Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/15/2006 R June 15, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 15, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: ABSENT: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Russell Tuff Paul Midney Tor Kolflat Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 AM., THURSDAY, JUNE 15,2006, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 4, 2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MAY 16,2006, EAR-BASED GMP MEETING; MAY 23, 2006, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDA-2005-AR-8832, Creekside West, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A, and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire, ofRoetzel & Andress, L.P.A, requesting a PUD Amendment to the Creekside Commerce Park PUD. This amendment proposes to reduce the area of the Creekside PUD by approximately 2.32 acres and rezone the area from Creekside Commerce Park PUD to Naples Daily News Business Park PUD. The subject property, consisting of 105 acres is located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (This application is being submitted simultaneously with the Naples Daily News Business Park PUD and will be considered a Fast-Track) (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) 1 B. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8833, Collier Publishing Company, Inc. d/b/a Naples Daily News, represented by D. Wayne, Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire, of RoetzeI & Andress, L.P.A, requesting a Business Park Planned Unit Development (BPUD) rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) and Creekside Commerce Park PUD for project known as Naples Daily News Business Park, Planned Unit Development (BPUD). The subject property is located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is being submitted simultaneously with the Creekside Commerce Park PUD as a Fast Track). (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) C. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8337, Sembler Florida, Inc., represented by Dwight Nadeau of RW A, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a proposed commercial shopping center to be known as Brooks Village CPUD. The subject property, consisting of 22.7 acres, is located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. ( Coordinator: Melissa Zone) D. Petition: BD-2006-AR-929I , Richard Brillhart, represented by Turrell & Associates, Inc., requesting a 3- foot boat dock extension from the 20-foot protrusion allowed, which will replace the existing dock and extend 23 feet into the waterway. The subject property is located at 401 Grenada Avenue, Isles of Capri, No.3, Lot 607, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) E. Petition: CU-2005-AR-8046, Jaime and Demarys Oliva, represented by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., are requesting a conditional use, as allowed by Sections 2.04.03 and 2.03.08.A.3 of the Land Development Code, in the Rural Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) zoning district, for "facilities for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste". The applicant proposes to use the site for a horticultural mulching and recycling facility with limited hours of operation. The subject property, consisting of 10.04 acres, is located at 1340 Wild Turkey Drive, east of Immokalee Road, in Section 26, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) F. Petition: SV-2006-AR-9160, WR Development, LLC, represented by Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A requesting sign variances for two ground signs in the Riverchase Commons Office Park. The sign located at the southwest entrance or comer of the property would require a change in setback from 10 feet to 4.24 feet; the sign located at the southeast entrance would require a change in setback from 10 feet to 0.15 feet. The signs are located at 100 I Crosspointe Drive, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 6115/06/CCPC Agenda/RB/sp 2 June 15, 2006 Item # 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Welcome everyone to the June 15th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is not here. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent. And Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. Page 2 June 15,2006 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Are there any addendas to the agenda? Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Old business to bring up something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to tell us the subject in case anybody wants to wait around for it? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Construction, traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Construction, traffic, we don't have any, but we will certainly add under Old Business. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if time permits later today and we'll see where we're at this afternoon under New Business, I may want to discuss a new process possibly to up the Planning Commissions' recommendation to get to the BCC in the format in which we send them. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES With that we move on to Planning Commission absences. The next meeting will be the meeting in July, first Thursday. Is everybody planning to be here? Everybody? I don't know what day it is, the sixth? Okay. Page 3 June 15, 2006 Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 4, 2006, REGULAR MEETING Approval of minutes from May 4th. (Commissioner Midney enters meeting.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion's made to approve by Mr. Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. Is there any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carried. Ray, our BCC report. Page 4 June 15,2006 Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - MAY 16, 2006 EAR-BASED GMP MEETING; MAY 23, 2006, REGULAR MEETING MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Board approved the PUD rezone for Meridian Village. That was a 120-unit multi-family project. The board approved it 5 to O. They also approved the affordable housing project, workforce housing project in Immokalee, Liberty Landing. That was a 162-unit. That was approved 5/0. Palmera Cove was also approved by the board 5/0 vote. PUD extension for Hammock Park was denied by a 5/0 vote. And Rock Edge affordable housing, workforce housing density bonus was approved 5/0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT The chairman's report I'll defer the time that I would take to the new business item I just mentioned if we get that far today. And that brings us to our advertised public hearings. Item #8A and Item #8B PETITION PUDA-2005-AR-8832 AND PUDZ-2005-AR-8833 The first petition is PUDA-2005-AR-8832. For those wishing to speak on this issue, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. This issue is the Creekside modification to the PUD. (Oath was administered to speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And before we move further, Page 5 June 15, 2006 Ms. Student, since the A and B petitions are kind of intertwined -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would it be appropriate to hear them both at the same time and then vote on them separately? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I think it would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then with that, we'll be at this time entertaining discussion on PUDZ-2005-AR-8833. And that particular one is the Collier Publishing Company also known as Naples Daily News modification for a business park next to the Creekside property. So all those people wishing to speak on that one, if you haven't already stood up, please stand up again to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Oath was administered to speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start with disclosures on the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nothing. COMMISSIONER CARON: I've spoken to staff and I also spoke to Mr. Pires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have spoken to Mr. Pires, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Arnold. And I think that's it. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I spoke to Mr. Anderson. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I received communication from Mr. Pires and I visited the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's disclosures. Now we have a couple of other issues. And those are conflicts of interest. Mr. Tuff, you want to go first? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. I'm employed by Collier County Publishing Company that makes the application. So I believe that makes me ineligible to vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I write a column for a sister -- two sister papers of the Collier Publishing Company. So I also have a conflict in the voting. That does not preclude me from participating in Page 6 June 15, 2006 today's meeting nor do I believe it precludes Mr. Tuff. So, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On occasion I write a column for the same paper that you're talking about, but I do not receive any income regarding this. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Mr. Strain -- Commissioner Strain has a little different relationship other than just writing a column. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: And the statute says "retained by." And "retained" is defined in the dictionary as being in the service of. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't think you're in the service -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- when you write a column, but in Mr. Strain's situation as described to me, I believe he is in the service of. So that sets us straight. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to mention that on the record, you know, in case there was an issue. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: And from what Mr. Tuff described, I would also opine that he's in the service of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Student. And Mr. Tuff and I will file the appropriate documents for items A and B with the court reporter before the meeting is over. Now, with that we will go into the presentation by the applicant. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'd like to discuss an issue about this PUD before we get started because I'm not sure that this shouldn't go back to staff before we even hear it at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Student and Mr. -- who is on staff would be most appropriate to make sure -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm trying to get -- I've been trying Page 7 June 15, 2006 to get answers for two days on this. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We -- for the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, let Ms. Caron state her issue first so everybody in the public knows what's going on. COMMISSIONER CARON: So everyone will understand. If you look under PUD requirements under 4.07.02 there is a requirement for a minimum area. And it says here that PUDs should be ten contiguous acres except as otherwise provided for within a specific zoning district. The specific zoning district that this PUD wants to fall under is the business park. If you look under Business Parks in the LDC, that's 402.13. And (A) says (as read): Business parks shall be a minimum of 35 contiguous acres. And then it goes on to explain what the term "contiguous" means. The term "contiguous" shall include properties separated by either an intervening planned or developed public street right-of-way provided, however, no portion of such separated properties shall be less than five acres. The section -- if you look up here on the -- on the screen, the section that this PUD is trying to incorporate from Creekside is, according to the staff report, only 2.32 acres separated by Creekside Way, I think it is. It's too small to see on here. And so it doesn't meet the five-acre requirement. Additionally, there is Creekside Boulevard that runs to the south, that long road that runs to the south of the property. And to the south of that is what I guess is listed on their plans as Tract B. And if I can gather from the staff report, it looked like Tract B is only 2.25 acres. So, again, with that -- the road separation is fine on both those things, but the property size does not conform to what the Land Development Code says. And so I think that this needs to go back to staff and the County Attorney's Office for further clarification before we hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get the county attorney to weigh-in on it. I know its -- Page 8 June 15, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, there has to be some facts set forth on the record to be able to draw the conclusion as I understand it. But I'm the attorney and we need to have staff or someone put the facts on the record that street, Creekside Way I believe it is, is included within the PUD. So that would be included in the PUD. And Mr. Weeks is here who has long, long experience on dealing with some of these code provisions to address -- so I don't think you have a separation issue which would trigger the five-acre issue for that piece. On the other piece, I -- that's my understanding from staff. On the other piece, could you please explain the other little piece again? And I think we need to hear from staff as to -- because, again, they need to set the factual predicate for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you just mentioned two little pieces. Which piece do you still have a question on that you're asking -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It was the last item that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- Commissioner Caron mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be Parcel B to the south, is that the one where the water management lake is to the east? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Wasn't it Parcel B to the south that COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, both of them. I questioned both. Because Creekside Way is being incorporated into this PUD. You can see that by the yellow line. That's the whole point of this PUDZ-2005-AR-8833 is to incorporate that area. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which would be the road and the lake into the NDN PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Margie, was it what you were trying to say is that because that roadway is incorporated into the -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: But you don't have a separate -- Page 9 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you don't have a separation any longer. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: As I understand from staff-- (Multiple voices.) MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm sorry. As I understand from staff, and correct me if I'm wrong, but because you don't have the separation by the street, that doesn't trigger the acreage requirement. Is that -- is that -- is that correct, staff? MR. DERUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I agree with -- with Margie. It is part. The area -- both -- both parts were within the boundaries of -- of the proposed business park which exceeded the 35-acre minimum requirement. The -- the land where those roadways are, are owned by the applicant. There are roadway easements to -- to Collier County for maintenance of those roadway easements, but the land itself is -- is owned by the petitioner. COMMISSIONER CARON: So -- so how can -- how can the roads be essentially incorporate -- the roadways were a part of the Creekside PUD originally. They counted toward their acreage originally. And now you're going to recount them here in the NDN? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Whole new meaning to the word-- MR. DERUNTZ: You're going -- you're going -- you're going to be -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- re-gifting and double-dipping and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far, let me-- COMMISSIONER CARON: But let's get back to the actual issue here of the separation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, let's -- Donna, let's try to clarify the issue on the roads first. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Page 10 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Creekside PUD only went as far as the eastern edge of the majority of that agricultural piece that's now coming in before us today; right? MR. DERUNTZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the road that goes past Creekside that is to the south and separates Parcels A and B was not a road that was part of the Creekside PUD. The Creekside PUD just picked it up on its property line and brought it eastward. That's the way it appears and is that correct? Okay. So that wasn't a road to begin with as part of the Creekside PUD. That was a road that was there that they tied into -- COMMISSIONER CARON: They just built it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and they could have -- I don't know who built it, but it wasn't part of their PUD. It was off site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that takes that issue-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to clarify. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right. Well, it still doesn't answer for what's happening up here at the north. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And even if you do combine that, according to staff, it's 2.25 acres and 2 acres of Creekside Boulevard. That only gives you 4.25 acres, not 5 acres again so... MR. DERUNTZ: But it's -- it's, like, if you look at that -- that-- that requirement as my understanding is that when you have the idea __ the intent of this business park is that you would -- it would not be separated by a public right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. DERUNTZ: Which would be a right-of-way with, like, Immokalee Road where you would leap over the collector arterial roadway to capture some land and then include that into the park on Page 11 June 15, 2006 both sides of this public right-of-way. You -- your -- as in a business -- in a business park, you would have the potential of roadway interconnections to service each of the lots that would be -- that potentially would be developed in a business park. And those lots may be less than five acres. They could be an acre. They could be two acres. And so that whole premise that had -- those lots have to be five acres in area does not apply because you're going to have a network of streets. COMMISSIONER CARON: So what you're saying is if they -- the PUD instead put two -- 2.25 acres across Immokalee Boulevard, that would not have been allowed? MR. DERUNTZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: But it's okay that it's on a public road here on Creekside Way that leads to the post office? That's okay? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, does that suffice for staffs description of this? Although, I'm not sure that Creekside Way is a public road. I thought it was a public easement, but it's deeded by the -- it's owned by the property owners' association or somebody else. So, therefore, all that's simply happening is they're bringing it into this PUD. And when they make it part of the PUD, it no longer is a dividing road because it's not a public right-of-way. Is that -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I thought staff was trying to say. MR. DERUNTZ: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Does that at least get you to that -- your answers resolved? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, did you have a Page 12 June 15, 2006 comment you wanted to make? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. My question really was, is it a dedicated right-of-way and you're answer is no so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Ms. Student, are there any other issues we got to resolve here or are we okay to move forward? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think we're okay to move forward. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, do you have a presentation? MR. ANDERSON: Indeed I do, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. F or the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Roetzel & Andress. I represent the owners, Ocean Boulevard Partnership, Creekside Property Owners Association, et cetera, and contract purchaser, Collier Publishing Company, Incorporated. I'll address the Creekside PUD amendment and the Naples Daily News PUD together since they are companion ITEMs. The other members of the project team are my co-agent Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, Mr. Tom Sewall, Operations Director for the Naples Daily News, Dave Borden of Barron Collier Companies which include the Ocean Boulevard Partnership entity that owns the subject property. Also here today to help answer questions as a part of the project are Reed Jarvi, a transportation engineer with Vanasse & Daylor, and Chris Hagen, a civil engineer with Johnson Engineering Company. It is also my pleasure to have in attendance the publisher of the Naples Daily News, Mr. John Fish. The amendment to the Creekside Commerce Park PUD seeks to rezone 2.32 acres at the northwest corner of the PUD to be included in the Naples Daily News Business Park PUD. The reason for this PUD amendment is purely a technical and legal one. It provides direct Page 13 June 15, 2006 access to Immokalee Road as an arterial roadway as required by the Growth Management Plan. And it eliminates the need for a separate new additional access point on Immokalee Road where this new PUD. It also helps the new PUD to meet the minimum 35-acre size for a business park. Creekside Property Owners Association owns title to the 2.32 acres, although the county has an easement for Creekside Way Road. Same -- same holds true for Creekside Boulevard. The only changes proposed to the Creekside PUD are to amend the legal description and the master plan to remove the small parcel and to show that Creekside Boulevard now extends beyond the Creekside PUD. Some may question the irregular-shaped southwest boundary of this new PUD and ask why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you need to bring that microphone with you when you walk away from the -- as you know. MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to come back here to talk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Let me answer that very simply and directly. The irregular-shaped parcel has the same agricultural zoning as the bulk of the rest of the new PUD. And if it wasn't included, it would be left as an odd, isolated island of ag-zoned land in the middle of the urban area. Additionally, my client, Barron Collier Companies who constructed Creekside Boulevard for the county and granted a road easement, advises me that the odd-shaped parcel provides drainage for Creekside Boulevard. Also the parcel is not a part of the Pelican Marsh PUD. And, in fact, the Pelican Marsh PUD was amended to specifically exclude the land in question. The parcel is logically and legally included in the new PUD. I do want to point out an important fact that is not set forth in the staff report. The Naples Daily News has been certified by the Collier County Economic Development Council for the county's fast-track Page 14 June 15,2006 application process because its relocation and expansion by remaining in Collier County will create new high-wage jobs and further diversify our county's economy. It represents a capital investment in our community of approximately $96 million. Now, the Daily News has tried to find a new location to move to for more than a year. One of the parcels that they looked at previously was what was proposed to be the Nagel Craig Business Park. You-all may recall that one near the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard. However, you may recall that that business park zoning application met with opposition from nearby residents. And it was scrapped in favor of a residential and retail commercial proj ect. The newspaper has also looked at property in Southern Lee County. However, the newspaper prefers to relocate its facility within Collier County. My client is withdrawing its request for Deviations No.4 and 5. And with regard to the conditions for approval recommended by the staff, we are in agreement with those with the following exceptions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, just -- I don't a -- the deviations are alpha numeric, so which ones are you taking now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They're -- turn to page 21. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm on page -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-two of the staffreport of the B item, not the A item. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm actually looking in the PUD. Wouldn't it be the same or -- okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can get -- yeah. It would be in the PUD as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 2-2 so Band E? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four and five so... MR. ANDERSON: Four relates to the ground sign. I mean, they're both -- they're both of the sign there, deviations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead. Sorry. Page 15 June 15,2006 MR. ANDERSON: Now, as to those conditions of approval with which my clients disagree. The first is Condition No.5. My clients have had ongoing discussions with Bay Colony residents who agree upon the terms to supplement and maintain the existing buffer. And we have reached an agreement. Mr. Arnold will go into that in more detail, but it may be summarized that the existing buffer will be enhanced with 80 oak trees and will be supplemented by ficus to help form an opaque screen. This will be for a distance of approximately 1,100 feet. My clients do not agree to Condition No.6 because they have reached an agreement with the comprehensive planning staff on the language for redistribution of prezone site for the creation of parklets. The modified language that my clients and the comprehensive planning staff agreed upon can be found in Sections 2.4 and 6.2 of the PUD and also the last sentence on page 13 of your staff report. With regard to Conditions No. 10 and 11, I have previously discussed this matter with the County Attorney's Office back when the application was originally filed. And our rationale for using the NAICS code is that it's the modern day version of the SIC code. The SIC code is 20 years old. And it's so old that it doesn't even contain any references to the Internet. And, as you know, the Internet newspaper is an important component of the Naples Daily News operations. They recently received an international award for their Internet newspaper. Conditions 12, 13 and 14 have been modified after discussions and meetings with the county transportation staff to reflect that the proportionate share payment would not exceed 15 percent of road impact fees and would include $75,000 to install a new Scoot Traffic Management System at US 41 and Immokalee Road intersection and the next two easterly traffic signal intersections, and includes the extension of Creekside Way and Creekside Boulevard. My client proposes that the proportionate share payment would Page 16 June 15, 2006 be paid as each phase is constructed at the time of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. And if the cost of Creekside Way extension exceeds the proportionate share due for the first phase, it would carry over as a credit for subsequent phases. Before I turn this over to Mr. Arnold to discuss the planning issues, I'm very pleased to tell you that in addition to the letter of no objection that you've previously received from Collier's Reserve, I have a letter of support to enter into the record and to distribute to you from the Bay Colony Property Owners Association. So we have -- we have earned the support or no objection at a minimum of the two closest residential communities for the proposed project. After Mr. Arnold finishes his presentation, he and I and our transportation engineer and civil engineer will avail ourselves to you to answer questions. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate to make a motion at this time to accept this into evidence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. Page 17 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ms. Ford, if you didn't catch it, I didn't, Mr. Midney slipped in quietly during the meeting. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Arnold, you're going to continue? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, thank you. Wayne Arnold for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For can -- for us to follow along I have a series of questions that I'm sure most of us do. Could you start by addressing the issues in the A application and then go to the B or in some kind of a -- so we know which one you're focusing on? The A is just the Creekside modification. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And to the extent that needs to be addressed, I would like to get that past us and then go into the more immediate issue which is the -- MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- next-door issue. MR. ARNOLD: Really with respect to Creekside, I don't have that much to offer. Bruce handled the mechanics of what it is we're attempting to do. He alluded to the revised master concept plan and central master plan that was being revised to reflect as originally shown on roundabout. We had that on a visual slide. We'll just go right there if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're -- you're going there. With the commissioners' assent, I think for an orderly fashion, maybe if we could get the Creekside questions done and on the table first because I think that's going to be the minimal issue here today. Get that past us, we won't need to vote on it until we vote them both at the end. But then we'll go into the Naples Daily News one after Creekside. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 18 June 15, 2006 MR. ARNOLD: On the visualizer, that's the current master plan for Creekside. And that reflects the elimination of the 2.3 acres on the northwestern portion of that as not being a part of this PUD. One of the things as Bruce pointed out after discussions with the transportation staff; they have requested that we extend Creekside Way south to connect to Creekside Boulevard. That I think warrants another revision to that master plan which would reflect taking out the -- what was shown as a roundabout as Creekside Boulevard making that just a straight arrow and reflecting a new access connection due north to Creekside Way. And I think that that should be offered in as an amended exhibit for purposes of the revised master plan if you concur that -- that staffs recommendation of Creekside Way extension should be included here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have newer enough copies to pass out to us or not? MR. ARNOLD: Of this I do not. I can have copies made in the office. I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, get it on the vizor. Does anybody here have any questions about the master plan suggestion -- changes by transportation? I think they're probably positive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I live in that neighborhood. That's an excellent idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to accept this master plan into evidence? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. Motion made by Mr. Schiffer. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 19 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No opposition. Okay. That is the master plan we'll be discussing then from here on out today. And if there is someone that could make some copies for us. And should we have any questions from the master plan as we get into this, I'd appreciate it. MR. ARNOLD: With that, that's really all of the Creekside comments I had. I think it's fairly self-explanatory as Bruce indicated. The only modifications made to the PUD document reflect the reduction in acreage and clarifying the acreage in about three locations in the PUD concerning the legal description, et cetera. And I think we can probably move on. I agree with you, I think the more discussion points are relevant to the Naples Daily News Business Park PUD and I'm prepared to go on to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just have a question. Since you're removing a stormwater management area, how does that affect the rest of Creekside? MR. ARNOLD: It actually has no effect. That lake will continue to be operated and owned by the Creekside Property Owners Association. It will still continue to retain stormwater for the Creekside proj ect. And it will continue to discharge in accordance with the district permits that were granted for it. So it has absolutely no impact on the water management function by removing it from one PUD and putting it in another PUD. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it's not meant to help the water management for the Naples Daily News project? MR. ARNOLD: Not specifically. And it is already, again, Page 20 June 15, 2006 designed as a water management lake for Creekside. And the changing the underlying zoning has no effect on the functionality of the lake. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. But so the intent of the move is merely for acreage on the Naples Daily News site. It's not for their stormwater management? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While we're on item A which is strictly the modification to the Creekside PUD, is there any other questions on that one before we move into the Naples Daily News? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wayne, I went through the environmental risk management issues. And it had to do with the incredible -- how DTT lasts. And there were some test borings made and there was a drawing, if you will, that located the test borings. Except I couldn't orient them to where on the property that actually occurred. Was it actually within the Creekside? Was it in the PUD associated with the new location for NDN? MR. ARNOLD: The borings -- there were borings that were completed as part of Phase 1 environmental assessment for the Naples Daily News project. No new borings were completed as part of Creekside. Those were, of course, prepared in advance of its zoning action several years ago, but no new borings were done. The boring and the soils data was a part of the Naples Daily News. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do I take it, then, with that answer that the borings were made on the property that now will be exclusively occupied by NDN? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I believe that is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. And presumably all of this soil will be covered over by concrete and encapsulated to some degree. That will satisfy me with regard to that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Page 21 June 15,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Wayne, just a question. Why wouldn't you just add this additional site since everything seems to be the same, same owners and stuff? Why are you keeping it separate and cutting a little piece off to make it work and -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think as Bruce indicated, this was a matter of finding 35 acres of contiguity that -- that are required for a business park PUD. And that was the way in which we would do it. Obviously, there are some commonalities of ownership, but when you look at the various ownership entities of Ocean Boulevard Partnership and Creekside West and Ocean Boulevard Partnership II, et cetera, I mean, there are -- there are variations in the ownership. So they're not exactly the same, but there are certain similarities there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And any other questions on-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One only out of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- Mr. Chairman and it's under the Jupiter analytical results. And while I tried to understand these things, just more out of curiosity, I note that in a particular report it speaks to units, milligrams to kilograms and then it speaks to several nitrobenzene, et cetera, three of them. They talk about percentage. And then when they say a report limited to 3,250, presumably that's in a percentage as well? MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to have to find the document. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't think it's really critical. If you had someone who could speak to that really quickly. I don't mean to take time with this board for that. I presume it to be a percentage range. And I thought that that was interesting that that -- we had such a high residual after all these years. MR. ARNOLD: I apologize. I don't think I -- (Multiple speakers.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. I will withdraw the Page 22 June 15, 2006 question. The information is there for those who are expert in that. I thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move on to the Naples Daily News, item B. Wayne, if you have a -- I'm assuming you're going to provide a separate presentation for that? MR. ARNOLD: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And as previously stated Bruce Anderson gave you an overview of where we're headed. I think you discussed some of the technical merits of the application. And I think from -- from probably the initial discussions of this project, there has been a question of height and compatibility. And I think that's where I'd like to take my initial focus and just hit that issue right from the start. Because I think that it's certainly worthy of discussion. And I think it's also worthy of discussing why we requested a 75-foot-tall building here. And 75 feet really is one of requirements for technological publishing of the way that stacked presses are -- are -- are designed. And they have gone through and worked with aerial design out of Connecticut who specializes in newspaper publishing design. And this building obviously would be state-of-the-art, but a component of that building is required to be 75 feet to house the new state-of-the-art printing facilities. It's the production arm of the entire facility that is required to be 75 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have one question in this because you said 75 feet. In one area it says 75 feet. On page 13 it says 75 feet plus. How high is that going to be? MR. ARNOLD: Seventy-five feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So the plus is wrong in here? MR. ARNOLD: I assume you're reading from the staffreport. But our application requests a zone height of 75 feet. And that would be above the flood elevation which I believe is eleven at this location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into the PUD document, Page 23 June 15, 2006 will we have your development standards? MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the questions I'll have is the actual height as well. So between now and then, you can think about that. MR. ARNOLD: I will. I'll look at the definition and make sure we're okay. And I'll check some of the architectural exhibits we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: And I think really the issue of the 75 feet -- I mean, keep in mind our location. When you look at the area, you'll see the word "adjacent" to Granada Shops PUD to the west. It's in the activity center. We have the Collier's Reserve and Tract 22 DRI to the north. In the activity center we have Creekside Commerce Park which is a light-industrial industrial park to the east and qualified to be there under an industrial and the criteria program that was in place several years ago. So we're surrounded on three sides by some of the most intense development allowed in Collier County. Our neighbor to the south, obviously, Pelican Marsh and the Bay Colony Estates, we have an existing berm and buffer. So if you made a site visit through Creekside Boulevard, you see that that -- that is an established buffer. We also have the fact that we have two golf fairways separating us from the nearest residences in Bay Colony. I think also from a functional standpoint we've had discussion about the serpentine area that's agriculturally zoned that intertwines its way through Pelican Marsh. Keep in mind, that will be retained as preserve and water management function for this project. So it doesn't contain development. That won't be an issue for compatibility with Pelican Marsh homeowners. I think it needs to be said that when you look at compatibility we look at a lot of different factors. It's often very subjective in what one person's determination of compatibility is to another. But when I look at it and what I was -- you know, learned in school after having done Page 24 June 15,2006 this also for the last 1 7 years, it's -- you look at location. We look at our uses. We look at view corridors, building placement on the site, building heights, buffers. I mean, these are all factors that weigh into whether or not this is a compatible relationship or not. The staff report discusses that -- that Granada Shops allows with architectural enhancements a hotel to be 73 feet. We know that Collier's Reserve across the street have 80- feet-tall buildings. You know, what the staff report didn't tell you is that in Pelican Marsh, our nearest residential neighbor, their own commercial component allows buildings 100 feet tall. The golf course designation that lies immediately next to us allows buildings 50 feet tall. And they have a clubhouse facility, et cetera, that are related to the golf course. And it's a multi-story building. But it hasn't been said, but we have a 100-foot requirement in Pelican Marsh, our nearest neighbor. I agree with you there's no building that's built at that height yet, but things do change in Collier County. And those buildings that are single-story retail today could become ten-story office buildings in the future. The other thing I think is very important from a location standpoint and looking at the relationship to us and other buildings is that we have the Naples Community Hospital that's undergoing an expansion program just to the northeast of Creekside which is on Immokalee Road at the Health Park. And I pulled the Health Park documents and -- and looked and found it also allows hospitals to be 100 feet tall. And then I scratched my head and said, well, I count the number of stories that are going to be there as part of the building that's under construction. And there are clearly six stories that have been completed. So I went down to the county and pulled the EAR file. And in it were the approved architectural plans for that particular facility. And I was surprised to find out that the bulk of the building is 80 feet tall to the top of those six-story units, but there's also a penthouse programmed to be on top of the floor. And then there's a mechanical Page 25 June 15,2006 room above that. Total height approved by Collier County for that building, the actual height is 103 feet to the top of the building. It's 80 feet to the top floor for the primary facility and it's another 18 feet for the penthouse units. So I think when you look at the context of what we've got going with the hospital under construction, you have a building that will be 100 feet tall. We're asking for a building that's 75 feet tall. We've got a PUD to our south that allows buildings taller than ours. We've got a project to the west that allows buildings -- I would call 73 feet, 75 feet pretty comparable in height and indistinguishable from a few hundred feet away in which you view these buildings. So from the standpoint of making sense of the height, when you look at the functionality of why we need the 75 feet and then put it in the context of where we're located, I think it makes perfect sense. And I don't think it's a stretch to think that we're asking for something that's out of character with the balance of what's happening on that Immokalee Road corridor. One of the other things that we've done, we -- we've worked very hard with our neighbors over the last several months in terms of talking about compatibility of the project and what we could do. And, obviously, you received a letter of no objection from both Collier's Reserve and from the Bay Colony Golf Estates to our south. But as part of that effort, what we've done is the Naples Daily News . commissioned Dario & Associates, their architectural firm to prepare a model. And it would have been nice to bring the physical model here, but unfortunately it's one model we really didn't want to lose it to the public record so that we would not have it for our own internal use. They were able to do some photo imagery of that building. And I can show you just, for instance, how it relates to the site. The resolution's not real clear, but you can see that -- I think it's distinguishable even from that view that there's a core of that building that you see, the rectangular piece that sits amidst the rest of the Page 26 June 15,2006 building and it is the 75-foot-tall component of this building. And that's not the best view to see it, but I wanted you to see how it relates to the development tract in which the building sits on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, did you present these documents to the neighborhood in order to get their letter of no objection or support? MR. ARNOLD: I believe that all of these exhibits were shown to them as well as the model. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you would have no problem admitting these exhibits into record? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. No objection. I think another view, if you look at this, from Immokalee Road. I've got a couple different views. Pull back just a little. But you can see that largely the front facade visible from Immokalee Road ends up being the workforce component of this building. That's where the -- the employees and the public would enter to do their business. It functions very much like a typical office building. It's got its own open-space areas. And I think from that angle it's clear where the work core of this building is located in relationship to the rest of the site. There are -- it's a slightly different angle on Immokalee Road. Looking a little bit from the east you can see at the back of the building there are some other components of this that are close to 50 feet in height. But the entire massing of this structure really I think disguises the 75-foot-tall component of this building extremely well. From Creekside Boulevard we end up with a view that's similar to that. That doesn't take it all the way out to Creekside Boulevard, but from the rear you see that there are some loading areas. But the bulk of the loading ends up being on the west side of the building that faces Granada Shops. And, again, the 75-foot-tall component of this building, I think, is well disguised by the other work components of this building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me -- Page 27 June 15, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: There will be loading to the south? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to ask too, Commissioners, please wait to be recognized before you speak so we don't have people MR. ARNOLD: I'll clarify that in a moment. The other thing that I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and -- then Mr. Murray after Ms. Caron. MR. ARNOLD: We had Dario prepare this exhibit. That -- that scales the 75-foot-tall component of the proposed building and puts it in the context of where it is in relationship to our tract lines. That takes it down to Creekside Boulevard over to Creekside PUD and west to Granada Shops and north to Immokalee Road. And I think you -- you get a sense of really how isolated the 75-foot-tall component of this building really is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before you go, Mr. Murray had a question too. Are you finished with yours, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. There is obviously here loading to the south toward Pelican Marsh. MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And is it the intent that all of those trucks will come out, go down Creekside Boulevard and exit out onto US 41? MR. ARNOLD: I think what we see is there are -- there are a couple of different areas of the site in which there's activity to the south and to the west. I think the primary entrance for truck traffic that's associated with delivery of goods to the newspaper and their distribution of newspapers will occur from Creekside Boulevard largely. But, again, keep in mind that if the Creekside Way extension occurs, it has then a direct linkage back up to the traffic signal on Immokalee Road and a future signal directly west at US 41 and Creekside Boulevard. Page 28 June 15,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wayne, can you tell me where the recycling activity will occur? MR. ARNOLD: I think you'll have to ask Mr. Sewall from the newspaper to help me with that one. But I'll-- give me a moment and I'll try to get that answer and come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, did you finish with your presentation? MR. ARNOLD: No, not exactly. I have a few more things I'd like to point out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you had -- I noticed you had a question too. I would like to get Wayne to be able to finish with his presentation if you-all don't mind. Your questions may be answered by the presentation. And once he finishes, if we try to get in the questions at that point, it might be more effective. MR. ARNOLD: A couple of the other things that were prepared as we worked with the neighbors was to do some site-line visualizations from some of the nearest homes in Bay Colony Estates. That reflected a 75-foot-tall building occupying the entire Tract A of the proj ect in which you can see the two lines come together and there's a small view that's visible over the berm and existing buffer that's there. What we also did was went back and modified that to show you really where the 75-foot-tall component of the building lies in relationship to the view. And you see quickly that the rest of the building is not visible from Bay Colony Estates. The buffer is maintained and enhanced as we had described. I think that's pretty important. And I think that's certainly something that helps garner support to any objection stated that way. But what I think it also points out and it's one of the conditions that we didn't agree with staff on was the doubling of the buffer in order to achieve an opacity that would shield this building from view Page 29 June 15, 2006 of the neighboring property. And I think what we've demonstrated is the existing berm and buffer is adequate to do that. And the addition of another 25 feet of berm and buffer would require us to go and probably demolish a portion of at least part of the berm that's there, re- vegetate. And I don't think that there's any way you could put mature vegetation to the extent that we get a replacement for what we already have which is a very dense and very good buffer. I think that -- I'm presuming most of you have been by the site. I know Mike in his presentation has some very nice -- probably a lot better than mine of existing buffer. But that's from Creekside Boulevard seeing that you have a ficus hedge that also has some canopy native vegetation in it. It's -- it's fairly dense. There was some storm damage late last year, but that's coming back with the summer rains and -- and the maintenance that's ongoing between the two entities. And so we think preserving that existing buffer makes all the sense in the world rather than to add another 25 feet. It doesn't really achieve what it's designed to do. I would rather think, implement what we -- what we've offered as part of this parklet concept. And I know it's kind of a funny term, but I think when we started this discussion with David Weeks and it came up whether or not we met some of the intent for park-like settings. So our landscape architect sort of came up with a concept of how we could design these little mini parks and parklets into the scheme of the entire park so that we could create areas where the employees and the public could have as focal points and gathering spots. Maybe it's as simple as a fountain with some trees. Maybe it ends up being a bench with some trees, a bird bath, who knows. But one of the other components of that was a little complicated. I don't want to complicate things more than they are. But we had asked for a deviation from our buffer against Granada Shops because it's their service area. We asked for a deviation against the post office Page 30 June 15, 2006 side of our project. Because if you read the code literally, you're required to have a 25-foot-wide buffer with 6-foot-high berm or wall around the entire perimeter of a business park. Keeping in mind that a business park is kind of one of those floating districts. I find 35 acres anywhere in the urban area, I can qualify to ask for one. It might be next to a residential project. Maybe it's adjacent to the industrial park in a commercial shopping center like we are here. We don't find that putting a 25- foot-wide buffer adjacent to Granada Shop service area and putting a 25-foot-wide buffer adjacent to Creekside and the post office and the other light industrial uses that are there makes sense. What I think we offered was to take -- and this was Mike Sawyer's suggestion was to take the quantity of those trees and disperse them elsewhere on the site to also enhance this parklet concept and to softening of the entire site by taking that 120 plus or minus trees and putting them where it counts rather than in a buffer that's between a shopping center and the service area. So I think taken with that, the parklet concept is a good one. And we think that achieves that objective. The other thing that I like about this concept is that we've created a linear park along Immokalee Road. So it would bring that 20- foot buffer along Immokalee Road deeper into the site. And it would be treated more -- more urban, more architectural. Because one of the other deviations that we had requested, we requested a deviation to have a buffer 20- feet wide along Immokalee Road without a berm or wall because we wanted to replicate the buffer that's already in place at Creekside and that was similarly approved for Granada Shops next door. And I've worked on both projects over the years. And I think both of those buffers function well. I think the continuity of a buffer along Immokalee Road works better than to have this isolated piece that ends up with a six-foot berm on Immokalee Road frontage. I think from the visualization you see that it's not an unattractive building. It's going to be designed like an office building. In fact, we've asked for Page 31 June 15, 2006 no deviations from the architectural standards of the code which I think says a lot for what the Naples Daily News has tried to do here. I think in terms of compatibility, I think taken together our location, the design of the building, the context of other buildings being comparably in height permitted in the same general area, taken together with the parklet plan and our buffer plan and the agreement with our neighbors with Bay Colony, I think we've got a compatible proj ect that makes absolute sense in this location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne, thank you. Before we go into questions, you have offered into evidence some new documents producing -- that you produced for the visuals of the project. MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would -- again, I hate to impose, but we -- I think copies of those for this commission would be critical. And I'd like to get a motion to accept those into evidence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. Commissioned (sic) by Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) MR. ARNOLD: I'll be happy to do so. These are in color and I'd be happy to either pass these out and let you-all do that or we can get them in black-and-white. Page 32 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, black and white's fine. I think we need them because today and the rest of this discussion needs to be focused on what you're presenting as what you're going to build. And since that's it, our questions need to really focus on that particular issue, not a building that you originally showed that was a block. It's a little different building and we need to be focusing on what you're actually going to provide. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. For purposes of our master plan we essentially took the footprint, made it a rectangle to give us, obviously, some flexibility in final site design. I did want to mention, I was handed a note from Bruce, Tom Sewall with the Naples Daily News has indicated that with respect to the loading and deliveries, that that rear facing against Creekside Boulevard is going to be turned and oriented to the west toward Granada Shops as well similar to the other at -- at grade loading level. He also indicated relative to the recycling question that Mr. Murray had that recycling occurs on the top of the loading dock apron as part of the normal business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- Ms. Caron, did you get your question -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer and then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And following up on that, I just wanted -- just for the record so that we clearly understand the recycling is that I would think mostly paper and then followed by chemical residue, inks and so forth. Nevertheless, what period of time are any of those products standing in the open air? I'm thinking now with regard to the smell. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. The -- the chemical recycling doesn't occur there. The -- they have a recycling company that comes and picks up the drums. Page 33 June 15, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's good. MR. ANDERSON: And hauls them out of state. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. And the paper is probably, what, how long, a couple of days before it's picked up? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's a container -- is it in containers? They're not so -- what's -- I mean, is there -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the gum from that paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the paper's in containers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think so. I think it's in bails. MR. ANDERSON: Bails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But obviously if it's in bails, it's open to the air. And, therefore, I'm concerned of the smell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Smell from paper? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If it gets wet, it does, yes. I'm familiar with this. MR. ANDERSON: It will have a canopy over it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: And-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it is -- okay -- protected from the elements. That was what I was trying to establish in that regard. I'm not concerned with humidity or moisture that enters into it normally. Just when it gets soppy. Okay. Thank you. Believe me, it does smell, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think anybody that invests in the size of rolls of paper they're going to be using and the other stuff; they're not going to let it get wet. Mr. Murray -- Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When -- the question on your development standards and the PUD -- MR. ANDERSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the need for ten-foot-side Page 34 June 15, 2006 setbacks, ten- foot-rear setbacks? MR. ARNOLD: Let me go to that page. What page are you on in the PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 3-4. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Side yard often feet, rear yard often feet? I think probably what we've agreed to are front-yard setback of 50 feet from Immokalee Road and the internal road of 25 feet. We're probably in the context of the single-site Naples Daily News building don't have a need for a separate side yard. It's probably not applicable to them. It's really more toward the future of Parcel B that the Barron Collier entity will retain. They don't -- we've shown it as Tract B. We don't really know the end user there. So there is a potential to be split into a couple of lots and then we would end -- end up with internal side setbacks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern the way it's written you could actually have a 75- foot building could be ten feet off the property line. MR. ARNOLD: Well, we have a PUD boundary setback of 50 feet. So from every PUD boundary, we are required to be 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Where do you see that? MR. ARNOLD: That is on No.4, 3.4. See four from PUD boundary 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. I appreciate your comments on the neighboring building how it's possible in the area although they're not built. But I didn't quite get the height of the lower portion of the Naples Daily News building. Seventy-five was the peak in the center. What is the other height that surrounds it? MR. ARNOLD: I have some other -- they're not the best scale to use. I've got them in one of my booklets and I can get that. But I believe that the primary facade area is about 38 feet. And the other Page 35 June 15, 2006 service areas approach 50 feet and that's from recollection. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thirty-eight to fifty feet? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. Now, in the staff report they refer to a term "other communication and information technology" will be included in the use. Does that include antennas and things of that type? MR. ARNOLD: It does include antennas and things of that type because satellite antennas are certainly a way that -- that communication occurs. And I think when you read what we've agreed to with our neighbors; nothing's going to be placed on the 75-foot-tall component. But I believe in the larger surface area of the roofline, that is where some of those appurtenances that are required to be visible and along the roof. But those will be shielded by the building itself. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, but I don't know that in the future if there's some technology that might emerge that would require antenna of 200 feet tall. Would that be considered applicable in this location based on the statement and report? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think so, no. We would still be under the zoned and actual height requirements that will be in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would you object to any defined language to that effect in the PUD that would limit you beyond the 75 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think this is the actual height question that I told you was coming. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I probably want to look at the definition of "actual height" just to make sure, but -- MR. ANDERSON: That's -- the indications I'm getting are that they need and want flexibility of antennas or whatever there may be of technological breakthroughs in the future and wouldn't want to, you know, limit themselves to 75 feet. Again, the only -- it's only going to Page 36 June 15, 2006 go on the lower portion of the building and not on the tower. That's an agreement that was reached with Bay Colony and we'll be happy to put that in -- in fact, we intend to put all those matters that we agreed to with Bay Colony as stipulations in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not going to be limiting to 75 feet what specifically? MR. ANDERSON: In -- if there were an antenna or something of that nature. This is strictly in response to Mr. Kolflat's question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So any communication tower, for example, you're saying is the exception to the 75-foot rule in regard to the height. Is that -- that's what you're asking for? MR. ANDERSON: We want to look at the Land Development Code a little bit on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's a provision in there that addresses it, fine, but we want to get it on the record today. Is there any other questions of the applicant before --? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I still have some if I might continue. There's a statement, of course, in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, hang on. Let's see which -- who's going to be listening to Mr. Kolflat's question? Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There's a statement in there with a description of a business district and so forth that will create a park-like environment for the enjoyment of employees and patrons. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: How do you perceive that being fulfilled in this particular presentation? MR. ARNOLD: The -- the exhibit that's up on the visualizer is the parklet plan that we came up with where we're creating a linear park environment along Immokalee Road. And we've agreed to create a minimum of three parklets throughout the business park itself that Page 37 June 15, 2006 will be incorporated as part of the overall site design for the project. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, the wording in the staff report indicates that this linear and parklets will be 1,500 square feet. That seemed to me to be rather minimus. MR. ARNOLD: It does, but we haven't really done the final site design in knowing how many areas that we have in any given location. We established a minimum area of 200 square feet. And then they won't be less than 1,500 square feet aggregate. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But you plan to limit to 1,500 feet? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we've designed them yet to know whether it's going to be 1,500, 2,000 or half an acre at this point. But I think those were established to be minimum thresholds which we would meet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There was also some discussion about access for the employees down to this preserve and the open space location. Now, that's about 2,500 feet in length. MR. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And you're suggesting that they probably will walk that distance? MR. ARNOLD: No. I think we're -- we're really not. And I think that was a point at which we went back and were discussing with staff, you know, whether or not this area was usable at all, this area south of the berm. And it's very usable from the standpoint of it being part of a water management or our overall open-space requirement. We're preserving an in-place wetland that's down there. But for the bulk of our patrons and employees, they're going to be provided with areas in and around the building. We agreed to a pedestrian interconnection back over to Granada Shops. We'll be required to put a pedestrian connection to the two sidewalks that are at Creekside Boulevard and Immokalee Road to allow people to traverse between Creekside and Granada Shops as well as within and through the site. Page 38 June 15, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So the preserve will really not serve that goal? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. And -- and, in fact, I think when you really look at the code, it's -- staff is not encouraging you to go and actively use any of our preserve areas. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, the building coverage of 25 to 45 percent is meant with your proposal. That's correct. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the way it's located, a lot of the soil that would be available for absorption of rainfall and thereby not having to divert water to the extremity of the property is voided or gone because it's going to be covered with hardtop; correct? MR. ARNOLD: Some of it is. I mean, this is a phased building expansion. And we'll be designing a water management system that has built-in water quality treatment initially before it discharges water into the larger preserve and lake system that's to the south. And Chris Hagen's here if you have specific drainage questions. But that water, then, reaches a certain level and is then piped back to Immokalee Road. So we meet our -- we will meet our water management requirements on the site. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could you describe the pedestrian circulation that -- that you will have here on this -- from one of these maps. MR. ARNOLD: Right. One of the staff conditions that -- that Bruce mentioned needed to be added as one of the staff conditions was to come up at the time of site plan with a pedestrian circulation plan. And that is once we -- once we know the actual physical footprint of the building and how it's really going to be oriented on there, then we define how we get people and pedestrians in and out of the project. We'll have to show at that time exactly where we access Immokalee Road and the sidewalk that's there, how we're going to safely get people out of our project to the south at Creekside Page 39 June 15,2006 Boulevard, and how we would make any potential interconnections to Granada Shops or Creekside. That's part of the site development plan reView process. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Your proposal also says that there will be some signalization placed on two of the roads to the east of US 41. Can you give me an idea what the distance is between those roads from 41 to the first one, the second one to the second signal? Just an approximation. I'm trying to get a feel for how much -- MR. ARNOLD: They're approximately a half a mile spacing. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Between each of them? MR. ARNOLD: I mean you have signalization at US 41 and Immokalee Road. There's a signal at Creekside Way and Immokalee Road. And then, of course, there's another signal at Goodlette Frank Road and Immokalee Road. And there's also potential signals that we've been asked to pay a proportionate share cost for potential signals at Goodlette Frank Road and Creekside Parkway as well -- or Creekside Boulevard, excuse me, at Creekside Boulevard and US 41. And that would be cost shared with Granada Shops, us and Creekside. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right. It was mentioned earlier that there were two deviations that you are withdrawing. Can you identify those numbered ones again? I didn't write that down. MR. ARNOLD: I sure will. I can identify them from -- if it's easier from the PUD document. They are numerically listed there and then Mike listed them or alpha -- they're listed alpha in the PUD document, numerically in the staff report. I don't know where it's easier for you to find them, but there are the two that related -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Numerically would help me if I had it. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Let me do that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think that's one Bruce mentioned numerically. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Staffreport, I believe that's-- Page 40 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Numbers four and five I thought you said. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Four and five? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it was four and five. It's on page 22 of35. Deviation 4, it was a deviation from a 1,000-foot-sign separation. We think we can now meet that requirement. It was close, but I think with some -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And there was several staff conditions that you took exception to? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Can you identify those again for me because I didn't jot those down. MR. ARNOLD: Bruce, you want to identify the staff conditions for the record? MR. ANDERSON: I'd be happy to do that. Condition No.5. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. MR. ANDERSON: Six. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Six. MR. ANDERSON: Ten and eleven. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ten, eleven. MR. ANDERSON: And 12, 13 and 14 have been modified. It's not so much we disagree with them, but they've been reworded. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right. With the exception of those that you mentioned the deviations and the conditions, you would accept all the other conditions and deviations as they've been presented? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. That concludes my questions, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) Page 41 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, I have a few. Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a few moments to go over a couple of questions? First of all, that long connection you have to the water management area and to the preserves to the south, I notice that the Pelican Marsh golf course is on the east of that and as well to the south. Is there a need for a golf cart crossing easement or is that routed around those points? MR. ARNOLD: I'm fairly certain we already have an easement in place with -- with Bay Colony regarding golf cart and access through that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- I talked to you on the phone. I mentioned that typical to this panel, we've always requested complete disclosure of individuals, not corporations. In your case, all I had was corporations. Did you provide -- do you have those items for the record? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. Dave Bordan with Barron Collier Companies did some additional research yesterday. I did bring just a couple copies for the record in case somebody didn't get it, but all of the disclosure of interest information that had been filed for the project listed the various entities. And in it -- in that is discussion of who the various entities are that are part of the Creekside Property Owners Association, Ocean Boulevard Partnership, the Ocean Boulevard Partnership II as well as the Naples Daily News. And I think the question comes up, there are in the Collier family some irrevocable trusts and things of that nature that doesn't specifically list an individual's name. I know Dave Bordan has some additional information. But for the record, if it would help, I'll be happy to give the chairman at least a copy of this just so that it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Wayne, all I need to know is who the individual -- if -- well, first of all, the county attorney doesn't seem to be here right now and it's a question she needs to answer. I guess Page 42 June 15, 2006 we'll defer this question until she returns. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also I talked yesterday the covenant of unified control -- MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the covenant of unified control which was provided was Ocean Boulevard Partnership II. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mentioned to you I thought maybe not all the folio numbers were covered as far as your representations -- MR. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and Mr. Anderson's today. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get that clarified? MR. ARNOLD: I think I did. And that's why I brought a copy for the record. But I think what may have -- we don't get a copy of what staff gives to you, but we had an initial application and a supplemental application in April. And I don't know that you got all of them, but I think I checked folio -- I think we're fine with all the entities. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, we-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm sorry. I'm trying to do about three things at once. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. Thank you. We received a -- the disclosure of interest information, but it was filled out with corporations, LLCs and partnerships, not broken down to individuals. In the past we brought this up. I thought we were required to have individual breakdowns so we know who the parties are involved. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's been our policy. So you-all are fully aware of who -- what the ownership interests are so you could make an informed decision about whether you had a voting conflict or not. And there hasn't been any problem by the applicant Page 43 June 15, 2006 providing that information. That's -- I can't point to an LDC requirement, but that's been a matter of -- it's been established by policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd rather not deviate in any manner from what we've required of everybody else that's come before this commission. So with that regard, can someone tell me who the owners of Creekside Commerce Park Property Owners Association are as far as individuals go? MR. BORDEN: For the record, David Borden, Barron Collier Company. I'm associated with many of those organizations, president of the POA which I think is the area that you guys were concerned about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BORDEN: I've made only two copies and I've asked Mike to make some additional copies. They're fairly lengthy documents. I'll step through it. He'll have additional copies to go out to everyone. If you don't mind, I'll -- I'll drop one for you now and you can ask some questions and I'll try to respond to those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, there probably will be no questions. I simply want the record to be clean that all the entities are put on record and we all know who they are and we go forward from there. MR. BORDEN: The -- the ownership, of course, in the property owners association rests with each of the property owners. He II erman- Tyton is a public and international corporation which would have multiple stock ownerships. And I got down as far as inside of one of our condominium groups that the Lutgert family has an LLC that owns 25 percent of that. I did not go into the Lutgert LLC for the individual ownerships. There were just -- I was so deep into it at that point that I just didn't have time to get through their family scenario to get all the pieces of that. But it is the Lutgert family that has one small piece of one small parcel. Page 44 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about Ocean Boulevard Partnership, the bulk of that ownership by individuals is something you have there? MR. BAREN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last one is the Collier Publishing Company. Did someone bring entity or individual ownerships of that with them? MR. BAREN: To move through quickly, the Creekside Property Owners Association is listed beginning on page 2, the names of the ownerships. And then behind that Creekside West, Inc., being the primary owner of the majority of the property that's encompassed in the property owners association. Creekside West, Inc. is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's all here. That's fine. That's good. MR. BAREN: You don't need to step through that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of the panel hasn't -- doesn't have this document? MR. BAREN: We -- we're going to make additional copies for the panel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Once we get those, we'll ask them to be admitted into record unless you-all feel comfortable. It all seems to be here. MR. BAREN: And in the disclosure of interest information, you guys want to handle that one? Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Collier Publishing Company, Inc. is 100 percent owned by E.W. Scripps Company and E.W. Scripps Company is a publicly traded company. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, we'll move past that-- MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- into your PUD. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. Page 45 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2-8, Section 2.15 Bl, last sentence talks about internal pedestrian connections to existing pedestrian network; however, the developer shall not be required to retrofit existing roadways to include additional sidewalks. At some point I'm going to ask transportation if there are any needed there. And I'll certainly want to figure out from them who they think ought to be supplying those. Since you have incorporated that portion of the roadway into your PUD, it would seem logical you would be taking care of that issue. MR. ARNOLD: Well, that was -- that particular project, Creekside Boulevard, for instance, that -- that was a road constructed by the Collier family. We have a stray reference in here that Trinity Scott asked me to remove in Section 6.2. I thought I had removed all of them, but 6.2B needed to be eliminated. Which says, Creekside Parkway, Creekside Boulevard are existing roadways and are deemed to comply with LDC standards. They take exception with that because it doesn't comply with today's LDC cross-sections for what the county would build as a collector road. There's a five-foot sidewalk on one side of the roadway as opposed to only two. But part of our discussions over the past several months has been acceptable to them, I believe, and hopefully they still say that to make payment in lieu of actually going back and retrofitting that county roadway to add a sidewalk on that section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll certainly talk to Trinity when she's available. Question, on your reference to your uses, I know you've gone from SIC to the NAICS and I understand why. But NIC -- NAICS is a much more intense set of standards than SIC. In fact, the book that contains those and descriptions are practically four times as great as the descriptions portrayed in the SIC. N ow the way you worded this, though, when you said that you want --let's take on page 3-1 3.3 A4A, publishing, telecommunications, motion picture and video. Then you reference Page 46 June 15, 2006 codes. Now, 511 in the NAICS is a header to a massive section. And I've printed out each one of these. 511 by itself is one, two -- well, it's got a couple pages. 512 is a couple pages. 515, 16, 17, 18, all of those in that section alone are six pages of listed uses that would be allowed simply by referencing 511. Do you -- have you looked at this to determine of the five or six pages what uses you really want? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think we need several because the industry for communications has changed so rapidly trying to anticipate into the future a little bit to stay up on times rather than having to have to come back and say , Well, we didn't make a provision for video conferencing and, therefore, we're back to make that amendment. We're hoping to make this as broad under the general category of Publishing Telecommunications, et cetera. Bruce I know has the 2002 NAICS information with him and maybe that's the segue to let Bruce come and talk to you about the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I used the 2002. I also have a -- what's called a 2002 NAICS matched 1987 SIC. Then you can see the bridge requirements between the two codes. And it tells you where they are bridged appropriately to give you the -- the uses you want. But in those places where it's not, obviously, a reference to some Internet uses, but it also goes into motion picture theaters except drive-ins. It also has drive-in motion picture theaters under another section of 512. And I know you're not going to do a drive-in motion picture theatre, are you? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then maybe we need to go through these and there's a total of -- all the NEIC codes you reference come up to about out 30 pages of item after item after item of listed uses. I would bet 90 percent you don't need. But by the blanket reference of using the header to the code instead of the individual code number, you're actually saying you want the ability to use all these 30 pages of who knows how many uses. And I think that might be not Page 47 June 15, 2006 quite the intent of what you're trying to do nor what the intent of the public is going to be expecting on that piece of property. You're not putting in a drive-in theatre, are you? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know by this you'll be allowed to do that if you wanted to? MR. ARNOLD: I have not gone back to review the list, but I presume that you're correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have it here. And I have the comparisons to the SIC so you can see the cross-references. I don't know how to resolve this at this meeting. I'm looking for a suggestion, gentlemen. If the same process occurs in the rest of your NI -- NEIC references. And, again, I have to agree with you. The NEIC is the way, I think, this county should go and I think the property appraiser even uses that coding. It would be great if developmental services was able to switch over to that. I know it is an effort to do so because it is more definitive and you can get really down to what could be on each site. But in the same instance, if you use just the headers to those codes, it's way too broad. So -- and I hope they're talking about a suggested way to solve this problem. MR. ANDERSON: We were discussing that very item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not going to drop it. So why don't I go forward with the rest of the questions while you figure it out for a minute and we can expedite this. Wayne, the rest of the items on Parcel A I didn't have any issues with other than the NAICS references. On Parcel B you're asking for some uses that surprised me. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aircraft and parks, building construction and basically that's all the groups which really does open it up. And construction specialty trade contractors, I'm concerned about the noise Page 48 June 15, 2006 that some of these intense industrial uses will cause in a business park adjacent to a golf course across from a setting like Bay Colony. You have food manufacturing, furniture and fixtures manufacturing, miscellaneous manufacturing, which is NEC. You know how intense those are in the SIC code. Motor freight transportation and warehousing, paper and allied products, plastic materials and synthetics, rubber and miscellaneous plastic groups, you have 20 uses listed. Each use practically contains a range of SIC codes. So there's multiple uses within each one of those, but of those 20, some of these seem to be more intense than what you may want to be placing them next to a golf course and a residential community. Has anybody given that any thought in regards to when they picked these numbers. MR. ARNOLD: We did. This list was paired down from a longer list that we initially started with. But, again, keeping in mind, we don't know the specific end user yet for Parcel B. We're looking for certain flexibility. And I think the one -- one issue you raised, for instance, construction specialty trade contractors that can be as simple as a specialty contractor's office, for instance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ARNOLD: It doesn't necessarily -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could be as simple as that. It could be as complicated as a tool rental yard with equipment being repaired constantly or something of that nature. I'm more concerned about outside storage and activities that would be disruptive to the neighborhood than what you do inside a building. MR. ARNOLD: I think that it would be easy enough to commit on that parcel there'd be absolutely no outside storage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No outside activity involving the manufacturing of any of these elements? MR. ARNOLD: I think we said no outdoor fabrication or storage, then hopefully that would imply that everything else is self-contained Page 49 June 15, 2006 and nonnuisance to the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you be -- will you be constructing or your applicant be constructing this building or is that going to be spec'd by the buyer? Only -- only thing I'm asking for is certain uses will have more noise issues even internally. I just would like to understand that there has to be some sound attenuation to keep the sounds within the building and not have them permeate past the building. MR. ARNOLD: I think I don't have a copy of the Bay Colony letter with me, but I think we agreed that we would be making several limitations there including no outdoor deliveries and access on that side of the -- on the southern side of the property. Hopefully given that requirement limitation as well as no outdoor storage fabrication that we wouldn't be a problem to our neighbors. We're not anticipating being a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you met with them, were they-- did this list -- did this list of items get discussed? MR. ARNOLD: We will. I know Bruce is looking at the NAICS code right now. That's -- and then I can speak with our client regarding possible elimination of any of these other uses to help pair that list down for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: I'm not prepared to do it from the floor, but if we get an appropriate few minutes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have a break here in a few minutes. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That'll be a good time. Item C3 under Accessory Uses Permitted it says, eating places including coffee shops. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming that's excluding liquor, Page 50 June 15, 2006 alcoholic beverages? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that it's excluded by this reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know. That's why I'm asking. The business park. Maybe some businesses have done better if there's liquor or alcoholic beverages. COMMISSIONER CARON: Three-martini lunches if they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't think near a neighborhood it's the best thing to do. We've got plenty of that in town already. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we would have a problem adding an exclusion that no on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages. MR. ANDERSON: No on-site sales. MR. ARNOLD: No on-site sales. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, Bruce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, the -- or, Wayne, I'm sorry. While we're on this section, have you come to a conclusion on the height issue? MR. ARNOLD: I think maybe I -- I want to make sure I heard the question properly. Because I heard communication towers in my mind. And I think Bruce went to antennas and they're two entirely different animals. And I think that there is no intent to have a separate communications tower. And I think there's a whole separate part of the code that deals with how we get there. From the antenna standpoint, those are specifically excluded from height limitations and the code. And I don't think I can tell you at this point how tall an antenna might be that's related to this building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're excluded from the code, then it isn't an issue if that -- in regards to what we're talking about in zoned and actual. Zoned height you're still saying 75 feet? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actual height you are saying 75 feet? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think it has to be accepted for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just said antennas were Page 51 June 15,2006 excluded from the code. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. I just want to make sure when we say 75 feet, we know that the top of the production arm of this building is 75 feet. What I don't know is whether or not there would be any antenna that might stray above 75 feet. MR. ANDERSON: The code provides an exclusion for antennas from zone height, but not actual height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we're getting down to the meat of the issue. So from an actual height viewpoint with the exception of antennas, what do you expect your actual height to be? Take into consideration your rooftops if they're going to be allowed for air-conditioning, vents, or anything that's going to kick up above that 75 feet, you're -- are you going to use a cooling tower, chilled water? MR. ARNOLD: We can confer with Tom Sewall from the Naples Daily News. MR. ANDERSON: It's all going to be. The 75 feet is only for the printing press, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The outside of the building will not be-- the actual height of the outside building with the exception of antenna is 75 feet? MR. ARNOLD: That's what I understand. I need to look at the-- at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, doesn't the code say that you can have an antenna at 15 feet above the top of your building, anything above that requires a conditional use? MR. ANDERSON: Not for an antenna. I mean, it's specifically-- there's a specific exclusion for antennas from the height calculations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're unlimited in height, then? Any building can have an unlimited height for their antenna? Remember the antenna ordinance was prior to the actual height Page 52 June 15, 2006 ordinance being written so -- or that definition for actual height. MR. ANDERSON: Well, that's -- are you sure you're not confusing that with the tower ordinance which is a much more elaborate procedure where you are going to put an actual stand-alone physical tower? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I understand that. But -- so there is a -- you believe you can put any height antenna on the top of any building? MR. ANDERSON: That's what the code allows. It's the way I read it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just continuing. So if -- are you folks -- I just wanted to pose an additional question on that just for additional clarification. Mono-pole antennas can be structurally fairly beefy and, therefore, can go great distances. Are you intending to install antennas on roofs? And, if so, what structure would they have? And I know you're not going to be able to answer that directly, but the thinking of this -- the questioning of this is in order to avoid any question later on about a mono-pole antenna being erected that suddenly juts 50 feet above the building, I just want to get it for the record. The intent is to have antennas which I would assume for receiving primarily, although you could send with them, and they're not intended to be structural in the sense of supporting great height. Is that a fair statement. MR. ANDERSON: Supporting what height? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Great height. Height. Fifty, sixty, seventy feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They got to be -- I don't understand the question either. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I apologize. Let me try to Page 53 June 15, 2006 be a little clearer, then. I know that there can be antennas that are beefy in terms of their steel and can, therefore, go to -- to good height, 50, 60 feet. We're using the word "antenna" as opposed to a tower carrying an antenna. MR. ANDERSON: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm trying to make sure that we don't somehow or another get a 50-foot structure from the roof surface of the building that we call an antenna which can -- mayor may not be really an unsupported tower. That's what I'm trying to ascertain. You don't understand me? (N 0 response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'll withdraw the question. If I'm not making sense, I'll withdraw and I'll try to think of how I can answer that question. Pose it properly. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Bruce, we're going to need answers to the codes, the NAICS. You may want to look at this. It does give a good summary. If you guys could go through and figure out how this applies, it may save you some time during the break. And right now we'll take a 15-minute break and be here back at 10: 15 and maybe we'll address that as well as the other issues. Thank you. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, everyone. If you want to take your seats and I think we left off with the applicant reviewing the NAICS areas involving what they really want to do on that site. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, that just sounds like the Matrix, doesn't it? MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to bite my tongue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got -- it's a trilogy. You got to buy all three. It's good entertainment. MR. ANDERSON: We -- we would want to have all of the 511 uses. That's the core of 511 through 519. Page 54 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 511, 512, 515, 16, 17, 18 and 19, you're saying that you need the entire reference under that code section? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You realize that's the one I use, for example, the Motion Picture Theater and things like that? You got my record -- my papers -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not reading off them now. MR. ANDERSON: Boy, I hate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at the website on the top of that. It does do -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You got him over the barrel. MR. ANDERSON: The -- it falls within the motion picture and video industries category. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The nice thing about NAICS, it breaks everything down to a very finite six numeric reference. So there's no problem like SIC has where you get a range every time you say a number. Now, someone can tell us exactly what they'd like to do if they decide to go to NAICS which happened to be your choice. And since you did want to go there, I'm simply saying, why don't you get to the exactness that that code now provides and let's put it on the table and get it in the record. Because I think that the references in the PUD that have been written in are so encompassing that I don't believe there's any -- virtually little restriction on that property at this point. MR. ANDERSON: What I would say as a general rule-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Anderson -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I think that this panel, and I obviously can't speak for everyone, would like to know these specifics. And I'm not sure if you-all have really had enough time to go through that. Do you want to take the time and continue this in order to do this and do it properly and appropriately? Page 55 June 15, 2006 MR. ANDERSON : Well, of course, we want to do it properly and appropriately. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. I mean, does that make sense? MR. ANDERSON: But we don't -- but we don't want to delay this economic fast-track application anymore either. COMMISSIONER CARON: But we're going to need those specifics. And if you're not able to give them to us today, perhaps -- MR. ANDERSON : Well, I shouldn't have started with 511 since that was Mark's drive-in theater. We will exclude -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was the first number you put on your application, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Exactly. I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't start there. You did. MR. ANDERSON: I understand. I understand. No. We'll-- we'll leave out drive-in motion -- drive-in motion picture theaters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I don't think anybody else has the benefit of what you're reading. And if we're going to go through this thing line item by line item one at a time or at least you're only going to exclude some and not the others, for the benefit of this panel, maybe if we did it on the overhead but, you know, we might spend all day going through those 30 pages. But I don't know how -- how you can just say that's the only one you will exclude when there's other ones on there that some members of this panel may want to question as well since it is a use they would be approving if they didn't question it. MR. ANDERSON : Well, I can give you -- I'll -- I'll share these -- we went through the list and put check marks by the categories of uses that we would want to include. And, I mean, they all generally relate. They all fall within the -- the category listed in Use 5 for Parcel A, all forms of multimedia use. And they all relate to that. And part of the problem is in predicting the future. Technology changes from one Page 56 June 15,2006 month to the next. And they want to be able to take advantage of -- of those breakthroughs. And, for instance, they don't need -- they don't need any lawyers on-site, but they might want -- they do want specialized design services and computer system design and related services. It's -- the list is fairly -- I think we can pair it down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I think you need to pair it down. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to be specific. That's -- if you hadn't gone to NAICS, we wouldn't have to be here because the reference in SIC is pretty general. If you use that reference and just said we want the publishing newspaper reference with Internet -- Internet services as well since that isn't defined in SIC, that might have given you -- given you both -- all of both worlds without the problem of being as specific as you now need to be when you opened the box on NAICS. And I don't know how to resolve that at this meeting right now here today. Yes, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it is important that we do resolve it. Not so much for Parcel A, but for Parcel B we don't have any control over. Somebody could come in and take advantage of one of these things. So until we can define the uses and some of the uses are pretty nasty, we wouldn't want them on Parcel B. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm going to make a motion that we continue this until after we have gotten this issue resolved. I don't think we should be doing this either from the podium where Mr. Anderson stands or from this dais. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion's been made and seconded. Motion was made by Ms. Caron. Seconded by Page 57 June 15, 2006 Commissioner Schiffer on my right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With that motion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that we're going to have a discussion. And I wanted -- again, the county attorney doesn't seem to want to sit in this chair today. If anybody knows where the county attorney is, could you ask her to come back because there are some issues I want to discuss with her before we vote on a motion like this. And -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before Ms. Stirling returns, could the motion be qualified as to time -- it's indefinite or within an hour? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Sometime today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That wasn't stated. I didn't hear it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He didn't say it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll discuss it-- MR. ANDERSON: For later today? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll leave it in the apt hands of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as discussion goes we can enter-- we'll go on with discussion right now subject to Ms. Student's questions of her when she gets back. Mr. Murray suggested that this be continued until later today, come back with the issues. Is that where the motion-maker had intended this to go? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that wasn't where I intended it to go only because I think it may take a good part of the day for the applicant to decide. And then we're going to need to analyze that list as well. And I don't know if the chair is going to want to break for all of us to sit here and analyze these various codes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think we have the time today to do that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a six-ITEM agenda. We have several other issues that are going to be -- and I notice people in the Page 58 June 15, 2006 audience that are noticed today and they're going to be just as controversial. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not looking to have this put off, but there's no reason it can't come back at our very next meeting. You know, that certainly gives everybody time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, what has occurred is there was a motion to continue this so that we can be more definitive on the needs or the uses that are going to apply to this site based on the NAICS and even the SIC application to Parcel B now. The motion was made and seconded and we're in discussion. I wanted to find out from you, first of all, it would be only -- would it be for both petitions that we'd be doing this for or would it be most likely just one and the other one go up separately on it? How do you see that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It would -- theoretically it would just be for the Naples Daily News piece, but if a problem were to arise -- and I'm just, you know, thinking ahead, then the one piece would be gone from the one PUD and then it might be a little inconsistent. So the other one didn't pass for whatever reason, so I think it would be -- make more sense to keep them together since they're related. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the next question is if this is -- motion is approved, is it appropriate for those members of the public that are here today that came to speak on this that we allow them to speak, then, of course, allow Mr. -- Mr. Anderson a rebuttal and then -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, that would be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- continue the rest of it until that time we discuss? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That would be appropriate. It's at your discretion. But since they came today, I think that's appropriate and then you just continue the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, with that let's continue discussion on the issue that Mr. Murray brought up in regards to the Page 59 June 15, 2006 motion as far as the timing goes. And Ms. Caron just spoke. And, Mr. Kolflat, you had a comment you wanted to make. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I had a question. If the petitioner were to present a very limited scope of uses today that we could find readily acceptable, does he not have the opportunity in the future to come in and amend this PUD to take care of any unforeseen and uprising new technology that might emerge? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Yeah. And they can come in at any time they want to amend things. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So that option is open to the petitioner if they wanted to continue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe wanted -- ifhe wanted to continue today. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Continue the hearing without -- not -- not a continuance -- avoiding a continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what you're trying to say is if the applicant wanted to minimize the list today so it could be readily analyzed by us to get the vote done today, yes, he could do that and he could also come back in the future and again modify the PUD if he felt like it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's stated much better. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, with all that said, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we in discussion on this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, we're still in discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, couldn't, Bruce, couldn't you limit the Parcel A to be all those activities associated with a newspaper or something? I don't -- you know, the Internet thing you were talking about, every business has Internet so I don't think anybody's going to have a problem with that. And then on Parcel B just make it the uses that are allowed in the other PUD. And if Page 60 June 15, 2006 anybody wanted something better, they could come back, but that way everything's consistent and we can move on. MR. ANDERSON: We're fine with that for Parcel B. And -- and I've been having some exchanges here with our -- with your staff. And most of these uses that -- that you were looking at are really accessory to the principal function which is the publication of a newspaper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ANDERSON: So my suggestion is going to be that we simply drop all reference to the NAICS and those numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where staff had tried to put you in the first place. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. Well, why didn't you say that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why didn't I say that? Yeah. Okay. MR. ANDERSON: We'll drop -- we'll drop those specific references to the numbers and go with the generic descriptions there because they capture what we were trying to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- I think you're right. Those are -- the generic descriptions would limit you to what you want to do and not open up the -- they open to you-all the rest of the elements that are in those code sections. So that's not a bad suggestion. But right now as far as the motion-maker -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if they do that, I'll remove my second. So if he says he's going to do it, there's no second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the motion-maker wish to withdraw her motion -- your motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: I want clarification on Parcel B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that -- okay. Is that something we can do just as a regular part of the hearing and not it being under the motion for that? I mean, do you need that during the discussion or can we just pull out of the motion, go into that discussion of Parcel Band then if need be make a new motion subj ect to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. No, absolutely. I'll withdraw Page 61 June 15, 2006 my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's withdrawn. The whole matter's off the table. Wayne, if you could address Ms. Caron's issue with Parcel B, then we'll go from there. MR. ARNOLD: I will. Mr. Dave Borden and I were speaking during the break and we came to the conclusion that what we really needed were uses very similar to what is already permitted adjacent to us at Creekside that lies adjacent to the Bay Colony portion of the project as well. And I can go through the specific list of uses, but if you look at the industrial commerce district that's part of the Creekside PUD, it lists several uses. Again, only within enclosed buildings, no outside stores and things like that. But it also allowed some other business type services that are not part of our business park and we don't want them. We want this to be light industrial in nature and that's -- that's where we're headed. So with respect to timing, I can go through and try to identify those specific SIC codes that have been approved for Creekside that have been deemed acceptable previously in a very similar location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to be going through a lot more testimony and a lot more discussion here. So while we're doing that, why don't you re-prepare that list -- MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for Ms. Caron -- for response to Ms. Caron -- MR. ARNOLD: I will do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as we finish up with everybody else. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If I can just ask Wayne a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, on that point, I mean, everything you want is a subset of the neighboring PUD, so excluding Page 62 June 15, 2006 those things, is it your concern it'll market differently or something or MR. ARNOLD: Well, it allows, for instance, in the -- in this thing child day care services, banks. We don't want a bank. We don't want a child care center. I mean I would exclude uses and limit them really to those light industrial type users that we think -- you know, Mr. Strain, specialty contractors, construction specialty trade groups are permitted there today in Creekside. There are some exceptions in that language, for instance, that limits certain uses and the way that those businesses are conducted. And I think we'd be willing to look at COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Fine. MR. ARNOLD: -- the same exclusions is what I'm trying to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you could work on that, Wayne. And I think that with the Commission's okay, we'll move on with the rest of this discussion. And before we -- before we get off the applicant, unfortunately, there are other elements as part of the applicant's application that I would like to ask Mr. Anderson maybe. Wayne's tied up. Bruce, the letter from the Bay Colony Property Owners Association, there's a series of conditions in this letter about claims of oak, ficus and hedges and outside lighting both in the front and the rear of the building. Well, actually -- yeah, it's on the north side of Building A and the south side of Building B. And there's an Item 4B, it says, No signage other than directional shall be located on the south side of the building. There will be no lighted signage on the 75- foot high portion of the building in any direction nor shall there be any antennas or satellite dish placed upon the top of the 75 portion of the building. So the discussion about antennas that you had, you weren't -- this would preclude you from having antennas on the top of the building. You're -- where were you thinking of putting this? Page 63 June 15, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. That's what I said. It would be on the lower portion if we had any at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the intent of this is that you don't have anything going above 75 feet. Is that a fair statement? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the antennas that you would put on the lower portion of the building would still not exceed 75 feet? MR. ANDERSON: We're -- we're prepared to stipulate to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could have done that a half an hour ago. MR. ANDERSON: Well, no, we couldn't have because I didn't-- didn't get to there until you took your break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you have -- so basically the Bay Colony document, then, you'll be adhering to that? That's acceptable? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. In fact, we'll be incorporating these into the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have three other pieces of paper here that involve either you or some of your experts. One is that Anthony Pires who is -- represents the community development district within Pelican Marsh has sent a letter or an e-mail to staff that was copied to us. And it has four questions in it. I mentioned to you, I'd like to get those four questions answered on the record. Oh, and, Bruce, one little -- little note. Last -- yesterday afternoon when I spoke to you about my issues on this project, I had not yet done the comparison to the NAICS, otherwise, I would have brought that up to you last night so... MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Hagen is going to address Mr. Pires's correspondence at least initially. MR. HAGEN: Yup. It's still morning. Good morning. For the record, my name is Chris Hagen. I'm with Johnson Engineering. I've been providing water management support to the team for this rezone Page 64 June 15, 2006 application. The -- the questions that I have from Mr. Pires, the first one refers to a graphic. And there were some problems with the graphic that was prepared and presented in the original application. The intent of the water management system here is to have dry pretreatment on site typical of any commercial use. The treated water would then be routed to the lakes that are shown at the back of the site where we would get attenuation. And then the water would be routed back out to the outfall. There's an outfall pipe right along Immokalee Road that provides the discharge for the site that ties into the North Naples canal just downstream of the control structure that you see when you drive down Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you get to that outfall from that lake? MR. HAGEN: How do we get from where to where? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the water's going to flow into the lake for attenuation. MR. HAGEN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you're going to -- you're going to have an outflow from that lake into what? How does the -- how does the water get from that lake out? MR. HAGEN: Extensive piping. The only way to manage that water is going to be to pipe it there and back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The pipe's not in the ground yet? MR. HAGEN: No. There are some pipes and some swales in the ground today that provide the drainage for Creekside Boulevard that runs through back there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're -- are you saying that the easements that you need, because they're not shown on this PUD, the easements, the right-of-way -- not the right-of-way, but the easements and the access ways you need to get that pipe put in the ground and taken to the outfall area are already acquired, in place and you're able Page 65 June 15, 2006 to build this? MR. HAGEN: They are everywhere except on the sites that we're looking to develop, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. You don't need stuff for your own property, do you? MR. HAGEN: I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I mean -- okay. They're all in place except for on site where you're trying to develop? MR. HAGEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what you're trying to say? MR. HAGEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what you're trying to say. So the off site flows from that lake, then it will be virtually all -- you have ability to put those in with no trouble at all? MR. HAGEN: Yes. We'll be routing those right through the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the graphic that is supposed to have been supplied to us, has that been -- mine still shows arrows going into the lake and discharging in the preserve and then going nowhere from there. I think that's what probably brought the concern to the -- to Mr. Pires to begin with. Do you have a graphic that clarifies that for the record? MR. HAGEN: It's not very official. It's hand drawn this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This morning? This is a real fast-track project. MR. HAGEN: A little conservation of energy. We've been discussing this internally and we just never got a real graphic that satisfied me. So I generated one myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- you reversed the flow. So now you got water flowing from somewhere into the lake and you're taking it? MR. HAGEN: We've got water flowing from the site-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 66 June 15, 2006 MR. HAGEN: -- into the drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the existing arrows that were on this graphic before you overrode it with the other one? MR. HAGEN: Right. Now, you have blue and black ones. The black ones are showing the preliminary runoff being routed to the dry pretreatment. And then from the dry pretreatment to the lake for storage and attenuation. And then the blue arrows are the out route, how it gets back out and ties into the outfall along Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got the existing pipe because Creekside Way had to -- or Boulevard had to benefit from this lake -- water management lake that existing pipe's already in? MR. HAGEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a wide enough easement to fit the second pipe that you're now proposing to put in? MR. HAGEN: It will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the RCP diameter? MR. HAGEN: Right now I don't have a detailed design, but it's going to probably be less than a 30-inch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the preserve area, I see the word "no." So you're not going to have anything flowing into the preserve? MR. HAGEN: That's correct. There's a cart path that segregates the preserve from the lake. And it's not anticipated that the water level will crest that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that lake that's there, does it take water from anywhere else or just going to -- or is it just Creekside? MR. HAGEN: It's totally isolated for Creekside. They've got a cart path around three-quarters of it and then an elevated golf course along the fourth side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, you got a lot of piping. MR. HAGEN: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. Page 67 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How does a lake attenuate the water? What is the meaning of that word, attenuate? MR. HAGEN: Attenuate means that there will be -- during a rainstorm, the water will rise up and then it will slowly drain back down. And that's what -- the attenuation's basically storage of that rainfall so that it doesn't flood the parking lots and buildings, but it just rises and lowers inside the -- the lakes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When you say lowers back down, isn't there an impervious layer below the lake? Where is it going to lower down to? MR. HAGEN: It's going to lower down through the discharge pipe that ties into the North Naples canal. And there will be some percolation into the ground water, but that's going to be minimal. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So attenuation you're just talking about it's going to be held for a while before it drains into the canal? MR. HAGEN: Correct. And during that time of holding, that's when the water management system works and it pulls the nutrients out of the water. The solids settle out. It's a standard water management practice. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How are the nutrients going to be removed? MR. HAGEN: Through normal biological uptake as they would in any other laked water management system. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. This lake is currently functioning that way currently; right? MR. HAGEN: It's currently functioning with a little bit of water coming in and a little bit of water coming out because the undeveloped area hasn't started contributing, but it's been isolated from Pelican Marsh so it does stand alone. Page 68 June 15, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Hagen, go on to the second question. MR. HAGEN: The second question was regarding water quality and assurances of pollutants not getting into the lake system and in particular into the Pelican Marsh project. And we will provide, as I'd shown on my drawing, dry pretreatment consistent with the South Florida and Collier County requirement so that you'll have water quality attenuation or water quality treatment -- pretreatment before it gets into that lake. Those will be sized based on all the criteria that's in place because that's going to be a dry detention system or retention system. You're going to have that first flush of runoff which is generally where all the pollutants are will be contained there and perked back into the ground. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your floor drains, are they going directly into this lake or are they going to any kind of tank system first for settlement? MR. HAGEN: This is one I have to defer to Tom on. So correct me if I'm incorrect. The internal drain system has got double backups so that the potential for contamination by ink or other materials into the ground water is totally isolated. So there isn't the potential for that. With the loading docks being covered, et cetera, the chance for contamination by ink or other on-site work, for lack of a better term, is pretty well protected against. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then your floor drains don't drain directly into your dry detention? MR. HAGEN: No, sir. They will not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question No.3, he's talking about pretreatment stormwater before will be received into Lake 43. That would be your dry detention? MR. HAGEN: Correct. And that will be per code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I don't -- I think maybe the reason Page 69 June 15, 2006 the question came up, I'm not sure that dry detention was shown on the previous drawing. MR. HAGEN: It wasn't specifically shown. Once again, we'll add it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 4. MR. HAGEN: That's -- you want to answer that one, David? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 4 for the public's information involves the maintenance of the water management facility and any impacts to that facility. MR. BORDAN: Dave Bordan, Barron Collier Company, again for the record. The lake, as I currently understand it from my conversations with CCD -- Pelican Marsh CCD manager, is that that lake is currently maintained by the CDD under a -- an easement, that we have an easement agreement with the Bay Colony Golf Course. We have an agreement with them that they were going to be maintaining that lake which is merely just a pass-through vehicle because they're already obligated to maintain it through the CDD. So we have the agreement with Bay Colony. Bay Colony has the agreement with the CDD. And I think the concern that was expressed by Mr. Pires was that there may need to be a mechanism for a direct payment responsibility to occur from this property rather than the pass-through mechanism that was there. I'm certainly willing to try to work that out. I don't know that the assessment methodology makes that easy to just deal with the lake as opposed to, you know, acreages of land which I think is how they assessed the properties in the CDD now. So there will need to be something worked out. Just also for the record, we did prior to taking the -- getting to this point we had an exchange of preliminary documents with the CDD trying to sort this thing out. And that was still in process. That was done in October -- their October meeting and it was tabled. So there is a mechanism that we're in the process, I think, of getting to the Page 70 June 15, 2006 final answer to that question. I don't think we've got there yet, but certainly the obligation is already covered within our existing agreements through the Bay Colony pass-through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I believe that's all the questions I have on those issues at this point. Any other members of the commission? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question for Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What is this project planning to do to support the need for affordable housing in the county? MR. ANDERSON: They would be subject to any subsequently adopted linkage fees that the county may -- may enact. I understand that those are slated to be considered in the fall. And depending upon the timing of when that occurs, they would be subject to it just like any other business. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you're not prepared -- you're not prepared to offer anything to help with this problem? MR. ANDERSON: Not at this time. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You're waiting for the county to force you to do it? MR. ANDERSON: Well, we're waiting for the county to adopt an ordinance that will be uniformly applied to all parties and that will specify how the funds collected are to be used. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Margie Student-Stirling. I understand that there is some kind of mitigation ordinance that is to be considered in September and also in the upcoming Land Development Code. We haven't gotten it yet from outside counsel, but there is to be an inclusionary zoning provision as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What will be the status of the project at Page 71 June 15, 2006 that time, Bruce, say this fall? Will you be in for permit? In for SDP since you're fast tracking or will -- will you be -- be beyond the reach of any ordinance that's enacted at that time? MR. ANDERSON: It will depend what the triggering mechanism is. I assume that it will be a building permit like it is for impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When do you plan to be going in for your building permit? MR. ANDERSON: I can't -- I can't imagine circumstances where we would be pulling a building permit by the fall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the end of the year? MR. ANDERSON: Hope -- perhaps, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one last question. This agricultural piece of property, this gerrymandering property line kind of thing, that's owned by this PUD or will be owned by the PUD. But who -- isn't there an easement across it for the maintenance and the use of it? So, I mean, what is the status of that piece of property? MR. ANDERSON: It is privately owned. Taxes are paid on it by Ocean Boulevard Partnership. The Bay Colony Golf Course has a use easement on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're required to maintain it and everything so it's totally -- isn't it totally in their domain the use of that property? MR. ANDERSON: No. Because this project will use it or it's currently being used to accept water management from Creekside Boulevard which is certainly not part of Bay Colony. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, for example, when Chris discussed the golf cart bridge that has -- that golf cart bridge has nothing to do with this property? That's part of the use of it for the golf course; correct? MR. ANDERSON: Correct. But, again, it is also used by that portion of Creekside Boulevard that lies within the boundaries of the Page 72 June 15,2006 new PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For drainage? MR. ANDERSON: For drainage. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Any other use for the PUD or -- MR. ANDERSON: That's -- that's the principal use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, one last question before Mr. Murray, your agreement with Bay Colony provides for a -- supplementing the ficus trees. That's fine. But, you know, staff doesn't like ficus trees. I'm assuming that you know that and that when you said ficus trees, you meant something that was acceptable? MR. ANDERSON: I believe that letter specifies that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Specifies what? MR. ANDERSON: That to the extent permitted by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. But you know that ficus-- okay. I'll ask the county staff. MR. ANDERSON: Well, by your approval of it -- of this language in the PUD, you will enable us to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the county has found that a ficus is vegetation that's undesirable in Collier County for any number of reasons and I've heard them state it many times, this agreement, then, supersedes that and allows ficus to be put back in? MR. ANDERSON: Ifit would be incorporated into the PUD, yes, sir. Those -- that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure that's a good idea. Why would we be doing that? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, there are ficus -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm waiting for him to say that, you know. I just want to make sure that the Bay Colony people aren't misled into thinking they're getting something and then having to say, Oh, well, too bad. Nice agreement. We can't do it because the county says no. Let's just get that on the table now what you're going to do in Page 73 June 15, 2006 regards to the ficus trees. MR. HAGEN: Bay Colony was made aware that the ficus trees may be an item for future discussion with the county staff regarding whether they're appropriate for this particular location. The specific objections regarding the ficus relate to things that have wind-blown damage issues associated with -- associated with them that have already been experienced by the Bay Colony group and they understand it. The concerns that we had were related to the buffering and the quality of the buffering and what -- what other alternative types of trees would be available that would provide something adequate or comparable to what's there. What we suggested to them was that we may be able to work with staff for particular locations in a buffer where we're so far away from any existing structures that we would be able to utilize ficus where appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HAGEN: And to answer your question, Bay Colony was fully aware that ficus may not be the substitute material that would be allowed by the county staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't want this Planning Commission to be in a position to say because we accepted this agreement, we now allowed a variance to use ficus. MR. HAGEN: That was not our intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that is contrary to what we would want to do. MR. HAGEN: We -- we agree. That was not the intent. The intent was to try to find a solution to utilize ficus through the county staff at some future point in time, but that we recognize there were problems with the use of ficus at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at 6-5 of the PUD, item I. And I want to correlate that to 6-4, Reference B, and just talk Page 74 June 15, 2006 about lighting and roads. I recognize that under "I" it says, All private internal roads, driveways, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, shall be maintained by entity created by the developer. Collier County shall have no responsibility. On B it talks about arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting must be in place prior to the issuance -- before Certificate of Occupancy. I just want to be clear on the lighting. This -- obviously on the private roads, if there are some, lighting is not pertinent here. But at the access points wherever there will be a private and public road joined, the lighting will be put in by the persons in the PUD here, right, the NDN or the other entity. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that will be maintained then by the entity? MR. ANDERSON: If it's on private property, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Okay. And then on preserves question on four point -- or 4-1, it speaks to maximum height of structures of 25 feet associated with preserve. And I was just wondering what kind of structures we would put in preserves? MR. ANDERSON: Well, not communication towers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's good. MR. ANDERSON: Boardwalks are specifically listed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember reading that the -- that there would be nature trails, but through a preserve, in other words. I had the impression that preserve would be left as a preserve. But we intend to have it -- make it a park? MR. ANDERSON: It would -- well, the preserve area, particularly the one that is on that piece that sticks out on its own is already subj ect to a conservation easement. And -- and we can't do anything to -- that is inconsistent with that previously recorded conservation easement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Page 75 June 15, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: And that permits -- you know, to the extent that it permits these uses that would be allowed in there by both the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand you. I understand you. Okay. I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I'd just like to go back to the ficus issue for just one minute. I just want to be sure that if county staff tells you that ficus is not appropriate, they want the ficus gone or certainly no additional ficus, that the people in Pelican Marsh will get something else that will replace that ficus, that it will just not go away because county staff says, sorry, no ficus. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Arnold spoke with Mr. Sawyer, who I believe is still here. Yes. And reported to me that the county does not prohibit the use of ficus. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. I understand. MR. ANDERSON: What they -- what they don't allow is you to count it towards meeting your native vegetation requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are some ficus that I understood were outlawed in Collier County, ficus Aunt Jemima, Nitida was one. I'm not sure it made it on the list. There are other species of Cuban Laurel plants that I believe I had heard weren't allowed in Collier County. If they are, that's different news. And maybe a lot of developments will start using them. Mr. Sawyer's behind you. Maybe he can comment. MR. ANDERSON: Good, please. MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Senior Planner with Zoning and Land Development. Mr. Strain, you're quite correct that Nitida, Cuban Laurel is not allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: It's prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there are some species of ficus Page 76 June 15, 2006 that are allowed and some that aren't? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A lot of times you've got to be careful which ones you use for frost tolerance and other issues like that. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, again, my point is still the same. That I want to make sure that if ficus is not allowed to be enhanced here for whatever reason, that something else will take its place for the people of Pelican Marsh. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. If you want to add some language-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Okay. That's all I needed you to be on the record saying yes that will happen. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other questions of the applicant, we can go into -- MR. ANDERSON: I -- I would like to -- to re-address myself to Mr. Schiffer's comments or questions, his last comment or question-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: -- about that piece. That piece was not created for the purposes of -- of this business park. It existed previously as a result of a lawsuit settlement. And it has the same zoning as the rest of the PUD. And it's not something that was created solely to meet the 35-acre-business-park minimum, unlike taking the land from Creekside which we readily acknowledged was one of the purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, in reference to that, since you brought it up, I went back and checked the Pelican Marsh records. In 1995 the original recordation of the DRI did not include -- did not exclude these pieces of property. Later in 1995 these pieces were excluded. They were excluded in the criteria that they were -- they were -- the configuration of those certainly wasn't something that Page 77 June 15, 2006 someone didn't intentionally create. I mean, those are pretty distinct, created pieces of properties cut out of the DRI that they were once in. I'm not saying they were created for the Naples Daily News, but they certainly seemed to have been created to provide the water management for that parcel. Otherwise, why would someone go to this obtuse way to get something out of a DRI after it had already been recorded? Why did you go to the extent of a lawsuit to have that accomplished in that preserve area? That's just a small piece of a larger preserve. Just enough hacked out to qualify something. It doesn't -- I mean, I understand your statements, but it sure doesn't seem logical someone would just do this arbitrarily one day while saying, gee, let's just cut this piece out of this DRI. MR. ANDERSON: No. It wasn't done arbitrarily. My point was simply and only that it was not done for the purposes of this business park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This business park? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand that -- that point very exactly said that way, yes. Thank you. Did you have something you wanted to add, sir? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, let's move on to the staffs presentation. MR. DERUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning Land Development and Review. You have a copy of my staff report -- staff report and the supporting documents for the Creekside Commercial Park PUD. And there has been some discussion relating to this where there is a modification of the plan. But a continuation of Creekside Way on the master plan will need to be modified and -- and we'll make sure that if you are considering a motion on that -- that that would be identified in Page 78 June 15, 2006 your requirements. The letter -- I do want to bring to your attention the letter from Naples Reserve. In there they -- they specifically talk about, you know, traffic congestion problems. And, you know, this roadway, you know, going in there may be viewed by those property owners as adding to traffic congestion. Staff believes that this will help in traffic congestion having -- providing signalized -- the existing signalizing intersection there, but -- but being able to have flow of traffic to get into not only to Creekside Boulevard -- continuing that down to Creekside Boulevard will help in traffic movement through the Immokalee Road section. And we have -- if you want to talk about this further, transportation can address those issues. I would like to stop there to see if there's any other questions on Creekside Commercial Park PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat and Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You -- you mentioned Naples Reserve. Did you mean Collier Reserve? MR. DERUNTZ: Collier, yes. Collier Tract 22 or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, in -- in regards to that traffic issue, the Collier's Reserve Association is saying it may increase traffic. What exists now is not going to change. So how does this help them in any way? There is a light there now. They can go down Creekside Way and get to Creekside Boulevard. How is this helpful to them? MR. DERUNTZ: Well, you don't have a direct route to Creekside Boulevard currently. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. You have to loop around. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So you're just saying once they dead-end into the Boulevard, that will be helpful to them? MR. DERUNTZ: (Indicating.) Page 79 June 15,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You had asked for any more questions on Creekside; right? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now I assume you're going to go into the Naples Daily News site? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DERUNTZ: Again, you have my report. And in the report and supporting documents the staff is recommending approval. It's found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and compatible with the surrounding properties based upon the conditions that the staff has identified in my report. We had finding of facts that went into detail on various issues, elements that the staff has -- staff and the Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners need to review these petitions with. And they basically link back to the -- the issue that this is a PUD that has particular criteria that the applicant is supposed to meet. The -- the issue of compatibility we felt was a very significant one as was identified by -- by the petitioner, you know, and my staff report with exception of the Pelican Marsh 100- foot height possibilities for multi-family units. The areas around -- immediately adjacent to this property do not have a 75-foot height for other structures. The -- there is an exception across the street. It can be 80. The -- there -- there are no buildings developed currently to those maximum height limitations. This area that is proposed to be developed is surrounded by -- basically you develop properties. As was pointed out, these could always change and -- and be redeveloped to the higher height that's allowed under the zoning. But at -- at the current time, this -- this proposed land's use is a mix of industrial, light industrial and commercial uses that have potential impacts of -- impacts for to sight, to sound, to noise, other -- other elements that have a negative impact Page 80 June 15, 2006 to the -- to the -- to the residential and -- and commercial property owners and occupants of the -- of those properties. And in reviewing this, staffhad a very difficult time. We were looking at the letter of the law here and what the intent of the law was. And -- and in our recommendations we try to -- to -- to try to protect the public as best as we can. The element that this business park was supposed to be developed in a park-like setting. And I'm going to go through some pictures here. We had an aerial. You can see how it's developed around it. We have -- this is pointed out in Activity Center No.2 that is at the intersection of Immokalee and -- and Tamiami Trail, the industrial park, Creekside around it, the residential to the south, commercial to the north and then -- then into residential. We have all of the existing PUDs, Planned Unit Developments, around this property. There's the activity center. And there's -- and this is the tract -- the tract right here is right adjacent to this -- to this area. But this is the original site line plan that was shown. There was a different site line plan. It was interesting that, you know, they were -- they were using, which they can, based upon the setbacks that -- that would be on the property. That 75-foot-height building could be at the footprint. They're choosing to -- you know, because of their particular use, they're saying it could be closer in. I found some concern about that because while where they were showing it was more -- they're showing distances on a previous exhibit. I don't know if we have that available here. No. I don't see that here. But they were showing it in the center of -- of this -- the footprint, but then the one display that they did show with the footprint of the building, we were going, you know, 70 -- or the 75-foot was more or less in the center, but we did have 50-foot around the edge to the back and to the south and to the eastern portion of the property. And there -- that is -- you know, while 50-foot heights are permitted in industrial districts, you know, those elements would be something that you would want to consider not just Page 81 June 15,2006 the 75-foot. There is some questions about the property notification. I provided that information. But going through here, we're looking at Arthrex which adjoins the property to the Pelican Marsh or Bay Colony. You can see this -- this building there, this industrial-type building. We're looking at possibly a 35- foot height there. This is the buffer. As I'm driving along the -- wasn't it or did it get switched? I'm sorry. Okay. Along Creekside Boulevard and you can see the ficus trees there. And I'm looking through and you can see this is Bay Colony behind it there. And this is where the buffer comes very close to the street. And you can see the sidewalk that's on the south side of the street there. This is the Granada Shop and the receiving area. This is their buffer off of Creekside Boulevard in this area. This is one of the taller buildings that's across the street. We're looking at 45 or 50 feet there. This is looking across the -- the subject property and looking at Granada Shops. You can see their buffer there. Again, this is looking through the ficus. And now I'm over on the Bay -- Bay Colony side. And this looking -- of course, this is your driving range there by their golf course and their clubhouse. But you can see to the north here this is -- this is the 35- foot tall approximately building for Arthrex. Okay. And -- and here you're seeing through the ficus. And there was a 50- foot-tall building across Immokalee Road, anywhere's for a site line visibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DERUNTZ: But that's much farther away. This -- this is looking back through the ficus buffer at the Granada Shop. And, again, this is looking back across at another direction towards a further distance to the Arthrex property. And we're looking at a 75-foot-tall building. Okay. And -- and -- and the sight lines that -- that were identified, you know, said that there was going to be some closure. There was going to be screen. And existing screening was going to be Page 82 June 15, 2006 blocked -- ample for providing a buffer for site visibility to the adjoining properties. Except if you were on the second story of those, then -- then you would have a site line. And -- and we're very concerned with the existing buffer that's there. That's very narrow or very thin and the potential of the visual impact of the properties. And that's what the basis for our recommendation of denials on the -- the various deviations as associated with the buffering requirements that is associated with the business park. The -- by adding -- by -- by maintaining the 25-foot buffer along each of the sites and the necessary trees, you're going to be creating this park-like setting that -- that this land use is supposed to provide instead of a mass of building and -- and -- and pavement parking area. And in addition to this, instead of -- of having this deviation of width and we're going to take the trees that we're not going to plant and we're going to put those into -- into the area of this park PUD, that -- that we should maintain those trees there. And -- and -- and add additional trees. And into the site that -- I want to go to where -- where -- such as this section along here. This other part of the building, they were talking about, you know, moving this loading area from the south off of -- off of Creekside Boulevard. Which I think is -- is a great idea if they would keep all the -- the loading to the west side of the building. That adds additional space to that site where they could -- they could add additional trees, additional buffering, but we don't have that on the conceptual site plan. This is a -- this is a change that they're presenting to the board at this time. By adding -- by adding trees in there, masses, we will get a park-like setting. We can appreciate this parklet plan, but having two trees and a picnic bench or water feature doesn't create a park -like setting. It adds something, but -- but in relationship to placing this next to the road, next to roads as is shown here along Creekside Boulevard Page 83 June 15, 2006 or -- or adj acent to the entrance to Granada Shops, you know, and -- and sandwiched between parking spaces. And -- and then looking at this area along the front where you can see that you have this driveway coming in here that -- that where you're looking at creating a park-like setting, but most of it's going to be paved, it's -- it's hard to see that this is creating a park-like setting. We know that there are limitations, you know, with the use that they're proposing on this property. We're not -- we're not saying we're against this. We believe it's an important use. We want to see Naples Daily News stay in the area. We'd like to see them expand. We understand it's -- it's a certified EDC project. We want to see more jobs. We want to retain our businesses in our community. We want it to work, though. We want it to blend in to meet the requirements. And -- and they're trying to do their best, but we think that they could do a little bit better by -- by not requesting these deviations as presented. Maybe -- maybe we could be modified to say not to have the berms or the walls or a combination of the two or we could lower the berms down a little bit. You know, if we wanted to add that into some discussion. But, you know, they are trying to work with us. They have -- well, agreed to a continuation of -- of the Creekside Way down. And that's going to really help our whole community. And that shows the -- the willingness to work with staff and wanting to see this project move forward. But I think there are some things that -- that can be done. And I still think by -- if we -- with the existing buffer along this side here and adding a 25- foot buffer along this length, the entire length of where Creekside Way -- Boulevard, you're going to be able, you know, to add that additional amelioration to -- to lessen those impacts to the sound of -- of the delivery trucks that are going to be going 24/7 here because this operation is 24/7. And -- and potential odors from -- from the -- from just the transportation element and possibly from the printing press. Page 84 June 15, 2006 And -- and -- and one of the points in my staff report is that we can -- look to have taller trees. So when we go to these -- to this -- this site line back to it -- sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I think we all get the drift of where you're -- MR. DERUNTZ: Right in this area here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- problems are. MR. DERUNTZ: Right. That -- that you can -- you can specify the species of trees to -- to help ensure that. So if you have any questions, I'll try to address. I know this is a very difficult project, but I think it's something that's worthwhile to trying to help out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, sir. Mike, I kind of share the fear of the height. I like their design but, again, the design has nothing to do with the application. So would you feel more comfortable, as would I, that we kind of put a limit that any building over 35 feet has a setback of at least two vertical to one horizontal? That -- the design they have it meets. It doesn't put them in any problem, but it does prevent somebody building what that document shows. That document's in our packet. Somebody would be easy able to come back and say, but, look, I can come 50 feet off of Immokalee Road and build a 75-foot building. You're showing that to everybody. So I'm fearful that that document's going to get us in trouble. So what I'd like to see if we could do is add on the design standards on the side, rear and front yard that no building over 50 feet can be closer than a ratio of two vertical, one horizontal. I'm sorry. The other way around, two horizontal, one vertical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, just to make one comment. I'm not for or against your statement. I'm just trying to clarify something. The site plan that's on here right now is not what we've accepted now into evidence. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.s Page 85 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We accepted the presentation that they provided which is a building that shows a stepped configuration just so you know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. And -- and, in other words, the requirement I just put on it, their step thing would work. It doesn't affect their design at all. The concern I have is somebody researching the packet, there's going to be a future Mark Strain that's going to find this packet and say that, you know, we're demonstrating that what we intended, what we approved was buildings that could be 75- feet tall right on the setback which is what that diagram is showing. So, anyway, this would eliminate somebody from building that building. The other thing, Mike, I kind of share is the landscape issue. You know, you're using the word it's like a park. Do you mean park-like in office park or parking lot? You don't mean, like, in a vegetative park, do you, or -- MR. DERUNTZ: It's a -- it is supposed to be like a vegetative park in the park -- where it says in a park-like setting where you're -- you -- you're providing buildings for a variety of uses, industrial, commercial, but -- but you're providing vegetation to ameliorate the -- the massing of the buildings, the -- and to provide people green space out within that -- in that business park. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, you know, in other words, I think this site doesn't really have much vegetation on it. All the trees and all the good stuff went down that little gerrymandered parcel. And it's not on the actual part of the parcel that we're building. The little parkettes, I mean, if you read on 6.1, essentially you can pick three of the things. So I could meet that qualification with 200 feet of gravel and a trash container. That's what it says. I mean, you have a menu. You pick two. That could be two choices. So is that where you're getting a park from three of those? MR. DERUNTZ: No. I'm not in support of the parkettes-- Page 86 June 15,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. DERUNTZ: -- plan. I see that -- you know, that we not approve the requested deviations from the buffering. And that -- that they would provide additional massing of trees and areas that -- such as we have on the south here of -- of this building. And I -- and I didn't put that as one of my conditions that -- that this would create more of a park-like setting and help in ameliorating some of the negative impacts from the industrial use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and the site plan they're showing shows a lot of areas that could be landscaped. (Phone ringing.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray's got a happy phone. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know a judge that would put you in jail for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- one thing the building hasn't done is, you know, there are standards. The way the architectural standards and the foundation planning standards of the code would still apply to this project; right? MR. DERUNTZ: Absolutely. And they are meeting -- they are not asking deviations of those. They will -- they want to meet those requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a big building. I'm not sure they meet the foundation planning, but that's part of the code that's in flux right now anyway. Okay. I mean, what do we do about these little parkettes? When we go to 6-1, they showed a pretty picture that the guy choose two trees, a bench and the gravel. So he's got three that way, but there are some menu items that aren't so attractive. And these things are essentially the size of a parking space. MR. DERUNTZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- MR. DERUNTZ: I would not -- I would suggest not accepting the parkette plan -- proposal, you know, as old -- these are the only Page 87 June 15, 2006 elements. They could include those in there, but we need to have additional such as what was suggested in my recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my concern is we're using those three little things. And the funny thing is they want a reduction of the landscape requirement on the front yet they want to put a linear park there in the same place. I mean, why wouldn't they easily be able to meet the landscape requirement if they're going to dress it up as a park, a linear park. But, anyway, my concern is I don't think there's much landscaping on the project. I think the landscaping's all cuddled up in that -- whatever you want to call that strip going off to the west. And that's the end of my questions. Thank you. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah. I just had a question to Brad, when you say two horizontal to one vertical, would that apply to the 75-foot height or the 50-foot height of the building? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's anything over 50 feet. So you can't bring anything -- because one concern I have. If you look at their existing plan, they do have an expansion that we don't want to get too close to those units. You showed a picture ofa 35-foot building peaking over the top of the buffer. So if this was a 75-foot-high parcel, that would be a problem. So just keep it back from the property line. Not the boundary of the PUD, though, because this -- this is really going to be two, excuse me, at least two properties in there. This will be considered one property; correct? So that the right-of-way line or in case the easement, in Donna's conversation, that would be considered a property line, the northern part of Creekside? And what my intent is that they just can't pull that 75 feet -- MR. DERUNTZ: Fifty feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- but it's above 50. You can't hit Page 88 June 15, 2006 that zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Mike, I have a few. MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got transportation. I have definitely a few for that. You had said that you would recommend denial unless the stipulations or recommendations that you're including in here are involved because of compatibility issues. So -- MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I want to be very clear on the record what the applicant is saying they cannot live with and where your position will be relative to that. Number five, you've heard a lot of discussion about the southern buffer from them. You've heard -- you've seen a letter of agreement with Bay Colony about the 25- foot being acceptable. Your document is requiring a 50-foot. If that 50-foot buffer is removed, will that then change your recommendation from approval subject to stipulations to denial? MR. DERUNTZ: Well, I wasn't -- I wasn't apprised of that letter until today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm bringing this up. I want to get your position on it now. MR. DERUNTZ: And -- and I still-- I still believe that additional buffering is needed over there because the existing buffer is so thin and -- and the height of those trees will not -- will not block the visibility of the 75-foot structure on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number six, the applicant wanted to reword it, but they believe it's reworded appropriately in the PUD. Are you aware of that? And if it is, are you now saying six is not needed? Page 89 June 15, 2006 MR. DERUNTZ: No. I would like to see No.6 remain in there. Because that would -- that would lend it -- lend to the park-like setting of this business park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Only thing I was just saying is when they stood up and made their presentation, they went through some of these numbers. MR. DERUNTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they said six was addressed in the PUD. You don't believe it's addressed strongly enough, so that six needs to remain -- MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on the record? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They previously said No. 10 and 11 could not -- had to be omitted by -- they couldn't accept that. But by looking back, I think they decided they can't accept the NAICS issues either. So they're now going -- I think 10, 11 then would be -- remain. They're talking that -- they're saying that transportation modified 12, 13 and 14. And transportation can come up here in a minute, I'm sure, and tell us that. But if transportation has, is that acceptable to you in lieu of what you have on 12, 13 and 14? MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the only issues, then, boil down to five and six. Six to the extent of a modification that mayor may not be. And five simply it's the buffer issue. Okay. That's all the questions I have of you. And I certainly have some of transportation as I know the rest of us have. Oh, I'm sorry. Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we -- Mike, can we go on to somebody from landscape? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike Sawyer, probably. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hi, Mike. MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer with Zoning Page 90 June 15, 2006 and Land Development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, what -- what are the open space requirements for this PUD, the percentage; do you know? MR. SAWYER: I'd have to rely on Mike DeRuntz for that. I think it's 30 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And this project meets it; right? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then what are the preserve requirements of this project? MR. SAWYER: Well, again, that's environmental. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But some percent. Anybody know? I'm just -- I mean -- MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Schiffer, the -- Wayne Arnold for the record. The preserve requirements for a project of this type is 25 percent of the existing native vegetation. We're preserving 100 percent of the native vegetation in the preserve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, Mike, the concern I have is that normal -- that would make a lot of sense if we had a nice rectangular site, we could expect to see those percentages around the building. But the fact that all this open area, most of this stuff is occurring down this trail that essentially is part of a golf course use, is that do you think appropriate? I mean, the reason we have these requirements is so that when we build buildings we set them in these what they're called a park. I think that's the part they really meant. They're setting them into these parks, yet all the vegetation kind of wandered off of this site. Don't you agree? MR. SAWYER: I agree. The greater lion's share of the vegetation is definitely towards the south of the property and well away from where the actual buildings are going to be constructed. When we were looking at what was being proposed, we had a number of questions and -- and issues with it. They were not Page 91 June 15, 2006 necessarily so much related to the east and the west because we have got industrial to one side and we've got commercial with loading docks on the other side. But we did see a lot of potential for a lot of visibility into the proposed areas where the docks are going to be located for the building particularly on -- on the main portion of -- of the -- the area, proposed building itself. And mostly that would be along Creekside. There is going to be -- if the buffers are placed along Immokalee that would, you know, pull in the buffers that were already existing to the -- again, to the west end of the east -- east. If we keep that buffer along Immokalee, that's going to take care of some of the visibility from at least on the Immokalee side. But there is going to be a fairly wide open area currently shown along Creekside. And that is going to be -- I think we can all agree that that's going to be a fairly important corridor that people are going to be using more and more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mike, so let's -- now, when they come in to develop, they're going to have a property line surrounding their property called Site A in the PUD; right? MR. SAWYER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, what are going to be the landscape requirements within Site A? I mean -- MR. SAWYER: The -- all the buffers are going to be as are proposed in the final PUD document. The only one that isn't mentioned currently would be the internal buffer along Creekside. In other words, on the north side of the Creekside, that's the only one that really isn't included currently in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it would be required under the -- MR. SAWYER: It would be required. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also there would be landscape requirements that foundation -- the infamous foundation. MR. SAWYER: Right. Foundational plantings as you know Page 92 June 15, 2006 we're working on that currently. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there any percentage requirement of landscape at that point or is -- MR. SAWYER: There is going to be an overall number of trees required for the parcel itself. And that's going to relate to any of the impervious areas. In other words, parking, building, that sort of thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So at a parcel level -- not the PUD level, but the parcel level, we could expect this to be treated like any other eventually platted parcel of land or even -- but that's not really true because we'd have open-space requirements then and we'd have preserve requirements then, wouldn't we? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, in other words, that portion of the property -- of the landscape that would normally be on the site around the building is not going to be on the site, is it? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll call up transportation. Thank you, Mike. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. And as a disclosure, I wasn't sworn in. I arrived a little bit late so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you should be sworn in then and probably spell your name for the young lady. (Oath was administered.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do. It's C-a-s-a-l-a-n-g-u-i-d-a. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good thing that was spelled, wasn't it? Nick, there's been some issues about apparently transportation worked out at the eleventh hour some terms or agreements. Can you kind of tell us what that's all about? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I think in working with the applicant and the fast-track process, it -- it puts a strain on them as Page 93 June 15, 2006 well as us. Some of these things are predetermined and we try to work with them to accommodate the EDC fast-track project. What we were trying to determine and I'll put it on a view, an aerial, what it is today. Challenging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're good and dizzy now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: As we reviewed the traffic from the project, one of the things we always try and do is consider interconnections through roads, bypass roads and make use of technology such as the scoot system. Anything that we can try and regain some capacity on the roadway segments as they come in. The project is consistent. It's in the TCMA. So the original analysis was a three-year analysis for buildout. We went out five years and looked at it a little longer. And it was consistent with the link analysis. We did find some operational deficiencies with the intersections. So we discussed with the applicant and we want to put it on the record and it should be modified in the PUD because they've agreed to it. And if you guys need to clarify that, we did this a couple days ago. We would like them to extend the Creekside roadway that's along the east side of their property down to the boulevard. We met with public utilities. That process is possible. They tentatively -- tentatively agreed to do that. We would like to do a scoot system along Immokalee Road starting with the US 41 intersection and the two easterly intersections with that. They have tentatively agreed to that. So we'd like to add that on the record as part of our PUD commitment. We've also discussed keeping the proportionate share for intersection improvements at Creekside and Goodlette and US 41. We're going to do more analysis when this comes to SDP which we go in one step deeper than we do at a zoning level review. So we'll look at those intersections. So we'd like that put on the record. And we'll consider TDM strategies such as carpooling, bike racks, pedestrian connectivity as well too as part of the TCMA requirements. Page 94 June 15,2006 Also 15 percent proportionate share. Now, we did discuss giving them credit for the extension of the roadway and the scoot system as part of that 15 percent credit. Fifteen percent above and beyond impact fees as part of the TDMA. And we've agreed to that tentatively. So all those things I think do quite a bit to increase circulation in the area and provide interconnection. I think Trinity also asked me to clarify the sidewalk issue along Creekside. And there -- there is no sidewalk to the east or west that connects to that, so we would do a pavement in lieu that's typically associated. We can do that. It's done at SDP now when we do review projects and we'll be bringing it up as part of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just not clear on something here. I remember Mr. Anderson, he recited a number of items. And he talked about crop share not to exceed 15 percent, $75,000 for scoot extension of Creekside Way. And if it were to cost more, they would put that to that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But then you introduced credits. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, usually that 15 percent is done for -- for things like scoot and for, like, transit or providing congestion management or providing an interconnection that's off site. So that 15 percent -- in other words, if this PUD didn't abut a roadway that they could physically connect, that money could go towards that. But where they are doing a connection and are paying for the scoot system, we would take that out of the 15 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that's typical. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. Page 95 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. The extension of Creekside Way, I think this is -- is a really good idea. However, how does it affect the Creekside PUD in terms of their open space, their landscape buffering? And I see another water retention area down close to the boulevard. And how does it affect the parking for the post office? You've got room to handle all of this and it doesn't affect any of these other issues? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I hope so. Because if they're going to commit to it as part of the PUD, they've got to put it in there. And I hope they've looked at it. So I would imagine their engineers have reviewed it. And I think -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I guess I'd like to hear that from their engineers then. Yeah. Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And we've met with public utilities and we can make that crossing. And we'd like to enter one deviation maybe in the transportation section we feel might make sense. A typical section coming down Creekside may have to be constrained because of that force main. So if we have to reduce some lane width or change a sidewalk from one side to both sides, whatever we need to do to accommodate that roadway, we'd like to be able to have that ability to do that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Say that again, Nick. This is on Creekside Way? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. To extend that. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you want to be able to narrow it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ifwe had to or make a modification with a typical section. We have a typical section in the LDC for, say, a local road. We have a force main there. We try to not to go over a force main with a roadway -- roadway. So if we need to adjust that roadway or shrink it down or remove -- Page 96 June 15, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: What? Why would you be considering narrowing roads in what essentially is now created an industrial area where there are trucks and -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think we would narrow anything that would cause any operational issues. We may be narrowing, say, a setback typically in the LDC from, say, a sidewalk or moving sidewalks from one side to another. We might be able to do that administratively. COMMISSIONER CARON: You just said they're going to mitigate their sidewalks. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right-of-way, not the roadway. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Right-of-way. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Big difference. COMMISSIONER CARON: Big difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Okay. Nick, is 846 -- well, Immokalee Road, is it funded and under contract? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The TCMA -- right now US 41 and Immokalee Road is operating at LOSF? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And will still operate at LOSF after any improvement's made as a result of this project? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're going to get improvements from the scoot system. And until we implement that, I couldn't tell you what those improvements will be but, yes, you're correct. It still will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The statement made in the TIS, and I know you didn't write it, but I want to understand it. I figure maybe you can explain it. It says, An analysis of the north, south and east, west lane miles within the northwest TCMA found that with the project as proposed, 100 percent of lane miles meet LOS standards. Page 97 June 15, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think -- I don't think that's accurate. And I think it may be less then 100 percent, but it is above the 85 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But when you have a failing intersection in a TCMA, basically it's not considered failed from a level-of-service standpoint because the entire TCMA still has acceptable limits within it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We -- we -- the TCMA's done on a link by link, not intersection by intersection. So you could have a filling intersection, but not a filling lane. And what we try and do is -- what I try to do as a reviewer is to look at what the project impacts are and should -- at least try and mitigate those trips so I'm not making it worse. But that's the best that we can. Scoot and the bypass road will do some of that and that's the thing we look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just saved Reed Jarvi the trouble of answering some questions so. Any questions of transportation at this point? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to qualify-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- will the -- will the scoot be part of an -- of an extended piece or stand alone for the moment? MR. CASALANGUIDA: At this point it might be a stand-alone leg, but in -- in the end, we're going to try and expand that scoot system around the county. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So is you're -- you're planning for the future. You're putting it in place? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that if there's no other questions of staff, Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Three registered speakers. The first one, Tammi Nemecek, followed by Anthony Pires. Page 98 June 15,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for those coming up, please state your name. It's assumed you've been sworn in. If not, please let the court reporter know and please limit your discussions to five minutes. Thank you. MS. NEMECEK: Thank you. Good almost afternoon. Tammy Nemecek with the Economic Development Council. I would like to thank you for -- for taking the time to review this project today and review it thoroughly. This is a significant project for the Economic Development Council. You've heard several times today that it is an approved fast-track project that the county is -- is in supportive of this project. It is -- the Naples Daily News is a significant employer in Collier County, significant high-wage employer. And it's important for us as the EDC with what we do with helping to retain businesses in Collier County as well as recruit new companies into Collier County, that we not only help businesses such as the Naples Daily News determine ways in which we can help retain them, but it also shows and demonstrates as a model for us when we go out to -- to try to lure new companies into the community of the support that this community has for the existing business space. The company itself has over 250 current employees. This expansion will enable it to a higher -- another 50 employees. The direct economic impact in not only the capital investment from the company, but also the wages of the company are nearing $120 million. That is a significant infusion of cash into this community and jobs into this community. And those indirect impacts felt with only -- not only new jobs being created, but the revenue generated for the community in terms of tax revenue will be significant in addition to not only just that direct economic impact. So we encourage you to support this project. I know that it's difficult looking at the plans and understanding how this proj ect has to be positioned in -- in the property that it is. But I will point you to a -- an analysis that the EDC just completed and understanding what our Page 99 June 15, 2006 challenges are for businesses trying to find sites here in Collier County. We are in a short supply of available land for commercial business park types of uses. An analysis that we just looked at for Collier County that projected based on the population growth out to the year 2030 shows that we have a 3,700 acre deficit in business park uses for Collier County. And looking at what we have to do today in order to try to accommodate those businesses that want to stay here and want to expand here, we're probably going to find sites like this until we can get some new property zoned in Collier County. We have a business park that's -- that's going to be opening up in eastern Collier County, but until infrastructure's out there to support that, it's still going to be slow moving to try to get these businesses to go out there. So we're encouraging, you know, looking at the land uses within the coastal area and trying to find appropriate sites that -- that meet the codes and meet the regulations. The fast-track program is not designed to go around those regulations whatsoever. But we are encouraging looking at the existing sites and seeing what -- which ones are appropriate for these types of companies as well as preparing ourselves for the future and land uses that we're -- that we know that we're going to need. And we're working with county staff to ensure with the east of951 study that, you know, we have those appropriate sites in place beforehand. But thank you, again, today for supporting this project. We hope that we can -- we can keep Naples Daily News in Collier County and help to -- to encourage more businesses such as this to -- to remain here. We have had experience over the last year and a half of several companies that are moving to Tennessee and North Carolina. And particularly because they could not get through the permitting process in a timely manner. And so this fast-track program is -- is important for us to be able to retain the businesses and being able to find the ways in which we can accommodate these businesses with -- in the proper land uses, I think, is also important. So thank you for your Page 100 June 15, 2006 time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Anthony Pires followed by Jim Carter. MR. PIRES: Good morning. Almost good afternoon. Anthony Pires of the Law Firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo. And I'm representing the Pelican Marsh Community Development District. And the Pelican Marsh Community Development District is a community development district that provides a number of infrastructure services for the property owners within Pelican Marsh. And I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to turn that on, Tony. MR. PIRES: I'll try the other one. The orientation -- the parcel in yellow is owned by the Pelican Marsh Community Development District. The little, almost rectangular parcel is one of the portions of the property that is owned by the petitioner here that's the subject matter of this rezoning application. The entire area even going outside this, this square or rectangular -- rectangular parcel is also subj ect to a conservation easement, actually two conservation easements in favor of the district and one in favor of South Florida Water Management District. Because you have wetlands and uplands, you have zero scrub habitat. And it's also some wetlands. And you also have a drainage easement over this area including this parcel in favor of the Pelican Marsh Community Development District. And for the purposes of this PUD, there are a number of questions or concerns that we have. We've had some discussions with the applicant. And one is that in Section 4, I believe, the section of the PUD dealing with the P preserve district, we want to ensure any uses outlined therein or prohibitions outlined therein are not inconsistent with the uses allowed or prohibitions expressed in the existing conservation easements. And between now and the county -- and we've had some discussions and they don't seem to be adverse to that, Page 101 June 15, 2006 that they're favorably inclined to that. I don't want to have uses outlined in the preserve area sort of being inconsistent with prohibited activities, but also I don't want to have prohibitions in the preserve language prohibiting activities that are allowed in the conservation easements nor inconsistent with the drainage easements. But I thought it would be helpful for you to understand the relationship of the district's property and the drainage easement and the conservation easements to this particular piece. Additionally, there's been substantial discussion with regards to the district's concerns as the chair asked the various questions that I outlined in my e-mail of June 9th to Michael DeRuntz that was provided to the applicant and the various parties. What I would suggest or would like to have is the language in there with regards to the water management aspect being in the PUD. The assurance is with regards to the pretreatment of stormwater that -- all the bad stuff will be out before it hits. We'd like to have that in there. Recognizing that there was some confusion initially based upon our review of the plans that -- that the water would be flowing from the Naples Daily News actual building site through the pipes south to Lake 43. And part of our confusion was generated from -- and I just want to get clarification -- a letter from the applicant's engineer of March 15th, 2006, that it stated (as read): This area -- that Lake 43 is specifically excluded from the Pelican Marsh Water Management System and designed to accept off-site discharge into the lake and then eventually into the adjoining preserve tract. My understanding today is that's not going to happen. There won't be any discharge into the adjoining preserve tract. I want to make sure that's firm. It goes on to say this March 15th letter of 2006 to Wayne Arnold also says (as read): Discharge from this area will hydrate this preserve. Again, my understanding is there won't be any discharges as explained today by Mr. Hagen during his presentation. And so to the Page 102 June 15,2006 extent that this March 15th, 2006, letter that is -- I have as part of this application is inconsistent. I'd like to go with what was presented today and make sure that's clear in the PUD document. Also, if you recall when the Mercado parcel came in for rezoning at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 41, the district also had a concern about the water management and the drainage coming off of the Mercado into the Pelican Marsh community. As a result of that and part of that rezoning process, the developer agreed and we have the district and the developer of the Mercado parcel entered into an agreement whereby the district would maintain the water management facilities. The developer would pay the district for that. And the district would have the opportunity to review the plans for the water management facilities consistent with applicable design criteria. And that's been of tremendous help. We still have some other issues involving the water management areas down there as far as the Pelican Marsh Water Management system. That's been a tremendous help for the district to have that interface, that interaction and that opportunity to inject itself into the permitting process by virtue of an agreement. I understand from David Borden's presentation today that may be something that they're amenable to. If so, we'd like to have that in the PUD also. And, again, this may be something more to be worked out between now and the planning -- the County Commission. We'd like to have their agreement, though, that provision -- that type of provision will be within the PUD itself. And those are the primary concerns. And, once again, the issue is to clarify the language in the P preserve district to not be inconsistent with or contradictory with the conservation easement to allow activities not allowed by the conservation easement, nor to prohibit activities allowed by the conservation easement. Agreement to review the plans and maintenance cost to be borne by the developer to be paid to the district that there won't be any discharges into the preserve area. Page 103 June 15,2006 And also whatever assurances we need to have in the review process to make sure that the bad stuff settles out long before it gets to the District Water Management System. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- I heard you, I think, and I just want to be absolutely clear. You're -- you're -- you're -- if they became stipulations would be that there would be of a commonalty of uses in the preserves and so there wouldn't be differences. Now, you've -- also you said you see -- you thought they were amenable to that. And so -- MR. PIRES: That's my understanding, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : You've -- you've had -- you've had the discussion. MR. PIRES: Some brief discussions today. One of those we've -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if a stipulation were to be placed regarding your letter with that, you feel that that would not engender a problem? MR. PIRES: No. And as far as the specific language, we can work that out, I believe, between now and the County Commission. I thank you for that. One further clarification also I -- as far as how that Lake 43 inter -- interplays or plays a part of the Pelican Marsh Water Management System, I think there's been some kind of confusion. I've been confused because I've heard different versions. Once again, I'm a simple guy. I follow the arrows. And initially the arrows went one way and didn't go back. Now, they're going both ways. But in the letter that WCI provided to the Pelican Marsh Board of Supervisors in October of 2005 involving this issue, it says right in the letter, The lake is part of the Pelican Marsh CDD Master Water Management System. As a result, then, the district needs to ensure, again, that the water going in there is okay, that they maintain it and get the cost of that maintenance paid for by the developer and that we Page 104 June 15, 2006 don't have discharges into the preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, next public speaker. MR. BELLOW: Last speaker Jim Carter. MR. CARTER: Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to address the group this morning. I appreciate all of your questions and the discussion that's taken place. I am a resident of Pelican Marsh. I'm a director on the Pelican Marsh Foundation. I served as a county commissioner here from 1998 to 2002. I was one of the five commissioners who approved the Granada Shopping Plaza. And I'm very familiar with the Creekside Business Park Development. The intent of the Creekside Plaza, the development of this park were four things that have been listed in your -- in your book. It would be an attractive park environment; it would be a low-structured density, 35 to 50 feet in height, and no intrusion of light, noise, traffic that would negatively affect the residential neighborhoods. The spirit of this has continued through the development of the park. Some of my concerns that we have in the community and some have been addressed today, but some things we would like to add too to make sure they're part of the public record is that, you know, this county spent almost a half million dollars on a community development study and character study and plan, and we would hope that this would be incorporated in the design by the Naples Daily News and this building so that we don't lose the spirit and this emphasis on the quality that we want to see continue in this particular -- in all areas of the county and particularly in this situation. What we all agree that this PUD meets the criteria of the code. The question becomes does it meet the intent? And a lot of discussion has taken place on that. And I am comfortable enough to say that I see it meeting the intent providing that we are very aware that this became Page 105 June 15, 2006 a gerrymandered process in order to meet the criteria that is so important in this county. There are some guarantees that we still would like to see in place we, the community of Pelican Marsh, that we feel comfortable. First of all, we were never invited into this process; whereas, 60 percent or more of our community now has left for the season. And all of this took place prior to the May 10th first public hearing at St. Johns. We're not here to question or to -- or to complain. We would like to have the following take place. Number one, Bay Colony Estates has submitted a letter of which everyone seems to be in agreement. And I think that the foundation would be in agreement that if this part of our community feels comfortable with what's in that letter to preserve their boundaries, it would work for us. What we have requested and I have discussed with the petitioner as far as the Barron Collier Companies is that the petitioner and the companies would meet with the Pelican Bay Foundation in the fall to -- to review this proj ect and bring us up to date where you are including all the discussions that have taken place today so that we can effectively communicate with our community. And don't get a lot of calls as their first knowledge as they see it coming out of the ground and they say, What's going on here? We would like to see that take place. I've also requested of the Barron Collier Companies that prior to the building construction, a design review be held with the community of Pelican Marsh and other interested partners -- parties including Collier's Reserve and other outside owners so that we see we're going to get what we see. I've been on -- I've seen too many projects where the models looked good, the -- and everything else is beautiful, but in translation does it end up being -- do you get what you see. The companies have agreed to that. And I'm asking that the Naples Daily News also agree to that so that we could have that opportunity. That there will be generators used to provide temporary power Page 106 June 15,2006 service during power outages and we request that these be housed and -- and vented in such a way as they will not be disruptive to the Bay Colony Estates or the other members of the community. Because these periodically have to be run and they are very noisy. And we don't want this to become a noise issue. That the Naples Daily News develop a policy for the tractor trailers that are going to enter and exit from -- from this site, that they will use Creekside Boulevard, that they will move these when they arrive at Goodlette Frank, that they will take a left and then right onto Immokalee Road to get back to the interstate. The worst thing that could happen is if they try to take these tractor trailers through the existing Granada Plaza. And there's a signalization being developed there, but that would be a very dangerous place for those vehicles to be moving through and then exit out either way onto US 41. So we know the petitioner could develop a policy and they could communicate it to the vendors if that would take place. If those conditions could be met and if the petitioners would be willing to put that on the public record, we certainly would feel much more comfortable in the community of Pelican Marsh about this project going forward. And like everybody else, we want to retain jobs in this community. We want to see our businesses stay here and would appreciate those considerations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. CARTER: So could we hear from the petitioners that they would be willing to put those on the record for us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Carter, I think what we're going to do is -- we're getting close to lunchtime. There are some outstanding issues the petitioner has to come back to us with. We're going to have a lengthy discussion of the -- of any motions that are made, I'm sure, or any debate about those motions. So right now after lunch -- when we get back from lunch, we'll continue further with this matter and get their reaction to your comments. Page 107 June 15, 2006 MR. CARTER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will give them time to discuss them over lunch as well. Okay. Are there any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then at this time I'm going to ask that we break for one hour. We'll be back here at one o'clock to finish this up. Thank you. (Lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The meeting can be resumed. We left off with the ending of the public presentation. There were some questions raised as a result of that presentation which we can get into, and of course, the issue on the uses on parcel B. COMMISSIONER CARON: We don't have the county attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know -- the county attorney has got this thing with disappearing today. MR. BELLOWS: She's working on other things at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- ah, speak of the devil. I don't mean the devil literally, Margie. MS. STUDENT: I'm working on a litigation matter, that's why I'm having to pop in and out of here, so I'm sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're here today, though. MS. STUDENT: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, there were some suggestions made by the public I would like to ask you about. There was one by -- there were several by Mr. Pires. The first one was the preserve area should be coincided with the conservation area. Do you suggest any problem with that? MR. ANDERSON: We're okay with all of Mr. Pires'. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about Mr. Carter's? MR. ANDERSON: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None? That's in direct contrast. Okay. Page 108 June 15, 2006 I made my notes. Let's talk about them. I suggested three things: Review plans and -- yes, review plans with Pelican Marsh at the SDP application stage. I think that's what he was thinking of. Do you have an objection to that? MR. ANDERSON: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have an objection? MR. ANDERSON: No, we don't have an objection to meeting with the folks, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about restricting truck use to Creekside Boulevard? MR. ANDERSON: That we would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you going to have any truck restrictions? Basically, all of the roads will be open to the truck traffic, whatever way they need to get in? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, we've got two -- we would have two business parks there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to get your clarification on the record. Are there any questions about these issues before we move into use? Mr. Midney? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The generator thing, you would agree to that, wouldn't you? Do the best you could to keep the generator quiet? I mean, that's just combined technology, the type of generator, diesel versus gas -- you can make that diesel nice and gentle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can make it so you couldn't hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold on a second, everybody just hold on a second. During the lunch hour I did talk with the court reporter, Page 109 June 15,2006 not this young lady, of course, and there has been a problem in the way she's trying to record these minutes by the fact that people are not being recognized. She cannot look up here and figure out who is talking fast enough to keep up with our discussion. So please wait to be recognized. If I miss you, tap someone next to you, who taps someone who can finally get to me. That's the way we need to handle this. So with that, Mr. Schiffer, you were -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The generator. MR. ANDERSON: We would agree with the housing of the generator with the exception of a portable generator that we might need to bring in after a hurricane. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aren't you governed by the county ordinance on sound anyway? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you will be fine. You are a big site. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Went right out of my head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that I think -- I'm sorry. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My question goes back to the affordable housing. What if there is no affordable housing rule that's adopted in September? Are you not willing to offer anything to mitigate need for affordable housing that this project will create? MR. ANDERSON: We haven't discussed it, and we will before we get to the board meeting. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That is really no answer to me. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I mean, we will consider it. I can't give you an answer now because the client and I have never discussed it. Page 110 June 15, 2006 And we anticipate that there will be something on the books. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. I'm hopeful too but you never know about these things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next issue that we had was the uses on parcel B. I guess you were going to take a look at all that and try to boil it down to what you really needed? MR. ARNOLD: I did. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold. Before we left off discussion on this point I was going to go back and review the Creekside Commerce Park PUD and pull from those the light uses that we had in common, some of those light industrial uses. As I indicated, the industrial commerce district at Creekside contains several business services. It's got pharmaceutical requirements and educational training services, childcare centers, et cetera. We're not interested in those. And I think if I can go down and tell you that in addition to those primary uses in Tract A, Tract B, we would limit ourselves to the following, and I'll read them. It's fairly short. If I could go through that list -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: C? MR. ARNOLD: First would be aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment, 3728. Number two was apparel and other finished products, groups 2311 through 2399 . We have the group of building contractors, 1521 through 1542, and there is some exceptional language and I'll read that. It says, except for general contractors for mobile home repair on site, modular housing, pre-manufactured housing assembled on site, dry cleaning plant construction, paper pulp mill construction and truck and automobile assembly plant construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, could you pull that speaker a little closer? MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Page 111 June 15, 2006 Next group would be construction special trade contractor groups 1 711 to 1 799. Again, we have exceptions. Except for boiler erection and installation contractors, drainage system installations, cesspool and septic tank contractors, fuel oil burner installation and servicing, gasoline hook-up contractors, sewer hook-ups and connection for building contractors, epoxy application contractors, fireproofing building contractors, gasoline pump installation contractors, lead burning contractors and mobile home site and setup and tie-down contractors. A lot of exceptions. Those really fall out of the 1799. It's sort of that everything else category that has a lot of benign uses and others such as these that we've read that really aren't fitting here. The next grouping was electronics and other electrical equipment manufacturing. This has several groups, and I'll try to read them slowly. Groups 3612, 3613, 3624, 3625, 3631, 3641 through 3676, 3678,3679,3694,3695,3699. And again, a long list of exceptions. Except for airport lighting transformers, auto transformers, electric power transformers, distribution transformers, electric furnace transformers, lighting transformers, street and airport transformers, reactor atom smashers, particle accelerators, electron beam metal cutting, forming and welding machines -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, there has to be an easier way to do this. Do you have all of this in writing, because you are reading off of something? MR. ARNOLD: I am, yes. It's the Creekside Commerce Park. I just checked those that I thought were applicable to us. I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you tell us on this list of one through 20 the ones that you are not considering at this point, maybe that can shorten this process. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I took the other approach and marked the ones at Creekside I wanted because it was a much shorter list than Page 112 June 15,2006 going through the others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have been following, by the way, your list that you have been reading to us. MR. ARNOLD: There is a lot of crossover there, there really is. There's a few of those uses that fall out and I've got about seven more use groups that would be included here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to pass that out or just trying to put this on record verbally? MR. ARNOLD: The Creekside Commerce Park PUD is in the record. If it's easier to list which numbers out of the Creekside Commerce Park list we want in your PUD document I can certainly do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is he reading off the ordinance, the actual ordinance that's been recorded? MR. ARNOLD: I'm reading from the proposed Creekside amendment that is in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that is in Part 1. MR. ARNOLD: The one that's in the PUD amendment packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be a shorter way to do it. Just tell us what numbers off that -- MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can name them of course. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I'll try to shorten it. Do you want me to start -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You left off on electronics and other electrical equipment. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Anybody who wants to follow along it's Section 3.3.A of the Creekside Commerce Park Industrial Commerce District. After the electronics and other electrical equipment exclusion there was also furniture and fixtures manufacturing, groups 2511 to 2599; industrial and commercial machinery, groups 3524, 3546, 3553 Page 113 June 15, 2006 through 3556, 3599, 3562, 3564 through 3566, 3581 through 3589. And then it's got an exclusion for people doing bronzing and slug printers, ammunition, explosives, things of that nature. The next category that we would add would be leather and leather products, groups 3131 through 3199. The next group is measuring, analyzing and controlling instruments, photographic, medical and optical goods, and that includes groups 3812 through 3843 and 3845 through 3873. The next group is paper and allied products, and that's groups 2652 through 2657 and 2673 through 2679. Next category is plastic materials and synthetics, and those were two use groups, 2833 and 2834. There is another reference here to printing, publishing and allied industries but I think they are covered under our Tract A uses so we can exclude that one. The other one we would add would be rubber and miscellaneous plastic products, and there are use groups here, five use groups, 3021, 3085, 3086, 3088 and 3089. The next category would be transportation equipment through 3732. And those are repair of certain types of transportation fittings. And then the next two categories are both related to wholesale trade durable goods and wholesale trade non-durable goods. And there is a long list of those categories but it is groups 5021 through 5031, 5043, 5049, 5063 through 5074, 5078, 5091, 5092, 5094 through 5099. And then it's got exclusions for lumber rough dressed, finished, wholesale batteries, steam and hot water heating wholesalers, and things of that nature. And then the wholesale trade non-durable goods, which is number 36 on the list of the Creekside uses has groups 5111 through 5143, 5145, 5147 through 5149, 5192 and 5199. And that again has exclusions relating to certain wholesale uses, grease and rubber Page 114 June 15,2006 disposal and things of that nature. So we end up with a list of categories that is -- I have about 15 use groups that would now be included in Tract B in addition to Tract A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clarify the record. I would like to read what I think you just said from the Creekside, Section 3 industrial commercial district, 3.3 .A. The uses you want to incorporate in this new location are one, two, three, 12, 17, 18, 19,25,28,31,32,35,36. Did I miss any? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I think number eight, special trade contractors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: And I believe, did you mention 15, furniture and fixtures manufacturing groups, 2511? It's number 15 on the site list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifteen as well. MR. ARNOLD: And I believe we agree on the others. Oh, I'm sorry, there was one additional, medical laboratories and research, group 8071, 8092, 8099. It's number two under their B level of principal uses. And those include certain manufacturing, some medical devices, which is pretty similar to what Arthrex, that's existing in Creekside, was approved under. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, I can tell that somehow that microphone is not picking up your voice. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I apologize. I'll try to speak more directly into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that clear as mud to everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Clear as mud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, in the specialty contractors you excluded fireproofing. Is there any reason for that? I mean, that's a trade that's needed -- it's certainly not a messy trade, it's not like people dancing and throwing asbestos. Page 115 June 15, 2006 MR. ARNOLD: I'm certainly not opposed to adding that use. I simply read from and agree that we can live with the same uses that are in our next-door neighbor in Creekside Commerce Park. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you read five you excluded it. Did you or -- MR. ARNOLD: It is -- is that one of the special trade contractor groups? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be the old number eight, eight from next door. And it was just one that I thought you excluded. MR. ARNOLD: It is. Fireproofing building contractor is one of the exclusions. It's one of the exclusions currently in Creekside. And we would be happy to carry it forward into the Naples Daily News as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm sorry. And then day care. If the newspaper wanted to have a day care for their employees would that be excluded? I know this is parcel B. What's the reason for getting rid of that? MR. ARNOLD: Well, we never included the child day care center, I don't believe, in our Tract B uses because we were primarily focused on having facilities for these light industrial type business park uses. And there are a lot of places that child care facilities can go in our community. There are very few places that light industrial uses can go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good answer, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions involving this issue? None. Thank you. Bruce, did you have any final comments before we close the public meeting? Or Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: I'd like to, one more time. Wayne Arnold for the record. I think the one other outstanding issue that seems to be here, and Page 116 June 15, 2006 I guess it's one that we touched on early and I know that Mr. DeRuntz touched on it in his presentation. But I wanted to try to explain one more time what we were trying to do with two buffer deviations on our east and west boundaries adjacent to Creekside and Granada Shoppes. The business park standard landscape buffer says that you'll have a 25- foot wide vegetated buffer that will contain a double staggered row of trees and either a six-foot-high wall or a berm. We don't believe that those are necessary adjacent to Creekside or Granada. What we agreed and put in our PUD document was that we would take the amount of vegetation that is different from a single row of trees that's normally required and that is required for a double staggered row and take and supplement that vegetation elsewhere on site. It was about 120 trees by our rough calculation. And we agreed that we would take those trees. In talking to Mr. Weeks over this whole park-like setting, he said, Well, let's put these where they count. I don't want to see you put all these in your buffer and be done with it. So we said, Fine, we'll limit our buffer to 25 percent of those redistributed trees. I can stand here now and say that if it makes everybody more comfortable, we've made our agreement with the Bay Colony homeowners and agreed to put 80 more trees there. We'll agree to withdraw the part of that deviation that said we put no more than 25 percent in the buffer and commit to you that we'll put them only on Tracts A, B and the portion of the little open space strip that's along Creekside Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the pictures that Mike DeRuntz showed us there were a number of locations where there were voids in the landscaping. Is it your intent as well to replace those original plantings as well as supplement? MR. ARNOLD: It is. Part of our agreement with Bay Colony is Page 11 7 June 15, 2006 that we're going to go back and maintain a certain capacity of this berm buffer that exists in place. And we think that the 25- foot width that it currently is, and almost ten feet high, that berm, in most places with the vegetation, it's much easier to supplement, fill in the holes, put some additional plantings there than it is to try to deal with doubling the width of this thing to go and try to take out the toe of that slope, marry another part of the berm to it, then revegetate it with lesser vegetation. We think that we address one, sort of -- we address, we think, the issue that's there with height, and trying to shield this building to some extent by putting these trees elsewhere on the property, we think it does that and it addresses the whole park-like setting. We like the concept of the park look because in this urban environment these parklets could be gathering places for employees or they could be gathering places for patrons. They were strategically meant to be areas where pedestrians would use them. You have a linear park. We're still willing to commit to those things in addition to this other relocation of trees. Our real difference of opinion seems to be whether or not we need to double the size of this southern buffer. And we don't believe it necessary. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I suppose from the point of view of evaluating this, we look at a code that says that a park-like area, and you want to have the same things but you don't appear to want to have the full extent of what might be considered park-like. And I guess that's difficult for me to appreciate why. Is it that it will reduce your road area? What is the reason other than cost? I mean, is there any other reason other than cost? MR. ARNOLD: I think the real issue is your idea of what a park is and what mine may be could be entirely different things. It's a subjective term. It says park-like in the growth management plan. I don't know what park-like means to you and me. Some people Page 118 June 15, 2006 envision a golf course being a park. And other people -- I have some photos of the hospital across the street where if you took these certain images it looks a lot like a park to me. It's got sidewalks, a lot of trees, some grass. I mean it could be a park. It's really an undefined term anywhere in the comprehensive plan or the land development code. It's a purely subjective statement as to whether or not you are meeting the intent of a park-like setting. Maybe we wouldn't be having this argument if we didn't have a farm field that we're trying to work with for the largest portion of this project. But as it is, we have our existing vegetation on this southern piece of property and it doesn't exist here. I think when we look at the level of landscaping that will be provided, as any other office building and manufacturing facility would, plus our commitment to do the linear park, the parklets, and redistribute these trees that's a lot of other vegetation that goes on this site. And keep in mind too, it's hard when we're at the zoning stage when we have a conceptual plan and we're thinking of how it's going to work and every nuance of this building hasn't been designed to know exactly where I can go and supplement vegetation. If somebody told me that there's some definition of parklet and we can all agree to it, I think we would be there. It's just, it isn't defined. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So your argument is the LDC is insufficient in terms of qualifying that -- what park-like -- MR. ARNOLD: It is. It's true. It is deficient because it doesn't explain what that would be. But I think what we've tried to do, even though we're asking for deviations on the width of a buffer, we're not asking for any deviation with respect to the vegetation that goes there. And in fact, one of Mr. DeRuntz's commitments that we agreed to is to put an extra 30 percent from the front buffer area onto the front of the building. And we're willing to do that, too. So, I mean, we've been asked to treat the front, the rear, the sides. Page 119 June 15, 2006 We've got the parklets. I don't think there is any other proj ect that could say they have gone to this level trying to deal with an issue that is undefined. I mean, there is only one other business park in Collier County that's been approved, and Bruce Anderson and I both worked on that. And there is no reference other than our statement of compliance that it will be designed in a park-like setting. We have gone far beyond where the last business park that came to you all several years ago was and is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Obviously things have changed between that first business park and today. And probably for good reason. I think one of the stipulations in the code is that this is supposed to be a -- help create a park-like setting for those people within your PUD. So having the people within your PUD stare at the back of Granada Shoppes doesn't create a park-like atmosphere for them. That's why there is perimeter buffering and berming. The same to the east, to the Creekside. You probably have a better argument toward Creekside, but really not. There is perimeter berming for a reason and landscaping for a reason, and that's to create that park-like atmosphere. And it's not because you have a building and so does Granada so who cares. It's that your employees are supposed to be living and working -- not living, but working in a park-like atmosphere. So to stare out at the back side of Granada Shoppes hardly seems like a park-like atmosphere. MR. ARNOLD: I think again it's a matter of opinion, frankly, because a park-like setting I don't know has to be applicable throughout the entirety of somebody's view of having to work there. To create places outside of their windows in the place where -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But you are taking away the entire boundary . Page 120 June 15, 2006 MR. ARNOLD: Well, keep in mind, the buffer that could be there I could stick up a six-foot-high wall and meet the requirement of the business park. I don't find that to be the solution to what we're trying to achieve here either, although that is an activity center and I have an industrial park on my other boundary. The code was written in such a way that, since this is a floating district that technically qualifies anywhere in our urban area where you find 35 acres, there were minimum buffer standards put in place to address the situation where you might not have commercial or developed land next to you. And I think in the context of where we are those buffer reductions make sense. And putting those trees elsewhere on the site to me makes more sense than trying to put a double staggered row of trees in 25 feet against Granada Shoppes' service area. COMMISSIONER CARON: Precisely. The limits were minimum. So increasing them is a good thing but not even adhering to the minimum is not a good thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that philosophically you two could debate this question all day long. I don't disagree with either position, it's just that I don't know if we're going to resolve it here at this meeting today. So I think if the applicant's not going to change their position on the park, you need to weigh that into your consideration as we move forward. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the code somewhere, when you have contiguous parcels you can split the buffer. So would you be comfortable if we included what buffer is on the Granada Shoppes and we put the remaining on yours or something like that? MR. ARNOLD: I think it's -- something like that may be achievable. And I just talked to Mr. Borden and I think the issue is one of trying to preserve one developable area for the Naples Daily News Page 121 June 15, 2006 facility and keeping an element of flexibility in their course. It's not about the vegetation. If it makes the planning commission -- if that's what it takes, to go ahead and plant the vegetation, we can plant that in a ten- foot-wide buffer and create a lot of vegetation, a lot of green space in ten feet. I don't know that -- there is no requirement that a 25-foot buffer make it usable park-like open space. It just requires that I have a double staggered row of trees and either a wall or a six-foot-high berm. That's simply all the code says. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But wait a minute. I don't get your concern -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. The young lady is going to need us to be recognized before we speak. I'm sorry. I wanted to say something. You have to bring that microphone closer. She's having a hard time hearing anybody. It's just not going to work out. I want the record clean. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought I was still in the saddle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you are. I'm sorry. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't understand what your problem is. Your site plan shows that you have probably even more than 25 feet between the edge of your parking lot and the boundary line. Why do you want to reduce this? MR. ARNOLD: I think our master plan reflects that that would be a type A buffer. What we've got is a conceptualized plan. We took a lot of what Dario and Associates has created as largely the footprint. But we have not gone to the level of engineering in the designing of this specific building. And I wish I could stand here and tell you that we had a full 25 feet to work with and to do that. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my question is, what studies have you done that make you feel like you need to reduce the buffer width ? You've got 35 acres of property. Granted, the son of a bitch is Page 122 June 15,2006 wandering all over the county but you still have a lot of land. MR. ARNOLD: I look at it as one of pure practicality, whether it makes sense to have full buffer widths adjacent to an industrial park and the service area of a shopping center that's in the activity center when I can better put that vegetation to use elsewhere on the site to address some of staffs visual issues as well as some of the issues with respect to park-like setting. To me it is just one of practicality, that it makes a lot more sense to put your landscaping where it counts than where it doesn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's true to any applicant on any project, PUD or conventional. They'd all like to say the same thing. But this is different. This is a huge site. These dimensions are negligible on the building site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're at one of those impasses again where each side needs to understand, make up their own minds as this comes to a vote. Wayne, is your side done? MR. ANDERSON: For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson agaIn. With regard to the conditions number ten and 11 that we had previously objected to, I think that since we have removed all references to the NAICS, those would no longer really be applicable. One other point that we need to address that's come up as a result of transportation staffs asking us to extend Creekside Way is that we need to make sure that there is language in the PUD that says that portion of the Daily News building that is adjacent to the extension of Creekside Way is not deemed a primary facade because that would cause a redesign and/or a request for architectural deviations. Lastly, I would just remind you of the testimony from the economic development council about the extreme shortage that we have of suitable sites for these kinds of uses. I think it's important that we keep the Naples Daily News in the greater Naples area. And Page 123 June 15, 2006 approval of this petition will do that. We appreciate your patience today and your attention, and we respectfully request your approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other -- Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I just had one question. I'm glad you reminded me. On Creekside Way there is sufficient room to extend that without affecting -- there is a water retention area and it will not affect the post office parking and property, is that all, everything -- MR. ANDERSON: I was not at that meeting, but they looked at all those kind of things. COMMISSIONER CARON: So there is plenty of room to extend that road without any issues or problems? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think transportation came up a little while ago and indicated there may be an instance where they might have to narrow the right-of-way-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but in essence it was achievable, and if it couldn't be achievable the burden of that process is on the applicant. If they can't do it they go back in front of us and need to start the whole process over. COMMISSIONER CARON: I meant in addition to what transportation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that -- were you -- Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: I'm not sure if I'm finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While you are un-suring yourself, Ms. Student, does it matter in what order we take these two? MS. STUDENT: I think I would do it in the order as it appears in the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As you know I will be abstaining on this Page 124 June 15,2006 vote. I have made extensive lists of issues discussed today in order to aid the planning commission. Is that something I can discuss with them during their discussion of the motion or do I have to do it before the hearing is closed if they desire to have this information? MS. STUDENT: I feel more comfortable with you doing it before the hearing is closed. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Anything you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: I have what I believe will be welcome news. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're withdrawing this whole thing, right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm waiting for everything. MR. ANDERSON: Not that welcome. Let's have a little drum roll. No, the client has agreed to maintain the 25-foot landscape buffers on each side of the PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your deviation number three, is it, is there a two? One of the deviations in B I believe goes away. Is that not correct? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would be B in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, deviation B or deviation two. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On deviation A or one, why is that five feet so important? I understand why you don't want the six-foot-high wall or berm. I think, design a nice enough building where everybody would want to see it, that's the intent, I hope, there. But what is the five-foot there giving you? I mean this is a huge site. MR. ANDERSON: You're talking about Immokalee Road? MR. ARNOLD: Again, for the record, Wayne Arnold. The reason we requested that, that language reflects similar language to what is in Granada Shoppes PUD and Creekside Commerce Park PUD. So that we would create something that looked Page 125 June 15, 2006 more like a continuous buffer that it covers all three proj ects, as opposed to having a buffer for the business park that looks different than the project on either side. That was the simple reason we requested it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And I think, keep in mind we've still committed to the linear park aspect of addressing that buffer in some different ways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Arnold, are you also now committed in light of what's just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, sorry. Lynn was looking around at who was talking. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, I didn't identify myself. In light of what we just said now, do the parklets remain? MR. ANDERSON: Since it wasn't well received I suppose not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's a bench and some gravel. You can do that anyway? MR. ANDERSON: Sure. Mr. Borden asked me to make sure that I clarify that on the 25- foot buffer on the east and west sides that our ability to do that on the west side is tied in with the language that I read to you about not deeming it a primary facade. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, did you have any comments? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes. I just wanted to make a comment about -- on the issue of keeping the landscaping the same as Granada Shoppes and Creekside, the simple fact of the matter is that neither one of those locations has a building with a 75- foot height. So making your buffers on the Immokalee Road side greater is a good thing for the community. Having it look just like Creekside and just like Granada is not a benefit to the community. Page 126 June 15,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER CARON: On either one of those properties we're not looking at 75 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Do you guys have any comment to that or are we just going to continue on? MR. ANDERSON: We could stipulate to that as long as it's without a berm or a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments? If none, before we close the public hearing, if the panel wants to, I have a list of things that were discussed. First of all, let's go to Creekside. I want to get that one out of the way. I don't have anything in my notes about the Creekside application. Is there a motion -- first of all, we'll close the hearing on the Creekside PUDZ-2004-AR-8833 application and entertain a motion. Oh, hold on a sec. MR. DeRUNTZ: I wanted to put a stipulation in there about the modification of the master plan to show the extension of Creekside Way and also the direction of Creekside Boulevard continuing to the west. Mike DeRuntz, Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie. MS. STUDENT: Just for clarification, does that mean they will amend the master plan to show that; is that what you are saying? Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, not only Mr. Adelstein just pointed out that Creekside Commerce is the first one in our book but it's the second one numerically. Margie, which one did you say we should be doing first? MS. STUDENT: I think you should do Creekside first to remove the acreage from that and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that same -- wasn't there a Page 127 June 15, 2006 comment in the first one stating that it's pending approval of the second one? MR. DeRUNTZ: It's commissioned upon approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So therefore why don't we do the second one first because it's theoretically -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to get this squared away for the county attorney. If she tells me to do the last one of this whole day first, that's probably the legal way it needs to go. So now let's just get one clear -- Margie where do you want to go with this, A or B first? MS. STUDENT: I just feel more comfortable voting to take the acreage out of the one PUD before you vote on one that has acreage coming in from the old PUD, you know, that is not really in there yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all you need to say. Thank you. The public hearing is closed. Thank you, Michael. I'll entertain a motion for PUDA-2005-AR-8832, the Creekside Commerce Park. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. I'll entertain a motion, what is the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. I move that 88 -- AR-8832 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Murray. The motion was made by Mr. Adelstein. Is there discussion? I will be abstaining from the vote, so will Mr. Tuff. Is there any stipulation or anything that you all want added? Subject to staff recommendations but Mr. DeRuntz came up and added some Page 128 June 15, 2006 comments. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that was included in this motion. If it was not I think it should be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted to make sure it was clear. So your motion included Mr. DeRuntz's comments as well? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it did. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And my second as well, on that basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the vote raise your hand or signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three in favor. MS. STUDENT: Four, I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. I didn't see you. Four in favor. All those against the motion. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two. Motion carries four to two. Two abstentions, Mr. Tuff and Mr. Strain. Now, with that, I have not yet closed the public hearing on petition PUDZ-2005-AR-8833, and the reason for that is if the commission would like, unless someone else has done this during the discussion today, I made a list of issues that came about or evolved as a result of our discussion. If you would like to hear it I can read it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go for it. Page 129 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 25. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Before we make a motion-- you are going to read the motion before, I mean put the items on before you actually start to take the motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have not closed the public hearing so the motion cannot be made. This is for discussion. I'm bringing on the record now at the advice of counsel -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. I'm sorry. MS. STUDENT: The people that are abstaining shouldn't be making motions, I don't think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not making one. MS. STUDENT: No. I just wanted that to be clear, though, because I thought there was some conversation about are you going to make the motion, so I just wanted to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't intend to make the motion. I'm simply, as part of the discussion, trying to reiterate what went on for the last four hours this morning so when the motion is made whatever comes out of it is as clear as possible. That will be difficult considering all that's happened today but let's start. One of the first items was a deletion of deviation two, four and five, which are referenced in the PUD as B, D and E. Modification of staff recommendations to include those recommendations numbered one through four, six through nine, and number 15. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You had 25 of them. Could you identify the capsule of each one so I can properly relate to it, is that possible? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first one I mentioned was number two. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Number two. Page 130 June 15,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I skipped number one because it's redundant to two -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: First ITEM, deviation number two. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second one was the modification of staffs recommendations for ITEMs one through four, six through nine and 15. What that does is delete the recommendations that have been resolved and also deletes the recommendation for the double buffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What were those numbers again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff recommendations one through four, six through nine and 15. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Six through nine or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six through nine. Six, seven, eight, nine. Except the stipulations in the Bay Colony agreement subject to Collier County codes. Just so you know, the reason for that stipulation is so that the ficus tree issue is pursuant to the codes, and we're not trying to issue a variance for our codes in that regard. Number five would be the approval is based on the exhibits entered into the record today showing the site plan with the extension of Creekside Way in the new -- in the model that they presented to us in digital format today. Number six, parcel B will not have any outdoor storage or outdoor fabrication. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is that Tract B? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Parcel B. I called it Tract B. Number seven, the on-site sales of food will be restricted to no alcoholic beverages. Number eight, the actual height and the zone height will be the same. The actual height, though, will be defined as zone height as defined, so there is consistency between the two definitions. Number nine, they will exclude all references to NAICS codes and will go with the language that remains after those numerics and Page 131 June 15, 2006 those references are excluded. Number ten, any -- and it involves setbacks for any future buildings or any building at all that is built there -- any structure built in excess of 50 feet will have a two-to-one setback for that portion over 50 feet. Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make it two horizontal, one vertical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two horizontal to one vertical setback for the footage that is over 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we word it, any building over 50 feet will have that minimum setback? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any building over 50 feet in height will have a minimum setback as stated in the PUD plus -- minimum setback of two horizontal to one vertical. Is that right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. And Bruce, that won't hurt our project. Your 214-foot would essentially allow a 107-foot high building to be built there. MR. ANDERSON: I want to make sure that it would apply to portions of buildings in excess of 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, okay. You could word it those portions of buildings exceeding 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those portions of buildings exceeding 50 feet you set back two horizontal to one vertical. The developer will extend Creekside Way to join to Creekside Boulevard. Developer will also institute a Scoot System on Immokalee Road from 41 for at least two intersections east or as requested by transportation staff. There will be a proportionate share contribution for the intersection improvements. I believe that was capped at 15 percent, Nick? Page 132 June 15, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Nick Casalanguida, Transportation, for the record. That proportionate share has nothing to do with the intersections outside of what we just discussed. So it's proportionate share to any intersections that will require signalization or improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's -- the part of the stipulation would be for contributing a proportionate share for any intersections that need improvements as a result of the impacts of this project. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. And then on that 15 percent they would get a credit for the extension of the roadway and the Scoot System in that 15 percent above and beyond impact fees, road impact fees, as part of TCMA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then there was also a stipulation about considering TCMA strategies? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's done at the site development stage. You wouldn't have to do that in this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then strike that, we won't bring it up. The -- if need be the typical roadway section to accommodate the extension of Creekside Way to Creekside Boulevard, right-of-way there would be allowed to be modified pursuant to transportation's policies. Number 17 and I might be skipping a couple of numbers because of redundancy -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There is a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got to go according to-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 17, the preserve area south that's on the appendage, the uses of those will coincide with the uses permitted in the conservation easement that exists on the property -- Number 18, the PUD site drainage plan will be implemented to coincide with the one presented here today, which Mr. Hagan showed, put on the record. Page 133 June 15, 2006 Number 19, review of the plans for the maintenance of the water management area and the cost for that will be passed on to the -- will be paid to the CD district. Plans will be reviewed by them and the cost for the maintenance will be reimbursed to the district. Pelican Marsh foundation will review at the SDP application stage the plans for this project. Any generator put on site will have a structure built around it for the attenuation of sound. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, I had a question on that one about dealing with the Pelican Bay Association. I don't think it's appropriate for a PUD document to contain language that requires the petitioner to go through some kind of process outside the county reVIew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The petitioner agreed to it, which is why I included it. But if there is an issue that, it can't function that way, then I guess we need to talk about it. MR. ANDERSON: We agreed to meet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I specifically used the reference to an SDP application stage and I thought you agreed, you said yes. Is that not -- MR. ANDERSON: We agreed to meet with them. We didn't agree to have them review our SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you will meet with the Pelican -- that's not a stipulation that's appropriate for this document is what staff is telling me. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie. MS. STUDENT: Legally, local governments are not supposed to delegate their authority to private entities to review things that local governments are supposed to review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think we had resolved that. Right now we're just talking about meeting. But if that's not Page 134 June 15, 2006 appropriate for this document that it's on record, they will make their best attempt to do it and I'm sure it will get done. Another stipulation, and I've got mine listed as 23 but it's probably nowhere close to that at this point, the uses from the Creekside PUD next door that will be utilized in parcel B on this site will be as follows: All of the parcel A uses as allowed on this Naples Daily News site plus numbers, and it's from 3.3A of the Creekside PUD, numbers one, two, three, eight, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36. In addition, 3.3.B, number two. Should the extension of Creekside Way or when the extension of Creekside Way occurs, the applicant will not be responsible to make that facade facing Creekside Way a primary facade. And then the applicants agree that there will be 25- foot buffers on all sides of the PUD, but on the side facing Immokalee Road it will be done without a berm or a wall. That's all the notes that I have. Does anybody else have any notes that they want added during the discussion portion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, but that's a great job. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, will you repeat that last one about the 25-foot buffer, where they are not going to have the walls? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 25-foot buffer on all sides of the PUD, and Mr. Arnold mentioned they didn't want to have to put a wall on the Immokalee Road frontage. So however the walls apply on this site they wouldn't apply along the Immokalee Road frontage. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just, perhaps this is superfluous but just to point out Mr. Arnold agreed that they would fill in the present hedges and so forth where the holes are, where that needs to be done. I think that should be added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, isn't that in the Bay Colony agreement? Page 135 June 15, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know but they are absent, they are missing, they need to be -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That was in that Bay Colony agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why we essentially included the Bay Colony agreement -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that one? MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator, community development. As far as the replanting for storm damage, I believe, and I'll turn to the attorney, that's a private agreement. I believe that should not be in the PUD. MS. STUDENT: Yes. And I wonder if that is going to meet that requirement in some other document, so it's an enforcement matter rather than something put in this PUD. MR. SCHMITT: Because then it becomes my responsibility to enforce. That's an agreement between the property owners. If you want to put it on the record they can cite it on the record, but as far as a PUD document, I don't believe it should be in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER CARON: They made a commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: They made a commitment to include these stipulations in their PUD. MR. SCHMITT: And I would reword that differently, that they replant or reinforce or some other aspect of the buffer rather than connect it to this agreement or storm damage because I have no idea what the condition was prior to the storm other -- it compels the government now to basically, to substantiate and I then validate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Joe, I have no problem where -- wherever it belongs, it belongs. And again, as Ms. Caron indicated, when the question was posed the answer was, yes, we're going to fill it in. If that suffices on the record that's fine but I doubt it suffices on the record. That brings it down to code enforcement, I would suspect. Page 136 June 15, 2006 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager. I think the concern is there is no baseline for us to determine what, how far do they restore something to if in fact there is damage in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a simpler way just to resolve this. You reference the Bayshore agreement. Really what we probably should be referencing is some of the stipulations in that agreement so that verbiage can be incorporated into the PUD. In the Bayshore agreement there are four stipulations. Number two is the one involving the storm damage. So if you drop that out of the agreement, then if you incorporate from that agreement number one, three and four, into the PUD, you got the stipulations that were agreed to by the applicant, and they are all, from what I can tell, items that could be spelled out in the PUD. Is that sufficiently understood, does that work? MR. BELLOWS: That will work. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Works with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the last suggestions I have on this one. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would like to discuss one more thing. I guess now is a good time. I still have a little problem with the open space. If you look at the chart there, the shaded areas and the open space and preserve, they are really pretty remote from the actual site itself. We talked of parklets and stuff like that but I'm not sure that's not a red herring over this issue. So what I would like to do is set kind of a minimum of pervious area so this site doesn't get paved over. There is really nothing other than some landscape requirements that is going to prevent that. Originally, the site would be a solid contiguous piece. It would have all that landscaping and buffer required on it. So what I would like to propose is some sort of a percentage of pervious area that we Page 137 June 15,2006 can max them out at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't everybody jump at once, and if you don't I don't blame you, because it's kind of hard to do something like that on the fly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On a conventional site we would have at least 25, 30 percent of the site would have to remain pervious, which means rain could go through it. So I think other than that there is really nothing to keep the site from being totally paved over, totally built over. There are some landscape requirements that we haven't discussed, the foundation ones, which would add landscaping. There is a landscaping requirement between parking spaces that would add landscaping, but between the buffers and that we're on our own with this site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, as the person that planned or laid out this site, do you have any feel on a number that would give Mr. Schiffer or this board some comfort but that wouldn't impose on anything that you have planned here today? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. I think without studying that a little bit further I would be hesitant to agree to something without making sure those numbers worked, numbers worked for the Naples Daily News facility. And I think -- and I just would point out that, you know, there are, there are sites that have vegetation, there are others that don't. And, you know, we have the fortunate or unfortunate position here of having a large part of our site that is a farm field, that we are then going to go back in and we're going to have to revegetate and create landscapes, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't your water management have to be sized according to the amount of impervious area you have? MR. ARNOLD: It is, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't the pipes leading to and from Page 138 June 15, 2006 that water management area have to be sized accordingly, too? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, they would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may be a restriction itself, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm talking about pervious, though. The less impervious we have, the less that's a concern. I don't know, my concern, and correct me if I'm wrong, with the landscape department, the testimony is that if this was a rectangular site, on the site with the building and the parking would be, you know, 30 percent open space, 25 percent of that preserve. That's a lot of land that we don't have. You transported it off site. MR. ARNOLD: You are correct, Mr. Schiffer, in the sense that there is a 30 percent open space requirement. But keep in mind your 30 percent open space includes all of your impervious areas that are part of your buffers, your water management system, et cetera. But we would have no native vegetation preservation requirement if there's no native vegetation present. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I never said the word preserve, all I said was open space. So would you be agreeable to not have either of the sites have less than 30 percent impervious area? MR. ARNOLD: Again, I think before I go to some pervious/impervious calculation, I really need to sit down and make some detailed calculations. I can't do it based on the conceptual drawings that we have here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I don't think with the information being supplied at this late date that they can calculate that on the fly here. If it's that of a concern to you and they can't put a number on the record, maybe you either ought to consider one for a stipulation when the vote comes up or decide on your vote based on that issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I'm considering. But what I would like us to realize, I mean, that all that landscaping that is off in those little areas -- and if you could put the other chart up, Ray, I think it shows more obvious, is normally on the site with the Page 139 June 15,2006 building. That stuff is not going to help the look of the building. If nobody else is interested in that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think I said no one is interested, I just don't know if you are going to get any further with that with the discussion today. And it's something you may want to bring up as an argument based on the way the motion is made. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not a -- I don't want it to be a fatal issue. I think it's something that somewhere we could set a requirement for them and then if it's a problem with them they can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I think you're -- do you have any further comments? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do. Mr. DeRuntz raised a very good point with me that I intended to hop up about anyway. And that is the 25-foot landscape buffer that we agreed to would be, was without a wall or berm on all those sides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean, I was just relaying what was stated, you guys got up and said no berm or no wall or berm on the Immokalee roadside. MR. ANDERSON: I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the assumption was it was going to be on the other sides. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's not the case. Now with that, is there any other comments? Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I just had one point, is that we were expecting -- the fact is that this is a stranger that we don't know that's -- so we're holding these standards that have to be met because we've all been burned down the road before. But we're also talking with a firm that has been here awhile, they are willing to go above and beyond. I have some worry about Brad, what he wanted to have happen -- and the neighbors not living up to those standards. I think Page 140 June 15,2006 we can all be assured they will exceed our expectations. Just because we're hung up on a little area, I hate to see that stop things from moving forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think this is a requirement we're adding in excess to the Naples Daily News. My concern is the way the site's been designed. I mean, rarely, I don't think we've ever seen a situation like that where the open space -- what the open space essentially is providing is an ambiance for the site. That open space is hundreds of feet away, around the golf course, around the housing development and then to the south of that. I just want to make sure that this site -- essentially the 30 percent requirement is something you would find on a conventionally platted site, so it's really making what everybody else in the county has to meet. COMMISSIONER TUFF: And I would guess without doing that it will be beautiful. I'm sure it will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We've probably gone too long on this, but just for my purposes. It's my understanding that the parklets are gone. The intent of the business park was to provide a wholesome place to work where people at their lunch hour or at other times go out and walk and contemplate, what have you, and if they are gone all we will have are the boundaries now. And hopefully, especially because we know that the NDN is an employer who has been here for years, I suspect that they will put in benches and a couple of tables and so forth and create what they can. I think we could beat this to death. I'm comfortable that they are willing to enclose. I don't think we can possibly come up with a calculation that makes sense for us or them to figure out where they can change this to accommodate us at this point. That's my view, thank you. Page 141 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I'm going to close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-8833 be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second on the motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I would like to add to the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to second the motion first, then we can discuss it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion seconded by Mr. Kolflat. The motion was made by Commissioner Adelstein. Now discussion. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I would like to recommend that these conditions include all of the items that you articulated earlier for the record, both the deviations and what would be accounted for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would take the motion maker to have to accept that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I expected that to be in there by making the motion when you put that information on during this hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stipulations read and discussed earlier are accepted as part of the motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second accepts them, Mr. Kolflat, then, I assume. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to be sure that some of the stipulations might be contrary to some of the staffs requested changes. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Page 142 June 15, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And while I don't think we want to recount every one of these, I think the record would show and can be qualified further so that there is not a cross, not an argument. It should be clear now on the record that we understand these things. And if that is clear, too, agreed to by the motion maker and the second MS. STUDENT: I think it's quite simple. The motion maker said staffs stipulations. Those original staff stipulations have been modified throughout this process and addressed by Mr. Strain. And I think then Mr. Kolflat's second was to take all of those things that we addressed, those 19 or 20, whatever, and make them part of his motion. I sort of got the impression that what Commissioner Adelstein meant was those things but he called them staff stipulations. So therefore if Mr. Adelstein means the things that, all of the things that were gone over by Mr. Strain, that's in line with Mr. Kolflat's second and there couldn't be any, you know, difference between, I don't think, now between the two because they were qualified when you were reading them, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my understanding. Okay. Thank you. So Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I would like to do is talk to the motion maker and see if he would add the requirement that none of those parcels A or B within the parcel has a pervious area less than 25 percent. I think that's important because people who develop on conventional land and such, I don't think that's going to be an issue looking at their site plan even with the future. They have to deal with 30 percent. I mean, everybody else has to deal with this. The fact that they have chased all the trees off the site, they should still deal with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: This after all is a PUD rezone, it's not a site Page 143 June 15,2006 plan. Couldn't we sayan appropriate ratio and take into account, put some language as the goal that you're trying to achieve. Because I've just got to say, this is a, we're talking about conceptual master plans here, we're not designing a site. And I'm just concerned legally that we're getting away from what we're legally supposed to be doing here. So I think you could accomplish that if you stated the goals that you wanted to reach and sayan appropriate ratio of pervious to impervious to do blah, blah, and then I think that might get you that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The PUD is a zoning district. Conventional zoning districts have open space requirements. This is the same thing, that's all. It's up to the motion maker, he can say no -- MS. STUDENT: I'm just trying to say -- get you where you want to go, is all, and within the confines of reasoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the motion maker wish to consider adding a stipulation that at least 25 percent of the site would be preserved for -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would be pervious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would be pervious. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Before I make a statement yes or no, I would like to know what you feel about doing that. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. No, I don't think we're at all comfortable limiting our pervious area to 25 percent. Water management areas are excluded from pervious area calculations. I don't get credit for a lake. It's open space but I would get no credit under the pervious versus impervious argument. I just feel like it's a little too early in this process. I think we want to be as workable and try to get to this issue -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will not accept it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, I didn't say open space, Page 144 June 15, 2006 I said pervious. The retention area is definitely pervious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your stipulation has not been accepted by the motion maker. Are there any other discussion of this motion? All those in favor of the motion to recommend approval with the stipulations as stated signify by raising your hand and saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two, three, four in favor. All those against. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries four to two, two abstentions, Mr. Tuff and Mr. Strain. Thank you. We struggled through it. Lynn, before you leave today, Russell and I will have to give you notices about our conflict, so, if you don't mind sticking around. Ray, there's a request by the court reporter, and actually by myself as well. There's a problem with these microphones today. They don't seem to be picking up like they usually do. The sound is turned down too low. Can you ask somebody to look into it? The next item on the agenda, we need to switch books, will be the Sembler Florida project. Give me a minute and I'll find that book. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm going to be leaving now. Does my leaving cause any kind of a hardship on quorum or anything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you very much. (Commissioner Kolflat leaves the boardroom.) Page 145 June 15, 2006 Item #8C PUDZ-2005-AR-8337 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that we've worn out half of the day, the next petition is PUDZ-2005-AR-8337, Sembler Florida, Inc. And this is for a commercial project called the Brooks Village CPUD. All those wishing to testify in this particular project, please rise, raise your right hand to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any disclosures on the part of the planning commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had conversations with Mr. Filippelli. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a conversation with Mr. Anderson. And R W A is representing this one, right? I think so, yes. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, thank you. I wasn't sure which one you were here for today, I can't remember. But it was Bob Mulhere. Okay. With that, whoever is going to make your presentation. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson with the law firm of Roetzel and Andress. It's been a long time, but not long enough for either one of us. I represent Sembler Florida, Incorporated, the contract purchaser. With me today is Mr. Joe Filippelli, the Vice President of Sembler Florida, Inc. Also present is Bob Mulhere, the Planning Director for RW A, Inc., who you'll hear from later. The project's transportation engineers are Reed Jarvi, Vanasse Daylor. And one of the property owners, Larry Brooks, is present with us today. This is an application to rezone to a commercial PUD property which is designated, which is a designated site in the growth management for commercial development under the Golden Gate Page 146 June 15, 2006 Master Plan. The purpose of locating commercial in locations such as this is to provide goods and services and amenities to Estates residents so they don't have to drive all the way in further west to obtain the everyday necessities of life. A number of items were discussed at the neighborhood information meeting and at the second voluntary meeting held last week, and my client wants to offer to resolve those matters if we can today. And to that end, as required by the Golden Gate Master Plan, a 75- foot buffer is provided as a minimum along the western edge of the property. And according to the engineer's calculation, 75 feet is provided for 15 feet along the western boundary for a distance of approximately 1350 linear feet. The buffer including water management retention ponds varies from 80 to 280 feet. The client commits to a minimum 4- foot-high chain link fence around the water retention ponds. And there was a request about bringing water service near because this site would be served by central water and sewer, and the county maintains existing water mains on County Road 951 and Pine Ridge Road. We anticipate that as part of the proposed project a water main extension will be constructed as part of our project. And we anticipate that it would be dedicated to the public and the client would provide a stub-out in the Southwest 11 th Avenue right-of-way to allow for service connection to those residential properties in the future should they so choose. And the sewer service, I'm not sure if it will be provided by the county or the Florida FGUA utility provider for the city of Golden Gate. But again, we would commit to providing a force main-stub out to allow service connection if the residents choose to do so for themselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I need to ask a question. By the Page 147 June 15,2006 provision of a stub-out for sewer, does that require the residents to connect? (Commissioner Kolflat returns to the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We had a situation here down by the East Trail where there was some homes were to be built and one of the things that we learned was that if a stub is provided, if a sewer is provided, that people were required to attach to it. I don't know whether that applies here today and that's -- MR. ANDERSON: We'll take a look at that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You can see what the implications are. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes, yes. Don't want to force anybody to do anything, trying to be a good neighbor and share the benefits of a simple utility system. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. ANDERSON: In response to a request the access on Pine Ridge Road was moved further west. One area of disagreement with residents of 11 th Avenue Southwest concerns the loop road in the PUD. A little bit of history on this particular neighborhood center and its transportation considerations, is appropriate. Most of this property was first designated in the Growth Management Plan for commercial uses in 1997. (Chairman Strain leaves the boardroom.) MR. ANDERSON: Tracts 109 through 113 and the east half of Tract 107 were approved for future commercial proj ect or proj ects in 1997. At that time the Board of County Commissioners added language to require internal circulation between the parcels. In 2002 the Growth Management Plan was amended to add Tract 114 at the corner of Collier Boulevard and 11 th Avenue Southwest. And at that time, transportation staff added language that access to Tract 114 was limited to 11 th Avenue Southwest and that it must Page 148 June 15, 2006 provide a vehicular interconnection to the rest of the neighborhood center. So by recounting this history it's my intention to demonstrate that very clearly the county has twice during Growth Management Plan amendment over the last nine years stated that the county wants people who shop at this neighborhood center to be able to shop there without the necessity of driving through the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Collier Boulevard. And who are we to argue with the county? (Laughter.) (Chairman Strain returns to the boardroom.) MR. ANDERSON: Besides, it does make transportation sense. And with regard to transportation solutions I also want to emphasize that in connection with this PUD approval the County Department of Transportation negotiated a developer contribution agreement with my client that calls for an estimated half a million dollars in transportation donations. That developer contribution agreement will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners in June and it would provide that Sembler would pay half of the road impact fees for their first 60,000 square feet of building and receive adequate public facility certificates for that 60,000 square feet of use. Those donations, contributions include dedicating at no cost to the county the necessary right-of-way for the widening of Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road; taking into their stormwater ponds runoff from Pine Ridge Road for that portion of the intersection widening proj ect; they would be contributing cash as a fair share payment for the intersection widening; granting an easement to the county for well supplies, water wells; and either constructing or paying cash in lieu of construction for a Collier area transit bus stop. Lastly, before I turn it over to Mr. Mulhere to go through some of the specifics of the site plan, I want to read to you a few sentences from the east of951 study that was presented to the Board of County Page 149 June 15, 2006 Commissioners just last week. It's quite relevant to this petition. It says, in addition to the lack of potable water and wastewater provided to the Estates, the allocation of only one type of land use, residential, presents another dilemma to the district. During the recent amendment of the Golden Gate Master Plan four additional neighborhood centers which average 5 acres in size were created. Unfortunately, due to the size, location and the regulatory demands related to landscaping, parking, open space, setbacks, drain fields and/or on site package plants and environmental preservation requirements, the neighborhood centers are not anticipated to meet the commercial needs of the Golden Gate Estates residents. In order to adequately address commercial needs in the Estates, commercial activity centers or subdistricts of a minimum of 40 acres will be necessary in numerous locations. Additionally, the increased commercial centers would provide destinations that would significantly reduce the trip lengths in the localized area around the commercial centers. The commercial land use that is necessary to adequately address the needs of the Estates is somewhat of a dilemma as the provision for larger commercial land uses is inextricably intertwined with a need for urban level of service for potable water and wastewater that currently does not exist in the Estates. Period. This site, however, does have potable water and central sewer available to serve it, unlike any of the other neighborhood centers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for clarification of that document you just read, what did you read that from? MR. ANDERSON: That was from the east of951 study presented to the board last week, Page 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which, was not endorsed by the people living in Golden Gate Estates, just for the record as well. That was something adopted by staff and nobody bought off on it out there. I Page 150 June 15, 2006 was chairman of the Golden Gate Master Plan Committee. Those centers were set up purposely because that's what the people wanted, not urban area. We didn't move out there to have the city move out there as well. Just for the record. You wanted to put that on the record. I would like to put my statement on the record. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I have to revise my script from good morning to good afternoon. Good afternoon, good evening almost. For the record, Bob Mulhere with RW A. Mr. Anderson actually covered a number of items that I was going to speak about so I'll try to keep my comments relatively brief. I do want to go over the master plan for you. As was indicated, the site has been designed so as to provide for substantial preserve and buffering, as is required in the subdistrict, along the west side. And by locating the water retention ponds in that vicinity as well we've increased that separation from the residential here. The balance of the site is accessed in three locations, Pine Ridge Road, Collier Boulevard; of course this is north, and 11 th Avenue Southwest. Some site specifics. The site contains 3.1 acres of native preservation -- excuse me, the code requirements, we've already discussed the preserve location and the buffer. The uses include uses typically found in C-l through C-3, and the project proposes approximately 120,000 square feet of commercial uses, basically shopping center type uses. There are a number of uses that are expressly prohibited in the district and I'll just briefly go over those for you. The district prohibits drinking places and liquor stores, mail order houses, merchandizing machine operators, power laundries, crematories, radio/TV representatives and direct mail advertising services, recreational Page 151 June 15,2006 shooting ranges, water slides, hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, specialty hospitals, elementary and secondary schools, colleges, junior colleges, libraries, correctional institutions, waste management and homeless shelters and soup kitchens. Obviously, we have expressly excluded all of those within the PUD but these are actually limited to those types of uses that you would typically find in a shopping center. The project is consistent with all of the applicable provisions of the Collier County growth management plan and specifically those provisions in the Golden Gate area master plan which, as Mr. Anderson indicated, was reviewed and approved approximately two years ago after a substantial restudy occurred, and Mr. Strain also alluded to that process. And of course this location remained allowing commercial uses such as this. There were a number of issues raised at the neighborhood meeting and at the subsequent meeting that we had, and Mr. Anderson eluded to a number of those and also discussed some of the solutions that we proposed. I have a few I would like to elaborate on. One of the issues that was raised was increasing the landscape buffer over the required amount on the western perimeter, and we have done that. As Mr. Anderson indicated, fencing the water management lake. We propose to put a 4-foot fence around the water management lake. I assume that the issue there is the safety of children. And typically 4- foot is what is required in terms of heights surrounding pools and those types of facilities. There was some question about what kind of tenants would be utilizing or renting in the facility, and obviously Sembler Company has been doing this for a long time, they have done some projects in Collier County and typically they represent the very finest tenants. So as best as we can say right now we expect it to be a very nice shopping center with a good mix of neighborhood retail and Page 152 June 15, 2006 commercial type uses, services. We talked about limiting delivery and operational hours, and we have agreed that we would be able to limit those hours, those delivery and operation hours from six a.m. to midnight. I don't know if Mr. Anderson mentioned that. There was question about whether Sembler Company would be a partner in development. And yes, they will be. They will be a participant in managing this proj ect. There's been, the biggest area of concern has been access to the shopping center from 11 th Avenue Southwest. And it's our position that that access is vital, necessary, is appropriate from a planning perspective, a transportation planning perspective, was anticipated in the growth management plan. However, we understand that certain concerns would relate to security, safety and safety of children who will walk down that street to access the school bus or maybe even to access the shopping center. So we have agreed to provide, to construct sidewalks and to improve 11 th Avenue Southwest and also to provide a bus shelter, a bus stop for the school children. Obviously we haven't picked out a location. We have had some discussion but we would like to work with the Collier County School Board and Collier County Transportation staff as well as the residents to find a location that is mutually agreeable that would be off of Collier Boulevard in a safe place for children to get on and off school buses. There is some question about providing a wall along the preserve. And the desire was to have the wall on the inside of the preserve area as opposed to on the outside, and that that would, for the residents over here, provide vegetated buffer as well as the wall for security and noise abatement. We have agreed to constructing a wall, a masonry concrete, most likely. The comprehensive plan is quite specific in its requirement as it relates to that and limits the height of that wall to 5 feet. Some of the June 15, 2006 residents requested a higher wall but we're actually precluded from building a higher wall than 5-foot because the Growth Management Plan limits that to 5 feet. One option would be to try to place that wall on a relatively low berm, maybe a 2- foot berm, which would achieve a height from existing ground elevation of 7 feet. I did want to speak briefly, and after I conclude Reed Jarvi will speak to the transportation issues. I wanted to speak briefly with respect to 111 th Avenue. I just want to get an exhibit. Excuse me, 11 th Avenue. In part the reason why we think the access to 11 th Avenue, in addition to the fact that the comprehensive plan expressly states that if parcel 114 is to be accessed, access shall be limited to 11 th Avenue Southwest. Now, albeit that may have been talking about if parcel 114 was developed as a single parcel. But it also requires interconnection to the adjacent commercial areas in the same language. So obviously, if parcel 114 is developed independently, you have access to it and you would have interconnection. That really is all we're asking for. Obviously, we're willing to put appropriate signage and try to design this such that the opportunity for traffic to proceed down 11 th Avenue would be limited or discouraged. I would suggest that once somebody does that, it's a dead end, they are not going to do it twice. But the important thing is that the Collier Boulevard improvements -- I'm sorry, this thing seems to be echoing a little bit -- provide for a left turn from Collier Boulevard for southbound traffic into 11 th Avenue. And that's very important for us. And I would think it would be important also to the general motoring public of Collier County because the other accesses to the shopping center will be right in, right out. So folks that might want to access the shopping center from this street or from southbound absent that left turn-in will need -- these folks would have to go south about a mile to make a V-turn. And the southbound traffic coming up-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's north. Page 154 June 15, 2006 MR. MULHERE: Excuse me, yes, northbound traffic. Thank you. I apologize. The northbound traffic coming up would need to go through the intersection, and again, to access the shopping center. So you have the opportunity to alleviate a significant amount of traffic from the intersection if they can access the shopping center from 11 th heading northbound and making a left here. I think Ray Jarvi is going to actually talk to that in a little greater detail. In conclusion, the design and the shopping center adheres to the very specific requirements that are set forth in the subdistrict. They are very detailed. In addition to that we've met with neighbors, we've tried to address their concerns. And based on the fact that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan we would respectfully request your recommendation for approval. I know Reed has some comments to make and you have some questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of things here. Six a.m. to midnight. What is a typical delivery at 11: 59 p.m.? What, why would we need to have a delivery up until midnight? MR. MULHERE: To my knowledge, I live very close to a public supermarket, very close, and there are deliveries that occur at those hours at that supermarket. I'll defer to the folks that do this for a living but I know in the grocery store next to me they do actually make deliveries. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do they turn their diesel engines off when they come? MR. MULHERE: They shut the trucks off, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you're not disturbed by that as a result? MR. MULHERE: I'm not. I'm not immediately adjacent to it. I'm a couple of houses down. Page 155 June 15, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, but are you not -- you're not affected by it? Are you used to it or you're not affected by it? MR. MULHERE: I've been there 22 years. The store's been there almost as long. I guess I'm used to it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you -- okay. Is it -- are we going to see a lot of deliveries would be a question to ponder. The preserve. If you were to put a wall on the other side of the preserve on the opposite side of your property, you couldn't put the wall in the preserve because that would be disturbing the preserve. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How would you find property being able to build a wall? Who would grant you that right? MR. MULHERE: We're going to put it on our property but just on the edge of the preserve but not within the preserve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. If that's the case, and I think, you know what, I realized that. And the other question was then who is going to maintain the preserve or be responsible for it? MR. MULHERE: That would be our responsibility. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That doesn't end, though, you would have a wall? MR. MULHERE: Definitely not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And the other thing was, okay, chain link fence. I wasn't crazy about that idea but I can understand it. Preservation. Thank you. Oh, yes, one last thing. I wanted to clarify something because I did have a conversation with Mr. Filippelli. I know that he made a comment or someone made the comment it was high-end, high-end people; and I thought to myself, gee, Saks Fifth Avenue, good God, why would they want it? And he qualified that for me because I was concerned myself, people who are going to be local looking for local -- he was really talking in his mind from what he explained to me but that it was good Page 156 June 15, 2006 quality stores as opposed to, you know, somebody who might just throw something together, I guess, to use that word. MR. MULHERE: I think without disparaging any particular retailer, I think that's exactly what we're talking about is good quality, the kind of supermarket folks would like to shop at, you know, and with a mixture of other retail tenants. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the reason I bring it up is because, quite frankly, sitting here when I heard that I'm thinking to myself, high-end stores, why would we need that there, and I was glad that you qualified that for me, and I wanted to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any, before Reed gets up, can we finish with you. Any other questions of Bob Mulhere? Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Just north of Pine Ridge there, there is an old commercial area in existence now that I think has been in there since about 1997. MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And there are 16 establishments that operate from that. Out of that 16, 44 percent, or seven, are real estate offices. Now what bothers me is that the plan considers those activity centers as a means to provide services to people who reside in the area. Well, obviously a center that has 44 percent real estate offices is catering not to the local people but people far away. How do we know that we are not ahead of the -- caught up with adding more capacity out to the commercial venture? MR. MULHERE: We would limit the centers to no more than one real estate office. I mean, offices are permitted in the district, so you do get some offices, you might get like a doctor's office or a dentist's office, which would be of service to the community. But we'll limit that to no more than one. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But I want to be sure we get the Page 157 June 15,2006 services there that would satisfy the local people if that's the intent of the center. MR. MULHERE: That is the intent. And that's why we are going to limit it there. We won't have eight real estate offices; we would limit it to no more than one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Mr. Mulhere? Then it's my turn. MR. MULHERE: Wait, I was going to sit down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Relax, Reed, you are in too much of a hurry today. Growth management plan issues, Bob. As far as the site itself goes I found a provision, maybe you could help clarify it for me, projects within the neighborhood center subdistrict that are submitted as PUDs shall provide a functional public open space component. Can you look at that and find out how that applies or doesn't apply or where you are going to put it? MR. MULHERE: It does apply to us and we haven't determined an exact location. And Mr. Strain, we're required to do that as a part of a commercial shopping center anyway. It's interesting, the architectural standards require the same, they're -- it's worded slightly different but it's a very similar provision. We haven't done final site planning on the site but we are required to provide that, and it needs to be in a location where the public that's using the shopping center would use that. So that means, you know, we obviously are not going to put it in the preserve. We can't put it in the water management area. And I'm sure you've all seen these alleged public use areas that are not public use areas because they are located where they are not convenient or on a major corner. But, I mean, when I look at the site, and I certainly can't make a commitment because we haven't planned it, but it seems to me that somewhere in this area which we might be able to use. Of course the lake is going to be fenced with a 4-foot fence around it so it's not Page 158 June 15, 2006 going to be super-duper attractive there but one of those locations. We will provide that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Assuming you are putting the fence in at the request of somebody. MR. MULHERE: The residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did they have a reason for that? The last thing I'd want to see is a chain link fence around a lake. Most people sell that view for much more money. I don't understand -- MR. MULHERE: I agree 100 percent. I think safety is the concern, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- obviously, we were trying to do as much as we could that we could acquiesce to appease the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to make it harder to maintain and keep the weeds out, keep the grass cut. You can do anything you want to do around that lake. I'm not -- I don't know -- I've worked in a lot of subdivisions and never seen one of those lakes ever fenced before. So I'm a little surprised at that. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may just add on, is that the request of one individual, several individuals, 20 individuals? MR. MULHERE: I did not attend the first neighborhood information meeting so let me defer to someone who was there. MR. ANDERSON: I really don't recall, and I suggest that you might ask the speakers when they come up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We will have to rely upon this, then. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, in the criteria for the centers one of the items is project shall provide a 20-foot-wide landscape buffer abutting the external right-of-way. This one has three external right-of-ways. And I didn't look at the scale, but do you have 25 feet buffer on all three external right-of-ways?o Page 159 June 15, 2006 MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes, yes. And just -- and I apologize. Just for one additional piece of information you mayor not may not be aware of, but, as Mr. Anderson indicated, we're giving up through the developer's contribution agreements, some land for right-of-way both along Pine Ridge and Collier. But I did also want to let you know that along 11 th Avenue Southwest the way Golden Gate Estates were platted our property actually goes to the middle of that right-of-way. It's already constructed. We're going to improve it. We'll be giving up some additional land in order to do that. But our property runs to the middle of that right-of-way presently, and through an easement, the public has the right to traverse over it, which in our view is another rationale for us being able to access our property through our property that the public is able to use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So everybody knows and for the court reporter, we'll be breaking here in a little while. Wherever we are at that stage we'll just stop. In the staff report there is a reference to a maximum square footage. I didn't find a maximum square footage in your PUD. Did I miss that? MR. MULHERE: No, sir. And I knew you were going to raise that issue when I reviewed it myself and I spoke to my client. And I think consistent with the TIS we would adhere to a maximum square footage of no more than 120,000 square feet. The TIS does not reference that exact number but they reference a number of uses, and Reed can speak to this issue, that the trips aren't generated based on square footage, like convenience stores are based on the number of pumps, but yet they have some square footage associated with them. So 120,000 would be what we would offer as a limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll definitely want to address Reed's TIS when we get to that point. Page 160 June 15,2006 I'm trying to take off the questions you've already answered, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have an internal vehicular circulation clause 2.6 in the PUD; it's on page Roman numeral two dash three. And I mentioned this to Bruce last night, the last line, a green space area of not less ten feet in width as measured from the pavement edge shall separate any parking isle or driveway from abutting road. Well, we just talked about 25 feet. And if you go to your statement of compliance, Roman numeral the little triple I. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Numbers three, B-3 on that page it says there'll be a 25- foot-wide landscape buffer abutting the external right-of-way for the entire site. MR. MULHERE: Which is required by the district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So your 2.6 is in error? MR. MULHERE: 2.6 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or because it reads differently intentionally, or how is that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Triple I what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Triple I, B-3. MR. MULHERE: Unless that was anticipating, in my view anticipating some sort of internal road but we wouldn't be providing that, those would be driveways internally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your last line in 2.6 applies to internal driveways not abutting roads. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So somehow we have to make -- MR. MULHERE: They already have a requirement for 25-foot landscape buffers, you're indicating, from the external roads. Ray, is staff making notes on these changes or do I need to be doing it? MS. STUDENT: Melissa Zone is the planner; I believe she's Page 161 June 15,2006 taking some notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know already she takes good notes, so that works. Roman numeral 3-2, one of your uses is a car wash. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Strain, the more I read 2.6, if I can go back to that for a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. MULHERE: I don't think it makes sense if you read -- if we change it to say internal driveways, it would say a green space area of not less than 10 feet width measured from pavement edge to separate a parking isle or driveway from a driveway, that doesn't make sense either. I think we're required -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's your argument. MR. MULHERE: I understand that. As far as I'm concerned I really don't see any value given that we have to have 25- foot landscape buffers anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want to delete 2.6 or just the sentence? MR. MULHERE: I would strike that sentence. If that was meant to address the internal circulation road, this road here, then I think we should call it that and that would address the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you propose some language to staff? At least that way they have an idea of what you thought. I think you understand what the problem is. MR. MULHERE: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was on a reference to car washes. Do you really need car washes? MR. MULHERE: We would like to retain car washes at least in conjunction with a convenience store. We could live with eliminating a free-standing car wash. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about a free-standing car wash, a car wash and a convenience store? Why do you need a convenience Page 162 June 15,2006 store? It's the last thing we need on another intersection in Collier County is another convenience store. You've got the ability to put a Publix in is what you've said at the last meeting, which is that big square in the middle. So you want a convenience store to compete against Publix? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, a lot of shopping centers as far as outparcels do have gas station convenience stores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one across the street. There is one up the street. There is one down the street. MR. MULHERE: Competition is an excellent thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When I see the gas prices going down I will believe you. MR. MULHERE: Okay. We would agree to eliminate the car wash. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page Roman numeral three dash seven under your commercial development standards, all the way towards the bottom, you got a double asterisk. Parcels with two frontages may reduce one front yard by ten feet. How does that apply to this commercial application when you've got 25-foot setbacks or buffers to begin with? MR. MULHERE: Again, it seems to me that that would potentially apply to an outparcel and an outparcel -- for example, this outparcel right here, there was a, a requirement for a front yard setback. But if this is condominiumized or if it's platted, I think the way the county code reads, it's not just a road or a street but it's also an easement that you are required to provide your setbacks from. So I think that was to ensure that in this case you only had to provide that from one side, in the same -- particularly in this location here. I think that's the only place where it applies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your architectural add-ons were not to exceed 75 feet. Is this going to be the Daily News all over again? MR. MULHERE: I discussed this with my client because I also Page 163 June 15,2006 saw that that seemed a little bit high and that there wasn't probably a good likelihood of us having an architectural pertinence that would be that high. We'd probably want to retain a little bit of flexibility in case we want to do some sort of a bell tower type thing or something along those lines. But given the architectural design requirements for this location, I certainly don't think we need 75 feet, so maybe 60 feet would be sufficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: V dash two, Roman numeral V dash two, number B. That's -- I just circled that because that contradicted with a previous item and that's been resolved. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said you were going to do some improvements on 11th Street. That's nice. What are they? MR. MULHERE: In addition to providing sidewalks on both sides of the street and, as I said, providing in a mutually agreeable location -- both sides of the street in front of our property and providing a school bus stop shelter in a place where all of the three parties that would have concerns can mutually agree that it's a safer location. I'm going to defer to Reed for the other improvements. I think there are some other minor improvements that are required, turn lanes and those kinds of things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just said on improvements to 11th Street you added sidewalks and a bus stop. That isn't the street. I was just wondering what you're going to do to that. MR. MULHERE: I think they're going to be within the right-of-way, which is why I included them. The bus stop may not be, the sidewalks would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I have -- the rest are transportation. Thank you, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Page 164 June 15,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. You have to kick her so she can kick me. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I was trying out this red button. Does it work? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, but your name is not Fred Coyle. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just wanted to ask, in case the county commission does not act in September or does some very token thing in favor of affordable housing, is this proj ect willing to offer anything to alleviate the great need in this county for affordable housing? MR. MULHERE: Boy, that's one I wasn't prepared to answer so I am going to have to -- Bruce is. MR. ANDERSON: I'm glad to be able to tell you, yes. The commitment would be to 50 cents per square foot contribution to the county's affordable housing extraction fund. (Commissioner Adelstein leaves the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amazing how you change your tune between clients. Before we go to Reed I think we all could use a 15-minute break. Be back here at five after 3:00. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed, I know you're there because you want to talk about traffic. Actually, my questions are more of the county than of you but there is some of -- do you have anything you want to say first or do you just want questions from us? MR. JARVI: I do have a short presentation. Reed Jarvi, Transportation Engineer from Vanasse Daylor, for the record. I apologize because I expected to speak to the other one as a warm-up and Dick took all my thunder from me. So I didn't get to speak. We did the transportation analysis for the Brooks Village project. And just a couple of quick notes on that. Bruce already talked about what was in the Development Contribution Agreement. And just one Page 165 June 15, 2006 thing that wasn't mentioned directly, in the area we have also decided we're going to dedicate ten feet for shared slope and construction easements. That's not really a lot different than what was already said but there is a slope easement in there. From a project traffic standpoint this project was a little different than most of them at the zoning stages. Typically, we have a shopping center and that's all we know. In this case we actually had a lot of site planning that went into it. It's not final site planning but there was a fair amount of site planning to look at outparcels and different uses. So we were able to actually do a discrete planned use, doing specific land use parcels, and that's what you saw in the TIS if you read it. We had two analyses, actually, one with the shopping center, one with the proposed or potential uses. They were not proposed but they were potential uses. And as we went through the analysis we actually used the traffic generated by the discrete uses which were slightly higher than the shopping center code. So we did do that, and it would be conservative basis, the analysis, and we consider it kind of a worst-case scenario. Could be exactly what happens when we do the STP, it might be a little less, but we have actually used actual discrete uses as you'll notice in there. Because we had the similar uses, didn't use just shopping center, we -- and we have commercial uses, we also used what -- we have captured traffic. Captured traffic, you probably know, we've talked about this before, are in between the particular uses, internal capture between a gas station and a Publix you have one trip on the external network. You use both uses. That's an internal capture, a chaining event. We also have pass-by deductions for commercial uses. The traffic is already going down the road and they see the convenience store and they decide to stop and get a pack of cigarettes or a loaf of bread or whatever and then continue on their way. So we have those two deductions and we've used those in this particular project. It's important to note, Bruce brought out, and I actually was Page 166 June 15, 2006 going to read exactly the same passage Bruce read, but the east of Collier Boulevard study did talk a lot about the lack of commercial opportunities east of 951 and that there are somewheres upwards of 600,000 people expected to be living east of 951. Not saying they are all right in this area but there are a lot of people out to the east. There are limited, if any, commercial applications out there. And this, along with the other shopping centers up and down 951, will actually service the people east of 951 and will shorten the trips. This -- there is shopping centers to the west of this, at 75 and the Vineyards. It's about 2.7 miles to the west. And there are shopping centers to the north and shopping centers to the south in Golden Gate City. But there are none in this general area of this magnitude. So this will service the people out in the middle of the Estates on the 951 corridor. So I think it's important to note that. Also it's important to note that in general the shopping trips are either out there or they will be out there if it's future type projects, residential projects. These shopping centers are attractors. They are not generators. We term the term generation as a generic term because they cause traffic attractions. But really it's an attractor so the traffic out there -- excuse me, the traffic is out there already and what we're doing is bringing it to this area. What happens in shopping center type commercial development is you actually increase turning movements but you really don't tend to increase actual trip generations in general or trips in general because they are already out there going somewhere else. So that's important to note. Couple other things. There was a discussion in the TIS. We had from earlier discussions left the 11 th Avenue access as a full access. That's what is currently there today as a full access so you can go northbound left, eastbound north and south out of there. So there is a full access today. We did that. Page 167 June 15, 2006 Since that time we have actually looked at it, making it a directional access that is shown on this drawing off to the right and also has been discussed at the county level. For when Collier Boulevard does go to a six lane condition, they most likely will go to directional type accesses. So the left out of 11 th Avenue likely will go away and it will be just a northbound directional. We looked at that for this particular proj ect and looked at people that would want to go to the north out of that particular access and we've analyzed the Collier Boulevard-Pine Ridge Road intersection and don't see that there is a significant difference for what we did. It does affect the level of service because you are adding more trips coming through that intersection but it is a fairly minor amount and it does not adversely affect the level of service of that intersection as analyzed. Two other things we did do as part of the cost sharing we talked about in the DCA, $25,000 for the intersection improvements at 951 and Pine Ridge Road. We have done a rough analysis looking at what our level of involvement at that intersection would be, a fair share, so to speak, and came up with the traffic that enters that intersection from the project versus what is actually there on a background basis. And using that formula, it really would be about $14,000. We've agreed to $25,000 so you can see that we actually are giving more than our fair share for that intersection improvement. The last issue I'm going to talk about briefly is the 11 th Avenue access. As you can see, 11 th Avenue access for the shopping center we think is imperative for the shopping center, first off, and the people coming up from the south northbound on Collier Boulevard would turn into the left, do a directional left, currently a full left, at 11 th Avenue and come into the site. Everybody from Pine Ridge would do right-ins and from the north and west would do right-ins off of 951. We think it's very important for these people to come in at 11 th Avenue. Page 168 June 15,2006 Short of that access there they would have to come up to the Pine Ridge Road, Pine Ridge 951 intersection and do probably a U-turn if they can or else even travel down Pine Ridge and come back, which would add significant length to the trips and significant amount of travel on county roadway network. Talked to staff about this and there is -- even as they do the 951 expansion, they will be looking at where the appropriate median breaks should be or directional lefts in this case and they will be evaluating them up and down, and with -- short of a shopping center access off 111 th, there may be some possibility of actually moving this access so we think it's imperative to have it at 11 th Avenue for shopping center purposes. We also think having 11 th Avenue for the people off 11 th Avenue is very important that it has an access because we don't want people from 11th Avenue that have to go get a loaf of bread or pack of cigarettes or gallon of milk or whatever that they would have to come down, do a right turn on Collier Boulevard, come down at 15th, there is a median opening but no turn lane, so there is not a left turn or U-turn lane, there is not one here. You would have to actually come down to 1 7th Avenue, which is a mile south. So they would actually come down, turn a U-turn, come back up, do a U-turn and they would be having about a two and a half mile drive for what is really across the street. They just can't access it without an access on 11 th Avenue. So we think that would be not a good idea from a transportation network. It also adds a lot of people on the network that don't need to be there. So we think that's imperative from our perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to clear something in my mind. I agree with you that seems correct but is that, to your knowledge is that pattern in by our transportation people, are you counting on that to remain there, that 111 th -- MR. JARVI: 11th Avenue. Page 169 June 15,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 11th, rather, excuse me. I'm up in Naples Park. Okay, the 11th Avenue. MR. JARVI: We've talked to them. They are in the process of doing plans for Collier Boulevard, Golden Gate South. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. JARVI: It was broken from Golden Gate Boulevard to Green Boulevard a few months ago and shortened to go to Pine Ridge Road now, so it's going through the Pine Ridge intersection. And they are looking at that part north. But we have had discussions with them that when they go to six lanes on the piece between Pine Ridge Road and Green Boulevard they will be looking at the access points. And typically the access points are for the highest traffic generator. So if you have ten going here and you have a hundred going someplace else it possibly could go to the higher generator that would actually move the access. Nothing definitive at all at this point in time but it's a thought process that if we did not have an access on 111 th -- excuse me -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aha, I did it to you. MR. JARVI: -- on 11th, that there may be a better answer because rather than having all the traffic go through the intersection, you know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry; I think it's very logical. And I would hope that when staff, I'll ask that question and maybe staff is in a position to make a judgment or make the assertion that it's logical. Because you are kind of building on that idea. Do you know of any other higher generator? MR. JARVI: Well, the shopping center would be a higher generator. As an example, if you prohibited access for the shopping center on 11 th Avenue, it would force everybody that is coming from the south that would use this, this shopping center to come up through the Pine Ridge Road/951 intersection, do a U-turn and come back south. It would be a higher generator. From what our calculations Page 170 June 15,2006 show the shopping center would be a higher generator or higher use of that left turn than the existing subdivision back there, from a traffic standpoint. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see. I understand. MR. JARVI: If you are transportation you are looking at where is the best use of the access, it could be the shopping center. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Reed? MR. JARVI: I'm sorry. Bob reminded me about the improvements to 11 th that he alluded to earlier. What we have talked about is, as he said, sidewalks on both sides back along the frontage of the shopping center, F curb and gutter, barrier curb and gutter, right turn lanes as appropriate and overlay the existing roadway plus the school bus shelter, which we have had very preliminary discussions with staff but we'll work with the school people about where to locate it off of 951 as, you know, in accordance with whatever they want to do. But so we'll be overlaying the road for that. I'm not sure how that distance is, probably about an eighth of a mile. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So on that basis, assuming even if they were to change, if the county were to change the entry point for 11 th, you will still go through with those improvements; is that right? MR. JARVI: I don't think we've discussed that, to tell you the truth. I would suspect if we aren't using 11 th we have no reason to improve 11 tho Oh, if you change it? If the median changes from a full access to a directional access; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. In the event that it's blocked off, let's say, entirely. You would have no reason anymore to do any changes, no facilitation of that area there? MR. MULHERE: I think that we won't know that. In other Page 171 June 15,2006 words, we're committing to that if we have access from 11 tho COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's predicated, okay. That's what I needed to understand. I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Reed? Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Eleventh is a dead-end street, isn't it? MR. JARVI: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: How many residents are there about on that dead-end street, approximately? MR. JARVI: Bob says 34. I thought there was a little bit more than that but it's in that range. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thirty-four residential units. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm going to -- you've answered some questions but I want to talk to the transportation, the Collier County. Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what, we have a new court reporter. I bet she won't be able to spell your name. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mark likes doing this to me. C-A-S-A-L-A-N-G-U-I-D-A. Like a spelling bee, I feel like, you know. Casalanguida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I know you live out in the Estates as well as I do. MR. CASANLANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This morning I had to come here before this meeting. I sat in traffic backed up on 951 all the way past Golden Gate Boulevard. And as you go south it's a little bit better but not much. Is 951 at a failed level of service? Page 1 72 June 15, 2006 MR. CASANLANGUIDA: That's a tough question to ask. In terms of capacity as to what's available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For that road. I'm not worried about the TCMA at this point. I know the answer from a TCMA perspective. MR. CASANLANGUIDA: Right. Aside from the TCMA, if you take strictly trips banked and what the service volume is the answer would be no, but when you look at what is there and you add the trip bank into it, you could say that it's approaching that based on the current condition. But if I put in the future condition I would say no, it's not failing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the future condition is it funded? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, it is. For that area it is funded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not under contract? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When do you anticipate it being under contract? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's going to be 30 percent planned so I would imagine sometime next year in this area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your spacing as you -- on intersection spacing such as the one on 111 th -- MR. MULHERE: 11 tho CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 11th, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I poisoned it. I apologize. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I've done it too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that spacing on 11 th typical to your policy or is that against policy? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's 1300 feet and it would need directional spacing, not a signalized intersection spacing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is some talk in the PUD about a 10- foot shared slope construction easement that may be counted towards the required 20- foot landscape buffer. If a sidewalk is installed no additional landscape buffer shall be required. Page 173 June 15, 2006 First of all, there is a sidewalk out in front of this place right now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this mean you're ripping the sidewalk out and putting a new one in? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not likely. Now, as far as that requirement being -- the sidewalk being in the buffer, we just had a meeting, I would say about a week ago, discussing intersection improvements, and we can accommodate that sidewalk in our right-of-way so I don't think it needs to be in that shared slope buffer anymore. So we could probably strike that and be safe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So out ofH in the PUD, the sentence I just read you are suggesting be struck? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just the section about the sidewalk being in the buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's all I've got right now. Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to follow up on what I said earlier. Do you have any idea whether or not that's a logical conclusion to keep 11th Street open? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What we're trying to do when we look at future roadways is when we go to a six lane condition we don't like to have open medians, we try and directionalize them. That meets spacing. And ideally we would like to use it both for residential and then commercial under that. You would want the commercial driver to be on 11 th as close or away from the people as possible, far enough away to meet spacing and get back in a deceleration or turn lane and get off the road right away. So ideally if it worked out that way 11 th would be the good location for -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it's a swami hat at the moment, a crystal ball. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If there was access granted to this Page 174 June 15, 2006 development off 11 th, we would -- it would meet spacing and we would put an opening. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's fair. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other questions of Nick, we'll ask for the staff report then at this point. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Anderson, when Bruce and I discussed this with the applicant they've asked how we would feel about access on 11 tho Where it is, I would support that only for the sake of the turns and what Reed explained to you it does make sense. Without getting into a bunch of different options I didn't discuss with them and get into, operationally it makes sense for it to be there. So it's more of an issue of planning and how the neighborhood feels about it and you all feel about it. But operationalized transportation supports that because it works better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, we had a conversation here two weeks ago about some problems with construction traffic on a project in south Naples called the Wal-Mart site on 951 and 41. What happened is they have a series of mitigating traffic concerns that have to go in with that project. But the project started before those went in and as a result they have to -- now we've got a full-time FHP guy trying to monitor the problems that this is occurring down there. And we had talked, I thought, at that meeting about the idea of having construction improvements for the turn lanes and the right-of-ways around these parcels installed before construction permits were issued for the site work. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure I wasn't -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We discussed that with our review team in-house, and usually that's done at like a site development stage. We can stipulate that for approval. To my fault, some other sites have done that as well, too, where they've come in and seek the approvals for development and they'll come in and start construction, not with Page 175 June 15,2006 the turn lane. But now, as pointed out by Commissioner Strain, a few of the people were enforcing that up front. MS. ZONE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. Do you need me to spell my last name? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope not. MS. ZONE: Pretty much for the staff report the project has found consistency with not only our LDC but your GMP. There are some issues, they were stated during today's hearing, that I would like to have clarified, that are more important. And then we could go on to the land use as well as consistency throughout the GMP. One of the things is, you were talking earlier, you brought up about the -- the wall that would go between the preserve and the water, the water detention area. And placing a concrete wall up -- thank you, Ray -- I think staff is of the opinion that not only does that defeat the purpose of water detention, and it would impede the water flow, that being the purpose on that, but also in the PUD document, and it's Page 3-7, which is Table 2, Commercial Development Standards, preserve setbacks are ten feet. And if you place a wall between the preserves and the water management we're now not only going against the PUD document but it's also in the LDC as a preserve setback of accessory structures for -- cannot be in the preserve area ten feet. And that in the LDC is Section 3.05.07.H.3 little A, where it states, accessory structures and all other site alterations shall have a ten-foot setback from the boundary of any preserve. So we would be in conflict of our own LDC as well as the PUD document. So I would like the planning commission -- MR. MULHERE: I'll clarify that, if I could. MS. ZONE: Sure. MR. MULHERE: First of all, I tend to disagree a little bit with Page 176 June 15, 2006 Melissa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Bob Mulhere, for the record. MR. MULHERE: Not all structures are prohibited adjacent to a preserve. You can permit a barrier such as a wall adjacent to a preserve in some circumstances. I'm not saying we'll be able to do that here. I'm saying in some circumstances you are permitted to do that. As far as the water flow goes you can construct the wall to allow water to move underneath it. Now obviously, that's not going to be the case if you put it on the berm unless you're also constructing some pipes underneath the berm to allow the water to go through. But it can be done. It can be engineered. So I don't think that either one of those things are completely out of the realm of possibility. The only reason we suggested putting the wall there was the residents requested it there. My guess is if that is something that the residents want and you are inclined to support it we can find a way to make it happen. Let me just read from the Golden Gate area Master Plan if I can find it here. I have to find the wall. It says, fences or walls may be constructed on the commercial side of the required landscape buffer between adjacent commercial and residential uses. And I don't think that anything we're doing is contrary to that statement, even if we put it on the inside or the commercial side of the preserve. And I'll read it, fences or walls may be constructed on the commercial side of the required landscape buffer between adjacent commercial and residential uses. I believe that's exactly what we're doing. So I think we may have a little conflict between the LDC and the compo plan. I'd defer to Marjorie but I'd suggest the compo plan would rule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie. Page 177 June 15, 2006 MR. MULHERE: Hi, Margie. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie has something going on that's rather important, so I can understand -- MR. MULHERE: And then the other thing would be if I could just -- I mean -- and it does limit it to five feet and then tells you what materials you have to use to construct it. So I think Melissa is right, there is a conflict. But I think we can resolve that issue and if so permitted the PUD would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. MS. ZONE: Thank you, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Sure. MS. ZONE: Staff is still of the opinion, though, that we would not like to see that wall near a ten-foot, anywhere near the preserve area. MR. MULHERE: One, just one last -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, let her finish her presentation and we'll ask you back for questions afterwards. Go ahead, Melissa. MS. ZONE: Thank you, Commissioner. We haven't talked about it but I -- just for clarity, because you have reviewed the DCA, that the DCA itself references three exhibits that, two of the exhibits are being pulled out because there is no need for them. But it's conceptual because it will be going in front of the board. But I didn't want you or any of you to feel that, you know, we might have changed something intentionally. Because the DCA Exhibit A is the PUD master plan, which is also Exhibit A for the PUD document. But Exhibit B we're removing because it's just talking about a right-of-way and there is no exhibit except for the right-of-way itself. And Exhibit C, which is the conceptual water management plan, we're removing because really what all the DCA needs is the master plan as it exists. So just for record and clarity, those are going to be removed out Page 178 June 15, 2006 of the DCA. Okay. Staff reviewed this re-zoning, based on the PUD re-zoning findings as well as the -- just the PUD findings itself. The proposed changes are consistent with the GMP. The LDC provides regulations that will make sure that the PUD document stays in compliance other than, of course, this little fence issue, but that is something that we can easily work out I'm sure. There is not too much more. I think that I'm going to step back and ask if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of Melissa? Melissa, I have one. There is a suggestion in the GMP that low pressure sodium lamps are to be encouraged while halogen type lights are to be discouraged. Do you know if they -- maybe Bob needs to pop up and answer the question. But do you know -- MS. ZONE: No, Bob needs to stay right there. Actually, there was a -- pardon me -- we had a pre-app. meeting last month for this project, and of course they were doing it in hopes that it gets approved. But there are standards in the GMP, not just lighting but also with the architectural style. So not just with Sembler but they have, they had staff that they've -- agents that they have contracted who will be handling the lighting and the architectural. And I have been in contact with them separately and they are fully aware. Not only have they gotten copies of the GMP but they already know the standards that, not only in the GMP but also the LDC. And I know this only because of the pre-app. with the STP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my question was-- MS. ZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It reads, low pressure sodium lamps are encouraged while halogen type lights are discouraged. Encouraged is not mandatory. So can we just simply make it mandatory? Page 179 June 15, 2006 MS. ZONE: I will make it as part of the approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, we need to do our stipulations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm writing them down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there other questions of Melissa? Hearing none, Ray, do we have any public speakers? Thank you. MS. ZONE: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have five registered speakers. The first one is C.J. Melheim, followed by John Lamb. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have all of you been sworn in? MR. MELHEIM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have been having to sit through this all day. MR. MELHEIM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome. MR. MELHEIM: Thank you. My name is C.J. Melheim. I'm a resident on 11 th, and I was prepared to wax poetic about all of this but I think I've boiled it down to just a couple of comments. I feel like the Sembler project has a valid concern about traffic making entrance into this. Not so much exits but entrance, accessibility particularly from the south on Collier Boulevard. I haven't heard anybody suggest that there might be some middle ground where possibly that traffic could come in on 11 th, make a left if they are northbound on Collier, make a left onto 11 th, turn right into their shopping center and limit it to that. Any traffic needing to come out would be restricted. The residents' concern, I think, I don't speak for anybody but myself, is waiting in rush hour traffic to get onto Collier, whether it be rights or lefts. But I don't think traffic would obstruct anybody on 11 th if they were to only make entrance into their development, into their Page 180 June 15, 2006 shopping center. In addition, I was interested to hear that the re -- the improvement of 951 could possibly or even likely create an entrance into the Brooks, which I think would be reasonable if that was to happen. That maybe the Sembler Company could then restrict the entrance that we just spoke of should they get that alternative entrance right directly off of Collier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think their master plan does show one already there. MR. MELHEIM: An entrance from Collier? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. MELHEIM: Okay. Not left from northbound traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. Not left. MR. MELHEIM: But I think Nick suggested that there could be an entrance should traffic -- am I wrong about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what. After you get done speaking and the other speakers, we'll put it on the list of things to ask Nick when he gets back up here. He loves to come back up and answer questions. MR. MELHEIM: I guess my contention is that if that truly ends up happening it seems reasonable that we could eliminate the 11 th Avenue entrance entirely. I think that all the exits -- just to reiterate my point, I think all the exits from this place would be easily right-hand turns. And even if you were to eliminate the exit onto 11th Avenue it would solve my concerns from my own access onto Collier. Which, just as a side note, I have, I'm one of 40 houses on that street now that isn't done being developed, there are still open lots. We have one way of getting off of our street. And the shoppers in this new development have, it sounds like, three ways to get out of this shopping center. And I think if you limit it to two they still are better off than we are on 11 tho Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, I have questions. Page 181 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I respect your opinion, certainly. If they were to close that off, you then, if you were to try to access that shopping center, would have no objection to going down to, what do they describe a quarter mile, half a mile, making a U -ey and coming back. MR. MELHEIM: Personally, I would prefer to have to deal with that the occasional time that I would go into the shopping center as opposed to having to deal with -- I would welcome anybody to come over there in the morning trying to take a right-hand or left-hand turn onto Collier Boulevard from my street as it is. So to have to allow traffic, which would be a courtesy, each time every traffic would have to come out, you would have to stop and let them in every time I leave my house, I would rather deal with the one time I have to go to the shopping center as opposed to every time I leave my house. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I understand. Thank you. MR. MELHEIM: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I just wanted to ask about the 4-foot fence. Would you think the fence would be good or bad? MR. MELHEIM: I'm glad you asked. Personally, I don't have children and I would, I do sympathize with anybody who does have kids but I would like to see, not see that fence there. And I think anybody that has concern with children should probably fence them into their own yard before fencing them out of one little lake. I don't mean that as a knock to my neighbors. I just think there is an easier way to handle it. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Practical solution. Next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: John Lamb, followed by Karen Devine Leiti. MR. LAMB: Hello, Commissioners. My name is John Lamb, Page 182 June 15, 2006 4060 Lamb's Way. And I, first of all, I would like to say that sitting here all day, I have to commend you all on what you have to do. It's-- you definitely, you know, exercise caution and good sense up there and it's obviously recognized. I would like to say that, in addition to them wanting to do this property -- and the meetings in which we've had with the Sembler Group, it has been expressed to them about the 11 th Avenue issue. First and foremost we don't want it at all. But engaging in conversation and when them asking, you know, well, what would you like to see, we have repeatedly told them 11 th Avenue. Now from one meeting to the next, right, they haven't even made an effort to see if there is an alternative to that. They are continuingly (sic) moving ahead as if that's the only option that there is. Okay. I think that some of these other items about the fence, there is -- and the wall and some of these other ones were brought up by one resident who lives directly there who previously was approached by the Sembler Group to buy their property and it didn't turn out that they were able to change something for their plan and his property was not be able to be used and they are no longer going to buy his property. So in the effort he's raised some of these other items in the premise that they are going to go ahead regardless and so he's asked for a wall because it goes between his property and that preserve or buffer area. You know, we don't want to see a wire fence. We would like to see some safety precautions because we do have kids and our kids go up and down the street and they are, you know, you know, we would like to have a safe environment for them. Whatever those options are, you know, any recognitions are great. But we don't want to see a wire fence either. We don't want to see an access on 11 th Avenue. We don't want to see a shopping center. Okay. Couple items to bring into mind. A neighborhood center is not the corner representing of, like, Airport and Pine Ridge Road. Okay. Page 183 June 15, 2006 That's the type of development that they are planning here, with a large grocery store, outparcel stores. To me that is not a neighborhood center. A neighborhood center to me is exactly what is on the north side of the street, small little retail shops, you know, a gas station, things that the neighborhood is going to run up and use. As far as the east of951 committee or opinions or however that came into a fact, right, most of the people don't mind going past 951 to the Vineyards to go to the grocery store. They don't mind going up to Sweetbay's at Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. You know, they don't mind going into Golden Gate City, right. There is not a significant need right there. Okay. Now, when you head east of Pine Ridge Road you are on White Boulevard. It goes out to 23rd and goes down to 16th and some of those other streets; it's not the whole Estates. It's a small part of the Estates. They are not inconvenienced about coming in. They only have to come in so far anyways. The people in the Estates that are really inconvenienced are the ones that are out towards Wilson and farther out than that. You know they are the ones that are in dire need of commercial. Okay. But not at Pine Ridge and 951. They need it out there at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson right. That's the more appropriate Growth Management Plan that I think that should take place and I think that the Golden Gate Estate residents have spoke up and basically said that. I think a developer has come in and has chopped his way into these parcels of land, is trying to rezone them because of the Growth Management Plan. I don't think that they have done due diligence with the Department of Transportation, right. I don't think that they have done due diligence in entertaining the public or the people who live on 11 th Avenue are directly reflected, right. I was up in Charlotte County. I got to see Sid Kitson, talk about Page 184 June 15, 2006 Babcock Ranch, and I'm going to tell you something. His family is going to be proud for years to come because of what he did up there with Babcock Ranch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I don't mean-- MR. LAMB: I'll close up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but you have to close up here. You're runnIng -- MR. LAMB: I'll close with this, right. More than me not wanting to see a building, right, the number one reason is the safety issue. Okay. You expose safety, you know, crime, and harm to our kids by putting that shopping center there. Okay. All you have to do is any of you reflect back to the girl who got their picture taken walking through the shopping center and she never made it home. Okay. And I ask you to recognize, you know, our fears of our kids and, you know, it's pretty fearful to think that your kids might not come home some day because somebody wanted to put a shopping center there and create more people to come into your neighborhood that really weren't invited, you know. You are inviting people into that shopping center that weren't invited by the people on 11 th Avenue. I think it's extremely inappropriate and I hope that you, you know, look and see the harm that it causes versus all of the cash that they are throwing out at contributions towards traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to wrap it up. MR. LAMB: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, your next public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Karen Devine Leiti, followed by Jennifer Gutmann. MS. LEITI: Hi. My name is Karen Leiti, L-E-I-T-I. I'm not a professional public speaker. As a realtor, however, I'm a bit of a talker, so I've written down what I need to say and that way I Page 185 June 15, 2006 hopefully won't go over the time allowance. I live about halfway down 11 th Avenue Southwest. And I'm totally against the building of a shopping center at the end of my street, the beginning of my street or wherever. We got-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry to interrupt you. She's got to type as fast as you speak and that's a little bit too fast. Can you slow it down a little bit? MS. LEITI: I'm sorry. I'm nervous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. MS. LEITI: We bought our home in a residential area and want to keep it that way. When we went house hunting we could have bought downtown on one of the streets that, while zoned residential, have businesses within walking distance. But we didn't. We wanted to live in a residential area. We could have bought in Naples Park where the streets are residential but they have businesses along 41. But we didn't because we wanted to be in a residential neighborhood. I like having to drive to the grocery and to other stores. I like the distance between my street and Golden Gate City where commerce is abundant. I do not want to give people directions to my home that end in, take a right at Sweetbay or the Mobil station or God forbid, Hooters or any other bar. I just want my residential neighborhood to stay that way, residential. I took the time to investigate other shopping centers constructed by the Sembler Company in Naples, one of which is Mission Hills on the comer of 951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Access is provided via Vanderbilt, Collier Boulevard and a brand new road that leads to a new neighborhood. It's commercial area now and no homes were located on those streets until after the stores were built. So home buyers already know that the shops exist. I bought my home because there were no shopping centers on the Page 186 June 15, 2006 corner and according to my realtor there were not any planned. But that was a while ago. Another Sembler strip mall that is currently under construction is the Promenade at Naples Centre. I think that's French for center. And this is located on the corner of Airport Road and Naples Boulevard. It backs up to the Hollywood 20 movie theater and it's across the street from Lowe's Home Improvement Center. This is where a shopping center like that should be. It's already a commercial area. There will be a Petco pet store and a fabric super store and a Moe's restaurant and a lot of other stores. And it's all good in that location. Stores and restaurants like that, I think, belong on Airport Road not 11 th Avenue Southwest. Speaking of the types of stores, the Sembler representatives have told the people in my neighborhood that they only intend to lease to premium stores and that they will not cater to unsavory businesses. But isn't it true that the definition of premium, which is having or reflecting superior quality or value -- I had to look that up -- is in the eye of the beholder. Joanne Fabrics is not my idea of a shopping spree and neither is Petco, both of which are a sampling of the premium stores occupying the Sembler Company Promenade at Naples Center. The stores in the Mission Hills shopping center which are anchored around a Sweetbay grocery store consist of a dry cleaner, a manicure salon, a real estate office, and I'm not naming names, a barbecue restaurant, a few other stores and something called Lucky's at 951, which I investigated and found that that's a sports bar owned by a semi-professional racquetball player. These are the kinds of so-called premium businesses currently leasing property in the Sembler Company's shopping centers and they're certainly not what I want on my street. (Chairman Strain leaves the boardroom.) MS. LEITI: What happens if these business fail, as has happened Page 187 June 15, 2006 in far better economies than the one that we are currently experiencing? How can we be sure that there is not going to be a Dollar Store or a pawn shop or even worse, empty buildings on our comer? My husband and I bought our home for the appearance of the neighborhood, for the schools and for the good financial investment. Sadly, he passed away three years ago and besides my beautiful daughter my house is all that I have. I helped increase its value a few years ago by having the school zoning changed from Golden Gate Middle School to Oakridge. I don't want to see the value decrease with the development of a strip mall. I bought in a residential community so please, please don't rezone it to commercial. Let's keep it residential and keep the stores and the offices and the added traffic and the other potential problems and the dangers in the areas of town that would welcome businesses like that. I feel like I'm fighting for my life and I appreciate the opportunity to speak before this distinguished, intelligent and fair Board of Commissioners. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Jennifer Gutmann, followed by James Haire. MS. LEITI: Jennifer Gutmann, excuse me, had to go run her business. She couldn't stay all day. MR. BELLOWS: James Haire. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Please state your name. MR. HARE: James Haire. I reside at 4205 11 th Avenue Southwest. I built there 30 years ago. Nice quiet neighborhood. And I watched -- I've been in the neighborhood all my life, I've watched it grow. I see it growing from residential, duplexes, businesses, gas stations all this time. I'm in a residential area and I have an exit going out every morning trying to get on 951 or Collier Boulevard and it's a problem now, and I see if there is going to be an exit out of a shopping center Page 188 June 15,2006 there I'll never get out of there. My concern is the safety of the children there. (Chairman Strain returns to the boardroom.) MR. HARE: They have a bus stop there. The parents go down, make sure they get on the bus in the mornings. I don't have any children, I don't have that concern but I have concern. for my neighbors. I don't think an exit should be going onto our road. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. Ray, is there any additional speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. MS. LAMB: Excuse me. I did reserve the right the last time to speak and I did sign that. My name is Beth Lamb. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Come on up, ma'am. MS. LAMB: Thank you. Hello again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hello. MS. LAMB: Last time I spoke from the heart. This time I would like to speak from a piece of paper -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: State your name. MS. LAMB: My name is Beth Lamb. I'm a property owner on the west side of 951 within 500 feet, actually about 300 feet, of the proposed property. Okay. First of all, I collected over five pages with names of signatures of people on 11 th Avenue Southwest or people traveling on 11 th Avenue southwest last Friday in a time period of two and a half hours -- I'm sorry, thank you -- between 4:30 and 7:00 last Friday at my driveway on 11 th Avenue Southwest. Can I give each of you a copy so you can see the addresses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. LAMB: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you proceed, is there a motion to accept this into evidence? Page 189 June 15, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Kolflat. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MS. LAMB: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. You may continue. MS. LAMB: As you can see at the top of the petition it says, the following citizens of Collier County, Naples, Florida object to the proposed neighborhood center access on 11 th Avenue Southwest. These are all people who object to the access on 11 th Avenue Southwest to a neighborhood shopping center. We just don't want the traffic from a commercial development dumped onto our residential street. I haven't talked to one person who bought Estates property hoping that the city would someday be closer. If you allow this shopping center you'll be taking away the very reason most of us live in the Estates. We intentionally bought property away from shopping centers. My family in particular will not be able to go out at night in our back yard and see the stars when the parking lot is lit up. There are hundreds of shopping centers and stores to go to in Naples. Many are unrented, many are abandoned. Some right on 951 closer to Golden Gate are in desperate need of renovation and demolition. Why should we give up residential property to build Page 190 June 15, 2006 another shopping center when we as responsible citizens are allowing other commercial properties to become run down and rotten. We should welcome big developers and their resources to come into Collier and develop but shouldn't we take advantage of them to put life back into already neglected areas rather than disturbing neighborhoods? I can appreciate the property owners wanting to make more money by selling commercial. What I don't appreciate is allowing them to decrease our property values in the deal. Actually makes me more nervous to read. I'm sorry. I have investigated most of the committee members who decided the future land use to the point I now know that none of them live close to the proposed neighborhood centers. So their property values won't be affected. And I realize, Mr. Strain and Mr. Tuff, you are on that committee according to what I've downloaded. What I don't know is if you own any or they own any of the properties in the rezone and they would be increased in value if it was rezoned to commercial. I've also spoken with a neighbor who knows of residential developers who are looking for properties of this size and no rezoning would be needed. According to Page 34 of the Plan Amendment, by Ordinance Number 2004-71 on October 26, 2004, the neighborhood center located at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Collier Boulevard may also be utilized for single-family residential. We have been offered sidewalks, neighborhood associations, gates, a school bus bench, the widening of 11 th Avenue Southwest. What we haven't been offered is the elimination of the 11 th Avenue access. I called the Collier County School Bus Transportation Office way back when we were first told about the project and they said developers don't get to decide where the bus stops are. According to our children, every stop on their routes stop on exactly the same Page 191 June 15, 2006 comer on each street. Any commercial access at that corner will jeopardize the safety of every child that goes there for generations to come. We don't think anyone has the right to risk our children's right to safety. Also, according to Page 32 of the -- on the same Ordinance, under the section of Neighborhood Center Subdistrict, the Neighborhood Center designation does not guarantee that the commercial zoning will be granted. Thank you for putting that in there. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial re-zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Lamb, I know you're not used to speaking but we need to ask you to wrap it up. Your time limit is just approaching. If you don't mind. MS. LAMB: Okay, thank you. I was told to slow down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That's why I'm trying to do it as tactfully as I can. MS. LAMB: Okay. This is the end. We're requesting that you do not recommend re-zoning this property, especially because of the criteria for land use on Page 35 of the same amendment, which reads, for Tract 114, Golden Gate Estates Unit 26, access shall be restricted to 11 th Avenue Southwest. Weare 11 th Avenue Southwest. Even though the developer pointed out to us last Thursday night it's not our road, it's the county's, we are the county. And we don't want the access to a shopping center on 11 th Avenue Southwest. Thank you for hearing me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd just like to commend you for your work that you've done. MS. LAMB: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I really appreciate it. Thank you. MS. LAMB: Thank you. Can I make a -- Page 192 June 15,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to remind the commissioners before you speak, please be recognized. Yes, ma'am. MS. LAMB: I'd just like to make a comment about the fence around the lake. When we bought our property we looked for property that wasn't near waterfront because at the time I had a ten-year-old son. Anybody who's ever had a ten-year-old son -- I've got three daughters, sons are different. They are drawn to water. I don't want to drive past that lake some day and see one of my neighbor's little boys floating in it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, are there any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: I believe so, no others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You believe there are none? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the applicant want to rebut anything before we close the public hearing? MR. FILIPPELLI: Thank you. My name is Joe Filippelli with the Sembler Company. First of all, I want to thank the neighborhood for coming out and sharing their opinions, and I would like to make sure for the record that we did try to deal with their concerns. About ten concerns we definitely made those changes for them and we even tried to make some changes for 11 th, because I have children, I understand that. And I would like to point a couple of things out to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a mic. over there on the wall that you can use. MR. FILIPPELLI: Originally we had anticipated a simple full turns intersection here and full turns here but, you know, we're aware that the county's looking to improve the interchange and we're agreeable to left in only such as that. And in our conversations with the various county officials, they recommended and we agreed to a left out only on the shopping center, which would leave just enough Page 193 June 15, 2006 room for the neighborhood to make a left in to the shopping center, and a left out only on this shopping center would prevent people from turning that way. I guess what I'm saying is a left out only and a right in only. So you could control the people going beyond the property. And I've talked to Mr. Lamb. I know he lives right here and that's one of the reasons we have suggested this because I know they want to reduce traffic along in front of their yard and their house. And we also contacted Collier County schools about a bus pick-up for children. There's been a little bit of disagreement where the bus is coming. The school district told us they were picking up the children here, so we had proposed a -- constructing a bus stop for that purpose, you know, and put sidewalks down both sides of the street and curb and gutter the street because that would take -- you've got kids -- right now it's not sidewalked, there is no curb and gutter and that would give children the chance to come down to the sidewalk and stay out of the street. But -- and then some people thought that there was another place the bus was stopping. But we've talked to the county and you can coordinate the bus stop with the neighborhood, a logical, smart place. And from our understanding the county school district would even pick up the children if everyone could come to an agreement somewhere off of Collier Boulevard, which would make total sense to me, and come over here on, maybe even after this curb cut here. We would be willing to move this bus stop whenever the neighborhood or the people want because I think that's the biggest concern about traffic is children and getting them protected from the street. And, I mean this would make perfect sense, and that bus could go down to the cul-de-sac at the end and turn around and come back out. So they could pick up the children beyond this turn here, pick them up here, go down, turn around and come back. So that would protect the children. And I think that's what we're trying to accomplish about the traffic. Page 194 June 15, 2006 Let me put this -- make sure I've got everything there. I don't know about the county's improvements on this intersection here. I mean, they're going to have a triple left out of this spot here. And if we were to close off access to here so many people would have to come down, go down there, make a U-turn -- actually the U-turn is way down by Green Boulevard -- have to go down there and make a U-turn there and come back up. I'm not even sure the county will allow -- I don't know if it has traffic whether or not the county is going to allow U-turns with triple left turns here. I mean, it doesn't seem like there will even be U-turns allowed here so I don't know how, if there is not a left turn that you can even get to the center. It's going to create even more traffic confusion or problems as it is with that proposed. Let me put this down. The only other thing I wanted to say is we'll continue to work with the neighborhood. We're a family development company. We're a privately owned company. We'll continue to work with the neighborhood. We're not here today, gone tomorrow. And, you know, we've talked to some people in the neighborhood came up to us after the meeting, said, hey, if you do have an access point to 11 th Avenue, we would prefer that because we don't want to go out on 951, make the U-turn, come back. I have their names. They asked me not to mention them and I'm respecting their requests. But I think it's important that, you know, that the commission understands that we have listened to people, we have tried to make attempts and will continue to work with them and, you know, we want to be a good neighbor. So I thank you for your time. If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Your timing to build this facility, and your phasing of this facility? MR. FILIPPELLI: You know, the traffic exists, the traffic trips Page 195 June 15, 2006 and everything exists out there today. And correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Jarvi, you know, the reason they created all of these, you know, traffic analyses was to determine whether or not, you know, you had the capacity, and it's there. And we have, you know, a lot of interest from a lot of tenants. We have commitments. It will take probably two years to build it all out. We're, you know, probably take eight months to go through the SDP process and most of a year, maybe a little more, to do the development. So, you know, you are looking at a year and a half to two years to build it out. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Nick, I had some questions I wanted to ask you if you don't mind to follow up from the first gentleman's discussion. He had suggested something that hadn't occurred to me but it sounds like a pretty good idea: Midpoint left. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're going the same way, I think, sir. I've talked to the owner and suggested maybe a compromise would be to provide ingress only off 11 tho I was going to say 111 th but I caught myself. So you provide a northbound directional left into 11 th, a turn into the shopping center but not allow shopping center traffic to come out on 11 tho And so it would be an ingress only there. And that way traffic would have to come out back through Pine Ridge or Collier Boulevard and that would alleviate a lot of that traffic from the back off the intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the left turn into the midpoint of the shopping center as you go past 11 th? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wouldn't want to get too close to that intersection, our spacing requirements might get a little complicated. They could slide that down. But if we did that I would have to caution residents of 11 th that it would probably mean the elimination of your left in. When we look at traffic we look at the biggest attractor. If that is something -- Page 196 June 15,2006 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Which left are you referring to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, we can't have dialogue between you and the people sitting there. It doesn't go on record that way. So let's not go there -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have to do the best we can. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you were to close access to 11th and then provide that directional left in farther north you could possibly do that. I would recommend that probably some of the people who live there may not want to close access to 11 tho You may want to do a compromise where you would suggest providing just ingress only to the shopping center off 11 tho And that way traffic would come out onto Pine Ridge or Collier but not come out on 11 tho CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you wanted an ingress to that shopping center to accommodate the people on 11 th you can make a left in and a right out only and you could directional that out of the south end of that shopping center and that would take care of it. And put your left in as you go northbound about midpoint in the shopping center back from the intersection. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could do that. I wouldn't put two lefts on Collier Boulevard that close together. I don't think you have the space in there to get a directional left on 11 th and into the shopping center and then accommodate the intersection of Pine Ridge and Collier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the issue seems to be more than -- I mean, this intersection to go commercial, if it doesn't happen today it's going to happen someday, that's the bottom line. So the best thing we can do is make it as safe as the possible and address the other issues that have to be addressed. And I think 11 th is the biggest issue. And the safety there, I have to sympathize with the neighborhood. That is a problem and I'm looking for a solution. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ingress only would reduce the amount Page 197 June 15,2006 of trips coming off. If they were to make a northbound left into 11 th and then go into a deceleration lane and get right off the road and go into the shopping center the residents could use it as an entrance only, come back around, come right back into their development. People could use it but then if coming out of the shopping center they would go out either on Pine Ridge or Collier, not come back out onto 11th. I don't want the gentleman to say he doesn't want to compete against other people coming out. He's trying to get out in the morning or the evening and he doesn't want to be stuck there trying to get out as well too. So that might be a good compromise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, as you know, I drive down that road every morning and I sit behind sometimes a school bus and it stops at every street. And every street I see the parents with their children, parked in their cars, watching their kids, helping them get on the bus, making sure they are safe. Based on the scenario that I'm hearing today with the shelter and curbing, I'm assuming it's going to be F curb or something of a height. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It sounds like you're going to eliminate the possibility of parents sitting with their children at that bus stop. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You were talking about providing it in the shopping center? MR. MULHERE: There are parking spaces right there. We could probably do that as well, too. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're right. You could not park a car at the end of the road there and wait for the bus, if that is what you're asking, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That seems to be in the Estates, as sparsely populated as we are and with the children at the end of the roads nearly a half a mile or more from their homes, I think it's an important factor to consider. Is that any solution to that idea? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would think if there was a way to put Page 198 June 15, 2006 the bus stop right inside the corner of the shopping center, if that was possible, put it in there and they could pull up and park there and have the bus pick them up right there. It might be an option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion for discussion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-8337 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion for discussion? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second made by Commissioner Caron. Now discussion. I can tell you, sitting on the Master Plan Committee we envisioned neighborhood centers. We certainly didn't envision 120,000 square feet. When we envisioned neighborhoods I always pictured people waiting with their children, helping them on the bus if they wanted to do that. This center, the way it's designed would eliminate that. I didn't picture people stacking more cars on roads that are already in really bad shape nor building out until that road was in better shape. There is a lot wrong with this project. Most of it centers around the access off of 11 th street and the size that the project is proposed to be. A hundred and twenty thousand square feet with the intensity that is shown in this master plan to me is just too much for a neighborhood center. I am not in favor of the motion to recommend approval. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You mentioned that this 951 east study really was not supported by Golden Gate; is that correct? Page 199 June 15,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Was that the association or -- when you say not supported by Golden Gate, I don't know what you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if anybody from the Golden Gate Estates area took a position at the commission meeting. I know I have had E-mails from numerous people out there who have told me they are not supportive of it. They don't like it. It basically accommodates the eastern lands to build out and destroy Golden Gate Estates. I personally think it's the wrong thing to do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the report and study as I understand it was encouraging the activity center type of development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was. And if you take it as a constructed report to accommodate commercialization where business wants to put it it's a great report. It doesn't accommodate the citizens who moved there like I have for the last 30 years. And I moved there to get away from it. So I fully sympathize with the citizens in the area. I think Golden Gate has been inundated with more than it needs to be inundated with in regards to roads and centers. If we had wanted more centers in Golden Gate, the Golden Gate Master Plan Committee would have found more locations. We purposely limited locations because we were fought on every location out there for a suggestion. People didn't want it. This is one location that honestly is going to be commercial, I have no doubt about that. But I think this intensity and the access without addressing the needs of the safety of the children is more than I want to see happen there. So that's why I'm not going to be in favor of it. And I have numerous references to follow up with when we get to that time in the vote. Anyway, there's Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes, I guess you were sitting there, I was sitting there and my recollection was to make sure we didn't have what happens at Airport, what happens everywhere we have high Page 200 June 15,2006 intensity comers. So if in each of the neighborhood centers we had a different way to get in and a different way to get out and none of them had this intensity, I think to allow this would be going against what I believe the community wanted. I believe they were very specific to not have that and that was not the intent as I remember it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do not live in Golden Gate Estates and I'm not sure what a neighborhood center should be but even I believe that this is larger than it needs to be. And I think a lot more accommodation should be made for the community and this, if it's to be built even eventually, it needs to be built to accommodate the neighborhood and truly be a neighborhood center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. Then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would just like to say being from Immokalee, I'm not from Golden Gate, but we're similar in the sense that we're used to being a small town, walkable, knowing your neighbors, and I think that if someone wanted to put a high intensity development near where we lived we would have a similar reaction to that too. Yes, we realize that they need more commercial space but it's not an excuse to be imposing on the neighborhood for the needs of people who haven't even arrived here yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: As I said, my second was for discussion only because I have serious issues with this project. Not including things like the delivery hours, to be delivering in this neighborhood at midnight seems to me just to be ridiculous. I have serious concerns about this bus stop, that it's not included. The whole reason that we even have to have access onto 11 th is because of this one outparcel here at the end. You know, if you took that outparcel out you would probably have better luck getting Page 201 June 15, 2006 approval for this project. I think it's pretty intense with 120,000 square foot of store, of stores. And with convenience stores and everything else included in the possibilities just doesn't seem to me to be appropriate to run off of a dead end street. I'm also concerned that there was no phasing offered. We all know that we have problems on 951 no matter what transportation tries to sell us on every time. It just doesn't make sense. I think, though, if other accommodations can be made in this development, certainly transportation's idea of only having a right in to the retail establishment itself has got to be something for the neighborhood. But I just, right now it doesn't have my approval. I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: I just wanted to put on the record that when it comes time to articulating a reason for the vote, that we would look to the criteria, it's found in your staff report, that we have in the code for PUDs and re-zonings. And I think it amounts to some 25 or 26 criteria in all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, beyond the criteria, if it's inconsistent in your opinion with the Golden Gate Master Plan or the General Master -- the Growth Management Plan for the county or the LDC and we cite those references, that's equally as compelling. MS. STUDENT: It wouldn't necessarily be the LDC, but the criteria, we do have criteria in both places for the rezones that it be consistent with the goals, objectives, the policies of the comprehensive plan. So -- and that is the reason I would ask you to articulate the portion of the plan that you find it consistent with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the last comment I have to make before I call for the vote is that I think that the applicant could have done a better job in working closer with the neighborhood both in design, layout, intensity and locations of things that may not have been important to them but are certainly important to the citizens, and Page 202 June 15, 2006 that's bus stops, considering the way the current neighborhood is operating. It doesn't appear that that was addressed. Coming here at the 11 th hour and now suggesting well, maybe we can have parking and shelters on site with no real accommodation on how to accomplish that, I just don't see that working. So with that, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think your statement is supported by the petition here too because there are about 40 units that reside on that street. There are more than 40 signings on those sheets of paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. My reason for voting against this petition is that I find it inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan Transportation Element 5.1 and 5.2 and the Future Land Use Element 5.4, as well as the compatibility elements of the request for us today. MS. STUDENT: Could I ask for a clarification? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. STUDENT: You had mentioned the Golden Gate Master Plan as well. Do you find it -- is there an issue there that you might wish to put on the record? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't believe this meets the intent of the neighborhood center subdistrict based on the information or knowledge that I have as being part of that committee. It's larger in size than I envisioned during that committee's discussion. I don't see the open space component on the Master Plan. Although I've heard that it may be added, the fact that it isn't there bothers me. Those are the two issues offhand. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Also the intensity was supposed to decrease as it went to residential, and that next lot over, that wasn't also done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just so that we can go down Page 203 June 15, 2006 through the rezone findings, I don't believe that it qualifies for one, two, four, six, seven, 13, 14, 15 -- MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: This is the first time we've heard the concerns about the intensity of the project. This is about 20 acres. Standard rule of thumb is 10,000 square feet of retail per acre. So we're well under that rule of thumb. I would ask you to give us the opportunity to consider the comments that you have only made known to us since the public hearing was closed and continue this item so that we might take those into account and perhaps come back with a modified proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that -- if your intentions are to work closer with the neighborhood and sit down with these people and realize that something has got to change, that might be a beneficial way to take a look at this. We still have a motion on the table. N ow Margie, in a case like a request for a continuance in the middle of a discussion or motion, does that mean we withdraw the motion if we are considering the continuance? MS. STUDENT: Yes, you would withdraw the motion. The second would have to agree and then you can entertain another motion for a continuance if that were your desire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get this -- if we want to discuss the continuance in lieu of this motion then let's have the discussion for it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We can discuss the continuance while the motion stands. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: After. You have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then to make a motion to continue we need to withdraw the first motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we need to discuss the issue now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern with the continuance only is Page 204 June 15, 2006 that the neighborhood would have to come back out here again. Although I think that even if we voted to recommend denial, and this even got denied on the next level, that they would just come back in another time and the neighborhood would have to come back out here again anyway. So maybe the best thing is to address this head on and get it finished. Yes, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: As you stated, at some point in time this is going to be a commercial development. Let's let the neighborhood get what they want for the commercial development and let's get this continued and have this developer work with these people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may. I would also agree with that. I think that Sembler probably can produce a nice neighborhood center and not a large operation like this. It can accommodate the community with -- they have definitely established their needs. And while they may have had a meeting recently I would recommend that if we do continue this that they meet with as many people from that community as possible and take every opportunity to consider the implications, and even if it means having a considerably reduced zoning today, the future may allow for expanded zoning, may allow for changes as inevitably things will change. And that would be my position on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob and Bruce, both of you have been coming into this planning commission long enough to know some history . You know there are some commercial centers in Golden Gate Estates now. They are smaller than this. But if you look at the concepts and the way that they are laid out, intensity and the way they are done, you might want to utilize that in the way you re-represent this to the neighborhood and work out your differences. Page 205 June 15,2006 So I think that would be really important to do before you come back here and try this again. With that, is there a withdrawal of the current motion that's on the table? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the second willing to withdraw it? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion has been withdrawn by the first and second. Is there a new motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move for continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray moved for continuance. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Midney. Any further discussion on the continuance? MR. ANDERSON: Would we want to set an anticipated time certain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think you have a required time frame based on your advertising. If you miss it you just have to readvertise and start over again, I think. Is that, Margie, the way it works? MS. STUDENT: Yes. We apply that to the Planning Commission and if it goes beyond five weeks then it would have to be readvertised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we ought to leave it. You've done this before and you've not met the deadlines and you've ended up having to -- MR. ANDERSON: I just want to make sure I understand. If this matter were to come back in four weeks, at the second meeting in July, it doesn't need to be re-noticed? MS. STUDENT: I don't think so. I would want to just look at a calendar and count my days and make sure -- MR. ANDERSON: I'm assuming it's within the five weeks. Page 206 June 15, 2006 MS. STUDENT: Yes. Ray, you would agree with that, would you not? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. If you were within the five-week limit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a motion to continue. Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries. This matter will be continued sometime in the future and I highly recommend to the applicant and representatives to straighten their matters out with the neighborhood before you come back here and waste everybody's time agaIn. With that, we will take a ten-minute break for the court reporter. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, can you put us back on. Before we go into the next petition, I want to talk about the time frame for this afternoon. First of all, how many people are here for the Oliva Recycling Center issue? Okay, thank you. What I propose to do right now is to hear that issue next and then we will go into the dock extension and the sign issue after that, depending on the time. The time is the issue. How long and how late do we want to go Page 207 June 15, 2006 tonight? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll go the route, Mr. Chairman. And I would move, if all agree, that we make that the next ITEM on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's that, the Oliva? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 5:30 is about as far as I can go. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 7:00. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: How late are we talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as it takes us to get through it. Are you limited tonight? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have some commitments. I'll stay as long as I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do think we have a problem with the tape. The tape runs out at 6:30. So under any circumstances I think around 6:15 we'd be heading out to summarize and stop at that point. And that may mean someone's going to be carried over to another day. So we'll just have to go into it. Item #8E CU-2005-AR-8046 And the next one up on the agenda, we're moving Item E, Petition CU-2005-AR-8046, Jaime and Demars Oliva, represented by Coastal Engineering. It's about a mulching and recycling facility on 1340 Wild Turkey Drive. That will be the issue we're hearing now. Would all those people wishing to speak on this please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the planning commission? Page 208 June 15,2006 Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I had a conversation with Ed Carlson of Corkscrew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just many, many e-mails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I too have had many e-mails. They all went to the government site. I have them all in my folder, if anybody wants to review them. I also talked to a lady by the name of Mary that lives out that way; Ed Carlson; a fellow by the name of Ian. There may have been a couple others, but those are the names I at least jotted down. And we talked about this facility's operations and what they're doing out there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I had several e-mails. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: E-mails. COMMISSIONER TUFF: E-mails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, if the applicant wants to begin their presentation. MR. ANDREA: Good afternoon. I'm Robert Andrea with Coastal Engineering. I'm here this afternoon representing the Olivas and their petition for a conditional use approval for a horticulture mulching and recycling operation. The subj ect property is approximately 10 acres in size and is located at 1340 Wild Turkey Drive, within Section 2647, Range 27E. The current zoning district of this parcel and the surrounding area is agricultural with a mobile home overlay that's within the rural fringe/mixed use neutral area, as designated on the future land use map. All of the surrounding properties, there is a mix of vacant, wooded, rural residential and agricultural uses. As stated in the request, we are requesting a conditional use for recycling and mulching. I'll put the site plan on the visualizer. Page 209 June 15, 2006 This type of mulching operation is not your typical mulching operation. What my client does with this, he brings in the rough horticulture material, grinds it up in a tub grinder, where it sits on-site for a matter of a day or two, and then it is shipped back off-site where it's used in other parts of the county and other counties as fuel; sugar plants, things like that, they bum this mulch to run their plants. As you can see on the site plan here -- I'm not sure which mic is working -- what we're doing -- as you can see here -- I'll get my notes -- is we're proposing to keep all the mulch in this area here, to store it until it is shipped off. The grinder we plan on keeping down in this area here where it is less likely to be disturbing to the neighbors. We have a big sod operation down in the south part of the site here. We have a wooded area we will be replanting here. And it is -- this site here is also owned by my client, where it will be less likely to disturb people in that location. I know there has been some concerns with the decibels of this type of grinder. They are registered from the manufacturer to be between 52 and 57 decibels at about 300 feet. And that's why we have chosen this location, to keep it away from the entrance and Wild Turkey Drive where it's most likely to not disturb as many people. We're also providing here the appropriate landscaping buffers and visual screening, as asked by the county, to further keep the visual effects of this type of operation away from the neighbors. We're also proposing the stormwater drainage area down in the southeastern portion of the property. I believe that's about it, except for the wall that we have agreed to with the county. Weare agreeing that we will do a wall, but I want it noted that we will also be open to providing a eight-foot earth berm instead of a wall. Seeing how this is all an agricultural area, we believe a wall of six feet on top of the two-foot berm might be kind of a visual eyesore. It'd look like kind of a compound out there. So we Page 210 June 15, 2006 would be open to switching that out and doing just an earth berm with plantings around it, if it would be more visually pleasing. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Regarding the statement you just made, you said a compound; it might look like a compound. How many people will see that compound if there were a wall? I'm asking in a general sense, not for specifics. This is essentially purportedly a rural area, right? MR. ANDREA: Yes. Yes. It would just stand out driving down Wild Turkey Drive. I mean, it is not very densely populated, but it just visually would look out of place there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's not that significant. I have a number of questions concerning the storage. You said a day or two. And what kind of organic material are we talking about, culled tomatoes? MR. ANDREA: No, from my understanding what my client does is he goes to sites that are cleared for construction, you know, trees, brush, things like that, logs. No organics like vegetables, things like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No vegetables? MR. ANDREA: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you said something about sugar. That's certainly organic. MR. ANDREA: No, that's where the end product, the mulch, is shipped to. Places like sugar cane plants that will burn this mulch -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Burn that for the -- okay got it. MR. ANDREA: For the plant operation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So there's absolutely no accumulation of consequence? I mean --l Page 211 June 15, 2006 MR. ANDREA: It's not -- like one I can think of off the top of my head would be Yawl Brothers. And it's run sort of like row crops. They go through a process of a drying where they're placed out in rows and then they're turned after a certain period of time. And it's where the bottom will be allowed to dry, as the top does. I'm not sure how long that process is; probably a few weeks or so. This operation, it's going to be stockpiled until they get a significant load and then take it back off-site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So then there must be water lines somewhere spread out throughout the area of storage for the need in case of fire, I'm thinking of. What protections would they have? Of course, this material, when it dries, is beginning to dry, will also get intensely hot, will it not? MR. ANDREA: Correct. It does get hotter the more you turn it or the more you allow it to sit. We have two ways of preventing that: Number one, it won't sit on-site very long; and number two, we've actually talked with the local fire district, and we are going to place a well right here in the top of the property, as required by him, the fire marshal -- I don't have his name in front of me -- for that district suggested that would be the place we're going to do it according to the size that he suggested for this area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if there were a fire, he would be able -- the fire department would be able to come and hook up? MR. ANDREA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you would not -- you don't -- you would not practice any kind of water prevention, no treatment? MR. ANDREA: I've checked with the DEP regs and so -- and the county regs, and I have -- there has been no regulation where I could find that that is a requirement. And given the type of operation this is, we really didn't see the need for that, other than the well we are putting in. Page 212 June 15, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY : You've indicated that you suspect it would be -- or you gave me mixed signals on numbers with two days and then you said something about several weeks. Now which is it? How long will we have our materials held on hand? MR. ANDREA: The several weeks, I was referring to the Yawl Brothers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please relate it just to what we're MR. ANDREA: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know about the Yawl Brothers. MR. ANDREA: Okay. Our site here, a couple days is the limit. I don't have the exact -- I'd have to check with the owner on the exact number of days. But from what I can understand, it's until a full truck load is established there on-site and then it's taken off. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they have contracts that they're on a continuing basis, that there's never any stockpiling of anything more than a couple of days? MR. ANDREA: That's my understanding, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I'm not finished. If I may continue. In the report here, it indicates that the area was cleared, according to the neighbors, and apparently confirmed, that this whole area was cleared. And you've indicated -- I'm not -- you said proposed access road. You said something about not a wall but an earth berm of some height. Does (sic) that berm that you intend to have at only one location or surrounding the entire property? MR. ANDREA: What the county had requested from us is that we surround the mulching operation and not -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just the mulching operation? MR. ANDREA: -- and not the entire property. Page 213 June 15,2006 Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that the mulching or the grinding operation? MR. ANDREA: Well, it would be the grinding. The by-product is mulch. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. ANDREA: So yes, it would be the grinding area here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, do you happen to know how far that unit is from the nearest home? MR. ANDREA: From the nearest home, I do not know. I know there is a sod farm to the south of us. To the property line and the northwest corner, I know it's approximately 500 feet, so -- and my client owns the property to the west. So I would say a couple thousand feet probably to the nearest home. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I don't want to hog this here, but I have some questions about the odor. You're telling me the only vegetation you're going to deal with is wood; is that right? MR. ANDREA: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, well, wood is not generally odorous or odoriferous. I'll pass on it. I have some more questions, but I'll pass on it for the moment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. You say this pine was cleared off? Native pine forest was cleared off your land -- or the applicant's land? MR. ANDREA: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Was there a permit issued for that? MR. ANDREA: No, there wasn't. We have -- my client has dealt with DEP, and they have settled with them and are paying the fine Page 214 June 15, 2006 with them. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, has your client also purchased an adjacent parcel of land? Recently purchased an adjacent parcel of land? MR. ANDREA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is that being worked also? MR. ANDREA: Not to my knowledge. And it's not part of this application. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. Are you familiar with the report of conditions that the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association presented? MR. ANDREA: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Do you have any comments on any of those? MR. ANDREA: Well, we have looked at the conditions. Some were found to overlap county conditions, and others we have complied with, and some we don't agree with. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You list in there that a sound would be about 60 decibels, 60 db? MR. ANDREA: 52 to 57, according to the manufacturer of the -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, excuse me, that's the limit. That's just the audible range, though, isn't it? There might be some lower vibrations that would not fall on this; there might be a higher decibel rating? MR. ANDREA: I am not aware of that. I wasn't given that information from the manufacturer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Can you tell me what the height of the sound generators are, machines? MR. ANDREA: The height of the grinder? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. MR. ANDREA: I don't know exactly, but my estimate would be about 10 feet. About 10 feet tall. Page 215 June 15,2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And they're loaded from the top of that 10- foot height; is that right? MR. ANDREA: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's all I have at the moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just have one question now. You said it can grind up logs. What circumference of logs can it grind -- or does it grind? MR. ANDREA: I don't have that data. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: You just said you had a neighborhood informational meeting and you had a question and answer? MR. ANDREA: Yes. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So I assume something went on, which I don't believe I was able to see. But if there was a responsive feedback, that would be helpful for me, here's what you told them and here's what they said back. And I don't have any -- at least in my stuff I didn't have anything that -- MR. ANDREA: Yes, when we attended the neighborhood meeting, they had posed a lot of questions we did not anticipate, so we followed up with them afterwards. In fact, I also attended a separate meeting with the Corkscrew Neighborhood Association one evening sometime after that. We did answer all their questions. I apologize; I didn't know you didn't have a copy. I can supply you with a copy of the way I answered them. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Did we get one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we did not get one. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do, if I can come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. The hours of operation, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m. And then on Saturday, 12:00. And so Page 216 June 15, 2006 that grinder is going to run pretty much continuously all those hours? MR. ANDREA: Not necessarily. He wanted the option to be able to run it, but it is not going to be a continuous operation, no. It won't run for a solid eight hours a day. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But there's six dump trucks associated with this, and contracts. You've indicated that there are contracts that they fully expect not to have to stockpile material, but they're ready to ship it out pretty quickly. So that would pretty much indicate they would be running all that time. MR. ANDREA: Well, not necessarily. What they would do is because they work with the construction industry, is they meeting the construction industry on-site, the site they're going to be clearing. There'd be a matter of time where they would wait to be loaded and then bring the trucks in. How many trucks are sent to one site at one time I guess depends on the size of the site. But it would not be -- it's an as-needed basis. That's why he wanted the option to be able to run it, you know, 8:00 to 5:00, depending on what time all the trucks got back to the site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Now, these are I assume like a dump truck; is that right? MR. ANDREA: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, they're not the ones -- those are not the ones that bring in the raw logs, are they? MR. ANDREA: I believe they're brought in the green containers, the bulk containers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are they their trucks? MR. ANDREA: I believe they are, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So he brings -- he ships in, then he ships out? MR. ANDREA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Same trucks? MR. ANDREA: I believe so. Page 217 June 15,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, I agree with Mr. Kolflat with regard to decibel rating. There's a -- a decibel is a vibratory pattern that is involved here too which resonates and in time would be something to talk about. There's this question on number nine which is not yours, it's a staff report, but it does provoke a question I need to ask about Wild Turkey Drive being degraded. How often -- now, let me see, we're talking about six trucks and we're going in, we're going out. So we basically have -- what would be a round trip for a truck in a given day; would you know? I mean, what's your radius? A better way of putting it, what's your radius of your activity? How many miles out? MR. ANDREA: I have not discussed that with my client on how far he goes out. I imagine all over Collier and Lee counties. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Collier and Lee, okay. And you are indicating that you intend -- or I have a notation here that it looks like there's an intent to use the parcel adjacent, but you want to put an earth berm instead of a wall. What -- the parties purchased that property but not with the intent of using it in conjunction with this property? Do you know that? MR. ANDREA: They have not made that knowledgeable to me, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you very much. We'll listen to the staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that there's actually 44 trips a day anticipated. So basically if you've got 44 trucks, six trucks doing -- each one going out and back, obviously you must have material coming in and coming out. Because this is, I understand a daily situation. MR. ANDREA: Right. That number was based on the number of trucks that's owned by the company. Page 218 June 15, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Six trucks times four trips a day? MR. ANDREA: Right. And that was designed as a worst case scenano. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Worst case? MR. ANDREA: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So in other words there could be more trucks? MR. ANDREA: No, the 44 would be the worst case. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Now, do you actually run this operation on that basis? Is that the way it's running now? MR. ANDREA: That 44 trucks a day? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That -- yes. MR. ANDREA: I'd have to ask my client how many trucks. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Ask your client. MR. CARRASCO: No, right now he's talking about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't do it that way. MR. ANDREA: I'm sorry, he's got to translate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I think he needs to be sworn in, too. I don't think he was sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's going to have to be sworn in. You're going to have to translate that, too. (Speaker and interpreter were duly sworn.) MR. CARRASCO: My name is Ramon Carrasco. C- A - R - R - A -S-C-O. MR. OLIVA: Jaime Oliva. MR. CARRASCO: He's using about four to five trips per truck. So on average he's doing right now about between 24 and 30 trips. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And that's per day? MR. CARRASCO: Per day, yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now, are those trucks the ones that are going out with the mulch, or are those trucks also coming inn Page 219 June 15,2006 with the product? MR. CARRASCO: Both. Coming in and out. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I mean, but the trucks that are coming back in are coming in full from the logs that they're going to use; is that correct? MR. CARRASCO: Yes, I believe so. Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no, that's all right, I'll pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I have one question for you. The rest will be of staff. You said you send something to the sugar companies. What is it you send to them? MR. ANDREA: The mulch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you produce the mulch on-site? MR. ANDREA: Yes. The by-product of chopping the logs is the mulch. And they ship it off. And my standing, he sells it and they use it as fuel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. We'll need a staff presentation next. MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Heidi Williams, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. I'd like to begin by asking if you'd like to accept a petition I received yesterday -- and I have copies for everyone -- into the public record. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. We'll see it first. Bring it on up. Page 220 June 15,2006 Everybody have a copy? Is there a motion to accept this into evidence? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Motion -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Midney, second by Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion carries. Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. I'd like to start out with; the staff analysis of the Growth Management Plan does find that this is an allowable conditional use in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District's Neutral Land. The Land Development Code does permit an applicant to request horticultural mulching and recycling facilities in this district. The Rural Agricultural Mobile Home Overlay district is transitional in nature and can accept a multitude of activities, including agricultural, residential and the associated accessory extensions of those. The four aspects of the conditional use that are analyzed by staff are in your staff report and center around consistency with the LDC and the growth management plan, ingress and egress to the site, and impacts to neighbors, along with compatibility to the neighborhood. The conditions of approval -- and staff recommendation is for approval -- are attached to both the resolution and your staff report. Page 221 June 15, 2006 There are 13 of them. They are in response to those four criteria. And also, two concerns expressed by residents who attended the neighborhood information meeting. Specifically concerns were noise, truck traffic and environmental impacts. The staff recommendation number eight of the 13 for the six-foot wall atop a two-foot earthen berm is intended to address compatibility but more specifically noise attenuation on the site from the proposed use of the grinder. Environmental staff has advised that an earthen berm would require more space and therefore would limit the amount of usable area on the site for the applicant. And certainly as long as that's acceptable up-front to the applicant that it would reduce their usable space, I am not of the opinion that that serves the noise attenuation purpose, as well as a wall would, because a wall is a vertical thing that can stop traveling noise, whereas an earthen berm is going to have a slope. I don't think that's as effective, but certainly that's for you to decide which you feel is more appropriate, should you choose to recommend approval. The rest of the conditions do address limitations that would be placed on the use of the site for this business. When you have your public speakers, you will hear that there are some code violations on this site. The clearing is -- the illegal clearing of the property is one of those on the aerial that is .on the visualizer. You can see some aerials labeled 411, 740 and 7441. Those were originally pine flatwoods and are calculated when it comes to determining a site plan, an acreage required to be preserved, native vegetation that would be preserved. Susan Mason has placed an aerial showing you the original condition of the site. The conditional use is one avenue to correct this clearing issue. And we certainly do want to work with the property owner to correct the issue. Page 222 June 15, 2006 Environmental staff has advised me they're not aware of any DEP citation or fines, but certainly environmental and code enforcement are both here to speak to you, if you have any questions pertaining to those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let her finish her presentation. MS. WILLIAMS: And other than that, I'm available to answer any questions you have of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of the county staff? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On your Page 6 of nine it speaks of several policies. Actually five on the page that I see. And one of them in particular says Policy 6.2.3 and 6.2.5. Permits or exemptions from South Florida Water Management District and USACE will be required prior to SDP approval. The petitioners testified that they are operating today. Are they operating under some allowance by code enforcement or by South Florida Water Management District? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, this citation refers to growth management plan policies in the conservation element of the GMP that require these permits to be in place to obtain a site plan. And those would be required at the stage of getting a site plan. This issue is brought to you today as the result of a complaint of poor work being performed on the property without that necessary site plan. And we -- I believe that code enforcement has witnessed work in not necessarily this property but has seen evidence of work there. I, on a site visit, have seen work being performed there, as has environmental. So I do believe work has been performed without permits. However, to legitimize the use, they would be required to Page 223 June 15, 2006 obtain those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, to my understanding, the owner of the property just testified that they're continuing to work there. So I think that establishes that for the record. But is it the practice for -- once code violation is given for the parties to be allowed to continue to violate the code? MS. WILLIAMS: I believe that code did not necessarily witness work on this property, but saw evidence of it. Certainly they were required. And I will allow code enforcement -- the code enforcement investigator to answer these questions more thoroughly. But my understanding is that they are not permitted to work on the property. Whether or not they continue to do so is a code matter. And zoning is one avenue to allow that work to continue in the future; however, it should not be permitted until the zoning is in place. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or not. Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Or not. As you so recommend. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No question. But I would hope that in the future when we have an issue like this that might involve code enforcement, that someone from that department could be here to answer our questions. Because it's prevalent in all the correspondence we've received in this, plus a report that code violation was evident and was a problem. MS. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Kolflat, we actually do have the code enforcement investigator here, if you'd like to speak to him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One step at a time. Yes, he is here, he will be up here to speak shortly, I can guarantee that. I have questions of you that I'd like to finish before we move into code enforcement, if that's okay. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Page 224 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your staff report on the first page you say that the petitioner seeks the conditional use pursuant to Section 20403, table two. What reference on table two is there that shows this use in a particular zoning district? MS. WILLIAMS: Table two is the -- is where -- is the location in the code where we list the conditional uses that are permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. WILLIAMS: I believe it has been omitted from that list. It should be in there. However, it is in the code under the section regarding the neutral lands, specifically as a conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me stop and let's go back to what I asked. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Table two, Section 20403. Is there a reference to this use in that table? MS. WILLIAMS: At one time there was not. I believe when this came in it was not. However, it was anticipated that that would be corrected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but in the current code that's on the books, the one I have in front me, which I believe is the most recent print, I got it from our website, is that use in this table two in Section 20403? MS. WILLIAMS: I don't believe it's in that table, but I believe it is permitted as a conditional use by the other section with the neutral lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's not in the table. Thank you. Next question: Under your conditional use for the neutral lands, can you show me where this use is permitted under that? MS. WILLIAMS: I don't have the code in front of me, but I have CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if you want to put this on the Page 225 June 15, 2006 overhead. That's a section I pulled from the neutral lands from muni. code. Which one is it you're referring to? It's for the neutral area. MS. WILLIAMS: I would have to refer to the growth management plan language. But I believe it's included under the facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What we just learned today is that this is being used to create wood chips to send to the sugar cane plants, wherever they may be. So you believe that this code allows that as -- that manufacturing and that production of a product under G? It said facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction. I don't see anything that talks about manufacturing and production of a product that's shipped out to anywhere else. I'm just wondering how this got drawn into this conditional use. MS. WILLIAMS: If you'd like, I can refer to some things I have in my file and respond after you -- if you would like to move on, I can pull out my notes and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'd like to get it on the record as clean as we can. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. I'd have to refresh my memory on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then what I'd like to do, if the board has no longer any questions of staff, then we can have code enforcement address the issues we're concerned about. Does that work? Okay, thank you. MR. KEEGAN: Good evening. Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Can you tell us the history of your involvement with this site? MR. KEEGAN: I received a complaint about 1340 Wild Turkey Page 226 June 15, 2006 Drive that there was containers and dumpsters on the property -- an unimproved property. A notice of violation was issued for illegal land use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How long ago was that? MR. KEEGAN: That was on 2/3/06. On my next visit, some of the vehicles were -- some of the trailers were removed, containers. I put in for a recheck. My next recheck, there was one still on the property. A citation was issued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what date was that? MR. KEEGAN: That was 3/17/06. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KEEGAN: On 4/20/06 I made a site visit, and I observed mulching work taking place at 1264 Wild Turkey, Mr. Oliva's other property . A Notice of Violation was issued for illegal land use. On the order to correct the violation was issued to stop all work until conditional use approval permit is issued. I haven't seen any other work being done there. I've heard from neighbors, from the planners. This case will be going to the Code Enforcement Board for illegal land use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the testimony you heard today, does it -- maybe you're going to be checking that place tomorrow? MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, I'll be there tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So basically they've been operating illegally for some time in different matters at this point, from your record? MR. KEEGAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any further questions of code enforcement? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have. Page 227 June 15,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON : Your violations concern trucks and MR. KEEGAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: What about the clearing? MR. KEEGAN: The clearing would be under a different investigator, environmentalist. I don't -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MS. MASON: Good afternoon. For the record, Susan Mason, Environmental Services Department. I don't know the exact date of the code enforcement violation for clearing; however, I do know it's significantly older than the illegal land use. I have notes from -- the pre-application meeting for this project was October 13th of 2004. And in there I state that I needed to have information about the over-cleared area and replanting of the preserve, if needed. So from looking at that -- those notes, I'd say it's been cleared at least for a year and a half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions of Susan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Heidi, did you have enough time to look at your notes? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I've been going through -- again, Heidi Williams, for the record -- all the backup material from the very beginning of this. And as you've been made aware, there is a long history. It actually predates my employment with Collier County. And I thought there was a print-out in here where that was in the code. It is not the first petition to request this conditional use in the same zoning district, but in another location of the county. It was my impression that those exact -- the exact phrasing that's Page 228 June 15, 2006 on that first page of the staff report was in the Land Development Code. I'm sorry that I can't pull it up and show you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did a search last night and I couldn't find it. And I searched all kinds of documents and all kinds of related websites of this county and I could not find it, and that's what led me to my question today. MS. WILLIAMS: I know that the Growth Management Plan for the neutral lands was specifically amended to add it as a permitted use. And then the Land Development Code has -- was my understanding that that was a conditional use. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. I worked on the other conditional use in the ago district for mulching. It is -- was listed as a permitted use under the old LDC. And when the re-codified version came in, that somehow got left out. Based on previous determination that if it inadvertently got left out, it's still deemed a conditional use, and there's a glitch amendment going on to put that back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do you have the old language somewhere handy? MR. BELLOWS: It's the old LDC and I don't have it handy at this time. But I did work on the other one. Personally I worked on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The language -- I mean, this is a production of a product, a manufacturing process. MR. BELLOWS: A mulching facility like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is a little bit different than what I'm seeing in here. And that's why I want to make sure the language that you believe is there, I was to make sure it reads the way that it's being done on this site. And that's where my question concerns. If you don't have it, I understand that, but that's why I asked the question. Okay, is there any other questions of staff members at this point before we go on to public speakers? (No response.) Page 229 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we do. We have two registered speakers. Maureen Bonness, followed by Lynn Radi. MS. BONNESS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Maureen Bonness. I've requested 10 minutes, because I'm representing a neighborhood association, but I really -- it would be way better if I went a lot shorter than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. I know you're doing this. Ten minutes is fine. MS. BONNESS: I represent the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association. And I think actually Robert described our community pretty well. It's a mixture of ago and residential, mobile homes, vacant lands, cows, etc. Kind of a quiet, rural area, mostly with five to 10-acre parcels. And you're not going to find too many people in the audience from our neighborhood, because they're kind of -- I think politically you might say they're kind of shy. I don't think they want to get up here and speak, but there are a few of them here. Most members in the neighborhood decided to participate through the neighborhood association. We have about 100 members or so in the association. And so once we found out about the proposal, we formed a committee and studied it and held a number of meetings. And our biggest concerns were noise, in particular, but also odor and traffic. And also, looking at the details of the permit, trying to figure out what really was restricted versus what was not. And I think the permit is kind of vague about what they can do, what they could grow in the future. Okay, concerning noise, there's -- you know; within the group we were trying to be as open as possible to look at all the possibilities here. And noise turned out to be something that is very different in some people's mind as to what they can tolerate and what they cannot. F or me, the generators after Hurricane Wilma in my neighborhood are Page 230 June 15, 2006 something I would not want to tolerate on a daily basis for in perpetuity. But there are some people where it didn't matter that much. So in order to find out more about the people that would be impacted the most, I did a survey. I sent out a letter to people that were -- all the parcels in the neighborhood that were within one mile of the proposed mulch operation. And that was about 130 parcels. Eighty-three letters were mailed out, 20 were returned. And overwhelmingly people are opposed, although there are a few said they didn't care. And some did also say they supported it because of property rights. So it gives you an idea of the neighborhood. There are some people that are strong about we like to have a place where you can do what you want to. Okay. So that gave me an idea of what was the response of the people that were closest. So then we decided to -- you know, okay, we -- if we were going to have this, what kind of conditions would we need. And so the committee came up with a number of conditions that we thought would be kind of okay if we had to have this place, okay, let's come up with some conditions. Then we contacted the Olivas and their representative to try to get together with them and talk about it. We have been doing this recently also with Jones Mining, who is going through this proposing to blast. And we had a meeting just two nights ago and we came up with an agreement. So we're working with them and we're all on the same page now. Unfortunately, no one from this proposal ever responded to any of our requests for interaction with them. Considering that and the repeated code violations, the neighborhood association unanimously voted to oppose the facility. That considering they aren't talking to us and they keep on pretty much just doing what they want to do, it was something we decided that was not good for the neighborhood. Page 231 June 15, 2006 One of the -- some of the biggest concerns were although people were very -- some people are strong on property rights, this particular property right to have a facility that is going to make a lot of noise that's going to affect not just the next door neighbors but many neighbors, brought people to think that, you know, this is not something that should be allowed in the neighborhood because it affects so many. If it were just affecting your next door neighbor, maybe. But this was going to affect a lot of people. The odor, perhaps, you know, a half a mile or a mile, depending on the way the wind blows. And actually, I got the information from one of the sites that was nearby, one of the Hurricane Wilma mulch piles, said you could smell it perhaps up to a mile away. But with this operation, too, the association felt that it was something really for the benefit of one person's profit. It is not something that benefits the neighborhood and it's not really something like eminent domain that is a great benefit to the county. Right now our neighborhood is going through a couple of changes because of things that are good for the county, bad for the neighborhood, such as the blasting of Jones Mining. The other thing is right now FPL is putting their big huge power lines through our neighborhood. We don't get our energy from FPL, it comes from LCEC. So there are certain things the neighborhood has to deal with because of -- for the greater good of the county, and this is not one of them. So we did come up with some conditions, and I've given those -- I believe you guys have received them. I also e-mailed a letter to you, and I guess that doesn't go into public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it does. It is. MS. BONNESS: It is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 232 June 15,2006 MS. BONNESS: Okay. So I do not have to incorporate it here for public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we all would have received it, because, I mean, I saw it in a mass mailing you sent to everybody, so MS. BONNESS: Okay. That was also forwarded to the county and also to Commissioner Coletta, who's our representative. So we have a number of conditions that we are requesting, and they have to do with noise, setting a maximum, giving us some kind of assurance that that maximum will be enforced, which is that's one of the problems we have now is that even no matter what conditions you put on here, we're not really guaranteed -- we don't feel like that's really what's going to happen out there. And my neighborhood, it's not a neighborhood that likes to call code violation and tell them to come out there every day. And that some kind of a noise barrier is built, something -- perhaps even the height of the machine rather than giving them a number and saying eight feet. I've heard those tub grinders are much higher than 10 feet. So some kind of a noise barrier. Traffic: Perhaps with a daily maximum on the number of trips right now. There is nothing in the permit that limits them at all on traffic, or any kind of expansion. Okay, right now they're not proposing to be like Yawl Mulching. There is nothing in their proposal that prevents them from becoming a full-blown commercial entity like Yawl Mulching that has a lot of traffic. Also, some requirements for road maintenance. The hours of operation that we suggested were much lower. If you want to work in a neighborhood, this would be better for us if you restricted them. I know that staff recommended certain hours, because that's the hours that Yawl Mulching has. We've tried to restrict them even further. Because if you're going to keep on operating every day -- and our hours of operation we're suggesting for the mulch machine itself, not Page 233 June 15, 2006 the end loaders and the trucks and everything else, this was actually for the grinder. We also had some details about native vegetative retention, the success criteria for them replanting. Because the permit at this point does not include any of that. Some more soil to be restored, because I know a bit about environmental, that it's not going to just come back by itself after you've completely cleared it and then driven over it a lot. And also a note about pre-operation compliance, make sure it is done before they are allowed to operate. And then one other stipulation, that the permit be reviewed every five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of Ms. Bonness? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. MS. BONNESS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we've heard today, there's a history of problems with this site, breaking the law, operating illegally, and continuing to do so and stating so under oath today. Yet -- and you guys didn't get any response to your letter of possible cooperation or reVIew. You're here suggesting restrictions to put on this property. How in the world do you think anybody would abide by those if they don't abide by any of the laws that are on the books right now? MS. BONNESS: We don't think they will. That's why we have unanimously voted to oppose the facility. But I have a little bit of an idea of how the permits work here, and just in case you did decide to let it go, be very restrictive, okay? We have no assurance at all that there will be any compliance because of the kind of repeat offender scenario going out there now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I find myself in times, I do the same Page 234 June 15,2006 thing you've just done, I prepare a list of stipulations just in case. So I appreciate your time today and thank you for your thoroughness in what you've presented to us. MS. BONNESS: Thank you for listening. MR. CARRASCO: Excuse me, can we clarify something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not at this point, sir, you'll have to wait till after the last speaker. MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Lynn Radi. MR. RADI: My name is Lynn Radi. I live in close proximity to the mulching operation. It's pretty frustrating, when you -- I built a home there 20 years ago. I like the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood. That's why I live there. And along comes what I consider industry. I don't think it's an agriculture operation. It doesn't sound like a farm tractor or a cultivator to me. It's loud enough. The consultant said that his information is that it's 50 to 58 decibels or 52 to 58 decibels of noise. I hear a chain saw operating. And when I hear a chain saw operating, I'm not talking about at an idle position, I'm talking about when it's really revved up. Most of you people have heard that as recently as Hurricane Wilma. I was over at my neighbor's house, which he lives one parcel closer to the mulch operation than I do. And I've seen his windows rattle. When we go to try and get this information about it, we're told no, they're not allowed to be operating. And we'll call in. And where they're located is they're the last place back on Turkey Drive. You can't go any further than their place. And I've gone back there. When I heard them mulching at my house, I had to go quite a ways around to get to Wild Turkey to go back up in there. And they had a neighbor that was out on the cell phone, and I'm sure he was telling them hey, there's a white truck, looks like it might a county truck coming. And when I got up there, Page 235 June 15, 2006 there was no mulching going on. But it's really frustrating. Your decision's going to have an affect on many years to come as far as the tranquility of our area there. They have already said they do this and ship it out of the county. We don't have any cane mills in Collier County that I'm familiar with. I don't -- I would like to see the whole operation move out of Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And Ray is that the last registered public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the gentleman who owns the facility has indicated he would like to speak. I'm going to allow him to speak. And if he could come back up with his interpreter and we could hear his comments. MR. CARRASCO: His main concern has been that you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you've first got to state your name again for the record. MR. CARRASCO: Ramon Carrasco. MR. OLIVA: Jaime Oliva. MR. CARRASCO: His concern is that you've been saying that we under oath said that he is working out of that facility. The trucks that he's running at this time waiting for his permit -- he did work about the first year that we owned it before the people started complaining, unknowingly that he couldn't do that there. But right as of now, he runs into Lehigh or Waste Management Company. He's not running out of there. And that's -- the code enforcement goes there every once in a while and they've seen that, you know, we got -- his cousin was actually the one that was caught mulching. And if they want to -- but he's not running out of there. He's not admitting under oath that he's running out of there. That's the amount of trips that he's doing today with his trucks, going to the one up in Lehigh on State Road 82 or Waste Management Company. Page 236 June 15, 2006 So he wants to verify that he's not under oath stating that he's breaking the law day in and day out. It's not -- it's not so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. MR. CARRASCO: And if they want to hear the actual machine running and the vibration, they're more than welcome to it. He'll run it for them, that it's not as loud as they are claiming, and the vibration maybe to 100 feet radius. If they want to, he can make a personal demonstration of how the machine works, and that way they can actually hear it and see everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would close the public hearing. Is there a motion? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, I still -- we're still sitting in two situations here. We have a situation where there is a criminal incident going on now and still has not been settled. Do we want to take that into consideration as to make my motion now, or how do you want to handle that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would just as soon we entertain a motion and then go into a second and we go into any discussion and go from there. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to advise that once again, you're -- I know it's a code enforcement matter, but you all are to be guided by the criteria that are found in the Land Development Code. And you have in your staff report what generally relates to consistency with the LDC, the GMP, noise, odor, glare effects, adequacy of ingress and egress, and I think impact on surrounding properties. I paraphrased it, but I just -- so there's the criteria that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.w Page 237 June 15, 2006 Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, I make a motion that we deny -- recommend denial to the Commission on this petition under the basis of nonconsistency with the Land Development Code and growth management. And also that it affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic and odor effects, and the compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district is not met. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Kolflat, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know he was going to make a motion, so I didn't turn to you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's quite okay. I would have made the same motion. And quite frankly, I find what I think -- evidence indicates to me that this gentleman should have known he's not a good neighbor. And I doubt seriously he'll perform. I would think that before long he'd have every kind of process going on over there. So I'm inclined not to go forward with -- I would vote for this motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, my comment is I certainly agree with the motion. I think that when the neutral lands and these other conditional uses come into play in such areas, they have to take into consideration the nature of the neighborhood at the time. This is a neighborhood that is starting to have residential units in it, has residential units. It's not agriculture anymore. While it's zoned that way, it's not operating as a functional farming agricultural community. Therefore, the compatibility issues that apply may not be directed at this as they should be. And I do not see it as compatible with the neighborhood for that reason. Page 238 June 15, 2006 Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd just like to add, you know, the sound of a lawnmower or a chain saw is loud, but it's only intermittent. And ifit's something that's going all day, you know, every day, that's a whole different thing. And the other thing is that its proximity to Corkscrew Sanctuary. That is something that's unique in North America, and it's something that has a lot more economic value than this mulching operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries to recommend denial 7-0. COMMISSIONER CARON: Please make sure you turn in your conditional use report. Item #8D BD-2006-AR-9291 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll move on to the next petition, which would be BD-2006-AR-9291, Richard Brillhart, 401 Granada Avenue, Isle of Capri. It's a boat dock extension. For all those wishing to speak in this matter, please rise and be Page 239 June 15, 2006 sworn in by the court reporter. Raise your right hand. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of the commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Ray, are there any -- is there any members of the public who have expressed any discontent with this issue? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you two gentlemen are representatives of the applicant? MR. KIRTH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would suggest, based on the fact there's nobody in this audience that is registered to speak or has spoke -- or has raised any issues, you might want to shorten your presentation. MR. KIRTH: Absolutely. I agree. F or the record, Quint Kirth of Turrell and Associates, representing Mr. Brillhart, located at 401 Granada Avenue. Let me put the proposed plan on the overhead. Weare requesting a three-foot extension into the waterway from the allowed 20 feet for a single-family dock. The extension is required to facilitate the mooring of a 35- foot vessel and associated boat lift without impacting existing rip-rap along the shoreline. Please note that the current dock protrudes approximately 24 feet into the waterway; however, water depths are not sufficient for safe navigability . With our proposed dredge and dock modifications, we have reduced the protrusion into the waterway, as well as the amount of over-water structure. The requested protrusion is 23 feet into the waterway, approximately 93 feet wide. That's it. Page 240 June 15, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Members of the commission have any questions of the applicant on this dock issue? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Is the entire channel going to be dredged, or just in front of your dock? MR. KIR TH: Just in front of our dock. I have a drawing I can show you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Is this a navigable waterway, in your judgment? MR. KIRTH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Can you tell me the ownership, who owns the land under -- who has control of the canal? MR. KIRTH: The canal is a public access domain. It's a public domain, public access way. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The canal is not under private control; is that correct? MR. KIRTH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, what concerns me here is something that comes up occasionally when we have a boat dock and that is that according to the LDC 5.03.06(C), measurements, exact protrusions and extensions. Measurement is made from the most restrictive of the following: Property line, bulkhead line, shoreline line, rip-rap line, control elevation, contour or mean high water level. Now, in this petition here I view the property line as being the most restrictive. MR. KIRTH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The code further goes on to say that under 3.5.03.06(E), standards for dock facilities. The following criteria apply to dock facilities and boathouses with the exception of Page 241 June 15, 2006 dock facilities and boathouses on unmanned lakes and other manmade bodies of water under private control. So these standards do not apply to private control but do apply in this case here, since you acknowledge it's public. MR. KIRTH: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, one of these says that for lots of canal or waterway that is 100 feet or greater in width, no boathouse or dock facility, boat combination shall protrude more than 20 feet into the waterway. That is the total protrusion of the dock facility, plus the total protrusion of the moored vessel. MR. KIR TH: Correct. And I believe you are correct. There is also a statement that you are allowed to protrude 25 percent. This canal is also platted at 100 feet. And I can show you on the survey, if requested. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, let me just correct you. On that -- the alternate is for if it's less than 100 feet as far as being 25 percent. There are two paragraphs in there. I'll read you the second one, which is the one you're referring to. F or lots on a canal or waterway which is less than 100 feet -- which doesn't apply here -- dock facilities may occupy no more than 25 percent of the width waterway that protrude greater than 20 feet into the waterway, whichever is less. So that also covers it, because 20 feet is less than the 23 you come up with, 25 percent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, you've got to slow down. She's missing everything you're saying or is not getting it all. You've go to slow down for the record. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm sorry. I'm pressured by the fact I know it's the end of the day, and I know the chairman wants to get through this meeting, but I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will take as long as it takes, sir, so just take your time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I don't feel that this meets the Page 242 June 15, 2006 LDC at all, because if you have 100 feet, which you've acknowledged is what you have, you've acknowledged it's not under private control, the standards are very explicit and say that they must be no further than 20 feet, including the boat width. And this is far greater than that. If you take the width of the boat, add that on to the dock. MR. KIRTH: I believe I understand what you're stating. However, we went from a permitted dock of 24 feet protruding into the waterway and actually moved it back one foot. This was permitted in the past and we had proposed a dredge just because the insufficient water depths. And not only have we reduced the amount of over-water structure; we've reduced the total protrusion. We are preventing any impacts to the existing rip-rap by placing a retention wall, and I don't believe we can move the vessel in any closer with that -- with impacting the existing shoreline. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'm not questioning whether the previous dock was within the code or outside of the code. I'm just saying this petition does not meet the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, maybe staff would be able to explain the LDC issue, since they're the ones that weighed in on the LDC when we get to the staff report? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Fine. I have the reference for both of them. If fact, I have copied them, too, since I didn't bring my LDC with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be more effective to find out staffs reasoning on that position. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: See, I view this more as a request for a three-foot variance than anything else. That's what you're asking us to do, ignore the standard in the LDC and make it not pertain to that 20- foot limitation. MR. KIRTH: Is that allowable, if that's the case? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're at a deadend canal; is that right? Page 243 June 15, 2006 MR. KIRTH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you bothering anybody else? MR. KIRTH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't there a boat dock there that was even greater than this one -- MR. KIRTH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- into the water? MR. KIRTH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So you're actually reducing the impacts of that end canal by this proposal. MR. KIRTH: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Also, you're talking about three feet? MR. KIRTH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And that's all there is? MR. KIRTH: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And there's nothing further out than you are? MR. KIRTH: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : You're the furthest one out. MR. KIRTH: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can't see any reason why it shouldn't go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we -- we've got a lot-- we've got a ways to go yet. So are there any other questions of the applicant at this point? Mr. Kolflat, did you have any other things you wanted to ask the applicant before we ask staff? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just one. I notice that on the visualizer, there's a boat that has a bow that's there. But I notice in the Page 244 June 15, 2006 pictures that we're looking at a pontoon boat. Do you happen to know if the new lift will be designed for a bow boat or for a pontoon boat? MR. KIRTH: Unfortunately I do not know the type of boat. We have, however, reduced the size of the boat slip as well-- no, I'm sorry, we maximized the boat lift. We increased the size of the boat lift from the existing dock. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which -- okay. MR. KIRTH: We went-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at the water depth there, it's quite shallow. MR. KIRTH: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't imagine anything other than a pontoon boat. MR. KIR TH: The existing boat lift was 11 feet by 11 feet, and our proposed boat lift is 13 by 13. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to make sure, because that's easily maneuverable, et cetera, et cetera. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Staff report, please. MS. ERNST: I wanted to show the aerial of the end of the canal. F or the record, I'm Joyce Ernst, from Zoning and Land Development Review. And of course you know that this is located in Isle of Capri. And the existing dock protruded out 24 feet into the waterway. When that existing dock was permitted by the building department and issued and CO'd and never got a boat dock extension, I guess it was due to an oversight on the building department's part. They issued it without an extension. It should have gotten an extension. This new facility, if it gets approved, will -- and it get -- because what they propose to do is remove the existing dock and put a new Page 245 June 15,2006 dock in. So this will take the situation right now that is nonconforming, an illegal nonconforming dock, actually, into a legal situation. The code does allow for us to -- you can extend 20 feet into a canal that measures 100 feet wide without a boat dock extension. To go more than 20 feet into the canal is when a boat dock extension kicks in. Ifhe just wanted to go out 20 feet, we wouldn't require the extension. I hope this answers your question, Commissioner Kolflat. The extension is when you go more than 20 feet into the waterway. As you can see, the neighbor to the south of this property has a very small dock and boat lift. And the neighbor across the canal has a very large U -shaped dock. I had checked the building permit for that dock. It was only supposed to go out 20 feet into the waterway, and it extends out actually more than what it really does. I've pulled -- I've notified code enforcement that it seems to be a possible violation. Because the survey that was submitted with this application seemed to indicate that it was out more than 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, visually I can assure you the survey is probably right. COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't have to look at a survey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, before Mr. Kolflat, I saw that you raised your hand. Did you have something that you wanted to say? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. I wanted to just expand a little bit on what Ms. Ernst said. You're allowed a boat dock at a certain length, but if you go beyond that length, then that's when you kick in the boat dock extension that the Planning Commission hears. And it works -- we don't call it a variance, but it works sort of like a variance where you're allowed to have a greater length of a dock than would be allowed in the provision of the code, if certain Page 246 June 15,2006 primary and secondary criteria are met. So I just wanted to explain that a little bit further. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I intend to vote for this petition, because there are only two criteria in my judgment that aren't met, and there would have to be more than three for it to fail. But I would request that the staffplease read 5.03.06(E), number one, what I'm driving at there, because at the moment this would not in my judgment have complied at all with those standards. MS. ERNST: I think you have to read further to see where extensions are required. I don't have the code in front of me. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, I -- after this meeting or sometime before the next one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joyce, if you could e-mail Commissioner Kolflat with more details on that issue, then I think that might satisfy his concern. MS. ERNST: Okay, I will do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions at all-- MS. ERNST: You want me to finish? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were. I'm sorry. MS. ERNST: I was just saying, because of this, it's located in a deadend canal; staff doesn't feel that it has any affect on navigation. And the only really criteria that we found that it didn't comply with is that more than 50 percent of open water is maintained. A large part of that is due to the dock on the opposite side of the canal. But staff feels that because it doesn't have any effect, you know, navigation, it's a deadend canal, no one's going to go -- you know, the only people that are really going to be down there are the people -- the property owners that live there. And so -- and I did not hear -- and I have not gotten any comments for or against this project from any of the surrounding neighbors and, therefore, staff has recommended approval. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? Page 247 June 15,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I make a motion we approve recommendation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't quite do it yet. We have to ask for public speakers and then we have to close the public hearing. Then I'll turn to you right after that, okay? Joyce -- is there any other questions of Ms. Ernst while she's standing there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Joyce, thank you. MS. ERNST: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I don't think there's a need for the applicant to rebut anything, because they're doing real good right now. So with that, we'll close the public hearing. And Mr. Kolflat, do you have a motion? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have a motion that we recommend to the County Commission that they approve BD-2006-AR-9291. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, these end with us, don't they? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, they do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's not a recommendation to the BCC MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: You have the final order of authority on this and that's the end of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : We're just recommending approval. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right, I recommend approval. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You're approving, because you Page 248 June 15, 2006 have final order of authority here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat has recommended approval. You second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #8F SV-2006-AR-9160 The next one is Petition SV-2006-AR-9160, WR Development LLC concerning two ground signs in the River Chase Commons Office Park. Would all those wishing to speak on this matter, please raise your -- I think we can dispense with that. Ray, do we need to swear them in? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Court Reporter? Page 249 June 15, 2006 (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, any disclosures? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I talked to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did too, in extreme great length about the complexities of this case. Ray, do we have any letters that recommended that -- objection to this? MR. BELLOWS: I don't know about letters. Heidi, any letters? MS. WILLIAMS: No. MR. BELLOWS: No letters and no one has registered to speak. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, sitting in Mr. Henning's chair, I should make a motion to approve now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, I could see Mr. Y ovanovich could doom this whole thing, depending upon how long he wants to go on. So Richard, it's all yours. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good evening. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. Your staff report is very thorough. I think you -- I don't know; do you have the pictures in your file? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know the location. This particular project, River Chase Commons, does not directly front Immokalee Road. It's back off of Immokalee Road on a -- I don't want to call it a side street, but not a main thoroughfare. The signs are on the corners of each of the properties. I think you have pictures of the signs. As you can see, that sign is actually -- there's another office building or a commercial building to whatever direction that is -- I'm not doing directions anymore, thank you -- to the west. And that sign is actually a little bit further back from the street than the actual building is. You can see by the locations of the signs that they don't in any Page 250 June 15,2006 way hinder sidewalk use or block the view of any vehicles as they're driving. We -- your staffs recommending approval. If you have any questions of me that's not covered in the staff report, I'll be happy to answer them. But other than that, we request that you recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the two requested -- the variances requested for both signs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I only have one. It's not even a question, it's a request. You are requesting not to have to put your street numbers on your sign, and I don't see any reason why that sign can't accommodate your street numbers. I took a picture right down the street two doors down from here at the Galbraith Associates, and they managed to put their numbers right up on top. And you've got plenty of room to do that. And Mr. Y ovanovich obviously needs glasses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's a little far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Optometry without a license. COMMISSIONER CARON: There is an optometrist right down the street here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You took a picture. I can't see. Can you really see that? I can see there's a number, I can't tell you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, we have to slow down, she's still trying to take minutes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, I think the issue is they've got to be eight inches on the top third of the sign. I don't think we can comply with that requirement. That's why we've requested an exception to that requirement. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is the reason -- what's the reason that we have that in our code? Why is 5.06.03(A) (3) in our code? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're asking me? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Page 251 June 15, 2006 MR. YOV ANOVICH: As far as the -- I'm assuming for legibility and being able to see it as you're driving. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: From a car. MR. YOV ANOVICH: From a car. I'm assuming that's the reason, but I didn't write it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Isn't it there for the Sheriff and Emergency Services primarily? MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development Administrator. It was directed by the Board of County Commissioners as part of the sign ordinance to include the street numbers primarily for EMS requirements, 9-1-1 requirements, and also for easy identification for the public to identify addresses along streets. This is on a side street or a -- not on a main thoroughfare; therefore, staff pretty much concurred with the request. If you want numbers on the sign, we certainly can work with the applicant on the size of the numbers, just as we did out here on our sign. Our sign we just approved out here in front is a little bit different. The numbers went down the side. So I would leave that up to Mr. Y ovanovich, but we certainly can work with the applicant on that in regards to meeting the number requirement. COMMISSIONER CARON: I would just think for reasons of safety it would be better to have numbers there than not. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if we can work with staff on appropriate size of numbers that would be fine. I mean, if there weren't a sign there, you wouldn't be able to -- you wouldn't know the addresses either, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, they should be on the building, in that case is what -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: There are numbers on the building, I believe. But that's what the sign looks like size-wise. And if we can fit Page 252 June 15, 2006 them above there with numbers, I'm sure the emergency medical people can see -- will be able to see it, because they know they're going to River Chase Commons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or the columns, for that matter, vertically. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll work to make that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a staff recommendation that says the two ground signs shall not be required to provide the range of address numbers of the buildings in the office park. We might want to suggest them to change that, that the two ground sings shall be required to provide the range the address numbers of the buildings in the office park as applied -- as approved by county staff. And that provides staff with a leeway to work something out with you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be fine with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure there's a very detailed staff report. MS. WILLIAMS: A very brief staff report. Again for the record, Heidi Williams, Principal Planner, Zoning and Land Development Review. The staff recommendation is for approval, based on the fact that the signs in question are compatible with their surroundings and no negative impact to health, safety or welfare of the general public is anticipated. The three stipulations were listed to approve to bring into compliance the signs that are there. The address street numbers, if I can just clarify, that was added because it was not felt at the time that numbers could be provided that met code. And if they couldn't meet code but we approved the setbacks, the sign would still not be fully in compliance. So that stipulation was in there. Page 253 June 15, 2006 Perhaps another way to state the stipulation would be that numbers shall be provided but do not necessarily have to be the eight-inch size. In discussion on putting them along the sides of the sign, there was question whether the stipulation that they be in the top third of the sign, whether could be met. And then the eight-inch height, I believe the top bar; the crossbar at the top of the sign is only four inches, according to that drawing. So either way, there was some aspect of the code that was not completely met. It would certainly be up to you how you wanted to phrase that stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we'd simply leave it as approved by staff based on the comments made by Mr. Schmitt and by Mr. Y ovanovich, I think we have a meeting of the minds it will all work out okay. MS. WILLIAMS: Just wanted to make sure that was on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a question, Heidi. On Page 5 of eight in your staff report, you say, however, the applicant could explore alternative signage types for the development that meet the code. What alternatives would they have here? MS. WILLIAMS: The applicant does not necessarily have to provide a ground sign for the office park. They could simply provide signage on the buildings themselves. There would be other ways to provide signage for the businesses in this park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But they were permitted to place the signs. That was part of their site development and so forth. So they're good, right, in that regarding? MS. WILLIAMS: They were granted two permits, one for each SIgn. Page 254 June 15,2006 MR. SCHMITT: They were put in incorrectly. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schmitt, since you're-- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: My question goes back to something that we've been told over and over again. Obviously permits were issued here incorrectly in 2004. MR. SCHMITT: No, permits -- can I correct the record? Permits were issued correctly. The drawings that were submitted were correct. Everything that was applied for was correct. What was placed was incorrect. And that was caught at spot survey. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh. Okay, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: And that's when the property owner was informed of the need either to move the signs or seek a variance. COMMISSIONER CARON: Gotcha. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant? (No response.) MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just wanted to be real clear that I didn't say that staff improperly permitted anything on this, okay? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : You've got to live here tomorrow. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I did not say that at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray to approve. With staff recommendations? Page 255 June 15,2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: With staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As modified, concerning the approval for the range of address numbers? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Recommendation for approval, subject to staff stipulations, with the caveat that number three is changed to confer approval by staff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And for the sake of the stenographer, that would be SV -2006-AR-9160. River Chase Commons Office Park sign variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Richard, you won. This is your most difficult task today. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, but you kept him here all day today. That was the best part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He got paid for it. Page 256 June 15,2006 Item #9 OLD BUSINESS We're not into old business. And Mr. Kolflat had added an issue for construction traffic. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have a request that it be continued to some other time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I'm going to continue mIne. We're adjourned. Thank you all. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:59 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CAROLYN FORD, LYNN BROOKS AND CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 257 PCA!)4---zoo~..-Ar.2 - 88 ~ 2. FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COONT~ MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS 30>~. ...> LJ NttVLv XTE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED I ~ ~ - l S" . ~~ COUNTY I Co i,l'?...... NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL,. COMMISSION. AlJTHORlTY. OR COMMITTEE C j) I ke.... (0 P 1 A.. -.11../, hi (' () II""", , , j~ THE BOARD. COUNCIL,. COMMISSION. AUTHOR OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: o CITY COUNTY 0 OTHER lOCAl AGENCY NAME OF POlITICAl SUBDMSION: CO l tC'- CO"-J<J MY POSITION IS: 1ST NAME:--FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME St12-,tlr;J MA<L\(. Il,I1ING ADDRESS :)<, I rs- D ft \ll.l'C" TY o ElECTIVE APPOINTIVE . WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 rhis form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board. council, :ommission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting :onflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. (our responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending m whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before ;ompleting the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCT~ONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES , person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a m~asure which lures to his or her special private gain or joss. Each eiected or appointed local officer also is prohibited iiOm kr:cwlngly voting en a mea ure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained'(including the arent organization or subsidi~ry of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or. . ) the special private gain or Joss of a business associate. CommiSsioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 63.357. F.S.,.and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre. one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that apacity. or purposes of this law, a Krelative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son. daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, lother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business nterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation re not listed on any national or regional s~ock exchange). * :LECTED OFFICERS: I addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form-with the person responsible for recording the min- ,. utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * :PPOINTED OFFICERS: though you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you ust disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made , you or at your direction. . YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE V~TE WILL BE I.KEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) .~ { APPOINTED OFJ=ICERS (continued) . A copy 9f the form"must be"Provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO AlTEMPTTO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recanting the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediat~ly to the "ther members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, l'Y\ p,. L l( $"\12... Po \J , hereby disclose that on & -I) .Z~b : (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inur~d to the special gain or loss of my relative," L iAured to the special gain or Joss of ~ JJ J-y?'\v> 0 ~ ly N M5 whom I am retained; or k inured to the special gai'1 or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. , by , which (0) T':!~tm.e"cSUrab.eloreJl"'...y.."ag"'",,"'~""'rl thE' r~~u;.s4.frirGGd!iQ~lng in~i7fe5t irrlhe 1TIe~ a~ fvllvw.:.. elL l.cfY\.C.- db ~J( ~i() ~ C (.) "" ~(A iJ lA V) "" A<:.c (/YhO cJ~ ~~-u.J D ~ '-1 NeM>S \'~lJlv'l.:t: W^,'~ A~~ c:oll..l^",,-, ~ 'Z 1, ~ "Sl~\=.-fl' ('I>P~ ~ ~ ~~I-r N.flA0~ ~ Signature \IV ~.~. p ~~ \ Date Filed I (V J'. It' -- )-- 0"" NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317. A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 86 .. REV. 1/98 - PAGE 2 .ST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME - .. S~ Ii A-i IV M"'. It- \to () A -rlZ..t'dc.. Il,ILlNG ADDRESS ~(,./'S FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COONT~ MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAME OF BOARD. COUNCI~ COMMISSION. AlJTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE Cot!,~ (II (ll "-~11....r UIMI}u ~.fl'V'- THE BOARD, COUNCIL COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: o CITY COUNTY 0 OTHER lOCAl AGENCY NAME OF POW.. ICAl SUBDMSION: C. Lf.'ch- C MY POSITION IS: N ~rU It? Av< WtJ COUN,l;Y l Lot,u TY XTE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED u-lr~O" o elECTIVE IV APPOINTIVE . WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 rhis form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board. council, :ommission. authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting :onflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. ((' (our responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending In whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before ;ompleting the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCT~ONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES . person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a m~asure which lures to his or her special private gain or ioss. Each eiected Or appointed local officer also is prohibited iiOm kr:cw;ngly voting en a mea ure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained.(including the arent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or. " ) the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 63.357, F.S.,.and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that apacity. or purpos~s of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, loth"er-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business nterprise with the oHicer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation re not listed on any national or regional s~ock exchange). . :LECTED OFFICERS: , addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- ,. utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. . . PPOINTED OFFICERS: though you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you ust disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made , you or at your direction. YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE V6TE WILL BE ~KEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeling, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) , ,tJ { APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy 9f the form"must be-provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose o.rally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for regOfding the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to th~!)ther members of the agency. and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ~ {.lr Yll (. S' 'f'{l.-/'n lJ , hereby disclose that on (",-ID 19 0<;' . '-' (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative," ~ iA~~d to the special gain or loss of ~ tV ILp ~ OA-\ I, tV Q...lJ S whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of . is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. . by , which " (p) 'P]fLm.ensur~bf'Jorarn~~s.g::;(!"y <>nd ~he ~~uni~GGnf!iQ~ing in~€-fi'15t jrrlF.e1'l'ie~SI..IIe is a~ follvvvs. lk~~~ v:b \0 u.A 'J ~'~ \{ S\'c:.~1 A-J (o.M.J ~ I WN fc- 0...- P AJ1J-V4 <<\ ~ ~ru f) LVW~ N"'-flta ~ NQW ~Ovflu 0 ~ ~~^'...> ~ 2 4> ~ o cu "J N e.w~ N Q>>J 5 .:... Date Filed CP- lS---Dc" Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO 8<CEED $10,000. CEFORM8S..REV.1J98 - PAGE 2