did look at
it again and tried to look at the differences from the original PUD in
2000 -- excuse me -- 1990 -- the 1997 PUD amendment and then
what we are presenting.
Just for your information, the original PUD, 1990, talked about
150,000 square feet, as we have been talking about. Single family
was limited at no more than or up to 130; multifamily was limited to
up to 520. So you add those together; 650 units. So when I did that I
took the trip generation that we used, the ITE methods that Dawn
talked about, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and did their
procedures and came up with a trip generation. And to keep it
simple, I did daily trips -- I did daily and a.m. And p.m. Trips, which
is what we use more -- we used the peak hour trips more than a traffic ~.
)
"-
Page 66
! :1
~ A~C'IJO Iblll r~u. 12.;'"
February 26.2008
Page 68 of 133 :
,
January 17, 2002 !
profession, but I understand you-all know daily trips.
Better, so I did that. I came up with an amount of trips of
10,156. So 10,000. Okay.
Then I looked at the 1997 PUD. The 1997 PUD doesn't--
doesn't differentiate between multi-family and single family. It just
says 650 units. From a traffic standpoint, we would do a worst -case
scenario. Single-family units do more trip generation than multi-
family units.
I did 650 single-family homes and shopping center of 150, 000
square feet, and I came up with 11,994 - roughly 12, 000. Then I
looked at what we were proposing. We proposed 231,000 square
feet of shopping center. We have -- there is roughly 340 units there
now. We rounded those up to 300 single family and 100 multifamily
to keep the number -- to be a little conservative if something would
change in there -- and we came -- we used because we are now
interconnecting the shopping center to the -- to the residential -- and
so the people that live there don't have to go out on 951 or
Immokalee Road to get that loaf of bread or bottle of milk or
whatever they might need, they can go internal.
This is external trips now. So this is external impacts. There is
__ ITE has a procedure for internal capture -- what we call internal
capture; that the people -- the commercial trips that are generated by
the Publix and McDonalds or whatever else is there as attractors.
And the housing development that generates the trips, they have an
interaction. So if rm going to get that milk and I drive out of my
driveway and drive through the interconnection and get that bottle of
milk, that's one trip. When I get out of that car -- get out at Publix
and get back in my car and come back into my house, that is another
trip. You have it both ways.
But rm not on the external road network, not on 951, not on
Immokalee, not on Vanderbilt -- all of those. Once again, ITE has a
I Page 67
.._"~"~,-,-~.,,.
.."-,-,--~.
!! !
, ,
Agenoa tern \l0. LA
February 26, 2008
Page 69 of 133 I
January 17, 2002 !
procedure to look at those. When I added that internal capture -- and
the other correction factor is past by traffic which commercial has,
and I used that same corrections for the other two generations, I come
up with 9,799 trips. Roughly 10,000. So potentially when we add
this together, we potentially have up to 2, 000 trip reduction. So, I
mean, we won't know that until we get an actual Do -- when they
build it, you see what actually happens. But using Institute of
Transportation Engineer's procedure and the discussions that we have
had and methodologies that Dawn Wolff and her staff and I have had,
potentially we come up with an actual reduction from the existing
PUD.
So I wanted to make that clear, and for my purposes -- and I
think for your purposes, from a traffic standpoint is probably you can
say it's a wash at this point. Could it be a little higher? Yes. Could it
would be a little higher? Yes. Could it be a little lower? Yes, it -
could be lower. The numbers show that it could be substantially -
lower. I just wanted to make that clear. That's really pretty much the
end of what I want to tell you, but I will certainly answer -- at least
address any questions that you have.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a question. I realize
your methodology probably speaks to some generalized cases. But
looking at the specific project with this big preserve in the center, it
doesn't seem to me that people over on the western side are going to
go all the way around to come in through this internal access. They
are more likely to go out on Immokalee and come back in. The
people that are up on the northwest quadrant of the development,
residential development, I don't see that should help you in your
numbers. Seems to me that would be -- if you factor in the real case
versus the generalized traffic data that you use -- I don't know.
MR. JARVEY: Commissioner, to some extent that is a true
statement. I mean, what I would say to your direct question -- and I .-'
"-
Page 68
---.--.,-. --.-.
I r -
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 70 of 133
January 17, 2002
'I
have another comment on it -- is that those people -- more than likely
I would agree. If they are up there, you know. 100 feet or 200 feet
from the Immokalee Road access. they are probably going to
Immokalee Road, go down to turn into Publix. However, when they
return an easier trip would be to use the interconnect rather than
trying to do left -- right turn and then a U-turn at the signal or come
down Immokalee -- 951 and do a left turn out. So I think you
would -- you know, potentially what you are saying is half of that trip
would be true. Another answer to your question, when we do
this internal capture, we do what we call is a balancing. There is no
projected -- and unfortunately, I have the peak hour numbers -- so the
numbers I'm going to tell you are not exactly correct for the daily, but
they are along the same lines.
What ITE has done in their studies says in a peak-hour
standpoint, for instance, 53 percent of the peak-hour exiting trips
from a residential development could -- are captured by the adjacent
commercial development. Likewise, 9 percent of the commercial
trips, entering trips, which would be the same trip, are capwred. And
in this case the -- what we do is a balancing. So it's a lesser of the
two. You can't make trips. You know. if you have 50 trips going one
way and you are only accepting 10 trips, that doesn't work. We
balance them. We take the lesser of the two. In this case the
commercial roles with the 9 percent. So some of those trips that the
ITE say could capture aren't being captured anyway. because the
commercial does not support all the trips that the residential area has.
So I think what you are saying is a potential -- within the rules I
have -- within the guidelines I have is -- is -- I think it can be covered
by other issues. But, yes, sir, that is a possibility.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, as I understand your
testimony, even though the commercial is virtually doubling in size,
these other pushes and pulls with the internal circulation will negate
I Page 69
-",'-
-_...._._,.,..".,"---"'~- ..
"~---- -_._,--"----,.
------ ~-
,~ co, , u. '.... ,
February 26. 2008
Page 71 of 133
,
January 17,2002
the traffic impact of that?
MR. JARVEY: I'm saying they potentially could. From my
calculations they're showing -- actually, they are potentially less than
what they are if you don't put the interconnect and you keep the
residential and commercial as it is.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I respect your numbers. It
just seems counter intuitive with that much increase in commercial.
MR. JARVEY: I understand, sir. The big thing is the
interconnect; that's why -- I'm sure you have been here before when
Dawn's been up here and said, "We have to do the interconnects with
the commercial areas. " I'm a proponent of it, and Karen Bishop -- if
you have been here long enough -- has said it many times; that's the
key to the local trips off of the highway network and let the people
just go -- you know, get their loaf of bread or, you know, steak: --
whatever -- <,---
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Six-pack.
MR. JAR VEY: -- from an internal standpoint.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Reed, I don't know if you
addressed this. I want to ask you, I was involved in a town meeting
in OrangeTree not too long ago on issues that they were having out
there with infrastructure. The biggest issue that came out of that
meeting was the roads -- Immokalee Road and the backup of traffic
getting into town, and it occurs at the intersection of 951 and
lmmokalee Road. It's two lanes to the east once you pass 951.
I know you mentioned lmmokalee Road is being four-laned; that
will solve some probleMs. But you didn't address the two lanes of
lmmokalee Road coming from OrangeTree. Because the OrangeTree
people don't have a grocery store out there of the size that you guys
are going to have, they are going to be using that Publix. They are
going to be using that shopping center. Have you looked at the .''''''
Page 70
i
---- --
""-
-:i
'! 1\ I'
February 26" 2008
Page 72 of 133
- January 17.2002
intensity there on that two-lane road? ;1
; .
MR. JARVEY: Yes, sir. Let me look through it. Prom a strict
level of service standpoint, it's -- and. once again, I'm looking at
2003, I'm -- I need to look a little longer. I think this is four lane and
not -- I have to look through the rest of it
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, you have registered speakers.
Would you like to maybe go to them and have him come back and
answer that question later?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are you close to the
answer, or do you want a few minutes?
MR. JARVEY: I have it. At the intersection -- at the
intersection there would be four lanes -- excuse me -- two lanes, what
you are talking about going west -- at the intersection -- not out east
more -- I realize -- but the intersection itself. At that point -- when
that's complete, the level of service is adequate. It's within the
standards.
I'm not saying it is now, because it's under construction, and it's
not that situation yet. But in the -- I think there are supposed to be
done later this -- or,like, early summer or late spring. At that point in
time, there should be adequate infrastructure at that intersection for
that trip.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. As long as you have
looked at that.
MR. JARVEY: Yes, we looked at the intersection.
Specifically we have four lanes -- two lanes going through. I
have looked at it. And I have looked at it out farther, but, quite
frankly, it's east of the intersection. I have not looked out--
OrangeTree way out.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's just how far the traffic
backs up. It's quite a ways.
MR. JARVEY: Where I have looked at is four lanes. I was
I Page 71
-,--".---...----'''. -T--. ---"-'
-._,.- - ---
.--;-rr -
. 12M !
February 26. 2008
Page 73 of 133
January 17, 2002 -
--
worried about in the vicinity of the intersection itself.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Any other questions?
Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: You have six registered speakers.
Your fIrst speaker is Lull Johnson followed by Richard Creel.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Please come up to the ,
podium. State your name for the record, and if it's an unusual name
spell it. You have five minutes. If you will please limit yourself to
that. If others of you are going to speak and your neighbors, please
don't reiterate what has already been said. We need more and ,
different and new information.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if each of the speakers will just
state for the record whether they were sworn or not. rm assuming
they all were, but if not we will find out. ~
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Did you take the oath when ~-
we started this item?
MR. JOHNSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Raise your right hand.
(Witness sworn.)
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: State your name.
MR. JOHNSON: Lull Johnson. Okay. My concerns are -- I
don't feel that the traffic numbers add up. I know there is a LOS --
there is a level of service standard. I do not feel that even if those
standards are met that they are adequate standards set by the county.
All you have to do is drive these roads and know that there is a major
problem right there on that intersection. I also don't understand how
350 people going to the grocery store, which you don't do every day,
can be captured -- can capture 3,700 trips or 20 -- over 2.000 trips.
The information that was given from the DOT seems rather
vague. I mean, there is not concrete numbers from the Department of ,,--
I
'---
Page 72
--.. -- -
~ ---- --~---, ---'..'-
nda Ite N, 2.
February 26, 2008
Page 74 of 133
January 17,2002
; ,
Transportation. But there is definitely a major problem. It's ,
: I
dangerous on Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard.
People from the Estates, people from OrangeTree, they are all
coming down to this present Publix Shops at Pebblebrooke Lakes that
are there. There is at least ten stores that I have counted that are not
open yet. I have heard there is going to be a McDonalds, a gas
station, a bank, what have you, in the already present commercial
property. As those things open, traffic is going to increase. It has to.
Adding more commercial property, now, I'm questioning the timing.
Now, I think is maybe not the most prudent thing.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Where do you live in
relation to all of this?
MR. JOHNSON: I live in Pebblebrooke Lakes. That's pretty
much what I had to say.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think you can tell by the
questions and comments that this commission has that we share your
concerns, and we are trying to figure out a way to, if you will, legally
express those in some concrete way that will have an impact in
phasing this project or dealing with the timing issues that you have
raised.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, sir. I did notice that.
MS. MURRAY: The next speaker is Richard Creel followed by
Colleen McCartney.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Creel, did you take part
in the oath administration?
MR. CREEL: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I was sworn previously. My
wife is also here. I was wondering if I would be allowed to have ten
minutes to speak on both of our behaves. That's fIne. Let me
proceed.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let's see what you can do
in fIve.
I Page 73
,.1-
--..-r--..... ,,----'--
-.-..---- -- -, - -- ------ ------- '--
^ ~ TT--
I A"-lr,
February 26.2008
Page 75 of 133 i
,
January 17,2002 '-,
-
MR. CREEL: I do have something that I would like to put on
the overhead so we can all see what we had to -- what we were
anticipating as development.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I assume your wife shares your
views to a degree?
MR. CREEL: Yes, sir, I think she probably does; although not
all the time.
What I would like to point out, No. I, is that we were -- it was
represented to most of the residents that there was going to be an
interconnect in terms of a pathway so that we could bike or walk to
the commercial area. And I would like to point out that if that was
completed, then we would have a way to access that without going
out on 951 or Immokalee Road. At this time there is walking or
biking access via a sidewalk to Publix and that shopping center. And
there is a lot of traffic going through that area. And we can all walk --
or bike over there within a ten-minute period of time. --
I think one of the major concerns that we have is the
interconnect, because we moved into the community specifIcally for
the purpose of living within an enclosed community. For instance,
my 8 112-year-old son, I feel comfortable allowing him to ride his
bicycle within the community because we have limited access. There
is no through traffic. I have a beeper I put on him. I beep him. He
comes home. When I lived in the City of Golden Gate, I was not
comfortable with that because of the amount of traffIc and speed
limits. If we were to open a third access through there, then we're
going to have that much more traffIc.
As far as the capture, the internal capture they are discussing, I
would submit to the commission -- to the planning board here that in
general most people are going to be coming home from work are
going to go to the store and then they are going to come home. So I
think that internal capture is being overstated in terms of the amount --
~
Page 74
,
;)"
-- .------ -- -- ----- -----..- ---~
I'
Agp.nrl8 Item No 12A_ .1
I February 26,2008
Page 76 of 133
January 17,2002
of traffic that is going to keep off the road, because we are all coming
home and going to the store and then coming back.
The other great concern that I have is we already have
tremendous problems with our gates. Our gates are wooden. They
are broken probably 40 percent of the time. And at this time due to
the amount of construction going on, they are open, basically, all day.
If we were to open this interconnect, depending on how it was set up,
frrst of all, we would have the problem of who's going to pay for it to
maintain it, who's going to build it, and if it's of the same type of gate
system that we have now, at least 40 percent of the time it's going to
be inoperable. If it's on the same system as our current gate system
is, then we are going to be in a situation where we have unlimited
access to our community through this commercial area.
I went to the dentist on Friday. I went up 951, and I had to go
pick my son up at his elementary school, Laurel Oaks, came up
Immokalee Road and was going to go down 951. I would like to
point out just to the south of our development is an apartment
complex opening up with a large number of units. It should be open
in, I would say, the next six months. On Immokalee Road right next
to where our community is, they are getting ready to build a large
apartment complex, and down the road on Immokalee there is a large
apartment complex that has opened, all multifamily homes generating
a tremendous amount of traffic.
I don't know what the plans are specifically for 951 at this time,
but I sat through four light changes at 951. And, then, finally, being a
resident of the community, I didn't feel quite so guilty about it, I
turned around and came back through and went through the
community and came back out onto 951 and saved myself about 15
minutes because of the backup. Granted, there is construction there,
and that should hopefully improve in the future. You can see what
my concerns are about that
I Page 75
. -I~
_~_,,________ ____ _ ___ _ ___',C__----'n'_
-,._-----~-,.~.- --.... -"'~-1".--.. ,,------,..---,..
- -, ----. -,--
--- -- - ---~~
a lem No.12A ' ,
February 26. 2008
Page 77 of 133
January 17, 2002 -
-
Also, I have grave concerns -- I believe the issue is -- and the
fact of the matter is, there is a contract for sale open on the table right
now. My belief is -- and this is my belief -- I have no facts to back
this up -- my belief is that the contract for sale is, in essence,
conditioned upon immediate approval. I don't think there is going to
be any holdup in development of this. I think it's going to take place
right away, and it will completely saturate our situation.
I have two positions. Number 1, I'm asking the commission not
to approve this plan at all. I would like to have the community as it
was originally planned, an enclosed community with two entrances,
where I can feel safe with my son out playing and not have to worry
about internal traffic.
I can tell you I live in Pebblebrooke Lakes. I live right next to
the sidewalk to the middle schoo1. I love to be next to the middle
school, but I can represent to you that cars line up in front of our -
house right now to pick children up because they don't want to go ..-
through that line. The gates are open. That may change in the future,
but we are already battling a situation with that
Again, as to the interconnect, it was represented to us that there
would be an internal interconnect that would be a pathway. If you
had a pathway interconnect, I believe that a number of people or a
great majority of people would use it, and that would address some of
the planning board's concerns about the interconnect.
I think 951 is a big issue as well, because I don't know what the
plans are for four-laning, or if they are going to four lane it. There is
a tremendous backup at the light, not only coming in from
OrangeTree but coming northbound to that light I know that the
people at OrangeTree and Falling Waters and Golden Gate Estates, in
general, are delighted with the fact that there is going to be this
Publix there. It's the closest one out to the Estates. I think it's going
to generate a tremendous amount of traffic. And in my viewing of it, -
~
Page 76
----- III
-,~----- UAgend; Item No. 12A-'-' [
I February 26,2008 .,
Page 78 of 133 .
January 17. 2002
it has already generated a tremendous amount of traffic. My concern
is rather than wait to try and get out on 951 or Immokalee Road they
will cut down through our facility and get back out
The other issue that I have is, you know, the first idea was to run
a road right through our nature preserve. I have a serious problem
with that; that has been resolved. But I just want to make a point that
we all bought homes based on what we thought was going to happen.
We understood that the residential of Phase 4 mayor may not be
single-family homes; it might be villas. It might be town homes, et
cetera. But our understanding it was going to be residential. There is
a large commercial activity area in existence. It's going to continue
to develop, and I think it's more than adequate to serve the needs of
the community as it exists right now.
In terms of gas station which was mentioned, if you start at 1-75
coming down Immokalee Road to Pebblebrooke, you get off the road,
there is gas stations right there immediately. You come down the
road a little farther, there's a Hess Station. A little further down there
is a Mobil Station directly across from Laural Oaks. A little further
down the road they are getting ready to open up a brand-new
Chevron. If we were to head south down 951 instead, you come to a
brand-new Chevron that was just opened and just past that there are a
number of other gas stations.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Could you wrap it up,
please?
MR. CREEL: That is basically my point.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought so.
MR. CREEL: The one other comment if I can make briefly, the
uses that have been recommended, I disagree with a number of those
uses. And what I would like to see allowed there if the commission
were to agree to that, I would like to see a larger buffer zone. I would
like to see the commercial folks responsible for the gate and specifIc i
I Page 77
,
, ,
.--,-.------.,.... ' ---.r-''''''.'' -'.__....._.m_~,_
- -,---- '----'--,_.~ -.---
- --- - ~I-
I;
...., .... ,
Fenruary 26,2008
Page 79 of 133
January 17, 2002 _.
,
i
-
type of gate put up that is more secure than what we have, not a
wooden gate that is going to break all the time.
And I think that's about it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. Next speaker.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: I have a question. On this display
that is on the overhead, it is kind of zeroed in, so I cannot see who
published this. Who provided that? Was it the developer or one of
builders or --
MR. CREEL: It was -- sorry, sir.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: -- or where does it come from?
MR. CREEL: I can provide the fIrst page. I thought there was
five of you. fm sorry. I made five copies. It's a home page that is
available over the internet anybody can access. The home page is at
the bottom of that particular picture. I would be more than happy to
leave that. -
COMMISSIONER BUDD: I don't like it that much. I was just ~
curious where it came from.
MR. CREEL: I obtained it from the internet, and it was my
understanding the developers prepared it. It was an exact copy of a
map or a site plan that we were all provided with when we purchased
our homes.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. The thing I wanted to point
out, Ray, if you can just get the commercial aerial back on the map
from where you have moved it.
There are two roads leading up into the residential area. The
current zoning already is commercial for two-thirds of that area that
is represented as residential. If you look at the lower cui de sac --
that shott deadend cul de sac --
MR. CREEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Commercial zoning right now
bisects that commercial -- that shott cui de sac and wipes out two- ~
'--
Page 78
fi
J Agenda Item No. 12A i
,
February 26,2008
Page 80 of 133
January 17, 2002
thirds of the other areas.
Yeah. Right there where Ray's finger is about where the
commercial line comes across now. So, just as a matter of record,
this is some kind of sales or promotional literature. In fact, the
commercial line was not where it was drawn here. It's much farther
south.
MR. CREEL: I understand. Part of the point I was trying to
make is that part of the information was misleading. I think it goes to
the truthfulness and veracity of the representations that are being
made as to what is going to be done on that site.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: Colleen McCarthy followed by Craig Haas.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Were you previously
sworn?
MS. McCARTHY: Yes, sir, I was. My name is Colleen
McCarthy. Just in quick reference to this brochure, it is a brochure
that was printed up by the association that is fIling for this change in
the PUD. And I have several, so I would be happy to hand them to
you. They are printed up by the owner, the developer with his name
and face on it, and there is no disclaimer as to anything being
inaccurate. And it is the same one that you have up there. So we
have been misled as to the amount of property that is commercial.
Yesterday I went to both contractors in the development to get a
brochure to hand out that they hand to potential buyers. And both of
them, one being Beezer and one being Kimbel Hill, have this
brochure in their folder printed by Mr. Saundry stating that this is
what they are potentially offering to the future buyer.
Now, I presented to Mr. Saundry that this was inaccurate. He
said it was printed or made up four years ago, but it is being handed
out today to potential buyers inaccurately. He said it would cost him
money to print up a new one, so he hasn't printed up a new one.
I I
Page 79
:H-
----------"-
--------,._._-',>- r--"'-.-- ~-_._"-,
I -------~- --,,--
"gend, Itl?m NG. 12^ .1
February 26. 2008 ]
Page 81 of 133
January 17. 2002 -,
~
Now, I would also like to request of you -- because our
development is incomplete at this point. There are still hundreds to
be built. We have an association that is headed by the developer. In
that sense many of us do not think our association represents the
residents. And consequently nothing has been presented to the
residents -- I should say nothing -- but the fact we feel we have not
been able to obtain in a timely manner since we only had a matter of
ten days to two weeks.
We would like the time to hire an attorney to represent the
residents of the area in a more represented fashion, and I present that 1
to you. And I thank you for your time. I
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And next speaker. 1
MS. MURRAY: Craig Haas followed by Michele Goguen.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Haas, were you
previously sworn? ~
MR. HAAS: Yes, I was. ~
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Go ahead.
MR. HAAS: I have got a checklist here I would like to pass out
to each one of the members, if you would, please.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You are Craig Haas.
MR. HAAS: Haas, H-a-a-s. I'm here to speak about if the
property is zoned commercial that the residents would like some
considerations of what is going to be built on there.
The buffer picture that he has got up here is something that I just
got a view of today. We have drawn a diagram at the bottom, and
it's -- excuse me -- it's relatively similar to what he has put there.
That was one of the considerations that we wanted.
At the start of the checklist, we were looking for dumpsters to be
located outside of the takeover zone, which is the 3.2 acres that you ,
!
are discussing the lighting, parking lot, landscaping, building to be
low intensity and shielded from the residents' side of the -..
-.-/
Page 80 !
---- --'-'--
-~lr~
February 26,2008
Page 82 of 133
January 17. 2002
development.
Interconnect, we would like a gate similar to the ones that we
have. We would like to make sure that is for Pebblebrooke's
residents only, and construction traffic cannot come through our
subdivision.
Mr. Strain addressed this issue earlier, which is Item No.5. I
have got copies of some of the information that they brought to us.
We had a meeting Tuesday that Kenco Development did show up for.
They had four items listed as to what could be developed there.
There is actually 28 groupings, which Mr. Strain's list addressed very
well.
One of the provisions in there in the staff report is Section 4.4,
Item 19. There is some verbage in there that the director would
approve what is going in and out of there. We would like to maintain
that stays in there for all issues or all commercial projects that go in
there, to make sure that the residents -- residential friendly services.
Item No.6 is the buffer zone. And, like I said, we made a
drawing up down below of what we would like it to look like when
it's completed. which is very similar to what they have here. Like I
said, this was just presented to us this morning.
At our meeting Tuesday we asked Kenco Development if they
would be willing to postpone this so we could get together as a group
and have a united voice. As you can see. there is a lot of different
opinions what needs to be happened here. They did not want to do ,
that. We have had a couple of weeks to prepare for this and really 1
have only had two homeowners meeting and really don't -- we are all I
going in different directions. We would really like to get together as
a homeowners association and have one united voice. I don't know if
we can make that happen today or not. But I understand the
petitioner is the only one that can request to be postponed.
So other than that I don't have any other things. Is there any
I I
Page 81 I
I
- --,-,- 11-
---- --
......-._,~,-, "m-'~_'___ ._,----
:".::911:::-1<3 !l-:-:!Tl IV). :'-'~'
::':6. 20UB
8:-J oj 'j ~;~'
January 17, 2002
questions of what I have presented?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many residents of
Pebblebrooke showed up at your meeting?
MR. HAAS: The first one it was, I think, about 50, and the last
time it was probably a similar number.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. ' ,
I
MR. HAAS: The items I brought before you today -- there is
probably about 20 of us that have put this list together. We haven't
even had time to talk, as I said, as a whole group. This information is
new. We keep getting more information. Like I said, Tuesday,
which I brought copies, there were only four groupings that were told
to us to be the SIC codes. The first four groups were all that were
brought. And, in fact, there is Items 5 through 28, and each group
has several items in it.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When you saw the SIC codes -- I ,-
probably know the answer, but I kind of want to hear it from you -- ~
did you know what those SIC codes meant?
MR. HAAS: I was familiar with them. I didn't know exactly
what they meant. I did meet with Karen Bishop. Like I said, there
was only the fIrst four items in the information they brought us.
Items 5 through 28 and -- as you know, there is several items with
each group.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right.
MR. HAAS: We looked through those fIrst four. They didn't
seem, you know, very damaging to what property could be built
there. Like I said, if this is commercial, what we are looking for is if
it's built in a manner it will enhance our property and be convenient
for us and not in a manner that is detrimental to our assets that we
have there. That's all that I have got.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Haas, to summarize what you
are saying then -- don't let me put words in your mouth -- you are in .-
-
Page 82
----rrr -1
., ,
l Agenda Item No. 12A . : I
February 26. 2008 ,
Page 84 of 133
January 17,2002 I
I
I ,
, i
!
favor of it with these qualifications?
MR. HAAS: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: We have heard other people say flat
they don't want it at all.
MR. HAAS: That's correct.
MS. MURRAY: Your next speaker is Michele Goguen
followed by your last speaker of Jerry Buehler.
MS. GOGUEN: Good morning. It's Michele Goguen.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Were you previously
sworn?
MS. GOGUEN: Yes, sir. Twice. I would like to revisit the
issue of the interconnect briefly. As it was said by Karen Bishop
earlier, twice before in the 1990 PUD and the 1996 PUD, the master
plan had a drawing depicting a road going through the preserve, and
for some reason Water Management, whoever it was, is now saying
that it's not possible to do that 1
I would also like to point out that in the petition that is before I
you today, this is not a preserve. Is it written as a reserve which, I ,
,
I
I
believe, the difference there is whether or not this area is protected or
if there is vegetation and plant growth, whatnot, in that area that
cannot be removed. I don't believe it's protected. It used to be when
the road went through that area there were only 16 to 17 acres of
reserve there. Now we have 30 and saying we can't touch it. I
In light of the petition and where the interconnect is being
proposed at the end of Burnt Pine, I think we owe it to all of the
residents to explore an alternative place for that interconnect. As you
can see on the map, on Burnt Pine on the end where it is being
proposed, our residents' gate is only a distance of four lots away. All
the people that live in that side of the community, to the left on the
screen, they are going to go out the front entrance and are going to be
on Immokalee Road. When they come home, they are -- why come
I Page 83
,H-
-..- --.-' '.'-1--'--- ---~--~'-
- --'-- - ---------;1[-
a em . L.r\
February 26, 2008
Page 85 of 133
January 17, 2002
in through the interconnect? You can go a distance of four houses --
believe me, it's not great -- come right in your residents' gate. I don't
see a need for that interconnect at that location.
Also, it's known as soon as the area gets permitted all the
malaluca trees are going to be removed. I have been told that in the
front of the reserve area there is a substantial number of malalucas
that will come out. Why can't we explore the possibility of putting
this interconnect, if it is mandated and said in the petition, it's
recommended. I don't believe there is any mandate. There is no law
that says we have to have it. It's recommended by the Department of
Transportation. We need to look at the opportunity to putit
elsewhere.
Why can't it go up in the front, right alongside Immokalee Road,
perhaps, and into the development or into the commercial area?
There is no reason that it can't go there. It's more accessible to a
greater number of the residents if it's not tucked away in a little
comer in the back where you already have your resident gate already
available to you in a very short distance.
I would like to propose the commissioners here recommend that
we -- we look into the possibility of opening up a different avenue or
see how creative we can get with this. But I don't think that where
it's -- it's currently being proposed is the only place, as it was said
earlier, that was like the last resort place, the only place it could be
put. I don't buy it. It's not true. There are other areas it could go.
I would also like to mention that it was brought at the second
residents meeting on Tuesday -- it was brought to our attention by
Mr. Saundry that all of the records available to us, to the common
public, in the records room and currently on fIle concerning this
petition were either incorrect or inaccurate. I asked him at that time,
I said, "Well. it's Tuesday night. If I go to the planning office
tomorrow, am I going to be able to get a copy of what is going to be
Page 84
,
, !I
--'"-----
--""-
I
~~<;:,uo ,,~'" "U. ''''',
February 26, 2008
Page 86 of 133
.-- January 17, 2002
discussed on Thursday morning?" He said he didn't know it would
be available to me or not.
How are we as residents supposed to prepare ourselves
adequately, fInd who is opposed, who is object -- or who is in favor --
we can't unite ourselves and we can't come in here appearing as a
really organized community without having adequate time, as has
been said before, to have good documentation that we can rely upon
in order to make that preparation.
And I also would like to state the first community meeting that
was held a week ago this past Tuesday was organized by residents,
and it was attended by residents, and it was in excess of 50 people. I
do have a petition signed by more than 50 people in opposition to this
proposed change. And I have not honestly gone out there and
pounded the pavement to see who else -- you know, what their voice
- is. Because the lack of information available to us -- there is no sense
in running in circles on it. We need to know exactly in which
direction we need to go, and without accurate data and without being
able to rely upon the documents available to us, you know, it would
be a waste of time literally to try and go out there and get opinions
and get everybody's ideas. We need to know what restraints we are
facing. I thank you.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Question for Ray Bellows. Ray, in
reference to the reserve/preserve issue, I had noticed in the PUD
documents, Section 5, it refers to a reserve district. But then it refers
to the Master Plan exhibit A, which has listed a preserve district,
which is consistent with Michele's comments. Is there a signifIcant
difference between reserve and preserve? .
MR. BELLOWS: No. The reserve section, if you look at that,
the definition clearly states it's a preserve conservation area. The
designation on the master plan -- we can have that corrected to be
~ consistent with the PUD document It is, in fact, the same use. .
Page 8S
I
~~-_.._-"-"-<._- - "--1"',-,- .---..--,..-
--- ~---
---~
----------
I T
Cl ~ . ~"- , .,
February 26, 2008
Page 87 of 133
January 17,2002
COMMISSIONER BUDD: My second question was, I know it I
was stated earlier in the testimony, but can you refresh my memory.
What were the governing authorities that denied or recommended
against a violation of the preserve area? Wasn't that South Florida
Water Management and someone else? I know it was mentioned. I
can't remember.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Corp of Engineers.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Army Corps of Engineers.
, COMMISSIONER BUDD: Anyone else?
MR. BELLOWS: The South Florida Water Management
District.
MS. GOGUEN: May I add one point, Mr. Budd?
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead.
MS. GOGUEN; According to the existing documents -- and this
has been consistent since 1990 -- they are required to provide a ~
minimum of 35 percent, which is 45 acres of open space. That open ~
space requirement consists of three things; it's lakes, it's buffers, and
it's reserve or preserve, whichever it is going to be. If they are going
to take out vegetation in this supposed preserve area that is, say, the
malalucas, the exotic plants, take over everything, so let's get rid of
them. Or if they are going to increase our buffer, by whichever width
that they increase this buffer, they are adding to that open-space
requirement. So rather than put them -- you know, and, say, instead
of having 45 acres of open space you are granting the residents this
additional buffer -- reduce it by the same amount in your reserve
area, perhaps, and make that your interconnect.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: It's a great idea, but we can't do
that.
MS. GOGUEN: If it's going through the center and up on the
road?
COMMISSIONER BUDD: No, we can't touch it. ~
j
Page 86
I
- -~~~--~ -------
I r-
February 26,2008
Page 88 of 133
January 17,2002
(
MS. GOGUEN: Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: Your last speaker is Jeri Buehler.
MR. BUEHLER: My name is Jeri Buehler, and I have been
sworn in. I live at 389 Sweet Bay Lane. And our house will be
affected right here (indicating).
I -- one of my concerns is the buildings that will be butted up
against the buffer, that they not be any higher than one story. I don't
really care to have a two or three story looking down into my yard.
And if we chose to put a swimming pool in, to me that is a huge
invasion of my privacy.
We were told when we moved into the neighborhood that this
cui de sac was going to be homes, larger lots with bigger homes;
that's what we were told. Otherwise, my husband and I most likely
would not have chosen that particular lot in Pebblebrooke.
I also have an issue of safety. There are probably 100 plus
children in our subdivision. One of the pluses is that we do have a
middle school. The children do walk to school; that's a wonderful I
plus.
I also have a handicapped daughter that works at the Publix
grocery store. My question would be, if the road at the end of Burnt
Pine Drive is to be open to commercial, are we going to have
sidewalks for the safety of our children and the residents walking?
Or are we going to, as I do now, continue to go out on 951 to the
sidewalk and walk that way? If we are looking at the safety of our
children, I think is a -- is a very large issue.
I also do not agree with everything that Ms. Bishop has marked
off of here. I don't understand sports and recreation club. What does
that mean? What kind of place is that?
The motion picture theater -- which would make huge amounts
of traffic. You also have here miscellaneous retail stores. What does
that mean? That's all that I have to say. Thank you.
I Page 87
.... ---- IrI
... --_.,-~",- ".-~----,,-_.
- ------
---~--- --~~r
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26,2008
Page 89 of 133
January 17,2002
MS. MURRAY: That was your last speaker.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ms. Bishop.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. I would like to try and address some of
these things. I will start with the last one, which was the sports club.
I assume that is like a karate center or a workout place; those kinds of
items themselves. I have not seen any other types of sport clubs in
this area other than those kinds, so I'm making the assumption that's
what that it.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Gold's Gym; that type of
thing?
MS. BISHOP: Those kinds of things is what I'm assuming it is.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, that could cover
things as a sports bar, could it not?
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Right.
MS. BISHOP: We had --
COMMISSIONER BUDD: --795 is a physical fitness center,
which would be Gold's Gym and the like.
MS. BISHOP: Right. Like the karate club and Tae Kwon Do
clubs, and those would be something separate. You could also have
boating clubs that met here.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There is probably 30 uses that
would go under 7997 as sports and ree clubs. Aviation club
memberships, baseball clubs, beach clubs, boating clubs, bowling
leagues, bridge clubs, football clubs, golf clubs, hunting clubs,
racquetball clubs, recreation and sports clubs, riding clubs, shooting
clubs, and soccer clubs -- it goes on and on. These are the kind of
issues that when we have categories like this that are miscellaneous
or they are more encompassing than what they appear to be; those are
the things that cause the public concern down the road when all of a
sudden something gets built there, and they don't realize it was part of
the approval. ~
~
Page 88
I
-._~--- i
--~'~'--------'-
~~ -:--~-:TT-
February 26, 2008
Page 90 of 133
-'-- January 17,2002
MS. BISHOP: We can take out the sports clubs. They are gone.
I would like to take some of the things -- I took notes on some of
the things. I will start with the sidewalk to the middle school. When
we designed this subdivision -- and I designed this subdivision with
Ken -- we had a -- prior to our corp and district permit, we had a
whole different idea what this project was going to look like. The
1996 master plan was our vision of that project at that time, which
was a road that went through this preserve. And as it was pointed
out, at the time the preserve area was only 16 acres. Well, that was
also, you know, our concept of what we needed to be saving here.
Unfortunately, the permitting process for this site took over a
year. During that process the wildlife agencies, the environmental
agencies came in force and absolutely, positively required us to make
that preserve 30 acres, to have a bird wading habitat experiment,
which has gone awry, and to limit uses around that. We have since
then platted this whole subdivision which was -- the platting of the
subdivision was done in 1997, '98. And at that time the tracts were
defIned at that time, which was after our second amendment to this
PUD.
At that time we had to change our master plan to conform with
the permits from the agencies. We had to plat that preserve agency
and call it a conservation area. never to be touched again. That's
what we had to do to get our permits to build the site. That's, in fact,
what we have done. So that preserve area is not open for access at
any point. It is, in fact, a reserve area. It has a conservation
easement on it. The district, in fact, holds that conservation
easement. So that is not an option for us. As much as we wish we
had an option, it is not.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can I pursue that for just a
minute?
MS. BISHOP: Sure.
I Page 89
,
i
~-
.'."...--..-",--...,,'. -..--.....,.--'-.--. --,-.-....'"
----- --- ------------ -nr-
o A
February 26, 2008
Page 91 of 133
January 17, 2002
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It would seem rational,
perhaps, the agencies that you deal with don't deal in those terms --
but it would seem rational to put an interconnect right up next to
Immokalee Road. We have a lot of access roads that are not part of
the major thoroughfare. I can't imagine that that would be something
that you wouldn't at least be willing to look at.
MS. BISHOP: Well, it does not belong to me anymore. It
belongs -- the conservation easement belongs to the district. It's not
up to me. I don't get to go back and ask them -- if I do ask them, they
are going to say no. They have no reason to give that land away
when we have another option internally on property that has already
been designated for development. I
I
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, it's not as an 1
attractive option in terms of looking at the total picture.
MS. BISHOP: And I --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ms. Bishop, let me just !
say that, perhaps, our county and its transportation department would
be willing to join you in trying to come up with a more rational
solution. They can certainly represent to the current titleholders, if
that's the case, that now we have a new situation here. We are trying
to resolve it. We have people living there. And a little access road
just across the top, if there is some mitigation or something, have you
thought about?
MS. BISHOP: Right. That's another issue too. The mitigation
-- fIrst of all, it would not be just a little road parallel, because you
would have to have some distance off that intersection for it to be ' '
, '
safe. You would be looking at more than just a little 60-foot strip
across that top. The mitigation for this property, just for us to be able
to do what we - did we had to save the on site. I believe my client
paid $300, 000 already in off-site mitigation.
MR. JARVEY: 450,000.
Page 90 i
,
,
, 1
--'-- --"--
--~
it m No. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 92 of 133
January 17, 2002
MS. BISHOP: $450,00 in off-site mitigation just to have what
we have. and they locked us into this design. Going back now, there
is no guarantee. I have never been able to go in and impact a
conservation area to that degree without significant pennitting
nightmares and additional significant cost in mitigation and
professional services.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What you would be taking
back to them is not the project that you took to them before. You are
coming in and asking for a new PUD with changes in it that we are
struggling with to try and figure out how best to fit it into the
community .
MS. BISHOP: Right. But, unfortunately, the district -- they
care about your zoning. They don't care that I had 650 units on there
and I can't fit it on there. They don't care about those things. They
, care about what your permits and development lines are and what
you, in fact, are saving. Those are wetlands up there. That is, in fact,
what they required us to save. They are not interested that -- that
some of the residents don't like this connection where it is. That is
not in their interest. Their interest is to protect wetlands; that's, in
fact, what they do.
I don't know that they would even consider such a request, since
there is a connection available through another access. Regardless of
whether that was commercial -- which is underlining commercial, but
residential, there still would have always been a connection there
because this -- this project is one project total. All the roads are
supposed to be internally connected. So we would be required by I
that -- by the fact this is one document to still have an interconnect
there even if it was residential.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain, do you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just a quick one. Karen, I think I
I Page 91
.- rj-
-----~._~_..<;~~--'", - _ ...,.._~,,___.n
--~-
~
I
., ,
February 26, 2008
Page 93 of 133
January 17, 2002
met you about a year ago on a project for the Golden Gate Fire
Department. A situation occurred where the fire department was
given some land, but it was land that was dedicated as a preserve to
South Florida Water Management District.
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But if they could get that
changed, they could use the land for a fIre department. Of course, I
didn't think it could be done. You did it.
MS. BISHOP: That's true.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. You should put that kind
of effort into this. We might have the results.
MS. BISHOP: That was two different reasons why that was
able to occur there. One is that the wetland line was not a part of the
development line, so that was -- we were not encroaching into any of
the district wetlands. Those were uplands there.
The other reason that was able to occur is because the fIre
station is a public entity. Because it is for a public entity. the district
looks at that kind of issue for the public good to allow that. And the
preserve in that area was over 400 acres. This is only 30. You try
taking out -- let's just say 3 acres; that is 10 percent of this preserve.
That was not what was taken out. There was only 2 acres taken out
of that conservation area at the Golden Gate Fire Department at that
intersection.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But it was a dedicated preserve
already given away.
MS. BISHOP: It was a dedicated preserve that was not wetlands
on that spot, correct.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wetlands can be bypassed
sometimes by using things like culverts and elevated --
MS. BISHOP: You are still nailed at the impacts and secondary
impacts to those areas. And I do believe in that case that preserve
Page 92 I
--.----
- --~-----~-- - ----~--
~ 0 ~
February 26, 2008
Page 94 of 133
January 17,2002
had what would be considered extra credits for the amount of impacts
that project had originally; and that's why there wasn't an issue for
those 2 acres to be removed, because, in fact, they were not district
wetlands. They were uplands.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Next item?
MS. BISHOP: Sorry. I lost my place there for a moment.
The sidewalk at the middle school was something that we all
considered very important. And, yes, I'm one of those people who
park up next to that sidewalk and drop my little girl off if she's
running late or if it's raining, I pick her up there.
The intent was to keep people off the road from having to drive
next door. And, actually, one of the things this developer has spent
the last five years trying to do is that sidewalk on Immokalee Road ,
I
off the back of the curb was a part of the effort that this client and
,- myself personally took on for almost two years to keep those kids
" from having to be on the back curb of that six-lane road.
We also went as far as to make sure that the project to the south
of the middle school, which is.
Also Mr. Saundry's, has its connections and that project
connects sidewalk to Ibis Cove, which has a connection to the high
school, which bas a connection to the elementary school. We have
taken these interconnections for pedestrian access definitely to a
standard that certainly the whole community should be looking at.
But there are times when the pathways for walking aren't enough.
And that in this case for the groceries, driving your car -- I mean,
when I go shopping, it's every two weeks because I really hate to
shop. My car is loaded down. I dare say I could not carry that on my
back coming back and forth on my bicycle. When I send my kids up
there to get milk or something, then, yes, certainly they can take that
pathway. i
r. We would increase the sidewalks or continue the sidewalks into
Page 93
_.,-----
'._._-"'-~-'''"--'~ '~'---'----'. ----
--- -,--- - - -- - "- -- -- -------- --,---- ___.m_____ ___________~
.1
....... '-' - ,
February 26, 2008
Page 95 of 133
January 17, 2002
the shopping center along that area. So, yes, there would be an
interconnect of sidewalks for pedestrian access. j
At that -- it was brought up at the meeting on Tuesday that we
only had five items there. I came with the existing PUD document
that listed every item. We were only asked about several iteMs. I
also came with my SIC book so that I could go through the detail of
what was allowed in those things. We were only asked about a few
of them; one of them being the car dealers, which I then looked at.
And a gentleman asked, "Can I eat Chinese? Can we have a
McDonald's? Can we have a Walgreen?" I said, "Yes, we can have
all of those things."
If somebody would have asked for more information, we had it
readily available to supply to them when Ken Saundry was asked
about the staffs fIles, I corrected Mr. Saundry's conversation. What
he intended to say was that the original planner mistakenly used the I
wrong master plan when he gave you your last staff report, which I I
called some of you and found out that it happened. I did not get mine
until the day after, so I had no way to know that that, in fact, had
happened.
That part of what was in his fIle was incorrect, but his files were
complete. He has all the amendments in those files. Any person can
go down to those -- I sent my office down there just to check. We
pulled the documents from each of those subsequent amendments.
There are also the platting documents which are available down
there. And the platting documents are the instrument to which the
lines were defIned, which in our document it says that all these
acreages and lines are approximate until we plat. And we platted.
The plat had to be in place before any of these people could move
into their homes. I'm sure you are all aware of that. The platting on
that line was established at that point.
The use on that tract to the north underlined was commercial --
Page 94
----- --~~'.--- -,,~
-~ --
--1'-
~ ! . .
-
February 26, 2008
Page 96 of 133
C January 17,2002
but Ken was looking at the market directions and seeing what else
could go there, just like any developer does. You cannot -- it's hard
to project what you are going to do. And it is a gracious idea to give
up commercial for residential, if you can. That was something at that
time he was looking at. But because -- unfortunantely, because of the
impact of the residential by the roadways there and the future activity
center in that corner, the -- it's not been as advantageous for a
developer to put the two-story four-plexes in.
I might want to point out a two-story four-plex or eight-plexs,
two story, three stories are allowed. They would go right next to the
single-family homes that are there. They would have literally no
buffer, no wall. They would have the 15-foot normal buffers that
would be required by residential, but there would be no walls, and
there would be, obviously, whatever amount of traffic that would go
,..- by to go to those homes would be there, plus the interconnect to the
"- commercial would be at the end of that tract, wherever that would be.
So those things would still stay in place. Those elements are still
going to be an issue whether or not this PUD is amended or not That
still has to be there.
One of the issues that we -- that the residents may not
understand is that when they build roadways -- at the time you do
these PUDs, you are given an opportunity to pick your accesses on
the roads. But during that process the transportation department
clearly, clearly does not guarantee you that these are going to be there
forever and that you are going to get median cuts when they improve
the roads or that you are going to get a light or any of those things.
Right now, based on what the plans are for this area, Pebblebrooke
may be limited on our 951 access to a right-in and right-out and to a
d.irectionalleft but no lefthand turn to go north to the intersection.
The Immokalee Road may also be limited to right-in, right-out
,-- with a directional left-in; and that's it, with no lefthand turn out. We
Page 95
.'--,,-------".---.
T-..-----
-"---
-,- --rT-~
I
,
February 26,2008
Page 97 of 133
January 17, 2002
don't know any of those things yet. Weare still in limbo on what
those plans are going to be.
If this commercial piece comes into play where it is, Dawn has
agreed there would be a lefthand turn out of that commercial as a full
intersection through that area, which would give us an opportunity
not to have to head down to some other direction and U'ie-around and
come back the other way. So that solves future problems that haven't
even happened yet. Weare trying to anticipate the needs for all of
these things, because we don't want another full access into 951
because we are not really going to get that. As a residential area, we
wouldn't want that. But having a gate-limited access through
whatever parcel to the commercial shops I think is imperative for all
projects.
You know, obviously there are people who don't agree and that's
-- you know, we are never going to get everyone to agree on this.
You have seen it at Livingston Road, the Livingstone Wood's people,
but yet I can tell you at Pelican Strand, you know, the commercial
does very well up there. It's very beautiful. It seems to do well. All
of those people that backup to it and see it everyday, we don't get
complaints from those projects. It does work if it's done well. The
same at the Vineyards. The Vineyards is another perfect example
where that kind of commercial really works. They have no main
gates on their main drags; just on the subcommunities inside that
area. They work well.
We are trying to work within good planning practices here. We
understand that when you buy into some of these places -- when I
bought into this place, that northwest area did not look like that at all.
Beezer came back and changed their mind and totally redid it the way
they wanted to do it, and it changed that whole idea. Well, that was
their prerogative. They owned the property. They had that right.
But it was still residential, which is what we understand.
Page 96
..-- .-----
I Agenoa Iem \l0. I L.i\
February 26, 2008
Page 98 of 133
( January 17,2002
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd, do you want to
question now, or do you want to wait?
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Well, I have a couple of things for
you, Karen.
MS. BISHOP: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: One, from the residents there are
three camps; "Don't do it. Not now. Not ever." You are, obviously,
not going to do agree with that.
There is the, "Postpone it. Give us more time to think about it."
I understand your owner has declined to postpone.
There is a third camp, which we can address, which is specific
requested modifIcations. If I can get your response or your owner's
response as to modifIcations which are agreeable--
MS. BISHOP: Sure.
r COMMISSIONER BUDD: There is a request that the
\ dumpsters be located outside of the 3.2 acres that is going to become
commercial. Is that acceptable?
MS. BISHOP: I believe that's acceptable. I think more than just
that. I think what they are looking for is the noise element. I believe
the new community character criteria for commercial addresses that
with those dumpsters and the way they are done. You have to wall
them in now. You can't just leave them sitting out there. It's not just
its aesthetics. It's nasty. You know, just nasty stuff. So it's
addressed now through those processes.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: And, also -- which is also consistent
with the community character discussion is low intensity shielded
lighting.
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: That is agreeable to you?
MS. BISHOP: That is agreeable. I want to point out when the
r- activity center across the street comes in that we might want to be
Page 97
--~..-
~ .. >-------,--~~ "-"_.._,.,"~',..-
I -
ud ,-,II U.ILh
February 26, 2008
Page 99 of 133
January 17,2002
looking at them big time. Because the bigger problem is going to be !
I
the activity center across the street with all the lights from the front of
that place looking at projecting across to Pebblebrooke's owners also.
So when that comes in front of you guys, hopefully you will keep in
mind that there are residential people around there and nail them also
with making sure their lighting is conducive of residential Wherever
it's blaring at.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: We make every effort to be equally
oppressive.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: How about the request that
buildings located within the area of the 3.2 acres be limited to single
story, the commercial buildings?
MS. BISHOP: That's fIne.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: That the interconnects will have a
secured gate. And I had a question. You talked about traffIc calming
at some point, a speed bump or something like that. Will that be on
the commercial side, the new side, or would that be back on the
residential side that is currently completed?
MS. BISHOP: We had looked at this at the residential that is
completed. Because I live at the comer of two half-mile
straightways, so I'm one of the ones that is really affected. By the
time they hit my house, they are doing 40 miles per hour. The kids i
play kickball right around that comer, so that is something we are
looking at as a community. If it is necessary to stick a speed bump
on the other side because we feel that this is a problem coming from
the commercial, I don't believe that Don DeAngelis will have a
problem with that speed bump close to the gate within that buffer
area outside of his parking lot area.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: The gate, there has also been
testimony that the current gating system is kind of a flimsy piece of
Page 98 ~
-~~---_._-- ,- --,--- ."---~.._.-
I ,
Mger,ua ""'" f'U. "'-M
February 26, 2008
Page 100 of 133
r January 17, 2002
~
wood. Will the gate that will be provided on the commercial side,
would that be metal gate or something more substantial?
MS. BISHOP: Actually, I'm going to suggest to you that we
have agreed to put the same kind of gate that is there. The
homeowners association at Pebblebrooke has the ability through their
buying power to buy better gates if they want, but those were the
gates that were provided to us when we came in. They are not
intended -- they are intended to be privacy gates more than anything
else, not security gates -- and to keep the pass-through traffic out.
I'm going to suggest to you that it would be -- I would be hard-
pressed to believe that when that full-cut intersection comes into that
part of the commercial area that somebody would think it would be
better to cut through Pebblebrooke to get out than go through a full
and -- perhaps, even lighted intersection where you can turn left or
r right. So I'm of the belief that it's not necessary at this point. If we
"- want a better one, when we buy the other two better ones, if, in fact,
the homeowners choose to do that, we can upgrade that one also.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: On that gate would it be approval to
the developer that should it be approved with conditions that the gate
would not be open at any time for construction traffic? I know right
now there are hours of operation.
MS. BISHOP: Construction traffic will not be allowed to cut
through the project.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: It will be a 100 percent active gate
right at the beginning?
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Then there is a buffer layout that
was discussed here by one of the residents, and there is a buffer
layout there, which I don't have a copy of, I have not seen before, and
cannot see from this distance?
C MS. BISHOP: I have stuff for you.
Page 99
i:::"_-~ .- ----- . ,
-------------,_. II
.'--'--._'~----~--'''' '-"r~-"~-" ----------
--- ---- --'-----'-~'-"'.._--"._---"".--,--,-,-----
, :
di I IlU. ILK
February 26, 2008
Page 101 of 133
January 17,2002
COMMISSIONER BUDD: I was interested in, is this buffer
acceptable or similar?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You need to give one to the court
reporter.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. As you can see, the buffer is in the same
dimensional criteria as the one below. I think we showed our wall
closer to the center to make a more even berm. But I don't see that
his -- the problem is two-foot berm in an 1O-foot area does not.
Leave a flat spot on the top. I don't believe that the design that
the homeowner provided will work, but we can certainly do it very
similar to that. Start the berm at the edge of that 30-foot line. I think
to make it a maintainable berm, it has to be a 3 to 1 for it to be
maintainable. So at a 3-to-l slope the berm will come up 2 feet,
which is 6 foot in -- yeah, 6 foot and then you have a flat spot of a
couple of feet, and then 3 to 1 again. It would be at the minimum
probably -- about the center of it will be probably 8 foot in to 10 foot
in from the backside of the buffer.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay.
MS. BISHOP: Which we tried to do, as you can see.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: The interconnect, which is
primarily a vehicle interconnect, would that contain sidewalks?
MS. BISHOP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: So the same residential sidewalks
that are currently there would continue right on into the commercial
area?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Those are all my questions.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The master plan that was up on
the screen that had a preserve area, it does not appear that the
Page 100
Agenaa tern Q. i LA
February 26, 2008
Page 102 of 133
r January 17,2002
"-
preserve area has changed.
MS. BISHOP: No.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It looks like it's about the same.
MS. BISHOP: We platted that several years ago. We cannot
change that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The lakes look pretty close.
MS. BISHOP: Correct. What you are looking at now is a
master plan; that is, in fact, the platted -- here is the project here
(indicating) on this area.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let me get to my question,
though. The document that we have that was last approved for this
project called 16 acres of preserve and 22 acres of lake. The
document that we just got from planning staff says the preserve is
going to be 31 acres and lakes will be 22; that's changed sometime
C then. You have built something different than what you previously
were approved for?
MS. BISHOP: When we originally did -- I had done the zoning
prior to receiving my district permit; so that's what happens. You
guys see it all the time. Zoning and environmental permitting have
had -- in the past had no real connection. You put a master plan out
there and then get your permit, and you are --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If it's over a 5 percent change,
aren't you suppose -- there is some rule that when you get to a certain
change you are supposed to apply for a substantial deviation.
Ray, do you recall what that rule is offhand?
MS. BISHOP: That's for DRIs.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, it's not. It's for PUDs.
MS. MURRAY: No. Typical PUD language allows for minor
changes due to permitting, but it does not necessarily define what
minor is. There is no threshold.
C MR. BELLOWS: If you are discussing a PDI, a master plan
Page 101
.----
-
_~"__,n~__~_."' -------~._----'"---,-- - '-
i
!I
Agenaa 18m \/0. I A
February 26.2008
Page 103 of 133
January 17,2002
change, that has 5 percent, I believe, criteria is what is a substantial
I change if they are trying to do a PDI of the substantial master plan
change.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have it in front of me. What
happened, this project changed its preserve areas -- they doubled
those, which is positive, but they cut the lakes in half. And in your
mind that wouldn't have required a previous requested change to the
PUD?
MR. BELLOWS: Not to the PUD.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Also, Karen, your buffer area --
not your buffer so much as your open space -- requirements is 30
percent, which is 45 acres. You call out 48 acres in the text of the
PUD, but on the master plan you only callout 42 acres; so how is that
addressed?
MS. BISHOP: I guess I'm kind of at a loss of what your
question is.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Turn to your PUD document.
MS. BISHOP: The existing or the current?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The new one.
MS. BISHOP: The new one.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 2-4.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. Section 2.4.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. Page 2-4.
MS. BISHOP: Right. Page 2-4.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You show 48 acres of open space.
On the master plan, the only open space that you show is preserves
and lakes, and they total 42 acres. The ULDC requires the buffers to
be on the master plan. Do you know where those are going to be?
MS. BISHOP: The buffers are already in place. They are
perimeter buffers, the perimeter buffers around the outside of the
project. Ken Saundry -- on the north and the west buffers, which are
Page 102
--,-'--- _._,-. II
r January 17,2002
"-
__ east buffers, which are 951 and Immokalee has a 25-foot buffer
there with a wall that he built and put in -- as a matter of fact, that's
where we built the county sidewalk on our property, so that we do get
that sidewalk outside of the curb.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They do need to be shown on the
master plan. The master plan that we have does not show them. Do
they need to be added?
MS. BISHOP: Actually, no. This has already been platted, as I
discussed before. This whole project is platted currently. The
buffers are platted. The preserve is platted. The lakes are platted.
Everything is even built. The only piece left not built is this one little
square, which is north of the existing residential on the east side
along 951. If you look at the aerial, you will see that's the only spot
left in this project that has not been built yet. Those are already in
C place. And I can't change them because they are already deeded over
to the owners.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not asking you to change
them. I'm just asking you to put them on the master plan.
MS. BISHOP: Show them, specifically?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm just looking at Section
2.7.3.1.1.3 and.4 of the ULDC where they call out the specifIc things
that need to be on the master plan. I'm just looking for the buffers as
part of your open-space requirements.
MS. BISHOP: I will be glad to. But your open space do -- I
believe also includes yards, doesn't it, Susan?
MS. MURRAY: Yes, it does.
MS. BISHOP: So it's not just buffers. Your open shows also
yards, which I will not be able to show all of that as a part of my
open.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, but on your 2-15 open-space
( requirements, you said this requirement shall not apply to individual
Page 103
,
-''''''~-
---"_.~',",,,,, -,,--_.._~,~'-_.
!J
Agenda Item No. 12A
Februarv 26. 2008
I Page 105 of 133
January 17, 2002
development tracts. Are those yards within residential tracts?
MS. BISHOP: Correct. So my overall -- but I have additional
open space, which does include that. I just made sure that we had
open space that was not required -- or did not include those others.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's get simpler. I need your
master plan. I think your master plan should show the 45 acres --
MS. BISHOP: I will be glad to do that.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- of that. The other item I have
on your PUD, Page 3-4 -- Ray, I don't know if you realize this. This
is between principal structures under single family detached has been
reduced from 15 to 10. I'm not sure it's signifIcant or not. I just want
to make sme that planning staff was aware of it.
MS. BISHOP: Right. That was done in 1997 also.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. I have your '97 one here. It
was not done in '97. It was 15, I believe.
MS. BISHOP: Principal structures? I'm looking right here,
single-family detached on the 1997 one, I'm showing 10.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I have the '97 staff gave
me. It shows distance between principal structures 15.
MS. BISHOP: Well--
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Maybe I have the wrong one or
you have the wrong one.
MS. BISHOP: Well, maybe so. Actually, let me look at my '97.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My question is, Ray, is that going
to have any impact on your deal?
MR. BELLOWS: From the planning perspective, the distance
between structures on single family, 10 feet is still within what is
typical on many PUDs. I don't have a problem with 10 foot.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay.
MS. BISHOP: . Actually, most of the houses out there have been
built like that, except for mine and I have 15.
Page 104
-~~...- ~~--~
I
u . I
February 26,2008
Page 106 of 133
",- January 17,2002
'..
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But that's not what it says. It was
changed to prior owners, and I wanted to make sure that staff was
aware.
The last thing, I don't know how many other objections there is
going to be to other uses, the drinking places use -- and I want to ask
you if you need this. It says, "Bars, beer parlors, beer taverns,
cocktail lounges, discotheques, nightclubs, saloons, tab rooms and
taverns. " Do you need that in your list of goodies?
MS. BISHOP: I suggest to you that we need that. I have seen --
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It will generate some noise.
MS. BISHOP: Well, there is some noise ordinance that, if fact,
does -- and the distance between that area -- I mean, obviously, if
there is something on the south end -- we see this all over Collier
County. If there is a noise-generating facility and it is disturbing its
r surrounding neighbors, then they have a problem. There is decibel
"- levels that are required at certain times of the day. And the -- right
now, I dare say, I'm probably speaking louder than the allowed
decibels. As a matter of fact, a guy did my voice once and said I'm
something like 5 to 10 decibels higher than the normal allowance for
the noise ordinance, which is 55 decibels at night and 60 during the
day. Apparently I'm not allowed to go anywhere and speak. out loud
because my voice is louder.
There are ordinances. There are time frames when these are
done. And now the county has very sophisticated noise equipment to
keep people in check. So I dare say that will be an issue, and if it is,
it won't be an issue for very long.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's one that I didn't want to see
the residents have to go through. I don't have any other comments at
this point.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Anything else from Mr.
( Bellows?
Page 105
i I
. ~,- . .'~- ->~........- ---".--.'
---.---- ------.--------r---
- _ d l II U. iL
February 26. 2008 i
,
Page 107 of 133
January 17.2002
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have an additional stipulation to
clarify with transportation of the traffic, and they have -- Dawn Wolff
has provided me with language. I would like to read it into the.
Record. (As read): "No certificates of occupancy shall be
issued above the 150,000 square foot within the commercial tract
until the four-lane capacity above Immokalee Road and County Road
951 to Wilson Boulevard and 951 from Immokalee Road to !
Vanderbilt Road is available."
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I support that 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So do I.
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, you also wanted clarifIcation of
the square footage, the maximum square footage allowed?
MR. BELLOWS: That would be 231, 000 square feet.
MS. MURRAY: For commercial.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought we crossed that
bridge.
MR. BELLOWS: Karen mentioned that earlier.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I will close the public
hearing. What is the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make
a motion that the Planning Commission -- let's see, are we approving
or forwarding the recommendation that the Planning Commission
forward Petition PUD- 200 1- AR -14694 to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation for approval with specific
attachments and recommendations, and that would be as agreed by
the petitioner, buffers to be located outside the 3.2 acre commercial
rezone, lighting to be low intensity and shielded from the residential
area, buildings within the 3.2 acre commercial rezones to be limited
to a single story. That there be -- the interconnect shall have a
secured gate that will be installed and operational immediately upon
the construction of that road and commencement of construction to
Page 106
I
--,-- ----- ~
genda tern \10. I
February 26, 2008
Page 108 of 133
( January 17,2002
limit construction traffic and -- contrary to the petitioner's request -- I
would like to see that as an upgraded gate, metal gate superior to the
current wooden-plank gate, and that the buffer design be as -- in the
recently submitted Vanasse and Daylor buffer. And last, but not
least, the transportation stipulation as read into the record by Ray
Bellows.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: A second?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I will second it
MR. BELLOWS: IfI may, did you mention the revised --list of
permitted uses?
COMMISSIONER BUDD: My mistake. Yes, the corrected
list -- the list of permitted uses provided by Mr. Strain and amended
by Miss Bishop.
MR. WHITE: Lastly, the master plan changes--
( COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was going to -- as soon as we
got to discussion, I was going to throw in about 20 things, but we are
not there yet After it's second.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd's motion. Mr.
Midney's second. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I would like to add that the cap on
commercial be 231, 000 square feet, 231, 000 square feet; the
discrepancy between the word "reserve" in the PUD document and
preserve as shown on the master plan will be corrected pursuant to
staffs direction, whether it should be preserve or reserve; .
And that the location of the interconnect and any buffers be
added to the master plan; there be sidewalks added along roads that
go through this interconnect area; and that 5813 be struck as an
acceptable use, drinking places.
( COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, is that an
Page 107
-
-~--'-'"----- ""T--'-'-'---'- _."~--
~-
Agenaa /tem \lO. i LA
February 26,2008
Page 109 of 133
January 17,2002
amendment to this?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's additions that I would like
to add, if the motion maker and the second approve those conditions.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Is that all of your additions?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's all that I have.
MR. BUDD: I will agree to those.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I will.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Including the elimination
of drinking establishments?
MR BUDD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Second has to agree to it also.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He did. Well, I will
discuss. I think that eliminating the drinking establishments is being
unduly fussy. I think they should be allowed and dealt with as it
exists. There's hardly a place in one of these activity centers that
does not have someplace where somebody can watch a football game
and have a couple of beers. I don't drink myself, but I think other
people should not be presumed to create a nuisance just because they
have a drink. So I object on that basis.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, so do 1. I
don't think it's our position to put something like that in. And I
personally would like to see it removed.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I would too. I think if you are
having dinner you might like a glass of wine.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That doesn't apply. The
restaurants already have that. These are strictly taverns and saloons
and things like that. My concern is not that people drink; that is a
disruptive element to a neighborhood. I'm sure these" people don't
want to have to go through having monitors put out there and certain
times of the day or night to see if they have decibel levels and then
Page 108
.------,"--
II
, ,
February 26,2008
Page 110 of 133
r January 17.2002
"-
challenge it through county staff. That's why I'm suggesting this.
And that's my reason. It has nothing to do with people's morals.
They can do what they want.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I will agree. Restaurants would
be permitted and people can drink at the restaurants.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, maybe you can
just take a consensus question on just that one issue.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many people are
going to oppose this motion as long as the drinking establishments
prohibition is in it?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: As long as restaurants are
approved, that's fine with me.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I may be the Lone Ranger
then. I don't know. Do you want non-restaurant type of alcohol
C serving establishments?
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I think as long as restaurants --
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So we have two. I think the
motion can carry.
I call the question. All in favor.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed?
Mr. Wolfley had a conflict, so he abstained.
MR. BUDD: The motion carnes?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The motion carries 6 -- 7.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would like to make a
little comment, if I may. There is -- I would like to address the
fellow commissioners. I think we have turned a comer today, and the
first time in my year and a half that we have taken a more restrictive
position than what the applicant has brought forward in terms of
traffic. I think this is a signal -- that I'm sure Mr. Feder and Dawn are
listening to -- and would really hope that we can hold the line here
Page 109
I
,,'."h_.,,_..__ ---- .~~--,_._-
- -
January 17,2002
and do more of this, because I think that's what the public is crying
for.
As far as the public at large, we have got a new public
participation ordinance in place. This one did not fall under it. But
we are going to see more and more opportunities for public
involvement earlier in the process that you may not be faced with in
this situation. There is help coming in terms of the process. Our
hands were somewhat tied in this particular issue.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to add to that also.
In conversations with people and talking about the traffic and the
congestion, people have sort of a hopeless attitude, "Well, there is
nothing that anybody can do about it. It's just inevitable. " I'm glad
to see that we can do some small things.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you very much.
MS. MURRAY: Conunissioner Abernathy --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you want to go back to
Item B?
MS. MURRAY: That's up to you. They are ready. They have
indicated they have the information you sought.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are they here now?
MS. MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's go back to that.
We are back to Petition CU-2001-AR-1255. Sir. MR.
PALMER: For the record, Tom Palmer, assistant county attorney.
We have acquired leases that have been entered into by the Golden
Gate Fire Rescue District described as 100 -- from 130 feet plus or
minus to the top of the tower. The tower is occupied by agreement
for at least -- initial term of 5 years and 4 years automatically
renewable for 5 years. So the conceptual lease is essentially a 25-
year lease. And there is -- that is if the tenants wants to stay on there,
he stays on there unless he notifIes the district he wants to get off, 90
Page 110
--
Agenda Item No. 12A
U February 26. 2008
CPage 112 of 133
C February 12,2002 ,
i
the adoption of this ordinance amendment in front of you does not, in
any way, change the scope and the -- of the original provision that
was adopted back on October the 9th. Anyone who wants -- any , I
entity that wants to come forward from this day forward and -- and
, !
apply for a waiver still has that opportunity to do so. This really only ,
affects those two agencies that we discussed on January the 8th. ,
,
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second it.
And is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. AU those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 3 to 2. It passes. Thank you.
MR. TINDALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2002-07 RE PUDA-2001-AR-1494, KAREN
BISHOP OF PMS, INC. OF NAPLES, REPRESENTING KENCO
DEVELOPMENT, INC. REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD
TO PUD TO BE KNOWN AS THE RICHLAND PUD FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
DWELLING UNITS FROM 650 TO 400 AND INCREASING THE
COMMERCIAL ACREAGE FROM 21.8 ACRES TO 23 ACRES
t
Page 154
L..J..
--,-""._--_._-"'~-,. ._.'--r---'.'--'- "'. ..,-.,---.--^"
Agenda Item No. I LA I
I
j February 26, 2008 ,
Page 113 of 133
February 12,2002
I
' ,
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER ,
OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEY ARD-
ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS AS AMENDED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And now we move on to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8-D. 8-D.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes,8-D. Well, actually, I don't
know if they're ready. We'll go to 8- D first. Well, do we want to
finish up? Are you ready to finish now?
MS. BISHOP: Well, he's with me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We continued that to another .
meeting. Not to that--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can do that today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We could do that again just for
practice. -,
Okay. We're at Item D. Karen Bishop, Naples Kenco /
Development and the rezone.
MS. BISHOP: That's us.
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any disclosures on the part of the
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I watched the Planning
Commission on this item, and I also talked to a lot of constituents that
are in this PUD of Pebble Brooks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have talked with Ms.
Bishop about this issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I have talked with Karen
Bishop about this issue. This is the same as Pebble Brook; right? It
keeps saying Richland, but it is Pebble Brook; right?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I met with the petitioner. )
Page 155
I
I
--- '!I-
genaa em o.
February 26, 2008
Page 114 of 133
February 12, 2002
II
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I also have. Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Ray Bellows. Before I get into presentation, I'd like to hand
out some information I was requested to give out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know we can't read it now;
right? Unless you want to give us a few hours here. :
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't even know if I want to ,
accept that because that is more than --
MR. BELLOWS: It's just one page change. I just included
everything.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you think in the future, Mr.
Bellows, we might be able to receive this possibly the Friday before
the meeting? i
- MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's the page change? ,
MR. BELLOWS: The page change deals with the transportation ,
!
section of the PUD document, and I'll give you that page here. It's
page 6-3. The reason I provided you with the entire PUD document
is that it affected the pagination of the rest of the pages, so I felt it
was easier just to give you a complete set.
The last stipulation was added. It was a request that came from
the Planning Commission dealing with the phasing of the
development. It's referenced in the executive summary, and we'll get :
: I'
into it during the presentation. ,
Okay. For the record, Ray Bellows. The petitioner is requesting ,
I
to amend the Richland PUD. As you can see on the visualizer, the I
subject side is located on the southeast comer of the Immokalee Road I
and Collier Boulevard. The PUD is partially developed residential in
the southern area which is well underway of construction and mostly
developed. The commercial-tract phase, the first phase, is under
Page 156
Ht
" ._~~~."- ~-.....----~-" . ._,---~"._-
- - --~g~~~a liem NO-;2A-!T1--
February 26, 2008 i :
Page 115 of 133 I!
February 12, 2002
construction and completed, contains a Publix supermarket. The 'I
request is to increase the size of the commercial tract area by
approximately 1. -- or 2.5 acres, and I have that shown here on the I
master plan. This is the currently approved master plan, and the area
to be added is the shaded area. This is a residential tract. Both now
become a part of the commercial tract.
MR. OLLIFF: I think it's 3.2 acres.
MR. BELLOWS: 3.2 acres. Thank you. This is the -- would be
the revised master plan resulting from the increase in commercial
acreage. The applicant is requesting to increase the commercial tract
-- square footage allowed in the commercial tract from 150,000
square feet to 231,000 square feet. And they're also reducing the
number of dwelling units, let's see, from 400 units or from 650 units
to 400 units.
The traffic-impact study indicates that the project trips will not
have a significant impact on the Collier Boulevard or Immokalee /
Road based on current approved standards in the Growth
Management Plan. The difference in site-generated trips, the
petitioner has submitted a traffic study that shows that the difference
in trips versus what can be generated currently under the current
zoning versus what can be generated under the proposed amendment
is negligible and will not result in significant increases in traffic.
The environmental-impact review indicates that there were no
significant impacts to the project based on this change of the
environmental preserve areas. You can see depicted here will not be I
impacted by this proposed amendment.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this project
on January 17th, and they recommended approval by 7 to 0 vote with
one abstention.
The concerns that were raised during the Planning Commission
basically dealt with some of the land uses approved in the PUD. The '\
/
Page 157
ii
H-
-,---~,-~--'^. ~---,----
February 26, 2008 I j
Page 116 of 133
- February 12,2002
petitioner agreed to eliminate some of those uses and -- and this is
within an activity center. And most of the uses in there were carried
over from previous approvals before the Board of County I
,
Commissioners. And staff is supportive of the uses that are currently , I
within the PUD document at this time.
The issues that were involved, landscaping, the petitioner agreed
to provide landscape language on the master plan. We also had a
requirement to provide an interconnect from the commercial tract --
from the residential tract into the commercial tract. This interconnect
would have a sidewalk on one side and metal gate. The Planning
Commission recommended a metal gate. The petitioner felt that the
gate should be similar to the other gates within the development, a
wooden gate. But the request of the Planning Commission was that
this gate -- gated-entry feature into the commercial tract be a metal
gate.
The other issues that came up were -- dealt with landscape
buffer between these two tracts, and the petitioner has submitted
conceptual or a site plan dealing with the landscaping. As you can
see, it deals with a 6-foot-tall wall with vegetative berm and elevation
view of the wall and the plantings. We also have a cross-section
showing the berm and landscaping. Staff was also recommending that
the building heights be restricted. And that came up in the Planning
Commission. that we limit the building heights to 35 feet for any
structure within 60 feet of the residential-tract boundary line. That is
--.it came up during the Planning Commission meeting.
Staff is recommending approval. I have no further
correspondence after the Planning Commission. Several people did
show up at the Planning Commission to express concern about the
development, and that's why it's not on the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine is a simple question. On page
1, very last sentence, it talks about the building height for any
I Page 158 ,
It
- --~~- ~~~
.._'-~"---~- ~--
~ K
February 26, 2008
Page 117 of 133
February 12, 2002
structure within 60 feet of the residential, but on page 13, I think. it is, II
it has the same sentence except it says (as read): "Any structure
I
within 50 feet." So is it 50 or 6O?
MR. BELLOWS: The PUD document references the 60 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sixty.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Some of the questions, the
concerns in the Planning Commission meeting was the uses in the
commercial districts.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So summarize what the --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We eliminated the -- some of the uses
such as -- and we have a list here. I meant to get mine copied. But
I we eliminated used-car dealer, boat dealers, gas dealers, drinking
I places, laundry services, medical-equipment rental, car washes, TV
repair, coin-operated amusements, furniture repair, refrigeration
\
I services. Those were mostly found in the higher, like, C-5, C-4 type J
I zoning.
,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the water retention or
the water runoff, is that going to be in the Pebble Brook Lakes? Is
that what --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the amendment will not affect the
currently approved water management system design. We can show
on the master plan there's an existing water management system of
lakes and things. The proposed change will not affect any of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's all the questions I
have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETI A: Okay. I do have one thing. I guess
it wasn't included in there. Tell me, no certificate of occupancy shall
be issued for any commercial structure over the current-approved
1,500 -- 150,000 square feet maximum until the four-lane capacity of
both Immokalee Road from Collier Boulevard to Wilson and on "-
./
Page 159
._,-'- -,,----_.--,,--_._,,---,.---'_..- , .
,
!
I Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26. 2008
Page 118 of 133
February 12, 2002
, II
Collier Boulevard from Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road
is available.
MR. BELLOWS: This was part of the handout I gave you. We
included that language in the PUD document now. Staff originally
did not have that as part of the staff recommendation because we base
our recommendations on the Land Development Code and
Comprehensive Plan. Right now the project as proposed is consistent
with the currently approved land -- level of service standards for the
county. The Planning Commission felt that any change, especially
any increase in the square footage of the commercial, would have
additional traffic impacts on Collier Boulevard and on Immokalee
Road. Given the fact that construction is occurring on Immokalee
Road and the two-lane nature of Collier Boulevard, they felt any
additional traffic --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So this is a part of the document?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's now part of the document that I
gave you today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the staffs recommendation.
Have you agreed with it?
MS. BISHOP: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's what I wanted to get
at.
MS. BISHOP: It wasn't staff recommendation. It was the
Planning Commission's recommendation, not staffs.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, staff did not have it in there. We just
put it in because we felt you should have a copy of it -- of the PUD i
document with it in there in case that's the way the board decided to
lean.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're not recommending it? ,
I
,
MR. BELLOWS: No. ,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you support it?
I Page 160
I:
._-----~_..-- ilL
-_._~._-"'-
-,._,.~.
.~.ri
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26,2008
Page 119 of 133
February 12. 2002 ' ,
, !
MR. BELLOWS: From a professional planning standpoint, I 'I
don't think that's a wise -- to put such limitations on a project that was
based on currently adopted codes. I think that would open us up to
some real serious problems, and I think the county attorney should
answer that question.
MR. WEIGEL: And if I may. Thank you. A couple comments,
in regard to the document that Mr. Bellows passed out to you. Please
note that the cover sheet indicates that this is a -- the PUD prepared
by Ms. Bishop's company, PMS, Inc., but what she had prepared did
not have these two paragraphs, paragraphs 8 and 10 which appeared
in 6-3 -- 6-3. Those were paragraph additions made by the Planning
Commission as Ray explained to you. But I want to make it perfectly
clear that the document submitted by Ms. Bishop that's been through
I the review did not have those in there.
Now, they were included as a -- just to make things easier to see ,
them in the context of where they would be, could otherwise have
been provided in side sheets. And in response to Mr. Bellows'
response to your question about the 150,000 square feet, the
limitation on further -- was it building permits or COs -- the fact is, is
that he's absolutely correct, that from the legal standpoint, it's nice if
you can get agreement from the developer, owner in regard to that.
But it appears that there are no violations of standard in place in
regard to what they propose to do. You're not going into
inconsistencies with the Growth Management Plan. We're not going
into defIcits of level of service in the roadways. The standards that
we have to review these things appear to all be copacetic.
Now, I know that I have learned secondarily -- and either Ray or
Ms. Wolfe can respond in regard to traffIc impacts and things of that
nature. but of the many things that are looked at to determine
compatibility and consistency with our standards. I'm told with the
diminution of residential and the increase in commercial, that the ~
Page 161
; i
Ii
, .
, .
ItL
l- Agenda Item No. 12A ".
February 26, 2008
Page 120 of 133
February 12, 2002 ' '
, I
,I:
kinds of statistics which differ somewhat from the staff review and II
the developer's provision. that they all fall within the standards that
we look at that would not allow us from a legal standpoint to say,
oops, this is a deficiency, we will deny you the ability to have the
issuance of COso I don't see the basis there legally under the
standards that we have, quite frankly.
CHAIRMAN COLETI A: But the petitioner could request that
it be put in.
MR. WEIGEL: You can request anything. This is a bit of a
negotiating process, but I will tell you that -- that it's not an
appropriate demand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They're not saying anything.
CHAIRMAN COLETf A: I know. Dead silence in the room. I
personally love it myself.
_. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go to the petitioner,
please?
MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop, agent for the
owner. I want to just go over this project a little bit and then rlllet
Rich and the traffic guy address the traffic issues with you guys on a
few things.
This project was originally zoned in 1990 and this is now 2001
and that commercial has taken -- as I heard earlier today, some of the
things take about 10 to 20 years to get developed. This is one of
those that took over 10 years. When this was originally platted in
1997 the line for that commercial was determined at that point. If
you read the documents, you guesstimate what your acreages are
going to be; you guesstimate how much residents you're going to
have; you guesstimate how much -- it's close, but it's not exactly that
number. When we platted that line, we chose the line that you see
there because it was a geometrical. easy way to stop. You look at our
old master plan, which is what Ray was talking about, the 3.2 acres,
I Page 162
, .'
II
..-.---'- ,It
~.
.'.h,___".... "'~~--,~.-'....- '..'-
Agenda Item No. 12A i I
.,
February 26, 2008
Page 121 of 133
February 12, 2002
that wasn't geometrically a good place to stop. So we didn't take it JI
farther into that tract, so that tract was designed and in place since
1997 all as commercial.
The issue here before you is that when we originally did this ' I
,
PUD, we never -- actually, this was an older PUD, so the criteria for
putting these things together was different. There was never
addressed at that time the acreage changes. And what happened was,
when we increased the acreages, we didn't increase the square
footage on there. And so the reality is that what we're looking for
here is the square footage to compensate for that extra commercial
that we had determined during our PUD process before and platting
process. And we now have put that in the document as a cap at 231 -
- 231,000 square foot, which is about 10,000 square foot an acre
which is typical for commercial uses.
At the Planning Commission, when we went through the list, the ,
same thing happened that I saw earlier, is that Mark Strain diligently
went through all these things and said, Are you really going to have
these there? And, of course, no, we didn't intend to put a gas dealer
there. We didn't really intend to put a boat dealer there. So we
removed those uses out of the -- out of the activity center. However,
I want to remind you, that is where these uses should go to some
degree rather than have them spread all over. These activity centers
are made for these kinds of intensities. We kept pretty much a
I gambit of uses that gives the center the ability to be flexible for the
future. If, for instance, we put in an insurance guy and then he
doesn't make it, then we can bring in the mailbox guy who can -- you
know, and then if he doesn't make it, then we can put in a watch
repair guy. And if he doesn't make it, then the computer guy goes in.
So you have these uses to allow for a successful activity center.
We are the fIrst ones on the block in this activity center, so we're
looking at this comer which is -- for all intents and purposes, is going ,
Page 163
,
'. ,
- IT
~-_.-
---~
Agenda Item o. 12A
February 26, 2008
Page 122 of 133
.-~~ February 12, 2002
: I
to be developed out as planned on your comp plan, which is activity
center uses. The density band which we have the ability to do a lot of
density here, the market wouldn't allow you -- us to do that. Our
density Which was at 650 which was still below the 7 units an acre,
we have dropped down to 400 units. We actually only have
approximately 351 built, but we've left about 50 units in there
available if we go back. Instead of having single-family lots, we go
with attached villas which are two units. That gives us some
flexibility to change that, which means there's 250 units or 200 units
that you guys can use for your workforce housing somewhere else
that's not being utilized here.
This isn't really complicated as far as the kind of thing we're
doing. The gates -- I have a little bit of a problem with the metal
gate. We have gates at the entrance, at both of our entrances. We
- intend to put a gate here (indicating). One of the problems with
saying it has to be a metal gate, you know, I worry about the
maintenance. I worry about, you know, breakdown and -- you know,
the wooden gates, whenever they come through our gate and
someone breaks it, within a day somebody's got a new arm there and
we've got it fixed and it's okay, but these metal gates are a little more
complicated. So I kind of worry about that in itself. But, you know,
if I have to live with a metal gate, then we'll do that. But as far as the
CO, the building and the traffic issues, I can't agree to that. So we
need to discuss that.
I have my transportation here, Rich Y ovanovich here to discuss
those issues, and Dawn Wolfe is here also. That's the problem we
have. This project would -- I would lose the ability to utilize this
based on having to wait several years, which is essentially what we're
talking about here for -- for that -- that improvement to be in place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before you go away,
Ms. Bishop --
I Page 164
-----,_.,--- :11
~~-~-----
._--------,._--,..- '-"-T
~ -, \j . IL
cebruary 26,2008
Page 123 of 133
February 12, 2002 ,
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Water retention that's going to go
into the lakes, showing here into the residential.
MS. BISHOP: The water management system for the whole
project was constructed - I would say the final piece which is this
lake here -- that final piece was constructed two years ago so the
overall -- this is an overall water management system. All water
from the commercial system goes through the lakes. It has to meet
water-quality standards. We have a controlled elevation of about 13
112, and since I live right next to the outfall structure, there's never
been water gone out that. So all the water on this site literally stays
on this site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for answering my
question. So then I must ask you, what's going to happen here is the
residents are going to take over the residential area, homeowners ,
association. and then commercial is going to be a different entity.
MS. BISHOP: They are all a member of the same association.
It's a master association.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So they would share in
the maintenance of the water retention areas?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. They do. They have
25 percent based on their area of land and what their uses are. They
have 25 percent commitment to -- to the cost of maintaining those
facilities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let's go to the gate to
interconnect with the residential. Is that going to be constructed in __
next to a house or is
it --
MS. BISHOP: No, sir. What we've looked at is, we have that
30-foot buffer that we have offered up between the residential homes.
If you'll look on your buffer plan, which I believe was provided to ,
Page 165
i I
_.___,__. u. --
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26,2008
Page 124 of 133 ' .
, '
,.
- February 12, 2002
, II
you, we will move that gate to the inside of that buffer so that there's
not a gate right next to Lot 66, which the woman that owns that has
children, and she expressed to us that she didn't want to see that gate
there next to her. So we agreed to move that gate within that 30-foot
landscape buffer so that there is stacking available at that point. So if
we move it right to the edge of the landscape buffer on what would
be the northern edge of it, then you've got 30 feet there for stacking
which you can certainly get a car and a half in there.
And, of course, we're looking also to do some
traffic-calming things in this neighborhood, because we have those
loop roads and you can get up to some pretty quick speeds. So I
envision this road to have at least one speed bump on it and that that
gate will be farther out there. We'll also be interconnecting the
sidewalks so that you have pedestrian access also to the commercial.
- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the comments that I got
from the residents in the area mainly had to do with some of the
commercial uses, and -- and I think that was taken care of in the
Planning Commission.
MS. BISHOP: Painfully, but true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about United States
Postal Group 4311? Is that still in there?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, it is. And that was not objected to by the --
by the homeowners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not done yet.
MS. BISHOP: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So 4311 is a major distribution
center. I mean, I don't have any problem with all the other
identifIcation -- code identifIcation in the postal group, but 4311 is
the major postal.
MS. BISHOP: It's history.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I haven't gone
I Page 166
-'-" tL
------'..
--,,~----~._".
A!:J~j IUd Hell .,
February 26, 2008
Page 125 of 133
February 12, 2002
through all the other uses, so I might continue later on. There is one
more. The last one, 28 (as read): "Any other uses which are
compatible in nature in foregoing uses permitted by the planning
service director."
MS. BISHOP: That's typical language.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know it is, and it typically
gets us in trouble.
MS. BISHOP: That's because what happens is -- and I
appreciate the fact that it has gotten you in trouble. It doesn't
typically get you in trouble, but it has gotten you in trouble, and I can
only think of one example, maybe two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can think of plenty of them.
MS. BISHOP: But, typically, what you have is you have these
SIC groups changing, and they change their names and, you know,
what -- like, Mailboxes, Inc., that wasn't even a business ten years ,
ago. Now it's a business.
So what it's intended to do -- and if it's not specifically listed in
here, then, even though it may be compatible, I can't -- I can't access
it or utilize it because it's not specifIcally -- specifIcally listed unless I
come back to a public hearing to add one use, so there's where that
goes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you mind removing that,
and if there is a use that does -- a new use that does pop up, which I
can't imagine there is, that you can come back and do a PUD
amendment for that use?
MS. BISHOP: I'm not going to suggest that's something I'm
going to argue about so ...
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see a shake -- head shake.
MS. BISHOP: I would rather not take it out, but -- because a
I PUD zoning amendment for just one use seems to be, in all due
respect, a waste of your time. But if that's -- means that much to you,
"
I /
Page 167
-~---
, Ii
gen a em 0.'
February 26. 2008
Page 126 of 1 33
February 12,2002
then -- then rll remove that section from there. I have a gambet of i
lists here, and in theory this should cover it. So I will be happy to do
that. , I
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to make sure I
understand what we're doing here. You're reducing the number of
residential units and you're increasing the square footage of
commercial space. Residential units generate trips. Commercial
space collects trips.
MS. BISHOP: Attracts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Attracts trips. But much of the
attraction you expect to be from existing passing traffic. That's what
the planning staff tells me. So on balance, we are not increasing the
traffic burden on the roads. Is that a correct statement?
MR. BELLOWS: That's the information that is in the
information submitted by the applicant. Our internal staff made an
estimate of a slight increase of traffic. I don't know if transportation
department has their own figures.
MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, transportation planning department
director, for the record. We did do an evaluation of both the
information submitted by the applicant as well as our own internal
calculations, and generally speaking, there will be a net reduction, as
we tried to explain, out under the Growth Management Impact
section of anticipated gross new trips out on the network. A lot of the
trips that would be associated, quite frankly, with the increased
commercial area are already out there on the system seeking
destinations closer into the urban area. So even though in some case
you may have, instead of just going on a Saturday, you're now going
on a Saturday and a Wednesday. Those trips would otherwise still be
on the network system and a large portion of them, due to the fact
II Page 168
'i,
, '_m..__ ___._.0___,__ ~--,~-_..- ----...- .__..,..'------~
^-"----_.,"--~-'^---
I
Agenda Item No. 12A
February 26. 2008
Page 127 of 133
February 12, 2002
that this is a very isolated opportunity for major commercial on the
way out to the Estates and to Immokalee, where there's few other
opportunities for major shopping opportunity, that you're going to see
actually a net reduction to other roadways within the transportation
system. such as Immokalee Road west of951, Vanderbilt Beach
Road, sections of Collier Boulevard south of Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Because now the receiver of those generated trips, those which are
generally created by residential units, can now be satisfied closer to
home.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the net effect is we're not
placing a bigger burden on our roadways?
MS. WOLFE: Theoretically, yes, and I do believe that you will
be seeing a reduction on other sections of road, although functionally
and from an operational-impact point, just directly adjacent to the
development, there's going to probably have to be some additional
improvements, but fortunately where those operational movements
occur, the county has completed a large portion of the four-laning
improvements that will also be connected into and under our program
in the next three years. So we see four-laning across the majority of
the commercial frontage, the ability to put more traffic to and through
without impeding the flow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- the Planning Commission
has made a recommendation which I think makes a lot of sense, but --
but I'm afraid we're missing something here. If it's not going to
increase traffic on the roads, why would there be a need to phase the
I development to provide additional -- to the process of providing
! additional capacity?
MS. WOLFE: We, as staff, were requested by the Planning
Commission to generate the language which is now contained in the
document before you. Based on the fact -- and we did state this fact,
what we believed to be a fact of the technical analysis, that there ,
Page 169
-~-------- ---- -
, I
I
!
February 26, 2008
Page 128 of 133
- February 12, 2002
would not be a net overall increase. There's going to be more trips
out there. They still have residential units to build -- how the traffic
moves around, because not all the commercial is built yet, is you're
going to see more traffIc entering onto the site. But a lot of it's
already out there on the road and we tried to explain that. And under
our current Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, we
have certain measures that we have to test against. This application-
_ this change has passed those measures, but we do have a level of ,
service problem out there. But we have, at the board's action in
December, programmed those deficiencies, not directly at this
intersecting location, four major capacity improvements.
It's -- a lot of it is a perception issue. South of this area you have
one too many cars trying to make a left turn where you don't have a
left-turn lane. All of a sudden, we go from a Measured Service B to a
Level of Service F instantaneously. And -- but a lot of it is a
perception issue. And, yes, this is kind of a negotiating deal and a lot
of individuals' perceptions, I believe, lead to the fact that we see a
problem, an incident occurs. Traffic backs up immediately. It takes
an hour and 45 minutes to get from the Estates into town. Everyone's
hearing it. Again, we all experience it. And although we say we're
meeting all the criteria, saying that we're going to start a road
construction three years out still leaves a lot of people hesitant in
reviewing and saying, go ahead and build something.
This case is -- and I think you'll not often find me citing or
recommending conditions for the applicant, but we do have a lack of
retail and shopping opportunity out in this area. Therefore, that
means the system within the urban area that's already overburdened
and we're trying to catch up on has to take on these retail and
shopping-opportunity trips as well as employment. We've now
moved one of those commercial opportunities closer to where the
residential trips are.
I Page 170
'Ii
---. ^~--'--'----- _u_ 1_ ._
-,,-,-~--_."",~ -~.._--~-,"." .-...~~._,-'"._.
'Ii
, I
"
February 26, 2008
Page 129 of 133
February 12,2002
So one of the arguments of, if I build more, I have less impacts
on the roadway system -- well, I'm building more closer to where the
need is at, so I'm helping out the system somewhere else. I don't
know how else to say -- it comes down to a perception issue.
Yeah, you're going to see a little bit more conflicts right around
that location, but we've got some improvements out there, and I think
the improvements that have been opened up to traffic have improved
the flow of traffic and made things easier for the individuals living
out east of951 specifically a lot. We've got that traffic signal
operating better at 951, and we've extended those improvements
south of 951. So we have dual turn lanes coming off of 951 and the
like.
So it's very difficult to say and these reports -- we go, Well, it's a
Level of Service B today, but tomorrow it can be a Level of Service F
because on a two-lane road it's that quick, to go from a B to an F.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So bottom line is that -- your
feeling is that there isn't sufficient impact on the roads to warrant a
provision to phase this in? Although, I don't think it makes a lot of
sense, but you don't think the data supports that.
MS. WOLFE: The data does not support phasing this project in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may weigh in on this, because
we're talking about District 5 that's going to be impacted by this and
they will be impacted favorably, the Publix market in the shopping
plaza going down where -- at Pebble Brook there, now on the comer
of 951 and Immokalee, is making a big difference to the people out as
far as OrangeTree and beyond. And as you probably know, we are
working on commercial entities out in the Estates, but because of the
population density being what they are, we can't expect major
markets to be in there the next couple of years. And there's a need for
services, and that's one of the things the master plan has been
working on. Even though they'll come up with the solutions of where ,
Page 171
--- .-- IL
-. - ~---
----
,
Agenda Item No. 12A I i I
February 26,2008
Page 130 of 133
-. February 12,2002
I
they can go doesn't mean they're going to go in there in the near
future.
And also, too, keep in mind that 951 is kind of unique in the fact
that one side of the road is more or less determined to be commercial,
the other side of the road isn't because of the -- just the general layout ; i
with the canal and the Estates use, you get all the way down to Davis
Boulevard and all that. So this is an opportunity to improve the lives
of the people that live out there in the eastern part of Immokalee
, Road.
i COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Commissioner Coletta, I
agree that commercial is predominantly on one side of the road, and
what we need to do is put some more affordable-housing
opportunities on the other side of the road so that they have a place to
work.
CHAIRMAN COLETI A: I agree with you, and I think that lays
true with the whole county as a whole, that we need to distribute it
throughout the county and not put the total burden on one side of
Immokalee Road or Golden Gate City. I think Commissioner Coyle !
is going to come up with some good ideas for us in his neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think, based upon our discussion,
I've already solved the traffic problem. All we need to do is build one
of these major developments at every large intersection and -- and
we've solved the traffic problem.
MS. WOLFE: I actually don't find so much humor in that
statement because through the years working at the local, state and
back at the local level, I've often had that proposed to me. Well, the
more trips I have, I end up having a negative impact, and you can go
way too far one way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was -- I was being facetious.
You understand that, don't you?
I Page 172
11f-
- --
-_...'---'- .."'--,~--,_...-
- - -- -----..----._- ----,--
---
Agenda Item No. 12A ji
February 26. 2008
Page 131 of 133
February 12,2002
MS. WOLFE: Well, no. I've had applications come forward '1'1 !
that have said absolutely that, and I said, No, I don't think we're going
to go in that direction. But this seems -- this is a different animal. But
I -- I -- believe me, I truly appreciate your statement on that one, and
we want to be cautious as we go forward with these and look at them
individually as to what truly benefIts or detriments they pose to the
community.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich is only going
to address the issue -- that one issue of the Planning Commission. I
don't think that we're going to go there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm happy to not relive an earlier
experience from today, so it's like Groundhog Day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you'll save that lake at
Goodlette Comers.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to use your statement about
having a major commercial on every comer to my benefIt when I
come back in two weeks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Actually, when you come back,
we're going to ask you to stock the lake. Is there any public
speakers?
MS. FILSON: Rich Y ovanovich, and he just spoke.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it?
MS. FILSON: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETI A: Well, the Planning Commission must
have done an excellent job with the public. ,
I
MS. BISHOP: Excuse me. I do need to put on the record, there ,
are some -- little things in the documents, some references to
ordinances and things that need to be cleaned up, and I've agreed to
do that with Marjorie.
MS. STUDENT: It's just technical stuff so --
Page 173
,11-
--- .._--~,- , I
----~-~-------rT"
I ,I
[-_ Agenda Item No, 12A ' :
February 26, 2008
Page 132 of 133
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETI A: We really wouldn't understand,
would we?
MS. BISHOP: We won't confuse you with the plats.
CHAIRMAN COLETI A: Commissioner Carter, is there
something you would like to add to this?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just sitting back enjoying the show;
right?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you would close the public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I would. Close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
approve it with staff stipulations, Planning Commission stipulations
except for the number of square feet dealing with the capacity out
there as that it clearly has demonstrated that it's going to decrease
traffic instead of increase traffic. And two other things noted in the --
the uses. Use 25, United States postal group, I would like it to say,
"Except for 4311 and include those other two postal uses that are in a
C-3 -- predominantly C-3, and removing Use 28, which is any other
comparable use."
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a
second? Okay. I have a second from Commissioner Coyle. Thank
you. Is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Take a vote. All those in
L Page 174
..---
_'0.._'_'" ."---
~- -- - - - --- ------
---._---
-
. , . 'L/'\ ! :
February 26. 2008
Page 133 of 133
February 12, 2002
favor indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The ayes have it 5 to O.
Thank you.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you know, by the way,
disclosures. I did talk. with Karen Bishop.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, you did. Everybody. I spoke to everybody.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Item #9A
I
STAFF DIRECTED TO REPEAL THE EXISTING ORDINANCE
REGARDING THE COMMUNITY OF CHARACTER COUNCIL
ORDINANCE
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Moving on to 9-A. Commissioner
Coyle, you're on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. The -- the Board of County
Commissioners established a Community of Character Council
sometime late last year before I came on -- on the board, and it's my
belief, in talking with legal counsel and others, that an error was
made in designating a member of the Board of County
Commissioners as a voting member of this particular council. Doing
so essentially places that council under the Sunshine provisions.
Secondly, there's another complication. The board has not-- ,
and I don't think there's any likelihood they will allocate funds for the I
purpose of carrying out the functions of the Community Character
Council; and, consequently, the council itself will have to do a lot of
Page 175
I
- -- - I,