Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/06/2006 R July 6, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida July 6, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Kay Deselem, Zoning & Land Development Review Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2006, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND 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 I 0 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES - A discussion on holding a meeting in Immokalee in August in order to determine a quorum (tentative date of August 10,2006) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 18,2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JUNE 6 AND JUNE 7, 2006, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438, Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC, represented by Clay Brooker, of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, requesting a rezone from the Residential Multiple FamiIy-6 (RMF-6 & RMF-6(3)) zoning districts (a portion of which is subject to a Special Treatment Overlay (ST)) to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) by amending the approved Windstar PUD to add the subject 20.52 acres and its additional residential units thereby allowing a maximum of 584 residential units on 34 1.1 acres. The subject property is generally located on the west side of Bayshore Drive, approximately 0.6 miles south of the Bayshore Drive and U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail East) intersection in Sections, II, 14 and 23 Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. CONTINUED FROM 6/1/06. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 1 July 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. If you'd please rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Roll call from the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent, 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. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any addenda to the agenda? We have actually one item on today's agenda. Page 2 July 6, 2006 Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'd like to add something under old business. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Kolflat, would you please speak into the microphone? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I said I'd like to add something to old business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you kind of give us the subject, possibly? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Relative to construction and effect of traffic -- how traffic affects construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hope you don't mind if we all join in on that one. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Thank you. Planning commission absences? Our next meeting is what, 14 days from today in July? So everybody at least planning on being here? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we have a meeting scheduled for Immokalee, I had it on today's discussion, for August 10th. Now, if you recall, the planning commission, at my option, was allowed to meet in Immokalee on Immokalee issues, and we suggested that that start happening. There is at least one issue, or maybe more. I've asked staff to cluster them together, if they can. The first one being August 10th. And it's in between our other two meetings. Does that work for everybody here? The starting time will be 9:00, I believe, instead of 8:30 to give us a little more commute time. Page 3 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: So this will be an additional meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. On the occasion that we have specific items coming up for Immokalee, we're going to try to meet out there so the residents can respond better. So that's on the 10th of August, it will be about 9:00 in the morning, at this point, as long as everybody can make it. Mr. Adelstein cannot make it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a grandchild coming, big boy, starting somewhere about the 1 st or 2nd of August. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, can't you predict those things any better? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can, but it takes a couple more days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I believe you also have -- the 19th is the LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. Ray, the 19th is our LDC amendments at 5:05. Somehow we need to have those brought to our attention before the date's set on any of the future ones. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need to talk about them, make sure the dates are relevant. That one happens to be now going before a meeting the following morning, which is one thing we've tried to avoid in the past. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's going to be a little awkward. I can assure you, in reading the book, we will not get through the meeting issues on the 19th. There's no way. So maybe if you wanted Page 4 July 6, 2006 to consider a follow-up on the 20th's meeting a continuation of what we didn't get through on the 19th, that might help get through some of it. MR. BELLOWS: I'll put it on the BCC agenda. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 18~ 2006~ REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next thing is the approval of the minutes of May 18th -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 2006 regular meeting. There's been a motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Thank you, motion carries. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JUNE 6 AND JUNE 7, 2006, REGULAR MEETING Page 5 July 6, 2006 BCC report. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the board approved the BRB commercial PUD by a vote of 5-0. They also approved the conditional use for the earth mining blasting. That was approved 5-0. And the PUD amendment for Pinebrook Lakes was approved 5-0. (At which time, Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just looking here, July 20th would be our next regularly scheduled meeting, the day after the LDC meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's what we had asked Ray. And again, if staff from now on tries not to schedule them back-to-back like that. I know we have repeatedly asked for that in the past. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney just arrived. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, Paul. We talked about Immokalee. August 10th at 9:00 we're planning to have the meeting in Immokalee for -- application has come up involving Immokalee and we're going to try to do that from now on. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you won't have as far to drive. We will be doing the driving. Ray, by the way, in relationship to that meeting, if there's some car pooling that happens that staff dreams up or people can ride together, it might make it easier. MR. BELLOWS: I'll look into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #7 Page 6 July 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report. I had issues, but I'm just not prepared today to go into them, so we'll go into advertised public hearing. Item #8A PETITION: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 The first petition is PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438. For all those wishing to speak on this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of planning commission? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I visited the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I met with the applicant and his attorney. We went over issues that I had e-mailed the county attorney about and others, and they'll all be rediscussed today. And probably one of the items I'm going to ask for discussion right on early is one of the issues in particular I asked the county attorney about, so that we know what direction we're asking our questions from today, and that is whether or not this is a -- this opens up the entire PUD instead of limiting it. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. It would be our position that it does not. Because this is a very old PUD that has built out. And in the past, for example, on Pelican Bay -- and we've treated this similar to the Pelican Bay one where we've done the PUD, a document and a strike-through and underlined format with just a partial repeal language in the cover ordinance that Page 7 July 6, 2006 addresses that it's only repealed to the extent of the changes in the document which are set forth in the strike-through and underlined format. And you might recall that we had a very old one that was built out. Lely Barefoot Beach that had a series of -- an original PUD document from many years ago and then a series of amendments later on top of it. And that one we didn't attempt to put back in the PUD format, we just did another amendment on top of it. Because that had gone for some almost 21 years in that format. So that is why, because it's built out. We have an amendment from our outside counsel now that was issued in August of '04 that talks about the problems where you have a build-out situation or an old PUD and doing a PUD to PUD and opening it up where you can create nonconformities for people that are built out and thus affect their property rights. And furthermore, those folks that have -- are the build-out people haven't come in as the applicant to make the amendments. So you have perhaps due process issues where changing a person's regulations that affect their property and they are not the ones that applied for the change. So for those reasons, that's why we're treating it this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have just two quick comments. You are aware that one of the parcels within the existing PUD is being recommended for change today, an un-use (sic). I had e-mailed you that point. And that was one of the issues that seemed to be more substantial to me, and that's why I wanted them highlighted to you. Tract S is being suggested to be changed for the use as a sales facility. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would -- I'm going to have to-- it's been a while since I looked at that document and the staff report that accompanies it, so I would have to assume that the applicant -- we had -- the applicant is here for Tract S and they are applying for the changes rather than a situation where you have built-out pieces owned Page 8 July 6, 2006 by others that are not the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll have to -- as we get into the discussion -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We'll flush that issue out through the hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll see -- and basically that will depend on who owns Tract S. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You also mentioned that there's an internal memo concerning -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: There was -- it's a memo that we received from outside counsel back in September of '04. You would have been privy to it because it was made part of the Cocohatchee Bay amendment came through; it was made part of the backup for Cocohatchee Bay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have that readily available, could you send that to us -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I'll be happy to make it available to everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other questions on this issue before we move into -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have one. And that's -- this has been advertised as a change in zoning for this particular tract, but in the PUD there are other changes that are happening, not the least of which has to do with the docks. So -- and it hasn't been advertised for that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, we are doing -- we're doing I guess what we call a limited PUD to PUD rezone in the sense that it's -- the ordinance is set up that way. And then when you look at the ordinance document itself, it talks about the strike-through and underlined is what's being changed. But Page 9 July 6, 2006 it's still, you know, a PUD to PUD rezone to accomplish those changes. So I don't think that there's any advertising problem in that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, there may not have been till you just said that. This advertisement says that the residential planned unit development by amending the approved Windstar PUD to add the subject 20.52 acres, and now you've just said that it's a limited PUD to PUD rezone. So is it a rezone or is it an amendment? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It is a rezone that has the effect of being an amendment. It's a hybrid situation, and I'm comfortable with the advertising. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Only an attorney could come back with that answer. And with that in mind, I guess hearing no more, we'll go on with the presentation. Mr. Booker (sic). MR. BROOKER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Clay Brooker. I'm with the law firm of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, 821 Fifth Avenue South, in Naples here, representing the petitioner, Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC. And I guess I don't represent them, but the Windstar Master Association is part of this application as well. To begin with, a disclosure of the interested entities or persons behind Lakeview Drive of Naples are as follows: Jack Antaramian, Fred Pezeshkan, Robert Carsello, Iraj Zand, and Raymond Sahayek. I disclose those names for each of the commissioners to determine whether there are any conflicts that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They comprise the series ofLLC's and land or partnerships that comprise the other 50 percent ownership of -- MR. BROOKER: That is correct. I basically boiled it down to the individuals, although above them are a series of LLC's. But that just gets even more confusing, so I just went to the bottom line. Page 10 July 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BROOKER: The subject property, as you are probably aware, is 20.52 acres. This aerial shows the property that's basically a T -shaped property in this area here. It can be described as basically the land abutting the northeast corner of existing Windstar. Existing Windstar is all this that I'm showing on the ELMO. The subject 20.52 acres is zoned generally residential multi-family. Allows today under current zoning single-family, multi- family type residential uses. To -- as I have explained, to the west is the existing Windstar PUD. To the north here is actually Haldeman Creek, which is a 150- foot wide drainage easement. To the north of that are some areas that are zoned multi-family and mobile home. To -- directly abutting the east there where I'm showing with the arrow is a 50-foot wide canal. To the east of that is a residential single-family zoned neighborhood. South of the subject parcel is, as you see, part of the Windstar PUD and some residential multi-family in this area. The subject 20.52 acres is unimproved. There was a year ago an apartment complex or apartment building, I guess, shown on this aerial -- I believe this is a 2004 aerial-- that has been demolished. It was demolished last year. So essentially the property is unimproved as it sits today. The petition, as already -- seems like you already know, is to essentially rezone this 20.52 acres from RMF to PUD, or as we've been describing it, to fold the 20.52 acres, or annex it into the existing Windstar PUD. What I've now put up on ELMO is the proposed master plan that should be attached to the proposed PUD document as Exhibit A. Again, this is in the same configuration from the aerial you just saw. Here is the 20.52 acres. What we are proposing for this 20.52 acres is basically or Page 11 July 6, 2006 generally a single-family, duplex, townhouse, multi-family type dwellings, residential dwellings. It is going to be grouped together with the other -- the other residential neighborhood pods that exist already in Windstar. And what I mean by grouping together, whatever is permitted on those particular little pods, we've made no changes to that. That's precisely what's permitted or what's proposed to be permitted on the 20.52 acres. In terms of density, there's been some confusion over the math. But what we have proposed is that we simply ascribe to this property the existing density unit per acre number that's already approved for Windstar. That number is 1.71 units per acre. We will ascribe that number to this 20.52 acres. If you do the math, that comes up with 35 units. Those 35 units will then be added onto the already approved density in Windstar of 549. That number is in the existing PUD document. So the proposed document shows a total number of 584. That's 549 plus the 35 to come up with a new total of 584. You've probably seen a conceptual site plan that deals with a development, a proposed development, conceptual development of 137 units. You may be asking if we're just ascribing 35 to this parcel, how do we get to 137. How we do that is within existing Windstar, not all of the 549 units have been built. According to our calculations, that number is somewhere between 424 and 438 units in the Windstar PUD. And I want to be very careful when I say the Windstar PUD, because there's been some confusion in some of our hearings or our meetings with some residents and neighbors. The Windstar Master Association actually encompasses developments or neighborhoods outside of the PUD. So there was some confusion, although there's 600 and some odd units in the Windstar Master. That may be true, it may be false, I don't even know. Page 12 July 6, 2006 But inside the PUD, based upon either development services records here in county or the property appraiser's office, and unfortunately those numbers don't match up, but it's somewhere between 424 and 438 units have been built in the Windstar. So we are essentially going to -- through a private agreement with Windstar Master Association, we are assigned those unused units to which we'll add the 35 that will come in with this 20.5 acres to result in our conceptual site plan -- to allow our conceptual site plan of 137. I suspect we're going to -- I'll have some questions on that, because it has been a little bit confusing, and I acknowledge that, so please feel free to ask any questions with regard to that math. The maximum height that we are proposing for the 20.52 acres is 40 feet or three habitable floors over one level of parking. Those parameters, those dimensions, are exactly what is permitted in Windstar PUD today, and have existed and been permitted in Windstar since 1981. This is the conceptual site plan I placed on the -- on ELMO. This actually flips around the orientation now. The bottom -- this side down here is now east. North is up towards the right of the ELMO. West here is the Windstar PUD. This is the south. Here's Lakeview Drive going out west -- I'm sorry, east to Bayshore Drive. This conceptual site plan that you see today and that we submitted is the work of many drafts in-house to determine what would work best on this property. It does show 137 units. We are fairly comfortable that this is basically going to be real close to what we would actually build, assuming this PUD amendment is approved and an SDP approval is granted. Again, it proposes six buildings of multi-family units. The height is 40 feet, three habitable floors over -- I should say the maximum height, because not all parts of the building go up to 40 feet, but 40 feet, three habitable floors over parking is the maximum height that Page 13 July 6, 2006 will be reached. The unit sizes range anywhere from 14 to 1,500 square feet on the small side to well over 2,000 feet on the large side, 2,000 square feet. Traffic on Lakeview Drive has been an issue. We have learned from the neighborhood informational meeting and just discussions in general that we believe a primary concern of the residents on Lakeview Drive is the corresponding increase in traffic that will use Lakeview Drive as a result of this proposal. We do show a connection here to the property onto Lakeview Drive. Because of the residents' concern, we have spent significant time to address that concern, and we've come up with a couple ways we believe that we can address and mitigate that concern. First, we worked very closely with the Bayshore Community Redevelopment Agency to participate and assist in contemplated improvements to Lakeview Drive. The CRA has in fact designated Lakeview Drive as the location for some streetscape or landscape improvements in the future. And rather than us coming in and, for example, installing a sidewalk or constructing improvements now when further improvements as of yet designed and have yet to be designed are going to be coming in the future, it would just be a waste of throwing down something that's going to get most likely tom out. So in that -- under those circumstances, we have agreed to contribute $75,000 to a CRA fund that's specifically designated exclusively for Lakeview Drive improvements, whatever those may end up to be. That $75,000 is the number that was given to us by the CRA and by county transportation staff. It can be broken down basically or generally into the current cost of installing a sidewalk, a five-foot wide sidewalk from our property east out to Bayshore Drive along Lakeview Drive, and widening Lakeview Drive from the current 18- foot width to 22 feet width with a Page 14 July 6, 2006 corresponding -- I don't know, I'm not a traffic engineer, but asphalt overlay over the entire roadway surface, once that widening is done. That's the breakdown of the $75,000 and was the number given to us, which we accepted by various county staff. We have also agreed to accept some stormwater. If you see here, this is a water management facility that we have proposed on-site. Again, conceptual at this point. We know that drainage is an issue on Lakeview Drive and, therefore, the CRA asked if we would be able to and would we be willing to accept some stormwater runoff from Lakeview Drive to help them with their drainage problem. We have agreed to do that. And it is actually in the PUD document, although somewhat vague. And by vague, I mean it just says some stormwater. And the reason for that vagueness at this point in time is we have been asking the CRA to give us a number what they would think they would need us to accept. At the same time, we've been trying to figure out what we could accept. And what we can tell you today is that the amount of water that we can accept is going to be determined ultimately by the South Florida Water Management District permitting process. It involves control elevations at the site and elevations of Lakeview Drive, gravity coming down Lakeview Drive from the east to the west into this water management facility. The problem we see right now is that there's not much difference in elevation from a gravity standpoint from the roadway out to the east along Lakeview Drive to allow water to flow freely into this water management facility to the west. However, there is some. Right now we're looking at a foot to maybe two feet. And again, if we have specific questions on that, I'll let my engineers speak to that point. But what we think we can comfortably commit to today, again, subject to South Florida Water Management District permitting Page 15 July 6, 2006 approvals and requirements, is a total number of 1,210 cubic feet. That number is generated, it's not just an arbitrary number. That number is generated by taking the length of Lakeview Drive, the width of Lakeview Drive, after we widen it to 22 feet, and taking the first half water of a stormwater event. So if you basically covered the proposed new Lakeview Drive width and length with half an inch of water, that's 1,210 cubic feet that we think we can comfortably accept at this point. Again, subject to South Florida Water Management District approval and permitting processes. I should tell you right up front that this number was generated very recently, and we have not discussed that with the CRA. Most likely the CRA would want us to accept more. Ifwe can accept more, I'm sure my client would be willing to do so. It just becomes a matter of gravity and bureaucracy in terms of South Florida Water Management District. Finally, with respect to the traffic -- oh, I should also mention to you that the CRA -- I believe a May 24th letter of this year was included in your packet. The CRA plans to hold what David Jackson of the CRA called charets or little neighborhood meetings with the Lakeview Drive residents to determine exactly what they would like to see in terms of Lakeview Drive improvements. We know that one idea that he's discussed with us is maybe some traffic calming features on Lakeview Drive. But that's going to be the CRA's business and not ours. But that is coming. And we also -- the timing of all of this is the CRA plans to have Lakeview Drive improvements finished approximately one year before we're finished, so that the improvements will be in place before the impacts of our development are felt on Lakeview Drive. Finally, there is a concern that not only would these new, I'll call them new, residents of Winds tar use Lakeview Drive, but existing residents of Windstar would perhaps use Lakeview Drive as well. Page 16 July 6, 2006 Maybe as a shortcut, because this isn't as far down or south on Bayshore Drive to get to the main entrance of Windstar. So in light of that, we're trying to figure out in-house how to discourage that from occurring. And one of the -- or many of the initial drafts or conceptual site plans had basically a straight road going through here. This always curved up in this area to the north, because this is wet. It will be a preserve area with a conservation easement placed on it. But the road always curved up in this location here, but when it got down to this point, it basically made a straight cut across and was easier, I'll say, or more convenient for motorists to use than the current plan. What we've done to discourage uses is created a curvilinear road that winds about the property in a windabout way to get out to Lakeview Drive. Again, the intention was to discourage use by existing Windstar residents to use Lakeview Drive as an exit, or entrance for that matter. The conceptual plan does show parking alongside of the road. It will be -- the proposal is a 15 mile per hour speed limit there. This is not going to be just a straight through shot that people can take by their cars and zoom through the neighborhood. It's going to be a slow go. And that's deliberate. A by-product or I guess a co-product of the curvilinear road was the angling -- you can see I'm not an architect, so I don't know if that's the right way to express this -- but the angling of these buildings, we believe it's more aesthetically pleasing and creates better views over the golf course. Because previous designs have a straight line of buildings here, almost look like an Army barracks look. And so we believe by creating a curvilinear road, we discourage people from using Lakeview Drive and we increase dramatically the aesthetics of the proposal. The EAC heard this project. Actually this property has been the subject of the EAC's review I believe three times. First was with Page 1 7 July 6, 2006 regard to the county's dredge project. The county is dredging Haldeman Creek out to the north here. They are going to be using our property pursuant to a private agreement we have entered into with the county to place their spoil, the dredging product, from the dredged project on the property subsequently to be removed, and leave our property in a clean condition. That was the first time the EAC took a look at this property. The second time was an SDP, in relation to an SDP approval. I should tell you that this southern three-and-a-half acres here was added on at a later date, or purchased by the client at a later date. The northern 17 acres was the subject of an SDP approval. And that was in fact approved, but that was a second shot the EAC had at the property . And the third was this proposal that we're sitting here for today. And I believe all three times the EAC was a unanimous vote of approval. We also appeared before the CRA advisory board and explained to them our conceptual plan, and they voted unanimously to approve it. Finally, we have had a neighborhood information meeting and a subsequent meeting with Windstar residents to explain the genesis of this project, the history of the project, why and how we got to where we are today. We believe the meetings were fruitful in terms of information sharing and so forth. So with that, I will -- I'll close the presentation. We obviously would request the planning commission forward this on with a recommendation of approval to the BCC. I'm happy to attempt to answer any of your questions. I feel pretty certain you do have some. And I would also like, Mr. Chairman, to reserve rebuttal time, if there are public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. Thank you. And I know we Page 18 July 6, 2006 will have some questions, first of which will be Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The maximum building height in the neighborhood information meeting was given as 50 feet, but our staff reports indicate a 40- feet height. Which one is it? MR. BROOKER: It's 40 feet. It was initially submitted as 50 feet and we determined that that was not good, so we reduced it to 40 feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. Looking at your development plan -- and I didn't get a copy of it, but it's the one that shows the boats on the right. There's approximately 40 boats indicated there. Where is the parking going to occur for people that are going to use those boats? MR. BROOKER: The parking has been -- if you recall, each of these buildings are three levels over parking. So the parking for them -- for the boat slips has been accounted for in this area here, because parking for the residents under the building will be just that, under the building. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Parking for the boat is under the other buildings? MR. BROOKER: No, the parking for the boat slips will be in this area here. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Along that road. MR. BROOKER: Along that road, correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And there still will be open space for cars to traverse? MR. BROOKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, at the neighborhood information meeting, there's an indication there was six buildings that are going to go on there. The staff report indicates that there are 12 apartment units on the Fisherman's Cove -- Fisherman's Village. MR. BROOKER: That was a -- there were apartment buildings Page 19 July 6, 2006 to the south in this area. I believe, based on older aerial photographs, the staff may have seen that apartment building there, but that's what staff was referring to about those apartment units. They are no longer there. So the staff report, although correct at one time, is not correct as it states today, because the apartments have been demolished. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, would you agree that the majority of traffic entering Windstar comes from the north on Bayshore Drive? MR. BROOKER: From the East Trail down south Bayshore Drive and then come -- yes, I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What percentage would you estimate that is? MR. BROOKER: I have no way of -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The total traffic entering Windstar, how much of it comes from the north as opposed to the south? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would have probably been in your TIS. That was included. And Reed may have the answer to that. He's looking it up. MR. BROOKER: I mean, I can safely say the majority of it. I don't know. There's not a way to get to it from the south unless you pass Bayshore Drive and come back around the south and come up from the south to the north. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: My impression, it's quite substantial, but I was curious what your report indicated. MR. BROOKER: Estimated for this site is 70 percent will be coming from the north. So perhaps you can assume that that number is going to be very close for Windstar overall. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right. Now, the increase in size of this PUD is about six percent of what it was approved as. In other words, you're enlarging the PUD by six percent. Page 20 July 6, 2006 MR. BROOKER: It's from 320 acres to about 340 acres. So if that's six percent, I'll trust your math. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It is six percent. But now, with a six percent increase in there, why do we have to divert all the traffic to the south -- why don't we divert traffic to the south through the entrance that already exists rather than create a new entrance there at Lakeview Drive? In other words, the increase in property is relatively small at six percent. Why not retain the entrance at Windstar Boulevard there to take all the traffic in and close off that Lakeview entrance so that does not become an impact? MR. BROOKER: Well, we are not closing down -- I don't think you mentioned it, but we're not closing down the main entrance. That's obviously going to remain there so people -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I understand that. MR. BROOKER: -- they have the opportunity to use that. With regard to this particular entranceway on Lakeview Drive, this property, this 20.52 acres, has always been slated -- the road has always deadended at that property. It's always been slated as a connection there. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, your-- MR. BROOKER: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- says that, but I couldn't find that in the PUD, the existing PUD. MR. BROOKER: The existing PUD would not have that information that I just stated in it, because this property was not part of the PUD at that time. But what would -- the practical effect of what you're suggesting is if we close that off, we close off Lakeview Drive altogether -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Let me rephrase it. Leave it closed. Not close it off but leave it closed. Because you can't enter it now. Page 21 July 6, 2006 MR. BROOKER: In the absence of this PUD it will be open to access. This is our only access to the property, in the absence of this PUD petition being approved. Now, if we do take your consideration, your suggestion, into account, if we seal off Lakeview Drive altogether, you're creating a deadend here at the very northeastern comer of the property for all Windstar units. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Which you have now. MR. BROOKER: The deadend is right here. The platted roadway -- in 1986, the plat for Windstar showed a future connection to this property. In 1986, this county approved a plat which shows this area here, this roadway coming to that point and stopping. Meaning at some point in the future it was anticipated that these properties would be connected to increase interconnectivity amongst properties. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the development has been in existence for a long time with the deadend there at that road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe, Clay, we could short circuit Mr. Kolflat's question by just telling him why you can't use the main Windstar entrance. He's restricted from doing it by agreement in relationship to acquiring the density for Windstar. MR. BROOKER: We do have private agreements with Windstar Master Association and the Windstar Countryclub. And those agreements do call for a Lakeview Drive entrance and exit. So the issue we're facing here is that we cannot voluntarily -- we are part of those agreements. We cannot voluntarily accept a requirement to shut down that Lakeview Drive entrance and exit. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, as I understand, the concern of the neighborhood there on Lakeview Drive is the intrusion into their neighborhood of traffic. And you mentioned that the mitigation that you're proposing is a widening of the road and improvement with a sidewalk. That is not really a mitigation, it's an Page 22 July 6, 2006 enhancement for more exasperation by making it easier for the traffic to go in and out there. How does that mitigate the intrusion effect that they suffer? MR. BROOKER: It depends on the CRA's ultimate plans. And that's why I mentioned that the traffic calming and the features that we've been told the CRA is contemplating will not increase the speed or the usability or the ease of use of the roadway. That's the CRA's stated plan, as stated to us. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You mentioned also in your narrative that the proposed new road would thereby improve circulation inside the Windstar development. How does this new roadway improve in within the development circulation? MR. BROOKER: Instead of having a deadend cul-de-sac here, which currently exists, it will allow not only residents but emergency vehicles as well a full circuitous route to come back out onto Bayshore and thereby enhance interconnectivity per the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you, that's all the questions I had, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi. Speaking about interconnectivity, it was clearly seen here that the word "enter" was underscored because there was some question about true interconnectivity, and it seems the opposite side of Mr. Kolflat's question. If you were to be granted this amendment, you have a limited -- at least a limited interconnectivity. Why would we not then want to have the full interconnectivity? Are you bound by agreements there, too? I think I recall reading that. MR. BROOKER: Can you explain what you mean by full interconnectivity? Page 23 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the parties who are -- since this intent is to bring this new development into Windstar, it becomes a part of Windstar. And yet the parties who are going to live in the Fisherman's Village will not be allowed to traverse the Windstar property; is that correct? MR. BROOKER: That is not correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or the reverse is correct. MR. BROOKER: Its cross-access easements are granted. So the Fisherman's Village residents -- for example, if a resident here on the north end does not want to go through this route, he or she may elect to go out Haldeman Creek Drive and go out the main entrance, I don't know. So it is -- to answer your questions, the agreements call for cross-access. Existing Windstar residents can use our new proposed road, and the new residents of the Fisherman's Village tract can use the roads within Windstar. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really? I don't have a recollection of reading that. I thought that somebody was prohibited. I'll qualify that information further. Okay, so you are saying then that if that amendment is approved, all of this will be part of Windstar and everyone in Windstar will have access to Lakeview? MR. BROOKER: That is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That road? MR. BROOKER: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And everybody who wishes to go into Windstar may use that as a means of ingress? MR. BROOKER: That is correct. If they so desire. Whether that is actually going to happen, we would say no, because it's not the closest or fastest route to the vast majority of the existing Windstar residents. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And you also intend that Page 24 July 6, 2006 it be the route by which trucks will pass in order to build the new facility? MR. BROOKER: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to listen to Mr. Chairman's questions, because I want to have the opportunity to dig back and find out what it is I misread. MR. BROOKER: You're assuming he has questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Never. He never has any questions. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, none whatsoever. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I could bring in the issue of density, but I think the Chairman will do well on that. I'm quite certain about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to kind of follow up. The residents of this -- the Village, would they be able to enter the main Windstar entrance? MR. BROOKER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The height. We're going to be measuring the height. We have 40 feet. And essentially what you're referring to is the zoned height, the midpoint of the roof. But it's measured from the flood criteria, so what is the elevation of this ground right now? MR. BROOKER: FEMA is nine feet NGVD at this point. Our first parking level will be at seven feet NGVD. First habitable floor at 17 foot, six inches NGVD. And it goes up from there. The zoning height, as measured by both the LDC and the existing Windstar PUD, measures it from FEMA to in this case we're thinking of -- we are proposing a mansard roof conceptually at this point, to the deck line of a mansard roof. That distance is the 40 feet. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure that's a mansard, Page 25 July 6, 2006 but it does answer my question. Okay. And that's fine. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In the Windstar development that's already been built, you have 438 units on 320 acres? MR. BROOKER: It's definitely 320 acres. And I just -- so there's no misunderstanding, the 438 units is based upon a review of the property appraiser's records. How many folio numbers essentially, we've done research, we've gone to the office and it comes up with 438. You visit community development and environmental services, and our research indicated 424 units, so it's around there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. So you have a pretty low density, about 1.3 units per acre in what you have now. And what you're planning is to put 137 units on 20 acres. Why do you want to concentrate so much of the units in these 20 acres? MR. BROOKER: The Windstar development is essentially a clustered development. It is a golf course community with neighborhood pods around it. The existing neighborhood pods range in density from anywhere around two units per acre to over 12 units per acre. What we are proposing on this tract, if you want to take a look at this tract in and of itself, 137 units on 20.52 acres, it's roughly 6.67 units per acre. So we feel that this is consistent with the development, the cluster type development within Windstar. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. I have another question. The park and rec. staff would like to see a playground approved here. Why do you object to providing a playground for the kids that will live in this development? MR. BROOKER: We don't necessarily object to the playground. We may put it in there on our own accord. We don't know what the demographics of the potential buyers will be. Page 26 July 6, 2006 When we receive that comment from parks and rec., my job is to ensure that whatever is being demanded of us is the law. I looked in the LDC and the growth management plan. That is not a requirement, a legal requirement that can be imposed upon us. The answer I received when I talked to parks and recreation staff was you're right, it's not the law. We would really like it to be the law and we're going to be proposing an LDC amendment in the near future to make it the law, but as of now it is not. So based upon that conversation, I responded saying that we will accept that staff comment as a request and not a requirement, because it is not the law. Having said all that, we may very well put our own playground or even more in this particular 20.52-acre tract. I just cannot accept it as a demand, when that would be illegal. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you stipulate something that would be like a trigger mechanism, that would -- you say you're waiting on the demographics -- so that we can pin it down a little bit? What would constitute for you grounds for saying that you need a playground? Can you be more specific? MR. BROOKER: We're uncomfortable at this point. I mean, it becomes a little bit arbitrary. If three kids move into the neighborhood, you know, then is a playground warranted? We're going to take it into account as we proceed with the development to determine whether a playground is in fact warranted or an amenity. As the development currently is designed, we do have a kayak launch for recreation contemplated, we do have a pool contemplated. So we have taken recreation into account, as any good development should. With regard to the playground, it may come, but we just can't have that requirement imposed upon us when that would be illegal, in my opInIon. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't see anyone here from Page 27 July 6, 2006 county from parks and rec., but I wonder if there are some recognized standards that could be used in a situation like that that would, based upon the number of units and the demographics, that there would be some guidance so that it's not totally arbitrary on your part. MR. BROOKER: And we'd be happy to listen to what their comments are and take those comments into consideration. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. And then moving over to the environmental, EAC area, I'm going to -- of the EAC meeting notes, Page 4 of nine, I see where under stormwater management it says that site development plan AR-4596 is on reject by engineering view. Could you explain why the engineering department doesn't accept your plans? MR. BROOKER: That's an old comment. That SDP has been approved by the county. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, so it's not on reject anymore? MR. BROOKER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right. And then my final question is on Page 5 of nine of the EAC report. It says the property owner intends to lift the existing conservation easements and record easements over the preserves associated with the current site plan. I didn't know that an owner can just lift conservation easements. Doesn't he have to ask permission from somebody before he can do that? MR. BROOKER: Absolutely. And that's what we intend to do. And I can explain. Before the current petitioner applied -- or purchased this property, obviously the predecessor owner had plans for development. I think it's called Fisherman's Joint Venture or something along those lines. But they actually applied for development approvals. And with regard to those development approvals, the Army Corps of Engineers Page 28 July 6, 2006 required that conservation easements be imposed on the property in certain areas as mitigation for that anticipated development. That anticipated development never occurred. I think they went out of business, or for whatever reason it just did not occur. So the conservation easements unfortunately still sit there. From our eyes it's unfortunate. But the actual documents do show that with the Army Corps of Engineers' approval and perhaps Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission approval, that we can lift those conservation easements and replace appropriate conservation easements that take into account our proposed development, as opposed to some prior development that was never built. So the intent is not to lift the conservation easements and use the property as we will. The intent is to essentially modify that easement area with the Army Corps of Engineers' approval to be more appropriate to our proposed development, and that is coming. And in informal conversations thus far with Army Corps of Engineers, they have no problem with what we're suggesting. So it's just a matter of getting it done and revising and replacing what's more appropriate per regulations. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have two questions. You told us about the height of the building. You told me how high FEMA was to start from and what the roof is going to be. Actual height of that building with its roof will be how high? MR. BROOKER: It's going to be around 50 feet. So if you sit -- if you stand on the ground and look up and place a tape measure, my understanding is it's going to be right around 50 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why are we dealing with "right around?" We know the height we're starting from, what is the answer to "about"? MR. BROOKER: The reason why it's "about" is we don't know Page 29 July 6, 2006 the dimension of that mansard element of the roof at the very top of the picture. This area here, we don't know exactly how high that's going to be to hide equipment such as air conditioning behind it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What will be the maximum height that would be available? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, one question you might want to ask is how could it be 50 feet when the roof deck is at 49? You're going to have a one-foot mansard. So 50's not practical. MR. BROOKER: Let me try to impart to you what was just explained to me. Grade is here at seven feet, six. So the actual height of the deck line is 49 feet, less that seven foot, six. So that's the actual height to the deck line, standing at grade is 41 and a half feet, okay? But on -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Wait a minute. MR. BROOKER: The mansard part of the element, of the architectural element, we don't know exactly how high that's going to be. All we can tell you is that we will not violate the zoning height, as required by the Land Development Code and the PUD. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're saying, though, that FEMA is nine feet. You're not counting that nine feet. You're counting that as your base, as I see it. MR. BROOKER: FEMA is where the base point of measuring for zoned building height. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But from ground level. MR. BROOKER: Which is seven feet, six. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, what is the -- the ground level is what? MR. BROOKER: Seven feet, six. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The ground level is higher than the ground? You're putting it on a ground. You're saying here to me that FEMA is going to require the seven and a half feet. MR. BROOKER: No, no, no. FEMA is nine feet. Page 30 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Pardon me, nine feet. MR. BROOKER: That, as I understand it, can be the lowest level of a habitable floor. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. MR. BROOKER: Seven feet, six is where the ground is today. Seven feet, six inches NGVD or, to be very general, above sea level or something along those lines. But that -- if you're standing at the property, you would actually be on the seven foot, six inches up on top of the existing grade. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. BROOKER: Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Basically. And roof mansard will be actually how high? MR. BROOKER: It's going to be anywhere from, I understand, eight to 12 feet, in that area -- five and 10 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, let's use 10 for the moment and say, how high will this building actually be now? MR. BROOKER: So if you take 49 feet -- well, let me do it this way: From seven feet, six inches, which is grade level where you're standing on the ground, you're at 41 feet, six inches to the top of the deck line. You add 10 feet to that, because that will be the maximum mansard, and you have 51 feet, six inches to the very top part of the structure from the ground when you're standing there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: One other question I had here. It said somewhere in my paperwork that there was a tentative April 11 th meeting. Did that ever happen? MR. BROOKER: The -- I believe it did not occur on that date. That was the tentative date. But a date, a meeting, a subsequent meeting -- I should say subsequent to the neighborhood information meeting, we held another meeting with Windstar residents. It occurred in April, to my recollection. I don't know the exact date. But I don't think it was April 11 tho It was around there. Within a Page 3 1 July 6, 2006 week. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But there was a secondary meeting? MR. BROOKER: With the Windstar residents, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I discovered where my interconnectivity issue came out of. I read it correctly the first time and didn't remember what I read when I started out. But I understand it. So what we're really talking about is full access for everybody. This really becomes part of the PUD overall, right? We're amending the Windstar PUD? MR. BROOKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I have a question then. Going back to a citation you made earlier about size of units, 1,000 square feet, et cetera, et cetera. In the original PUD, under development standards, there are four types: Single-family, detached, patio home, townhouse and type multi-family villas. And under the Type 2 townhouse and the multi-family villas, they speak of 2,500 square foot and 2,000 square foot minimums. So are we really -- are we changing something? MR. BROOKER: No. Where you're looking at is the minimum land area per dwelling unit. If you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, you're right, yes. I'm doing good this morning. MR. BROOKER: -- scroll down that table, floor area minimum per dwelling unit, and you slide all the way over -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One story, 800 square feet. I have that yellowed, too. I'm doing really well this morning, yes, thank you. I think I'm going to decease -- desist right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't decease here.o Page 32 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I may. That's a good indication of where I am this morning. But I am paying attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Clay, in the Windstar, how many projects other than this are three stories above parking? MR. BROOKER: I don't know, to be honest. But I believe there's at least perhaps two others, and perhaps more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where would they be? Could you show us on the -- MR. BROOKER: Now you're -- no, I couldn't do that. I simply don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, you believe there are, you don't know for sure if there is? MR. BROOKER: I believe there are. I don't know for sure. And I do know that since 1981, 40 feet and three levels over parking has been permitted as of right in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you won't be able to interrupt the speaker, so you'll have to wait. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I was going to give you the answer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ifhe doesn't know, he doesn't know. Okay. I'm done, Mark, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On your master plan. MR. BROOKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: To the north, Tract R. That's Haldeman Creek? MR. BROOKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And how is it that Haldeman Creek counts towards your open space? MR. BROOKER: We own it. Page 33 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. BROOKER: Or that portion of it. Not the entire creek. We do list that we actually own the submerged lands. COMMISSIONER CARON: Do own it? MR. BROOKER: Own it. It's an easement. This is a manmade created drainage easement and the state has disclaimed ownership of those particular lands shown as Tract R. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So all right, I have one other question. This plan. You're in no way today obligated to this plan, are you? MR. BROOKER: No, because under the process -- COMMISSIONER CARON: We've had a lot of conversation about it, but you're in no way obligated, right? MR. BROOKER: Right. There's a lot of conversation because the neighborhoods are very interested in it. And we feel comfortable that this is, you know, 80 to 90 percent of the way there. But under this process that we're here today, the master plan gets approved and not a conceptual site plan. You're required to submit a conceptual plan to give an idea of what the master plan would allow. But that's the extent of it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Precisely. I just want the residents of the area to understand that you're in no way committed to anything that you've talked about in this plan. MR. BROOKER: On ELMO today, that is correct, pursuant to the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Clay, I -- okay, Ray? MR. BROOKER: I'm sorry, if I can just qualify my answer. The master plan does show the roadway. So we are committed to that curvilinear roadway. I thank my client for pointing that out to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the debating purposes, the roadways are not committed to in regards internally to the PUD. Page 34 July 6, 2006 They're a change that could be made when you submit your SDP. So the PUD's locking in your entrances only -- I don't believe it locks in any internal roadway. MR. BROOKER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not committed to that roadway at this point. We can stipulate any commitments we want to recommend by the time we're done today. So with that, I have some questions. But Ray, while I'm asking my questions, do you have access to the county appraiser's website? MR. BELLOWS: My computer's not working today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do any of the people in the back of the room working for the county have access to the county -- I see heads nodding. Would someone go to Tract S of the Windstar PUD? It's the tract immediately south of the entrance road off of Bayshore. Click on that tract and provide a folio number and an ownership name of that tract while I ask my questions. Thank you. MR. BROOKER: On ELMO, I'm showing Tract S. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay, Clay, let's start with the CRA. They had a letter attached to our package that included three recommendations. You have addressed one of those thoroughly, and that's the width of the road and the construction of the sidewalk. And for that you're offering a cash payment at their request of $75,000. The item number one on that letter indicated that there will be a design and installation of Lakeview Drive residential streetscape with a monetary assist from developer impacting Lakeview Drive. What is your monetary assistance to the CRA for the response to that number one? You did -- the 75,000 applies to only the road width and to the sidewalk, according to what I'm reading here. MR. BROOKER: It's not exactly clear as written. The $75,000 applies to one and two. So our monetary assistance is $75,000. I think one was kind of a general statement. Two got into the Page 35 July 6, 2006 particulars. This is David Jackson's letter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm reading it. But the two -- one actually talks about streetscaping, which I would envision as both hardscape and landscape elements. Two addresses hardscape elements, which are hard surfaces. I don't see any reference to the fact that you're going to help pay for any landscaping. If you are, I can assure you, $75,000 will not cover the sidewalk from Bayview down Lakeview Road. You just won't do it by footage. In addition, and on the 19th of this month, we have LDC amendments coming up that include higher rates for consideration for sidewalk installations. You're just not going to make it. You're not going to be able to overlay the street, widen the street, which means you've got to treat the shoulders with stabilized base and limerock and then asphalt on top of that, and then overlay the existing asphalt and put in sidewalks the length of Lakeview all for $75,000 and contribute landscape. That isn't going to work. Now, later today I'm going to ask transportation to come up here and I'm hoping transportation, by going to the county appraiser's website, would anticipate that I'm going to ask what the length of Lakeview Drive is and would multiply that times the request that they've got in for the 19th of this month for the LDC cost for sidewalks, and then we can see how much of that $75,000 is used up just on the sidewalk. MR. BROOKER: That was a number, as I mentioned, that was given to us by county staff, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By county staff or CRA? MR. BROOKER: Both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, was that transportation department? MR. BROOKER: Nick Casalanguida of Transportation and David Jackson ofCRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, because ifhis math is that good, Page 36 July 6, 2006 we have a huge reduction in taxes due to our roads going down in cost. MR. BROOKER: Can I publicly apologize to Nick for calling him out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but he'll have -- I'm certain he'll have questions to answer. The stormwater drainage. I know what you've just provided, 1,210 cubic feet. My question of transportation, so they know ahead, is how much distance on Lakeview Drive will that take care of at the rate that they need it taken care of? So I'm sure we'll come back to that issue as being one or not. In -- the site. You have a 20-acre site. How much is the water bodies and how much is the preserve of that 20 acres? If you can come up with that before I finish, because it will be somewhat important. MR. BROOKER: We're digging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your actual PUD, I know that from my conversations with you that you actually had to rewrite the original PUD to get it into electronic format so that it could go to staff. On Page 4, you mention that there are two secondary entrances are provided at Fern Street and Lakeview Drive. In the prior documentation, Fern Street was limited to access for maintenance and sewage treatment plant that was proposed for the site. Now, I'm sure it's being used now for more than that. I understand that. But what is -- in your -- why did you call it the two secondary entrances? MR. BROOKER: I may have -- I'll regret now calling it secondary entrances, but it was just a reflection that the main gate was the main entrance, and the Fern and Lakeview Drive would be secondary to the primary main gate entrance. But I don't mean to imply at all that certain people can't come into -- Windstar residents can't use those entrances. They are open for Page 37 July 6, 2006 Windstar residents for entrance and exit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The agreement that you have with the homeowner's association requires you to upgrade the -- or not upgrade, install the entrance off Lakeview Drive in a manner similar to that of the main entrance in regards to the facilities. That's why I was wondering if it's going to be really a secondary entrance or if it's going to resemble more of a maintenance entrance. MR. BROOKER: What we have been informed by the master association is that they are upgrading or installing along the Fern Street entrance and the proposed Lakeview Drive entrance video monitor -- a video monitoring system that will be manned by the main guard gate. So when a vehicle pulls up, the main guard gate will be able to see and talk to the people attempting to gain entrance into Windstar PUD via a secured video monitor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there will not be a gatehouse there? MR. BROOKER: Not a manned -- perhaps maybe a little structure, but not a manned guardhouse or a gatehouse, as you're probably using that term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I just saw someone come up. Did you get the information on Tract S? MS. DESELEM: Yes. For the record, Kay Deselem. It is owned by Windstar Master Association, Inc., and the Folio No. is 82840080004. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Ms. Student, that is not in the rezone request. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I have a couple -- I wanted to build on what I had said earlier, because I left something out that was in Ms. Linan's memo, and that is if there's a rational nexus between, you know, the change and something in the old PUD, then you could open it to that extent. And also, assuming that you guys -- I don't know, I have to ask Mr. Brooker, but was the arrangement with the owner of Tract S for Page 38 July 6, 2006 you guys to be able to put a facility on there? Because I think if they have some arrangement with them, then it ought to be okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go, my question was advertisement at this point. That folio number is not listed as to the applicant listing of folio numbers provided for this rezone. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I don't know that that would be in the ad. Wouldn't that be in the application? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's not in the application. Either way, I just want your reading on it. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. I think that we would need to amend the application to include that in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that require any readvertising? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't believe so, because I don't believe we advertise the folio numbers, but I think we could on the spot amend the application here and have them provide the necessary information before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BROOKER: The folio number I don't believe is anywhere in the application. If that is required, then we will ask to amend it now. But the Tract S is in fact rationally tied to this petition because it will be used as a temporary sales office for the marketing and sales of the units in Fisherman's Village tract. Tract S is specifically designated in the Windstar PUD document for that purpose alone. It is owned by Windstar Master Association. Windstar Master Association is part of the application as an associated entity and they are in full agreement with utilizing that land in that manner. And we are coordinating with them in terms of what it's going to look like, how long, when things get put up and so forth and so on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think you are -- Margie had said something else about a memo that provided a rational nexus? Page 39 July 6, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right, in the memo that I identified earlier when we first discussed this, Ms. Linan did state that if there was a rational nexus between the change and something else in the PUD, then it could be opened up to that extent. And I think an example of that is what Mr. Brooker just put on the record, that Tract S -- well, I mean Windstar's in here, but Tract S is there already, and so there is the nexus between this new development and the need to have a sales center to market it. So that would be an example. Another example might be some infrastructure requirements that are in an existing PUD, and because you're bringing more acreage into it as you are here, and you're going to have more units, there might need to be something about that that already existing infrastructure requirement that would have to be changed because of the increase in the number of units. So there's a rational nexus between those two things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a rational nexus between Mr. Adelstein's questions of height and the development standards tables in the original Windstar PUD? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think there would be for these new units that are coming in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And you wouldn't want to change it across the boards because you'd make the existing units nonconforming and that could be a problem. But if there were a subset that would relate to this tract and these units, that would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this board wanted to make any recommendations concerning maximum -- whether it's actual or zoned height specific to this tract -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they could do that. Page 40 July 6, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, thank you from the staff, whoever got that information. I appreciate it. Wasn't Nick. No, he was sitting there -- MR. BROOKER: I was trying to help him out. It was Nick. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Good try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The roadway tracts and water management areas within the new property you're adding, would those be maintained by the master property owners association? MR. BROOKER: That is correct. We will become a member of the master association, pay assessments, dues, whatever you call them, just like every other neighborhood in the master. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you happen to find out the net developable acreage in your tract? MR. BROOKER: I'll ask Tim Hall, who's with Turrell & Associates, he's our environmental consultant, to answer those questions. MR. HALL: For the record, Tim Hall, with Turrell & Associates. In the existing condition today right now, there's 4.4 -- I'm sorry, 4.9 acres of open water that includes a stormwater management -- a couple of stormwater management lakes, the canals, the bay, so forth. And then an additional 5.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Already approved through the county's dredging program was some impacts to that. Post-dredging project, there would be 4.4 acres of open water and 5.2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. COMMISSIONER CARON: Say that one more time? MR. HALL: 4.4 of open water and 5.2 of jurisdictional wetlands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Clay, that -- and I'm going back to a question asked by one of the other panel members here. Density. That reduces your like usable Page 41 July 6, 2006 footage of an interior tract as you pointed out in the other particular parcels within Windstar down to 10.8 acres. Now, if you divide 10.8 acres into the 446 units you're asking for, that is much higher density than what you had previously told us the balance of Winds tar was provided on a like by like basis. You're looking at more like over, what is it, 10 in the 14, 14 units per acre? MR. BROOKER: When I gave you the numbers, I compared apples to apples. In other words, when I said the neighborhoods around Windstar, if you -- what I internally called them, sub-densities within Windstar ranging from two units per acre to over 12 units per acre, those calculations included any wet areas, any water areas. The entire acreage of those neighborhoods. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far then, let's discuss that point. Take a look at the picture in front of you dead center. You're telling me that tract includes what besides the footprints of where those buildings are? That's a pretty picture. MR. BROOKER: This has happened before. But not with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- that dark infrared tract -- and I didn't know the county website could do infrared. But anyway, the water management alongside the roadway -- and the rest of it doesn't appear to be part of the developable tract. MR. BROOKER: Well, there's the master plan in infrared. If you look at the master plan, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which? The one you provided? MR. BROOKER: Yes, Exhibit A to the proposed PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BROOKER: Assuming you were referring to what's on the master plan as Summerset, those lines around Summerset are the legal descriptions of the property appraiser's descriptions of the Summerset Tract E. Page 42 July 6, 2006 So when I did the calculations that I've told to you, you can see those lines include the water body to the north of the actual uplands, if you want to call them, of Summerset. And in addition to that, just in general, to respond to your question, this -- the way we calculate a density using 20.52 acres, the total acreage is exactly the way the Land Development Code requires you to calculate density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you, gross acreage for initial calculation. But you were using the other tracts as an example to compare the density to yours. That's the only reason I'm going in the direction I'm going. And if you take out the preserve areas, which I don't know -- I don't see any other of your tracts encompassing the preserve areas -- you still end up with a different density calculation than what was originally provided. It isn't the gross 20.5 to calculate your density. MR. BROOKER: I would respectfully disagree. Because, for example, with Summerset here, this tract, a total of which is 16.8 acres, includes the water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it include the preserves? MR. BROOKER: It includes the entire area in that tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Does it include-- MR. BROOKER: So I looked at the density, how many units are in Summerset, and divided it by 16.8. And I did the same thing by-- with all the neighborhoods, the sub-densities within Windstar. I tried to be as apples to apples as I could when I calculated those numbers internally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just -- if you include the water, I understand that. But the preserves I can't see included on any of those tracts. All I'm saying is the 20.5 or .4 acres, if you were to take out the preserves, then you may be more apples to apples in your density calculation in comparison to the balance of Winds tar. That's where Page 43 July 6, 2006 I'm going. Now, that just brings it up a little bit, it doesn't bring it up to the 12 units per acre. The development standards table, I notice that it's in a strike-out verSIon. MR. BROOKER: My fault. My fault. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because that one-- MR. BROOKER: That was my technological incapabilities. When I did -- used Microsoft Word to do a strike-through/underline, it crossed out the entire table, for whatever reason. And try as I might, including everyone in my office, we couldn't fix it. So there's no changes to that table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly what I was-- MR. BROOKER: I'm sorry for that confusion. That's the best I could do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 18 of the PUD -- I mentioned this to you when I met with you -- that Item E is an addition to transportation commitments. And in that addition, it keeps referring to the developer. And I still am going to have to ask staff when they come up here who is the developer of this Windstar PUD. Because all that I have on the front of this is not who it was prepared for, it's just who it was prepared by. And the developer referenced on Page 18, I'm not sure who is committing this obligation, although I know it's supposed to be you and your company. MR. BROOKER: Yes, I would -- we'd be willing to accept a change in paragraph 6.4(E), wherever it may occur, to change the word developer to owner of the subject 20.52 acres. That will make it clear that it is our responsibility and no one else's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Excuse me. If I might, for clarification, it might be better expressed as the owner of the 20.52-acre addition. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Speak up a Page 44 July 6, 2006 little, please. I can't hear you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay, it would be -- I would just change that a bit to the owner of the 20.52-acre addition. I think that makes it a little more clear. MR. BROOKER: And that -- there are references throughout the PUD document to the subject 20.52 acres. If that change is more appropriate, it can be made throughout the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Try to whittle down my tabs so -- in your TIS, you're talking about -- there's a discussion about the traffic improvements needed on Bayshore Drive. A southbound right turn lane should be investigated for Lakeview Drive, Bayshore Drive. What's your company's commitments on that? MR. BROOKER: That was an initial comment by county staff, transportation staff, to have a right turn lane in as you head southbound on Bayshore Drive, turning right onto Lakeview Drive, and discussing that with the CRA and county staff transportation. The CRA objected to that, because an existing landowner or business there on that corner, and the CRA basically convinced transportation staff that that was not an appropriate request under the circumstances. That had nothing to do with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record, this is a summary and conclusion in your TIS provided by your consultant, so I don't see any reference to staff there. MR. BROOKER: That's a good point. I would be happy to have Reed Jarvi, our Traffic Engineer, to explain that. MR. JARVI: For the record, Reed Jarvi, Professional Engineer with the firm of Vanasse-Day lor. What that is, is on our conclusions we looked through the various ordinances, and the right-of-way ordinance from a pure numbers standpoint shows that a right turn lane may be needed there. And that's what we looked at and said in the future when the SDP comes Page 45 July 6, 2006 through, it needs to be looked at more closely than at the zoning level. Subsequent to that TIS, we've had discussions with both county staff and the CRA and that's the time where Clay said -- or the CRA said no, we don't want a right turn lane, there really isn't enough room for one; there is an existing business there that a right turn lane would greatly disrupt that business. So that's the direction we are at at this point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure our traffic department will come up and clarify it as well. Thank you. And I'm getting through it, Clay. MR. BROOKER: I was hoping you ran out of tabs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm removing them as I go through them. So transportation's going to have a lot of issues, I can see. You had sent a letter in November of 2004 to Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission. That's a year and a half away from now past. I repeated -- I found the letter, I found where you referenced numerous times, but I've not found where they've responded to you. As of almost 18 months, you've still not received a response that you know of? MR. BROOKER: Can you refresh my memory what that letter says? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Letter was sent to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in November, 2004, but no response has been received. And it's in your environmental impact statement. And the letter itself is in Item J, and it's a coordination letter sent by Kevin L. Irwin, consultant ecologist. He's working with his client to develop a small portion of property. Please inform us if you are aware of any listed species that are known to occur at this time. I know he was your biologist. But he was sending this to them for their input. And I've found no response to it. MR. BROOKER: I'll have Tim Hall, our environmentalist, Page 46 July 6, 2006 address that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is he representing Kevin Irwin today? MR. HALL: No, sir, I cannot represent Kevin Irwin. I can just tell you that since my involvement, I am not aware of any response from the Conservation Commission regarding the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me, based on Kevin Irwin's EIS that was submitted in the basis for review by the EAC and us today, if you verify -- he used a different site plan. Can you verify that the impacts by the site being proposed today are no more significant than the ones that were produced in relationship to Kevin Irwin's EIS? MR. HALL: I believe the site plan he used was the more impactive one. It had more units than this one does. So from a local standpoint, in terms of traffic and utilities, the impacts will be less with less units proposed on the property. From an environmental standpoint, the preserve boundary or the development boundary has not changed. So the lands still dedicated as preserve under that original plan are still dedicated under the one we have now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. That's what I have so far. And I've got a lot of staff, but they may be referring to you for answers. Thank you. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There's one thing I'd like to ask you. Considering all the new buildings that you're building, could you live with a height of 50 feet maximum on those buildings? MR. BROOKER: Are you referring to an actual building height of 50 feet, measured from grade? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. MR. BROOKER: We can live with actual-- or a 50-foot height measurement from FEMA, which is one-foot-six above grade. So that would be 51-six. Page 47 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is it that necessary that 1.6 -- actually, the height building is 50 feet, and that's what I'd like to see. MR. BROOKER: It's not necessary. We can live with 50 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Clay, I know you want to rebuttal at the time of any -- if there's any -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- public speakers. I'm sorry, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: With this 137 units that you're planning to add, are you planning to do anything to address the need for affordable housing that these new units will create? MR. BROOKER: No affordable housing has been proposed with regard to this PUD petition or in the conceptual site plan. No. In that regard, no. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I mean in terms of a voluntary contribution to the affordable housing trust fund or anything like that. MR. BROOKER: I believe it's almost customary for the Board of County Commissioners to ask that of us, or for these types of petitions, and I would request that we address it at that point in time. I know there's a linkage fee being worked today in terms of making that a legal requirement, tying a monetary payment making it legal into either based upon your number of units or the commercial square footage. That's being worked today. I'm not saying that we would object to do that, but I would prefer to leave that to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But right now that's not law, or that's nothing that you're obligated to do from your part? Are you not willing to do anything with regard to this need in the county voluntarily? MR. BROOKER: No, I didn't say that. I didn't say that. Page 48 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm asking you that question. MR. BROOKER: The question being are we unwilling to do anything? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are you willing to voluntarily do something? Not because you're forced to do it but are you voluntarily willing to do something, to commit to that? MR. BROOKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you specifically say what? MR. BROOKER: I would prefer to leave that to the Board of County Commissioners exacting it upon us. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, they don't exact on it until it becomes a regulation. What are you willing to do yourselves? MR. BROOKER: We understand, based upon watching BCC hearings, that it's customary for the BCC to request or exact, however you want to describe it, $1,000 per unit to the affordable housing trust fund, which I don't even believe has been created. However, we are willing to do that for our conceptual site plan, with the caveat that it cannot be increased above that. Because that's what's been customarily exacted. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Unless the rules change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student needs to weigh in on a comment. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, Marjorie Student-Stirling. I need to correct the record. Those were voluntary contributions that were on the record before the board, and I would take exception to the use of the word exaction, as part of this hearing or any other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, that's __ MR. BROOKER: And I agree that they have been qualified or described as voluntary contributions during the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No one has forced them to do it. Page 49 July 6, 2006 It's been a voluntary -- that's my question, what are you voluntarily willing to offer? MR. BROOKER: I've answered that, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that the last -- okay, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark, I have a question for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Me? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. This connection on Lakeview Drive, as it exists today, can the developer open that drive up so that they can enter the property from Lakeview Drive? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what is being proposed today is that they do open it up. And the requirement with the homeowners association is that the entrance on Lakeview Drive have the similar treatments to the entrance on Bayshore Drive right now. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But if this petition was denied, would they then be foreclosed from opening that connection? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They may for the access to the Windstar PUD. But that property was already zoned as a regular residential district, so they would have -- they have a right to access off Lakeview regardless. I think the issue becomes a matter of density. How much density do the residents expect prior to this versus accessing off of Lakeview versus the additional density and traffic created by the connection to Windstar. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if I'm wrong, Clay, say so, but that's where I think the crux of the question would go. MR. BROOKER: I think you're right. We have the right to connect to it today without a public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we're going to take a 15-minute break and we will resume at 10:20. (Recess.) Page 50 July 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back on line now. Sir, excuse me, you guys are on the mic. Would you mind taking your seats? If the meeting will come back to order. And we're going to start with the Collier County staffs presentation by Kay. Kay, the first question I had of you before you make your presentation was one that Mr. Schiffer wanted to address and that was concerning information he hadn't received. But I guess we'll address it when he comes back in. So do you want to go ahead? There he is. We're talking about you, Brad. Before Kay begins, do you want to point out the issues you may have with the packet you received? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, it's actually the lack of package. When I did get the package -- when Paul sat down, he had quite a few more elements in the packet, that's all. And I know when I was looking at it, Tor didn't have the same stuff: either, so we just have to be more careful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It seems some of the inserts were missing, like the site plan and the aerial, the colored photography. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The staff involved with putting together the packets, there was someone on vacation. I'll reiterate the process with the people who fill in that we've got to be consistent with getting the packets completely submitted as required. And if anyone has questions or suspicions that something's missing, please give me a call and I'll make sure that we get you the correct information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Kay, if you'll start. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. I'm a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. First, I apologize, I made a strong attempt to get a packet of Page 51 July 6, 2006 identical information for all of you that included color information, and I do apologize that somewhere along the line it didn't get forwarded to you. Today with me is David Jackson, CRA, Don Scott and Nick Casalanguida from Transportation, and Steve Lenberger of Environmental Services. And if you have specific questions for those individuals, they will be available as well. You do have the staff report, I hope, and most of the things that are supposed to be with it, including Exhibits A and B, which are the findings in support of the recommendation. Due to the applicant's presentation going into detail about what's being proposed, I won't belabor the issue by going point-by-point over the staff report, but I will note that in the process of the review, the number of units has been evolving. And there are references to 146 units in the staff report, as well as 137. And that should be 137, because that is their proposal before us right now. And as noted previously, the Fisherman's Village tract is now vacant, devoid of any development, through demolition permits. The existing multi-family structures have been removed. I do have and have shared with Commissioner Caron the aerial photographs from 2005 and 2006 that show the buildings are now gone. As the presentation has evolved today, some things came up that I wasn't really aware of. There was an agreement offered for a certain amount of stormwater cubic footage, and I had a brief conversation with transportation staff. That number's been bandied about throughout the review; however, that particular number has not been agreed upon. And in fact, there's some discussion between transportation staff that they would actually like the applicant to construct the improvements that are required and that have been agreed upon, consisting of the sidewalk and the widening of the roadway to 22 feet, rather than having money paid in lieu of that. Page 52 July 6, 2006 And I can just briefly mention that the applicant's rendition of the deceleration lane is, as I understand it as well, it was deemed no longer to be appropriate, given the existing development on the corner. We do have someone, as I mentioned, from environmental services here. And as represented in the staff report, the EAC did review this petition and did recommend approval of it, and with the stipulation that the mangroves be retained. Staffs analysis of this particular project includes some of the issues that really haven't been addressed to the full extent of the people that live in Lakeview. Staff believes, and we have provided findings in support of our beliefs, that the improvements will address the impacts onto Lakeview Drive. But we have noted, as Commissioner Murray noted, that the word interconnection in this case might be somewhat of a misnomer, because the connection only goes one way. People from Windstar go out; however, no one other than Windstar goes in. So it's been represented that the compo plan does require, or encourage I guess is the better term, the interconnections of projects. But in this case, you know, it's -- is it truly an interconnection? But as already noted, the Lakeview tract -- or the Fisherman Cove's tract, also by itself standalone, the 72 units that would be allowed, would automatically have access to Lakeview Drive, because that's the only access they have. So we do have the issue of the roadway that I'm sure the neighbors are going to discuss with you. And we have noted in the staff report, as has come out today, the parks and recreation review and that they want to see a stipulation included, and the petitioner has not agreed to that stipulation. I checked with staff here today, and as far as we can tell, there has been no amendment or regulation proposed that would require a park requirement within development. Page 53 July 6, 2006 So at this point there have been -- most of the residential PUDs have agreed to accept the condition, but I know of at least one that has not. So we would be looking for a recommendation from you as to whether or not you want to include that stipulation. And there is no definitive amount as far as, you know, if you have "X" number of units then you need "Y" square footage or acreage or, you know, any unknown number or amount of recreational equipment. So we don't really have a quantified answer as to what would meet the intent of parks and recreations' request. We have recommended approval. And as I said, we did include the findings in support of that recommendation. And I'm here, as is the rest of staff and CRA representatives, if you have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, right side first. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You say that you don't have quantifiable figures as to what would satisfy the intent of parks and recreations on that recreation. Isn't there anything planned to be developed or, you know, some guidance? Because I can see that there will be a need for recreation for the kids who live there, since they don't live near any county parks or anything. MS. DESELEM: I'm not saying there isn't a need. There may very well be a need. But we don't have any regulation that requires it, nor is there any quantitive thing that, you know, for what you get you provide this, so to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, did you __ MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Let me just say, without a regulation there needs to be a rational nexus between that requirement and the impacts of the development. And I don't know if that could be arrived at. I'm not a statistician or have that expertise as a statistician in the planning area or population demographics area, but it would seem that you might look at the county demographics as a whole and the percentage of the population and the age group in the county that would use that type of a playground and then extrapolate that out to Page 54 July 6, 2006 the proj ected popu -- that might work. I don't -- if they -- again, there's got to be a rational nexus. And I think part of the problem is we don't know what the impacts are because we don't know the number of residents in that age group that would use the playground. And then you'd get to some recognized figure of how much equipment to have, once you know the number of kids that would use it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, as a caveat to that, as this board well knows, during the AUIR review we repeatedly asked parks and recreation to count the parks and rec. areas within these developments to offset the taxable values being hit by the general public in Collier County. They flat-out refused. And for them now to come back in and demand it of the development when they don't have a rational nexus for it, they're not going to count it in the AUIR, it's more like double taxation of any property owner. So I understand what Ms. Student's saying, and until something's worked out, I don't know how we could just impose it unilaterally on a project. But I wanted to throw that in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if I might just add something to it. The -- if I understand it correctly, while they don't count it, they use the fact that there are certain amenities available and then they will reduce the amenities within the general area accordingly. So my concern is, is that if we build a playground for three children, an area where they may have 30 children will not have a playground, because they will have checked that off against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would just like to suggest that maybe county staff could look at something like this. Because it would seem to be a principle of smart development that you would have so the parents wouldn't have to drive five miles to a county park Page 55 July 6, 2006 so that their kids, you know, can have recreational opportunities. So I'd like to see the county develop something. I know it's too late for this development now, they're not ready, but it would be a good idea perhaps in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any other -- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In your staff report, you say the term interconnection may not accurately depict what is proposed. Why don't you just say it does not accurately depict what is proposed, rather than may? MS. DESELEM: I guess that would be an appropriate use of the words as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- this is the add-on question follow-up. But as people approach that entrance, would guests and everything be able to use that entrance; do you know? What you're saying is that it's only essentially for the lakeside residents -- or Windstar people to come in and out. But would the people visiting -- the people in this development be able to access through that? MS. DESELEM: My understanding, the way it's been represented to from through the developer, is that delivery vehicles and residents and their guests could use that particular access point. It's not been reiterated or documented and approved as part of the PUD document, because we normally don't get into that amount of detail, but they've talked about some kind of a system that they wanted to use to regulate access through that particular gate. But like I said, it hasn't been agreed to or stipulated in the PUD document, so all I know is what's been represented, that it would be available for residents, their guests, delivery and construction vehicles. Page 56 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is when the PUD builds out and there's remaining units, what are those units? Do they sunset, do they expire, are they marketable? What are they? MS. DESELEM: I would suggest that maybe Marjorie might want to address that question from the county attorney's point of view. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Are you talking about unused units? MS. DESELEM: Yes. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, it's my understanding that this developer is taking some of the units that weren't used, coupled with some additional units to do this development. So it would appear that they plan to utilize all the units that are available. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm just saying in general-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: But presently we don't have -- a program like that was brought to our Board of County Commissioners. Presently we don't have anything. I think there is -- and you may see it in the land code. I think there may be another iteration of that that may be presented as part of an LDC amendment that differs somewhat from what was presented to you all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave that point, though. Brad, it's a good point. I had asked Margie a similar question in my e-mail to her. The question was, the Windstar PUD explains the developer of Fisherman's Cove will lift -- I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong one. Also, as you are aware from the past, we have issues with excess ghost density, i.e., Pelican Bay and the Waterside Shops. This PUD is also using the same ghost density as Pelican Bay similarly bargained with. However, this time the HOA claims ownership with the ghost density. Do we have a document that indicates HOA actually retains those units and not the developer, as was opined in the Pelican Bay situation? Page 57 July 6, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, I don't have any such documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How can staff then recommend approval of use of those densities? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think that what -- you would need to have it have that entered into the record from the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So before we go too far -- Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, this is the whole ghost density issue. And Margie, if in fact the developer turns over the property to the HOA, the HOA then inherits the density and intensity. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Not necessarily. Because in the case with Pelican Bay, it was retained by the developer. So it depends on what's in the covenants. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, okay, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then before we-- MR. SCHMITT: But in this case we don't have a developer, per se, of Windstar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Joe, to validate the 111 units or whatever that is being transferred from Windstar into this new property by this new property owner, doesn't -- I had asked this on Monday, and I remissed until Mr. Schiffer brought it forward to reiterate it again today -- where is the documentation that substantiates that? That's all we're asking. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would think that the documentation would be in the agreements that Mr. Brooker has already referenced in the record that they have with -- with the association, was it not, with the association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we know that the association attained that density so that they could bargain with it? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would say in the absence of an umbrella developer, such as you have in Pelican Bay, in that absence Page 58 July 6, 2006 and the absence of anything and any restricted covenants, that then Windstar would have -- you know, would have them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a unique analysis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on the same thing, does this WS Realty -- I mean, I didn't get this in my packet, but Paul has it -- does this WS Realty, Inc. still exist? I mean, is that a __ UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Point of information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I'm sorry, you can't interrupt what's going on until you speak. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then somebody must-- MS. DESELEM: If I may address that. That's been crossed out, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but they're the original applicant prior to this hearing. It's the applicant that owned those. I mean, a PUD essentially is zoning. The zoning is owned by the applicant. But anyway, it sounds like somebody might testify to that in the future. Let me wait for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get through the meeting and if we still have a question, we can bring it back up to Margie. Mr. Murray? MS. DESELEM: If I could address that on Page 3 of Section 1.2, it addresses the ownership of it and talks -- shows that that WS Realty is being crossed out, and shows that it's owned by Lakeview Drive, Naples LLC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my question is, is whose pocket are those units in? Are they in WS Realty or are they in the homeowner's association? We've had projects that prior to this have always had it in the applicant's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm wondering, too, is a lot of developments produce interior parcels. And if the homeowner's Page 59 July 6, 2006 association takes over those parcels, were they originally developed and built at their maximum for each individual parcel, or do those individual homeowner's associations retain some rights to further expand within those parcels pursuant to their standards? That may lead into where this density is. I don't know. Mr. Murray, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's quite all right. I'm trying to be lucid this time. Going into the area of density, the question -- I think 72 would be the maximum. If this were not an amendment and it was just a standalone, it would be -- 72 would be the maximum that could be built there. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So 65 units is a bonus for simply having an agreement with Windstar to become a part of Windstar. Are there any such agreements with Lakeview -- is it Lakeview? What's the name of that road that is there that we've been discussing? Is that Lakeview? MS. DESELEM: I'm not aware of -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The road that services that, the one that's under question. MS. DESELEM: Lakeview Drive? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that the name of it? MS. DESELEM: Yeah, Lakeview Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lakeview Drive. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Lakeview Drive. Are there any agreements with the owners of Lakeview Drive or their homeowner's associations regarding the use of the road? And I suspect not. MS. DESELEM: I believe it's a public road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, I suspect not. Page 60 July 6, 2006 So basically by Windstar allowing that, they get the benefit to come in and out, but the people in Lakeview have to deal with the people coming in and out. So that would be the side. Which brings it to the question, and I think the Chair certainly qualified it more effectively. I think we have to look long and hard at any kind of improvements to the area on Lakeview Drive to make certain that there's some equity there for the people in that area. And height of buildings is another. I know that wasn't a question, but that was just my thought that I would like to add to it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, start with Page 4 -- MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, zoning manager. I just wanted to make a clarification to the point of density. When a PUD is approved, the number of units associated with that PUD runs with the PUD document, not with the ownership. The ownership can change over time with different developers', buying or purchasing development intensity associated with those tracts. And then when there's a turnover to a homeowner's association, they typically take over the maintenance requirements of the previous developer plus the density that's associated with that project. The homeowner's association owns the PUD, they own those development rights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess that then is considered typical, unless Pelican Bay for example was not that way, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, unless there's a specific agreement to retain them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that's one that comes to mind, Page 61 July 6, 2006 the battle that ensued as a result of that -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. SCHMITT: And there was some kind of a court case and settlement agreement and other things associated with that issue that was I think peculiar to that specific PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- on that. But Ray, that's a PUD that provides zoning for a defined piece of land. Does that mean that these units are marketable to move on to another piece of land or by in this case expanding the PUD? MR. BELLOWS: If I understand your question correctly, the PUD has associated density. Some PUDs restrict the number of dwelling units to certain tracts and don't make provisions for them to transfer to other tracts. This PUD I don't believe has that restriction, so it could be transferred from one tract to the other. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's what you're doing is you're -- we're widening the PUD boundary; therefore, I think logically you could say that the units could go to that boundary. But then we're also taking the existing underlay zoning districts and adding to that. In other words, the PUD is a form of zoning, the existing zoning is a form of zoning. So what you're kind of doing is combining two of them to get a bigger total. MR. BELLOWS: In fact that is happening, but it's still under the maximum allowed by the density rating system. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan, so it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the point is take the units that belong to Windstar, and Windstar is going to expand its boundary, Page 62 July 6, 2006 thus has rights to put those units on it. We're also counting the density of the zoning that we're actually removing. MR. BELLOWS: I think the purpose of that is to show that they're not significantly increasing the impacts of the development by asking for additional units above and beyond what's already allowed through the current zoning above the PUD and the standard zoning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Combined. MR. BELLOWS: As the applicant stated in the beginning, the overall density will remain the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, density of what? MR. BELLOWS: Of the PUD. They're not increasing the density of the approved PUD. It will remain the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think where the confusion is, you are increasing the PUD by 35 units. You're not increasing the multiplier for the gross acreage. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I think you might have a better answer. Okay, Page 4 of your staff report. A little technicality. Up on top you talk about environment review and you mentioned that the EAC recommended approval with the exception of impacts caused by the boardwalks and walk-overs necessary for the docks for mangrove destruction. You also included the EAC meeting minutes, and I didn't see that recommendation. Not that I disagree with it, but I didn't see it in the EAC report. Under the recommendations it just says staff recommends approval with the following conditions, and it says no additional stipulations. MS. DESELEM: The stipulation was added by the EAC itself. So it's not in that staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we don't -- we've not -- we Page 63 July 6, 2006 don't have anything -- that's the only thing that -- we don't have any reports separate from your report to the EAC. After they got done with the hearing, basically -- MS. DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- your -- okay. In your staff report, you mention that there are artistic renderings, shows the multi-family structures within the Village more internally and externally orientated, and that the renderings seem to show a denser buffer along the canal. And it said that staff believes to be more appropriate to require enhanced buffer along the canal for Fisherman's Village tract and would suggest that more trees and taller trees could be provided to soften the difference between the mostly single-story and single- family Lakeview Drive residents. Was any of that incorporated to the strength that you believe the artistic rendering -- first of all, was the artistic rendering you're speaking of the one we've seen today as the site plan? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. It's the 137 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you -- has staffrecornrnended any strengthening, and specifically to the PUD, that would incorporate your suggestions? MS. DESELEM: No. No additional buffers have been added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What are your suggestions? I mean, obviously we have buffers and we have different criteria for buffers. Are you increasing quantity of material, the spacing of trees, the heights of the trees? MS. DESELEM: I don't know that if you're talking a 50-foot tall structure that the height of trees would necessarily offset that as far as the height of the buildings. It might soften the effects of noise, light, odor, that type of thing that would go across from one use to the other. But yeah, you could perhaps increase the density as in more trees per a certain lineal feet, and perhaps start out with somewhat taller Page 64 July 6, 2006 trees. That would help somewhat. But, I mean, you're not going to totally soften the effect of a 50- foot tall structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm looking at the statement you made, because I do read your staff report. And in the staff report you made a statement that it would be appropriate for more trees and taller trees. And you also made a statement that the rendering seems to show a denser buffer, and as a result that would mean more trees and taller trees. MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm looking for a specific recommendation from staff, since that's what staff seemed to think was a good thing to do. MS. DESELEM: Yes, I would suggest perhaps that they double the planting that is provided within the required buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: Double the height and the number. Perhaps doubling the height might not necessarily be appropriate. And again, we don't know exactly where the buildings are going to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think we'll ask the applicant about their landscaping plan when they get up here. I have a lot of questions of Nick. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could you refer to the page and document number whenever you read that item? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. When I get to the next one, yes, sir, I will. Kay, that's the -- oh, in their EIS, they talked about using best management practices for the construction operations of the Village in dealing with stormwater runoff and potential impacts. And is Page 65 July 6, 2006 proposed to incorporate a source control program into its landscaped practices. Fertilizer and pesticide applications will be tracked to minimize the implementation of BMP's. And that was provided to staff in the EIS. I didn't see any reference to that in the PUD so that it's -- there's a way for staff to monitor and implement those. Do you know how that was intended to be implemented, monitored? MS. DESELEM: I'm not certain. I might suggest that we might ask Steve Lenberger. I don't know that he has the answer, but he might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, let's ask, so we can make sure that any stipulations include the right language. And there was another question of Steve anyway that I had, so -- MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Services Department. We did not see any best management practices, and they didn't propose to add any to the PUD language, so we have not seen any proposals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It says that they are proposing them, but you've not seen them. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the basis of the EIS was based upon -- and in Policy 2.2.2, this was their response to that policy. MR. LENBERGER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would assume then that they're consistent because of their response. Now, how do we lock their response in? MR. LENBERGER: We could -- well, at the zoning level, we could I guess propose that it be provided at the time of site development plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets that one passed. The other question I had, and I mention it to you, I would like Page 66 July 6, 2006 you to clarify it for the record. About a month ago we had a project in here that Bruce Anderson brought forward involving property on Estey and Airport Road, and there was a rather concerning issue in there from the environmental staff over the fact that the they were mowing the understory. In the EIS on this particular property they have indicated that they were maintaining and mowing the understory as well. I want to make sure there's no inconsistencies in staffs concerns over these issues. So can you clarify what that means or how that impacts this particular site's natural preserves? MR. LENBERGER: Well, the parcel on Estey Avenue, my understanding, it was a result of a violation, a clearing violation in the past of code enforcement. So it was counted as native habitat when they looked at the project. This proj ect here, it was a disturbed site, historic dredging, and it was full of exotics. When I first got there with the county back in '93, it was -- it was shortly thereafter that I issued an exotic removal for this project. It was all disturbed. It was very large exotics on the site. So it wasn't the same scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. I wanted to make sure the record was clear on that. Okay, thank you. Any other questions of Steve while he's up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I -- the balance of my questions will be of Nick. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I just want Steve to follow up on your question regarding the site, because I think for clarification of the planning commission, this site is also going to be used as a temporary disposal site for the dredging of Haldeman Creek, which has gone through a different process, a different permitting, and through a temporary or I guess a site improvement plan which has been identified on this property. And I just want to make sure that the Page 67 July 6, 2006 planning commission understands that. And Steve, if you have anything you want to add to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I mean, that's real clear in our documents. And I understand it. Even though I understood that, the standards that the county imposes on private homeowners and private property owners still should be imposed on the county itself -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the question still stands and is relevant -- MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and this is why I asked for it to be cleared up. MR. SCHMITT: Got it, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Hello, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're doing real good on the bid process here in Collier County . We're reducing things to a very nominal cost in regards to overall distances. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning. I have not been sworn in. I arrived after they were sworn in, so __ (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: I took notes as part of the presentation and the question/answer session you've had so far, so I'll address these. And if you have questions, please feel free to interrupt. As far as the dollar cost for the improvements, for the record, thank you, Clay, for pushing me under the bus this morning. My horoscope said stay away from public transportation today. Staff has always recommended that the improvements were done. And I know David Jackson has a difficult job trying to do a redevelopment in that area. So when the estimates came in, they were Page 68 July 6, 2006 for quantities of certain materials. They -- we -- many e-mails went back and forth, and as Kay pointed out, we always stated we would like the improvements to be constructive, and we didn't recommend taking out a monetary amount. And one of my e-mails cautioned that these estimates were not based on a design, that it takes no account of what it would actually cost to build these improvements. So for the record, that 75,000 is probably light. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Light. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about very, very. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For the record, what suggestion would you have to make sure that the impacts to this development, if they were recommended for approval, would be adequate to take care of the concerns of at least this issue on Lakeview Drive? MR. CASALANGUIDA: There be some sort of preliminary design that could be used for a more detailed estimate to be proposed between say now and the board, and that that developer tie that estimate based on an actual design commitment, dollar commitment to the CRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just out of curiosity, I know this is an 18- foot wide roadway now, and you're proposing 22. Isn't 24 standard in the county? MR. CASALANGUIDA: In some of the typical sections you could have 12-foot lanes. You'd have to take into consideration you're constricted over there by swales. And we actually did a site visit yesterday morning to take a look at it and widening it out to 24. You're going to make more of a speedway than you want. I mean, you want to make it more navigable widening it a little bit, but you don't want to also make it a drag strip as well, too, so 22 would be consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where would your utility easements go? Are they still in place on both sides of that roadway, or do they have Page 69 July 6, 2006 to be implemented, or do the utilities have to be moved? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We noticed their control pump station was on the south side, so there was a -- we recommend it be on the south side. You have to be a little creative. I don't know what's underground over there; that's why you'd have to have the natural design to look at it, and you'd want to tie it to something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the pump station you just mentioned and the swales that you also mentioned, where would your sidewalks go? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd have to possibly close the drainage or adjust the swales. Maybe even work with other people in the areas David is doing to seek some easements to accommodate some of those structure changes and swale changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that brings an interesting question with drainage. I know they're offering up some cubic footage. I like the idea of a distance from their property along Lakeview, they will take "X" amount of drainage from Lakeview to go so far eastward. Does that work better for transportation, or does cubic footage work better? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, you get into a problem of grades. Their control elevation and the level of the road, if you -- it's a quarter mile, roughly. So if you start saying take in "X" amount of the whole road in, how do you get the water there physically from, say, Lakeview at Bayshore all the way to the development for their control elevation area? It's almost impossible without raising the whole road. So I don't know, I would feel more strongly or better if you had an estimate based on some kind of design in elevation, some sort of drawing you could look at and say this is what it would take to do an improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the drainage part of it, as far as you're concerned, can't be resolved until the design is incorporated? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd have to look at it. You'd have to Page 70 July 6, 2006 have something out there that you could -- would be more tangible more than just, let's say, a site visit. So you'd have to look at what they're proposing for control elevation, what the elevation of the road is and where you would put the water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the elevation of Lakeview Drive is? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know that the elevations recommended for the interior of this parcel is 7.6 for the roads? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not aware of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what they're-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- one drainage section of A.I.S. indicates. Their calculations supplied to South Florida, I believe, that came out to 7.6. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd have to look at that. That's part of what I would recommend. If David wants to proceed forward and work to do a redevelopment in that area, it would take a financial contribution in that area. Those are the things I think should be looked at as part of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as far as today goes, pegging it to a financial contribution as recommended would be probably erroneous. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The 75,000 would be light, I would say. That's a light number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I may have -- I think I have a few more traffic issues. MR. CASALANGUIDA: From my notes, as Trinity just now pointed out to me, timing of improvements are also critical if you're going to have construction traffic going down that road. Once the development is up, going down that road, if the construction timing of what David Jackson ofCRA wants to do doesn't meet the completion of that, you may have a conflict as well, too. Page 71 July 6, 2006 And as Trinity pointed out, there might be children living on that road, that you want the sidewalks standard. And she pointed out that that's the way she felt about it as a staff person reviewing the pathway system, prior to taking a look at it as it's going up. If you want to elaborate on that? MS. SCOTT: I could. Trinity Caudill-Scott, Pathways Project Manager. My rational nexus behind the sidewalk -- and I understand what David's trying to do with the CRA -- is for them to come up with some sort of design and get the sidewalk in. Because if the roadway is going to be utilized for construction traffic, I want the sidewalk in before the first truck goes up that road. Because all of the children who live on Lakeview have to walk on that road right now to get to Avalon Elementary, as well as the bus stops at Bayshore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the question is not if. If this project gets approved today, the conditions imposed on a developer, by his agreement with the homeowner's association, requires that entrance to be used as construction traffic. They can't use the other one. MS. SCOTT: Then I would request that that sidewalk be in place prior to construction starting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, have you checked the lineal distance of that roadway, as I mentioned to you? MS. SCOTT: It's approximately 1,293 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do you know the value of the sidewalk, based on your LDC amendment coming up on the 19th? MS. SCOTT: Oh, those are the exact same costs that are in place right now, which is FDOT's cost estimates. It would be approximately 44,349.90. That is for a four-inch -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's pretty approximate. MS. SCOTT: -- thick concrete sidewalk with minor drainage Page 72 July 6, 2006 improvements. However, I was at the same site visit that Nick was at, and it is most likely better to put the sidewalk on the south side of the road due to a very elevated driveway on the north side of the road which would make accessibility virtually impossible. But then on the south side of the road there is a pump station and you have a lot of drainage to deal with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said on the south side, as though you're not including one for the north side as well, although it's been the standard of transportation, including the most recently Liberty Landing's Village up in Immokalee wanting road -- sidewalks on both sides of the road. MS. SCOTT: That was internal to their site, yes. And what is consistent with the Land Development Code is that they -- that we require the sidewalk on the side that they front. So it would fall back on the county responsibility to put the sidewalk on the other side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the kids that are in the neighborhood would have to -- on the north side of the street would have to cross the street to get to the sidewalk on the south side? MS. SCOTT: They would, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you looked at any traffic calming, or is that not your division? MS. SCOTT: In the same division, not my particular department. And I believe that from what we heard earlier today that when they look at the streetscaping, to look at some sort of traffic calming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Trinity. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, as far as overlay in the two foot, I know what it takes to put a road in. What do you estimate the cost for Page 73 July 6, 2006 that? Or have you any estimate internally? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would say you're probably close to doubling that 75,000, maybe going up to $200,000 to do that parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that going to affect any of the side slopes going into the swales on the side of the road so as we've got to amend your drainage to any substantial nature? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will. Again, part of that would depend on how well David can work with the neighborhood to accommodate that. It would have to be a public/private partnership with the CRA and the neighbors that live there. I mean, there's no way you're going to be able, if the neighbors say I don't want to play, that you can do that in that, say, 60-foot right-of-way. They're going to want to have their neighborhood improved, and they're going to have to work with the CRA to provide some easements maybe to accommodate sidewalks or the drainage swales. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Typically when people have homes around a residential street, even though it's a 60-foot right-of-way, they tend to move their design elements closer to the asphalt than was in the actual 60-foot right-of-way. Is that the case on this street? MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's a lot of landscaping closer to the street in other structures. So you'd have to work, again, with the neighborhood to get that done. That's the positive side of what David's trying to do. If you ask the developer to actually strictly do the improvement, you'll lose a little bit of that coordination. So while we could clean up the monetary amount, I think what David's trying to do does make sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if they're intending to put any utilities alongside Lakeview to service this particular development? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so I guess we can ask the applicant that. Page 74 July 6, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll follow up on a few more comments from your notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Schiffer mentioned about units disappearing with a certain amount of time. We're working with Joe's office. And one of the amendments I'm proposing actually ties in units into the TIS that they actually come to you with. So they'll see we're going to build 200 units in three years. They have those three years plus a couple years, a year or two afterwards to complete that, and after that time period any remaining units would just disappear off the books. So that's one of the amendments you'll see coming through in this cycle of the LDC to address that. I think you saw it already at the DSAC's upcoming meeting. And last but not least, construction traffic. We really didn't look at that in our initial review, understanding that they're not going to go through the front of Winds tar and they'll be coming down Lakeview. You may have issues with that with the neighborhood, I would imagine. They're going to be a little concerned about construction vehicles coming down Lakeview. I don't know of any agreements that you have between you and Windstar Development that you can have construction traffic on Windstar. I don't know if that's the case. But that's something that might want to be addressed. The turn lane, as you approach Lakeview off of Bayshore, cannot physically be constructed with the -- what we've discussed with Mr. Jackson is that site is in right now for SDP amendment, that we would work on softening the curve coming in maybe to a 50-foot radius to allow for, you know, an easier entrance onto Lakeview but not a full turn lane. Because right now it is kind of a tight radius and a tight turn for both construction vehicles and residential vehicles. I think that covers everything. If you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it does for me, Nick. Anybody Page 75 July 6, 2006 else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, the entrance drive into this thing off of the residential road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can see it there. There's a right-of-way that goes straight into the property, yet they're going to be turning off of that prior to the property line that would in essence be the eastern boundary of the canal? Are you comfortable with the way that's designed? My concern is would that put a lot of headlights on that first house? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're only looking at a drawing, but I'd say no. We drove it yesterday. The way that breaks off to the left as you come down Lakeview? You're not going to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm worried about the cars coming out, not going in. Is there something we should do maybe to help protect that house from -- there will be a lot more traffic than that house is used to. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. Coming out you may have lights coming into that house. That's something, based on the conceptual plan you have, we couldn't make that call. You could make a note of that, and when we actually review the actual site plan that comes in, I could take a look at that because I'll be reviewing that plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you look at it, they have like the driveway of that house. What would actually happen in reality, would you vacate that land for the house or would you -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No vacation is anticipated or would be required as part of this. I think they'd have to work with the existing pavement that's out there to accommodate that turn at that entrance. And that would be handled at the typically SDP review stage. Page 76 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, there is a concern that there are a lot of parts that -- you know, not so much this town but other towns where roads go straight and then they turn like that, and then people tend to keep going straight. So I guess we've had some cars in canals. So my fear is that this poor guy's going to get all these headlights and he's going to get some sort of a road structure with a bunch of reflective elements on it to prevent people running into the -- running off the end of the road. So anyway, that's something you'll be looking at at the SDP stage? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Nick? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Ray, do we have public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have six registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go into the public speakers, I had one question of Clay Booker (sic). Clay, just so there's no misunderstanding, do you have a restriction from using the main entrance of Windstar for construction traffic for this Fisherman's Cove project? MR. BROOKER: Yes, we have. The agreement calls for construction traffic to come down Lakeview Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a restriction from using Fern Street? MR. BROOKER: Not in our agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you could use the entrance to Fern Street into Windstar to bring your construction vehicles back up Page 77 July 6, 2006 to this location? MR. BROOKER: That would require the construction traffic to go through the interior of Windstar proper today, and I believe that was the reason why our agreement today requests the construction traffic to come down Lakeview, because the Windstar Master does not want the construction traffic to be going through the winding roads of Windstar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the reason I was asking is I want to understand, are they restricting you from using their main entrance or for all -- or just from generally using the roads within Windstar for construction? MR. BROOKER: It basically restricts us in terms of the construction traffic to -- or limits us to Lakeview Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you want -- by the way, the public speakers, you'd be limited to five minutes. Please, when you approach the podium, state your name for the record. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Ann Marie Shimer, to be followed by David Woodworth. MS. SHIMER: For the record, my name is Ann Marie Shimer. I am a Lakeview owner and I do have a small child. And I just want to say, there's a lot of things that I came to talk about that have been addressed by the County Commissioners. It sounds like you're taking it into consideration a lot. We do have a lot of small children that live on our road. And I have a one-year-old. And I think there's like a total of 10 that I can count on my hand right now of children that live on our street. Currently our street is very narrow, 18 feet wide, as you know. They're talking about expanding it to 22 feet. And you know, should it be 24, you know, as the county standard? Yes. Does that encroach and take into our front yard? Yes, it does. You know, we're not against development at all, because that's just the way Naples has become so beautiful to be. And I think that Page 78 July 6, 2006 taking into consideration a lot that you already have a lot of issues that I have thought about have already been addressed, and it sounds like you're taking it into a lot of consideration that's being taken place. Having the PUD actually put into Windstar I think is a great idea. I think it really takes away from our street, Lakeview, that still actually has a lot of development to go on it itself on the opposite, and a burden that really the Windstar people really should take into consideration, that if they're going to put that PUD into Windstar, why not have the whole thing into Windstar? If they want to have an exit point only for those residents to leave, you know, that should be fine, too. I mean, if they want that little area to be very exclusive, have it be a gated community with inside a gated community to achieve a higher dollar value or something. But to -- because it's my understanding at one of the meetings that all construction traffic, all deliveries from this point forward into Windstar must travel up and down that road. And, you know, that's a burden right now. I drive down the road. If a truck is coming to simply cut the lawn to my neighbor, we have to stop, navigate around each other just to get down. And that's -- we currently have -- if you guys did, whoever went and looked at the site, there are currently cones out on the street now to protect our kids from the current traffic in front of it. I don't know why I'm so emotional. Sorry. Usually I'm not. But there has been death of kids on our street currently in front of the house I live in. The kids were actually playing in their property. The cars traveling up and down the road actually struck and killed I think at least two kids, if not more, but two kids that's on record that have died on that street currently. I'm glad the development's taking place down at the end. They did get rid of the apartment complex that was there that maybe caused a lot of the traffic. So we're not against the development. We're just saying really, Page 79 July 6, 2006 please take into consideration on how we can divert some of this traffic. Seventy-two units being added is one thing, but adding not only 136, as they state, but the additional traffic then that can be brought in and out of Winds tar. And the fact that that's where all the clubhouse delivers are supposed to be coming through? I just don't think that's fair to that little street. I mean, we moved there with the intentions of having this nice, quiet little community and not to be the backyard or the back entrance to a large PUD such as Windstar. It's just not fair to the Lakeview residents. There's also a lot of traffic concerns. The right turn lane that's being talked about being brought in, there's another PUD that's -- or proposed site plan that's calling for 15 parking spaces along the north side of Lakeview at the entrance. I don't know if -- you guys probably know exactly what I'm talking about. But the marina's been brought out. That's going to be redeveloped. All the traffic's that's being brought into this new community, which is on the corner of Lakeview and Bayview, also needs to be taken into consideration. You know, a traffic light probably needs to be installed. Somebody needs to do these -- do a study to really kind of take into consideration. But these 15 parking spaces probably won't allow Lakeview to be widened, if this approval has already been granted, which I don't know if it has or has not. But this PUD, trying to incorporate what these folks want and for Lakeview, there's just not enough room to accommodate and make everybody's needs met, without reducing -- you know, somebody mentioned taking easements off of our property that is already small to begin with. You know, if there's another diversion. Somebody mentioned the road to the south of Lakeview that probably really could use a lot more redevelopment than our current street being used as maybe the main construction entrance. Page 80 July 6, 2006 And I also agree with the lady that got up here and spoke, the sidewalks have to be in place. Because the kids right now going up and down the street are in danger as it is, more of less, if you start with the vehicles, because that's just not good as it is. But if this also could be addressed with these 15 parking spaces, which back up the traffic onto Bayshore. Because when I come home, I drive down Bayshore to turn right into the line. If there's a truck unloading a boat into the marina or workers out there, I have to navigate through not only the store from the convenience store traffic coming out, but to actually have sometimes my car actually sit with the rear end on Bayview before I can actually -- Bayshore before I can actually get into go down my street to park. And then to put 15 more parking spaces in and then add another couple hundred people going up and down, I'm just really glad to see you guys are asking all the little detail questions to make sure that everything's going to be addressed. We're not against development on our street, but we just really want to make our neighborhood safe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MS. SHIMER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker, David Woodworth, followed by Mike Heiser. MR. WOODWORTH: For the record, my name is David Woodworth. I am against this joining of this property with Windstar. The main reason is this -- about over 10 years ago, when Fisherman's Cove was, you know, going to be developed, I came before the county commission and at that time they said that Fisherman's Cove, only 21 family -- single-family lots. They were going to require the developer to put a sidewalk down before they went ahead. And that was part of the development. Twenty-one units and we got a sidewalk. Page 81 July 6, 2006 Now the street is much worse than it was. We have Cricket Lake, which is now called Naples 71, is like 150 units there. We have a Gulf Shore Marina at the corner that's going to be redeveloped. And they probably are going to double the number of boats that are going to be there. And they're going to have on-street parking. Across the street from that is a convenience store. And for whatever reason, people -- even though there's an entrance to the convenience store on Bayshore, people don't use it. They drive down Lakeview and then turn into the convenience store. All right? Half of Lakeview is multi-family residential. Only about half of it has been developed. There's another 60 units that are going to go in there eventually. I mean, and we have like 60 units of habitable homes or apartments right now on Lakeview. You know, this is just -- this is overkill. You know, I mean, people are going to -- you know, I mean, whatever value we have in our homes are going to be reduced. And I don't know, who's going to compensate the homeowners for this degradation of their homes? I don't know. The way I look at it, we have like 265 units using that intersection right now. If you add Windstar to it, you could have 869 units of traffic generation. I mean, that's an awful lot of -- I mean, I have a single-family home, and for whatever reason we have more cars than we have people in the house, okay? Right now I have four vehicles, and there's only three people living there, okay? I don't know what the rest of the street does. But I mean, there's a lot of traffic on that street. Sometimes I have to wait two minutes just to make a left because of the cross traffic, the convenience store. And you don't know where the -- and Bayshore hasn't even been developed yet. Most of Bayshore is undeveloped. And where is the traffic going? I don't know. Because it dead ends on -- I own the last lot on Bayshore at the moment. It mean, it's just -- that's all I have to say. I'm against joining this. The developer Page 82 July 6, 2006 has a reasonable expectation to develop the property. He has that right. I want him to develop the property. But this is overkill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Mike Heiser. MR. HEISER: My name is Mike Heiser. I'm a resident on Lakeview Drive. I've got a letter here that was proposed by one of the men on the street. And I've got a -- it's been signed by several people. I would like to give this to the commissioners so you can read along, if that would be okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you give us anything, it will have to be retained for record. MR. HEISER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have multiple copies? MR. HEISER: Multiple copies, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be fine. If you'd mind providing one to us and -- each, as well as one to the court reporter, that would work. MR. HEISER: Okay. You can read along. I got stuck with this CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you'll have to hold off on your conversation till you get back to your mic. She can't take you. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is he going to read the letter? If he's going to read the letter, that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to be reading the letter? When the meeting's over, I'll provide you mine for the record. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, we'll read together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. HEISER: I got stuck with this. I've been a resident of Naples for about 30 years. We've been coming down here since 1953, Page 83 July 6, 2006 so I've seen a lot of changes over the years. And regarding the matter before the Planning Commission of Collier County as it pertains to the zoning of approximately 20 acres of land located at the end of Lakeview Drive, our position is as follows: We as a group ask the commission to turn down the request of the petitioner. Our position and understanding of this project as follows: We welcome the fact that development is occurring in our neighborhood and along Bayshore Drive. As with any development, it brings both positive and negative changes. The positive are increased property values, safe neighborhood, new businesses and amenities. The negative are increased traffic and lifestyle changes for long-time residents. Change is inevitable. Our community development association is doing a tremendous job in improving our area. We are in no way denying or imposing the type of development occurring on the 20 acres. We believe in property rights for all. The project has changed several times with the increase of density. The latest request requires that the property be added to the PUD of Winds tar, for the fact of obtaining unused building credits from the PUD, resulting in the building of a minimum of 135 units to a maximum of approximately 150 units. The current zoning, as we understand it, allows for approximately 72 units. Our position is that if that course is taken, the only entrance to Fisherman's Cove should be through Windstar. In other words, if it goes into Windstar's PUD, then everything should go through Windstar. But they want it both ways. They want Windstar to have all the amenities and everything, but they don't want any trash going through their place or any dirt or any mud or anything going through their place, but they still want all the money. And the same thing with the petitioners, they want to do what Page 84 July 6, 2006 Windstar wants because they don't want to ruffle some feathers, basically. At that point it's our decision not to want as to what gets built on the site (sic). In other words, if you let it go through the PUD and you give it to Windstar, we don't care if they build 5,000 homes back there, as long as it doesn't go down Lakeview Drive. That would be left up to the master plan of Winds tar. The petitioner's asked to have it both ways: Receive the benefit of Windstar PUD and the benefit of Lakeview access. The Lakeview access is needed because apparently Windstar does not want the additional traffic through their development either. The issue of interconnectivity of developments does not apply here because there will be an gate at the entrance from Lakeview. When we talked about interconnectivity, the only thing that was talked about was Fisherman's Cove and Windstar. What about the interconnectivity with us? Weare human beings, we do pay our taxes, and we've lived there for years and years. If we're not allowed to go through Windstar, I don't think Ann Marie can take her little baby, take her carriage and walk through Windstar through Lakeview Drive through the entrance into Fisherman Cove's. But Fisherman's Cove people can walk through our neighborhood if they want to. That's not interconnectivity in my book. Because of the fact that the only way for the increased zoning density is via the addition ofPUD, we find it necessary to research public records as to the method used to allow the expansion of Windstar PUD. Our research shows that on May 18th, 2004, OR3803, Pages 316 through 19, 21 (sic) an amendment to the PUD was drafted, giving the members, delegates of Windstar the authority to expand the PUD. Our research indicates the only way the PUD is to be expanded to is to have a 67 percent vote of the members of the PUD, the owners and their mortgagees vote of expansion. Reference to the original Page 85 July 6, 2006 PUD document, OR1805, Page 00132 through 134, Section 15.5 (sic), particularly B-1 0, thus putting into question the authority of the Windstar Master Association entering into a contract with 67 percent owner approval and mortgages. We ask the applicant to provide proof that proper procedures have been followed, granting authority of the Windstar association of directors to enter into an agreement amending the PUD. Regarding traffic concerns: It is uncommon for a development of this size to use residential streets as its access and egress. Weare aware of plans to widen the street and install sidewalks, and believe that they are mandatory. Widening the existing streets will, however, lead to an increased speed on Lakeview Drive. I have a business that I go all over town. It's a window business. I go into all the closed communities. And I can't think of one, one closed community in Naples that goes through a residential area. Not one. I've tried to think about it. And I've looked at all the ones I've gone through, and I've yet to figure out one that goes through a residence. They all go into a main entrance where they go through another entrance. Even Bonita Bay has 56 miles of road. The one that lives all the way down at the end has to have six miles to drive back onto the main road on 41. So this is unprecedented, if you would approve this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, just to remind you, you're running out of time. MR. HEISER: Well, I have 10 minutes because I'm reading for CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have 10 minutes if you represent an organization. I don't see any organization that you represent. MR. HEISER: Well, the organization are these 1 7 members on this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to submit that as evidence for us to consider. Page 86 July 6, 2006 MR. HEISER: Okay. We have reviewed the traffic impact -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, can I have that list, please? MR. HEISER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are any of these other people on that list that are going to be speaking today as well; do you know? The intent of giving 10 minutes to the lead speaker is that he's speaking for the organization, and that would expedite time of having each member of the organization just -- does stand up and have three or five minutes apiece. Out of concern that you are representing these people, it is not an organization but looks like it's homeowners on the street, 10 minutes is five. But I'm going to ask that if anybody else is on this list, to limit their discussions and not being redundant to the items you've already covered, okay? MR. HEISER: Sure. Thank you. We have reviewed the traffic impact statement -- I'm going to kind of pass that, because they've already done a good job of doing that. The conclusion is based on the assumption that no traffic on Windstar shall use Lakeview Drive. To our knowledge there is not anything that would prevent Windstar residents of leaving north side -- once again, we see the negative impact of development. Secondly, on Page 1, the report recommends a southbound turn. That's already been taken care of. Let's go here: We question the reasoning behind the zoning change. There is no proof of any hardship on behalf of the petitioner. The property with its current zoning is a viable project. There have been issued raised that because of changing market conditions, the need to increase density would be required to make it a feasible proj ect. We would argue that this is not the responsibility of the government to make zoning changes based on whether a developer Page 87 July 6, 2006 makes a profit or not. But for the sake of discussion, we would like to illustrate the point. At the current 75 units, just what's currently allowed right now, which is actually 72 units, we estimate the project would yield a profit of approximately $24 million. Land cost, two million; permits and impact fees, two million; site work, three million; building costs, $17 million, based on 75 units, 1,500 square feet at $150 per square foot. Sale price of units would be $48,750,000, based on a price of $650,000 per unit. Not bad, 50 percent investment on your money. Preliminary plans for the development at one time showed a mixture of one-story villas, two-story buildings with a gradual lowering in density moving towards a single-family residential homes on Lakeview. We believe -- what we believe is being opposed (sic) are nearly 60- foot tall buildings. These would be as tall or taller than any other buildings in Windstar. Typically planning generally places the tallest buildings and the most density away from the single-family homes. This development does the exact opposite. It goes from single-family homes to the tallest buildings to Windstar. So it's exactly doing the exact opposite. In conclusion, the zoning change has no legal merit or need, it offers no benefit to the neighborhood, specifically benefiting only the petitioner and the amounts -- and amounts to nothing more than spot zoning that relies on loopholes in the zoning code governing Windstar's PUD. The zoning change, if approved, would place undue hardship on the residents of Lakeview Drive in the form of decreased property value and quality of life. We thank you for an opportunity to address this concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there's a question? Page 88 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're referencing an ordinance that requires a vote to amend the thing. Is that a county ordinance? Or what is -- what is OR3803? MR. HEISER: I didn't write this letter. It was done by Rich, and he had to go out of town. About half the people are out of town, so we really couldn't address this. But I'm just -- where is that at, OR3803? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Your fourth -- Margie may have that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I can tell you that we would not have an ordinance that governs how a private condominium association is to operate. I would suspect that that's part of their covenants, that typically covenants are recorded. And I think what might be well is to have the attorney for the association -- Mr. Brooker I believe represents them too -- to represent on the record that proper procedures were followed. MR. HEISER: Yeah, what it basically means is that this was done at Windstar's meetings. And this has got to do with them. As far as they made an agreement with the petitioner that they could do this. And part of the agreement was that they could -- it would never go through Windstar or anything. There was a lot of stuff going on behind the doors here, you know, that we're not -- that you all aren't hearing. And it all has to do with Windstar's deal with the petitioners. And they're not taking into account -- all the questions he answered were kind of fuzzy math. Like the amount of density. I mean, he's got -- any way you cut it, there's 20 acres here. He's going to put 150 to -- and he could possibly put 182 on this thing, like the lady was saying. This is not a done deal. So all this stuff is just fictional. They're just saying they might do this. They started out at 75 units. Now it's 137. They in truth could build 182 units on this, and there's nothing Page 89 July 6, 2006 they can do about it, because Windstar's in bed with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have to see how that comes out after the meeting today. Thank you, sir. MR. HEISER: Thank you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The other thing I wanted to put on the record, if that's part of private covenants, the county doesn't enforce those, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, the next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Desiree Kuri. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: She's not here. She left. MR. BELLOWS: John Cochrane. MR. COCHRANE: Good morning. It's still morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, sir. MR. COCHRANE: John Cochrane, resident of Winds tar. 3660 Haldeman Creek Drive, Naples, Florida. Eighteen years on that spot. We built the place. I've been in Naples over 40 years, and it is with some reluctance that I point out the infirmities -- and I have three points to make -- the infirmities of the procedures followed to ascertain whether or not this PUD is going to be merged into Windstar PUD. First, I would like to correct something Mr. Brooker said about the plat that shows the road from Haldeman Creek Drive, which now ends in a cul-de-sac. There was a very acrimonious lawsuit over that entrance. And the court held that Mr. Sheehan, who originally owned the property, asserted that he had an easement that allowed him to make a connection with Windstar. Between the end of the street at the present time and Lakeview, there's a golf course -- it's the 16th hole, I believe, of Windstar. So in order to make any kind of a connection, you'd have to cut across the golf course. The referenced document is the amended and restated master Page 90 July 6, 2006 declaration. As we all are aware, Florida law governs first, then in the PUD it's the declaration, and then it is the bylaws of the association. It is quite correct that the requirements of the amended restated master declaration of covenants, conditions and restriction for Windstar were not followed in order to get the permission to enter a contract with the -- the Lakeview Drive of Naples LLC is the proper name. The amendments are required -- are stated at Page 40 and 41 of Book 1805, OR Book 180500132. Requires 67 percent of the unit owners and mortgagees to acquiesce any expansion, contraction or major change in the Windstar development. Such was not done. What was done was that a contract was entered into with the developer and that contract was finalized on the 2nd of April. Subsequent to that, on the 18th of May, a meeting was held in which the Windstar master declaration was purported to be amended by the vote of the delegates of the individual pods of Windstar, which -- for instance, I live in North Star on Haldeman Creek Road. We have two delegates under the bylaws, but not the master association. The board has no power to amend, modify or change this amended restated master declaration without the vote of 67 percent of the unit owners and the mortgagees. The 2005 amendments, which are recorded and you will see and that is recorded at OR3803, Page 3619, it says, the following resolution was adopted by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the owners entitled to vote, brackets, members delegate. That's not true that two-thirds of the members, unit owners voted for it. And what they voted for was not the current representation. A representation was made. I was there. It had individual unit homes, it had other -- much larger units other than these 1,000 square foot boxes they propose to build at the present time. Further, the contract that was -- and it's a private contract Page 91 July 6, 2006 between Windstar and Lakeview Drive of Naples. I don't know if I'm free to -- I have a copy that will -- and I have some reluctance to say other than the Lakeview Drive of Naples paid a significant sum of money to buy the 90 some unused developments. They just bought that. And then entered into the contract with all the provisions, restrictions and so forth that are in there. The discussions about the entrance is quite correct, that it restricts the entrance of construction vehicles to the Lakeview entrance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, just to remind you, you're using up your time, so we need to wrap it up. Okay? MR. COCHRANE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. COCHRANE: I will be 30 seconds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. COCHRANE: The board -- and I'm a member of a board here in the State of Florida -- should require that all of the facts be presented to it relative to the contract, how it was negotiated, and whether or not legally it is possible to put this PUD -- Lakeview into Windstar PUD. There is legal infirmities, in my opinion, and I've been practicing law for 50 years. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, maybe this isn't pertinent to this hearing alone, but if your assertions about it -- have you sought injunction? MR. COCHRANE: No. Why start injunction? Because it hasn't been approved yet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So in other words, remedy after the fact. MR. COCHRANE: All I'm trying to do is present to this board the facts. We can't change the facts, we have to live with them. I've Page 92 July 6, 2006 learned that in 50 years of practice in law. And this board should enlighten itself as to what the facts are. And I'm trying to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. COCHRANE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, before you call the next speaker, one item I'd like to clarify. I do have a -- I downloaded a copy of the plat. The plat does show a road easement through the area of the golf course the gentleman just talked about, and shows the cul-de-sac at the end of the current Haldeman Creek Drive as a temporary turnaround easement to be automatically vacated upon continuation of the street. So just so the record's clear, the plan does show it going to the -- MR. COCHRANE: But the lawsuit says no, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use the speaker. MR. COCHRANE: It makes a reference to the lawsuit, and answer the question Huntington Bank -- if I just may have a moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a corrected plat as a result of the lawsuit? MR. COCHRANE: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COCHRANE: The lawsuit was brought, and to answer your question, by WS Realty, Inc., which was the real estate arm of Windstar Master Association. Huntington Bank controlled Windstar Master Association at that time. The bank, Huntington Bank, was W indstar. They turned it over in 1998 by agreement to the current association. WS Realty may still be in existence, I don't know that. The circuit court -- it was filed July 26th, and it was -- 1998. And it reads as follows: On July 12th, this matter was called to trial. The Court, having heard the evidence presented relative to determination of the existence of an easement, hereby finds there's no easement in favor of defendant, there's no easement in favor of the Page 93 July 6, 2006 property owned by Fisherman's Cove Joint Venture that would allow access over through the contiguous properties owned by WS Realty or the planned unit development known as Windstar, Naples Bay. Therefore, plaintiffs request that declaratory relief is granted. Defendant's request for declaratory relief is denied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. COCHRANE: You're welcome. MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker is William A. Bernie. MR. BERNIE: For the record, my name is Bill Bernie. I'm a property owner in Windstar, and that will be my retirement home. And most of my concerns have been mentioned. I just want to reiterate the facts that this was done by the master association group, which is a very small group in the name of all the communities within Windstar. To my knowledge, and certainly not to me personally, did they ever present to us the facts or receive an opinion from us as to what they were doing. A large number of people were very unhappy with the whole process. And my concern is that this will change a very wonderful community and basically ruin it for a large number of us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, is that the last public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: That's the last one I have registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clay, you wanted some time to rebut? MR. BROOKER: Yes, please. WS Realty -- Clay Brooker for the record. WS Realty, Inc. is dissolved. It's inactive. As far as the infirmities of a private agreement, I do not represent the master association. If there are problems that occurred internal to the master association and violations of their declaration, we never even looked at their declaration. We simply were two parties, we approached the master association with an idea that the agreements Page 94 July 6, 2006 that you have seen were negotiated, and we signed. Whether there are infirmities and a private agreement on one side, based upon a declaration, I don't believe is relevant to these proceedings. County can't get into private agreements, and we are unaware of them. The plat, I believe Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Strain has mentioned the plat does in fact show the roadway terminating at the north/south boundary or the abutting boundary line between the two properties. With regard to the lawsuit, it sounds like -- although I have not reviewed those records, it sounds as if the Fisherman's Cove property owner at that point in time was demanding access through this platted right-of-way that terminates at the property line. The plat reads that those are -- those road right-of-ways -- rights-of-way are dedicated to the master association. So it sounds like this was an attempt by the predecessor owner of the subject 20.5 acres to impose himself, declaring that he has rights to use that easement, that platted road right-of-way, when the court found he did not. That is not the case here because of the private agreement we have with the master association, the cross-access. They can come across our property, we can go across theirs. So I don't believe that lawsuit really is relevant to today's discussion. The master association is in favor of this petition. There was a letter of support written by the president of the master association, delivered to county staff and should be part of the public record. We've heard comments about the height. I'd like to remind the commission that again, this is, as it sits today, is an RMF residential multi-family zoned property. The height permitted in RMF is 35 feet today . We are asking for 40 feet with the 50-foot cap that we discussed earlier during the primary presentation. What we've done is we've run some line of sight drawings. And what I'd like to do is, if you see the red arrows on this -- on the ELMO projector, the one to the furthest left is number three, but the middle Page 95 July 6, 2006 one is number one, and to the right or to the north is number two. The view from number one I want to show first. We call this I-A. This is a view -- oh, no. All I did was click the little arrow. Okay, thanks. This is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're computer illiterate, aren't you? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That makes two of us. MR. BROOKER: Like my father, I freeze up when things like that happen. This is a view looking west from across the canal, where number one was shown on the previous view. The distance from a person standing in the backyard across the canal to the point of the building where it is proposed today is 191 feet. You can see the difference between 35 and 40 feet. And I guess I might state that you hardly can see the difference. The line of sight is going to be negligible between 35 and 40 zoned feet of height. This is what I'll callI-B. There's nothing to stop us from placing a property along the east side of our property. This actually shows buildings -- or a proposed structure, maybe one or two floors, certainly less than 35 feet which we're permitted to do today without any public hearings, and you can see that if we built to the height that is permitted today, it would have a much more adverse impact in terms of line of sight view from the property owner to the east across the canal. Number two: This is the line of sight from the homeowner or the area to the north of the project, looking across that canal to the north onto our buildings. Again, a comparison of what is permitted today versus what we are asking for, negligible. And finally, with regard to the line of sight from number three, which is in existing Windstar, I believe that's the Spinnaker Point neighborhood. This would be looking to the east. The distance actually looks across a fairway. Is approximately 275 feet away. Page 96 July 6, 2006 Again, there is shown the negligible difference between 35 and 40 feet. What is permitted today versus what we are asking for. The point of these drawings is simply to perhaps counter any what we believe is unsupported fear that the heights that we're proposing are something that's out of the norm of acceptability when we can do something that will have a negligible difference today in terms of the current zoning. I wanted to point out any confusion that may have arisen. I believe a statement was made by one of the public speakers that every delivery truck would be using Lakeview Drive. That's not true. What the agreement we have with the master association requires is that construction vehicles are required to use Lakeview Drive. Residents, guests and deliveries may use Lakeview Drive, they may use Fern, they may use the main. But there's no requirement that they use that. And we -- they use Lakeview. And we happen to believe, with respect to deliveries, delivery trucks may be more likely to go through the main gate entrance where there's a manned person who can explain where certain properties are, or just a more formalized process than a video camera. The sidewalk and widening of Lakeview Drive: We have no objection to the installation of a sidewalk prior to even construction activity. We would prefer, however, that we're not the ones who actually do the construction. And the reason for that is we've heard today that there is -- I believe it's a 60-foot platted right-of-way. Lakeview Drive is a 60- foot drive platted right-of-way. There are many encroachments into that platted right-of-way. Right now the asphalt is approximately 18 feet wide. People have their mailboxes, people have landscaping, people have parked their cars within the public platted right-of-way. If you force us to start mowing back what people have, it's just going to create even a worse situation. We are willing to pay for it, the sidewalk, but we would prefer Page 97 July 6, 2006 not to have to construct it, because of the issues that are going to arise with the neighbors and the neighborhood. We're not saying that those __ we're not belittling those issues in any way, but it becomes, we believe, the county's responsibility to move people out of the way, out of a public right-of-way if they have squatted on it, so to speak. It's not theirs. But to put us -- put that burden on us I believe would be unfair under the circumstances. We'll pay for it. We have no objection to the sidewalk being built prior to construction activity, but we don't want to have to do the construction for those reasons. And with that, I think I am finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, I've got a problem here myself on this. Are these buildings that are being built, are going to be built, bigger or higher than any were on -- before you purchased this platted (phonetic) equipment? In other words, are there any 50- foot high buildings there now? MR. BROOKER: On the 20.5 acres? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. MR. BROOKER: No. There are no buildings on it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But in the whole condominium -- that condominium association, are there any buildings over 50 feet? MR. BROOKER: In you mean Windstar Master Association? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. BROOKER: I'm not sure as far as height. I think I represented earlier that there may be one or two other neighborhoods that have three levels over one level of parking. I was told by someone in the audience that there may be three stories is the highest inside of Windstar now. But-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The only thing I'm trying to bring out is I have been involved with this, and I'm in fact now the Page 98 July 6, 2006 vice president in our association. If we want to change something that has not been done before, a vote of the owners is required. And now we're sitting in a situation here where if in fact this is something new, I would think that you may find yourself in a position where the owners have a right to vote, and usually that's 65 percent before you could have a right to build it. Now, you may own the land and you may have a situation there, but to go over this without their right to justify it, I think you've got a major problem. MR. BROOKER: We are not changing what is permitted inside of Windstar at all. So every neighborhood inside of the existing Windstar can build and have been able to build since 1981 40 feet high zoned height and three levels over one level of parking. Whether those individual neighborhoods took advantage of that, that provision -- but we would not be proposing anything that's contrary to the zoning code. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's why I asked you the question. Because if in fact that is the fact, that does take away the problem. But if there's something new here that's going in, then the owners have a responsibility and a right to verify the fact that they want it or they don't want it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, I'll just make a remark about the visuals that you put up there. The heights were 40 feet, and we really are talking about 50 and we're not even sure whether that was FEMA. But I want to ask a question about that. What happened to the $75,000 then on this matter of construction having to do with sidewalk and the associated road improvements, including what appears that there may be any number of little pieces and bits that as a result of this activity, the county will have to look at pump station changes and whatever else. Is the developer open to providing funding for all of that as a direct result of its effort to improve the property, or do you wish to still stay with $75,000? Page 99 July 6, 2006 MR. BROOKER: I think we are willing to accept a reasonable number. Whether that -- you know, that is not going to include pump stations being installed and a vast -- you know, a vast array of different water management controls, whatever they may be. But what we have committed to do is to pay for the sidewalk and the widening. We understand, although the $75,000 number was in fact the number given to me, I stand by that, Nick. But I understand-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you hear that buzz, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Are you kicking me again? MR. BROOKER: I understand if the number may be reasonably higher, then we are willing to consider a higher number. But it's got to be -- it's not -- there's got to be a ceiling to it. Whatever is a reasonable number is a reasonable number, but that's the question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I wouldn't disagree with you or argue with you, except to say that if, in the course of preparing to build vertically you find out -- the developer finds out that the cost of materials and labor have risen, he will have to bear those costs. And if you intend to develop a property, inconveniencing other individuals because of the fact that you're going to bring more density in there and you have to change some things to facilitate your ingress and egress, and also to benefit the other parties, I think that has to be a consequence of it and not a willing to consider. It would seem to me you would need to make a very strong commitment to what is required. And I would think that would be a very important -- MR. BROOKER: And the point well taken is we're not considering whether to make a commitment. Weare committing to our fair share. The CRA's involved. They're going to have their plans. Whatever our fair share is for Lakeview Drive, that's what we -- the elements of it, you saw the widening of the sidewalk, that was determined by the CRA and the Collier County staff to be our fair share, whatever that reasonable cost is now. I understand that. But we are committed to pay our fair share of the consequence of our Page 100 July 6, 2006 development. It becomes a question of what is that fair share. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well-- or what are the consequences I think is even the broader question, which Nick might be able to embellish on. But I don't know that that's necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Court Reporter, we probably are going to be a little more time to finish up discussion, deliberations and finishing questions. I don't see us taking a lunch break, but if you need a break we can stop for 10 minutes and then continue back. What would you like? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm fine to keep going. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And I assume the rest of the commission, that's okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, you had a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: First is a comment and that is that I would agree with Commissioner Murray, that your line of sight drawings would have been a lot more effective had they actually been to actual height, which is closer to 50 feet, which is what you want. Secondly, I do -- MR. BROOKER: They are at actual height. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, not actual height. They are zoned height. MR. BROOKER: Yes. So this is what is actually going to be seen from a person standing, what I showed you. The 395 and 40 feet of zoned height will equate to approximately 50 feet of actual height. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. It was brought to the our attention the issue of the master association potentially not having done what they are supposed to do. I understand that that is not your responsibility. However, now that it's been brought to your attention, is this something that you would be willing to resolve before you go before the BCC? MR. BROOKER: I will be certainly asking the appropriate Page 101 July 6, 2006 questions, because this is news to me today. However, resolve? I don't know what that means. But we entered into the private agreement with the master association in good faith and we hope they have the authority to do so. Weare not going to be pleased if they didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Clay? Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I just want to be clear in my own mind, anyways, that right now you can go in there and you could put in 75 units, not do anything to the road, and you can access Lakeview Drive today if you wanted to? MR. BROOKER: That is 99 percent correct. The approval to go in there that's already sitting there on the books today does require a sidewalk. So we would be -- in that circumstance, we would be responsible for a sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Clay, in your line of sight drawings, you actually brought out a problem, is that according to this thing you could build an accessory building 10 feet from a bulkhead, there's a 20- foot setback for the principal building from waterways. I mean, the way it's worded, it's lake setback from 3.5 feet. Would you have a problem to adding a restriction to be 25 feet off the bulkhead? Essentially what they would be is what the people across the canal would have to build. And your plan doesn't show anything where that would be a problem. The concern is ifhe sells it tomorrow, a new developer could be coming in and putting houses really -- or multi-family units really close to that waterway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You betcha. MR. BROOKER: Unfortunately the person I have to look to for that permission is looking the other way. But can you define to me what you're referring to as the bulkhead? Is that the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you'd have to go -- go to Page 102 July 6, 2006 your development standards, and there's setback from waterways that are mentioned. I mean, I know these are canals, but would somebody consider them lakes? Or if they're not lakes, then we need to write a new chapter here, or a new line. I mean, I'm looking at your site plan. But this wouldn't affect your site plan at all, so it's a moot point -- MR. BROOKER: I know that for a fact. But whether they're willing to agree to that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the problem is that if you decided to change this site plan, you could really do something miserable across the back yards of these people's property. MR. BROOKER: Well, I know for example the RMF setback for a rear yard that would be applicable under today's zoning code is 20 feet, exactly what it is in this PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty feet from a waterway? MR. BROOKER: I believe so, yes. From the canal. What would be the rear yard of a building that's built on the east side of this 20.5 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe I can get staff to verify that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have the zoning information. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me see if Bob has the zonIng. MR. BROOKER: If this helps, we will stipulate to that. I just learned that 25 feet -- if you want to require 25 feet off the eastern boundary bulkhead -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. BROOKER: -- so if this gets denied, that -- well, if this gets approved, it will with be 25 feet off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it gets denied, we're back to go. Page 103 July 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that answer your question, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, 25 feet would be great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Clay? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple. Clay, I think I asked you earlier if the common area maintenance for this, for your roads and everything else, will be under the master homeowner's association. Yes it-- , MR. BROOKER: Yes, it will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She can't hear your head, so -- MR. BROOKER: Yes. See, I usually give that directional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you do, and that's why I figured I'd turn the tables on you. MR. BROOKER: Can I throw a bunch ofuh-huhs or uh-uhs in there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean that they have cross-easements to utilize for your roadway for maintenance and traffic and what -- MR. BROOKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Control of the entrance gates also lies in the offices of the homeowner's association when this is finished? MR. BROOKER: That's correct. And after we install it, we pay for the installation of this entryway structure, whatever it is, from what I understand it will be minor. Then maintenance of it turns over to the master association, of which we will be part and will pay our fair share. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have -- when you bought this property and you cut the agreement with the current homeowner's association, they were astute enough to make sure they had in their Page 104 July 6, 2006 agreement restrictions against you, restrictions against you bringing construction traffic in through the main, disturbing the rest of their neighborhoods. Once you're constructed, do you know if there's any restrictions to protect your residents and your 20 acres from any remodeling, rebuilding or reconstructing within the community of Windstar that would force everybody to go through your winding streets in your neighborhoods? MR. BROOKER: I'm not aware of any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's no reason then that Windstar, in their infinite wisdom, in the homeowner's association, being people that'd like certainly to have a more refined community can limit all construction traffic forever and into the future to go through their secondary entrance off of Lakeview Drive? MR. BROOKER: I guess they could do that after a vote, whatever was required under their processes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But since you don't have any restrictions for that to protect your own clients, basically they can do that to you? MR. BROOKER: Right. And we might have been taken advantage of if that occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now, based on that statement, based on the fact that the traffic issues that have risen today, you don't have sidewalk designs in place, you don't have street improvements known, you don't have traffic calming devices shown, you don't have landscaping shown for the street, you don't have a drainage solution for the street, so we don't know how to get to the total contributions. That's a big question, probably going to have a major impact on this committee, and certainly a major impact on the neighborhood. The buffers that were shown or your artistic rendering are greater, apparently, in view than they may be in the land development code, although there's been no sound advice offered on how to correct Page 105 July 6, 2006 that problem. The BMP practices that you voluntarily decided to provide to be consistent with the Land Development Code in Policy 222, however, in your EIS don't show up anywhere. Something needs to be done about that. And the land plan that you presented today is not one that seems to be incorporated in any official document in regards to the PUD. Those are a lot of discrepancies that may not bode well in our deliberations. I'm suggesting to you, you may want to think of a way to address that before we go into them and cast a vote. MR. BROOKER: Well, I can tell you with regard to the widening -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was thinking more ofa continuance as others have done to work out their differences with the neighborhood and their obvious problems with their planning. But that's strictly up to you. I'm throwing it on the table. Otherwise, if you don't have any other comments, we will close the public hearing and go into discussion. MR. BROOKER: Can you give me a couple of minutes to talk to my client? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BROOKER: Maybe I can cover some of those things. I didn't list them off. You're very good at rattling off lists. We will commit to no more than 137 units on this 20.52 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't on my list. MR. BROOKER: Sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't on my list. MR. BROOKER: Well, in terms of what this site plan can look like, that is going to -- that will limit what we can do in terms of their comments about 180 units could possibly be built on this property. We will stipulate that that isn't a possibility by limiting it at 137 units. Secondly, we will agree to $200,000 total payment. That Page 106 July 6, 2006 $200,000 is broken up into the construction of the sidewalk and the widening of Lakeview Drive. The construction of the sidewalk will occur prior to any construction activity, construction traffic using the roadway, and will be done under the CRA's guidance, but perhaps jointly. We will help construct the sidewalk, but it will be done under the CRA's umbrella. The -- as far as water management goes, it's impossible for us to give any more detail than what we discussed today because of two things: It depends on what the CRA's ultimate plans are for streetscaping of Lakeview Drive, and depends upon South Florida Water Management District. Does that help you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You keep referring back to sidewalks and street improvements, and I'm sure you're referring to the width of the street. There are other issues involving the street: Traffic calming, landscaping elements that are yet to be determined. And those, I don't know how you can address those today. And then the 50-foot radius on Bayview and Lakeview was also brought to our attention by transportation staff as something that was needed as well. I didn't hear you address any of those. MR. BROOKER: The 50-foot radius what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick had recommended that in lieu of a right turn lane that seems to be impractical in that location, that the radius at Bayview and Lakeview be increased to provide a 50-foot radius for better turning movements of large vehicles. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We discussed that with David Jackson. They don't control that parcel, and that parcel's in for redevelopment right now. That's something that staff would look at at the SDP stage of that parcel when it comes in for redevelopment. They would ask them to modify and soften that curve, but it couldn't be done as part of this development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you clarified it. Thank you. Page 107 July 6, 2006 Was there anything else you wanted to address then before we -- MR. BROOKER: Can you go through your list again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had mentioned the traffic, all of which you have not addressed. I mentioned the buffers that the staff had recommended, there be more buffer material or quantities added. I had mentioned the BMP practices references that are in your EIS not being incorporated anywhere. I am concerned, as I told you, about the homeowner's association of Windstar providing -- demanding and changing that that be their major construction entrance for all the project, period, and not finding any evidence in your purchase of that property to protect your residents, thus protecting the fact that that may not happen on Lakeview then. And the land plan, something needs to be locked in. I know what you just discussed, limiting it to density. That doesn't lock in a land plan. That just says you can have 137 units any which way that can fit on that plan. MR. BROOKER: The -- we'll lock in the site plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that helps. MR. BROOKER: Best management practices, we have no objection. It would be addressed at the SDP or it can inserted into the PUD; either way it's going to be required of us. We have no objection to that. The buffer, all I heard from staff, if I recall correctly, was twice everything. Twice the density and twice the height. I think the height now, you're getting into pretty tall trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They backed off the height. MR. BROOKER: They backed off the height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. She realized that may be impractical. MR. BROOKER: We will agree to twice the quantity -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of material? Page 108 July 6, 2006 MR. BROOKER: -- of the required buffer. I believe it's a type A buffer that's required. We will-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's pretty barren. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BROOKER: Does that cover your list? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You responded to my concerns. Some of them. MR. BROOKER: Sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You responded to some of the concerns, I suppose, yes. MR. BROOKER: I'm sorry for not paying attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. Thank you. Anything else you want to add before -- MR. BROOKER: I've been advised that David Jackson from the CRA is here and he may have some comments you'd like to hear from the CRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is he registered as a public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: No, he is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe wants to speak, we're here to listen, but I don't have any questions of Mr. Jackson. Does anybody in this meeting? No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question, Mark. That list you made, is that going to be the list that you would attach to a motion, or can we discuss other items? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that is a small list. I have a large list. MR. BROOKER: I'm also told that there's someone here from the master association that can address some of these issues. I understand that the public hearing has been closed, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it has not been closed. I'm holding off closing it to finish the conversations. If you want to introduce somebody on your team to talk on your behalf, you're more than Page 109 July 6, 2006 welcome to. I don't have any questions of anybody at this time. The homeowner's association's relationship with you is a private matter, not a planning commission matter. MR. BROOKER: Well, I mean, I guess they're not my -- it's not __ David Jackson is not part of our team. He is executive director, I believe, of the CRA, a county agency. So I can't invite him as part of my team. I'm told he has some information that you would like to hear. Secondly, I would invite -- someone from the master association I understand is here. If they would fill out the appropriate form and speak, maybe they will do so, but I can't force them to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for David Jackson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then fine, Mr. Jackson, ifhe's available. Before we go too far, Ms. Court reporter, this is probably going to last longer than I previously committed to with you. Are you going to be okay for a while or do you want to break before we get into too THE COURT REPORTER: Do you have any idea how much longer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably 30 more minutes. THE COURT REPORTER: Let's keep going. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Dave, by -- THE COURT REPORTER: Have you been sworn? MR. JACKSON: No, ma'am. (The speaker was duly sworn.) MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, Executive Director of Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. My only input here is Mr. Chairman, you're -- two of the three things that you mentioned to Mr. Brooker about Lakeview Drive. You Page 110 July 6, 2006 said trees, streetscape, et cetera. Those items are going to be covered by the CRA, and it was always the plan of the CRA to do any street trees, irrigation, plantings, streetlights. And this was all going to be part of that neighborhood information meeting that comes with the neighborhood property owners coming in putting it together. Sidewalk, widening of the street, you've already addressed that with stormwater with the team that's presented to you today. So concerning the design of the street, we will include, as the neighborhood wishes, street trees, irrigation, plantings and streetlights as in the part of the design and put it all together in one package. So that part of it will be part of the CRA. And there's also another agency, and there is an MSTU, municipal service taxing unit, that all the people pay tax into for beautification that will also be a part of this, and they on record of participating also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question came about as a result of your letter. And the first, number one, says, CRAlBayshore MSTU work jointly to design and install Lakeview Drive residential streetscape with a monetary assistance from the developer impacting Lakeview Drive. And I've been trying to understand where the monetary assistance comes in. Because there's been nothing pledged. Your statement says it's going to be done pursuant to a residential streetscape that does not yet exist. So rather than have something in the future, a pie-in-the-sky maybe that you don't see, I'm just trying to peg a number to it. MR. JACKSON: And I think the developer's come forward with a number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he came forward with $200,000 for sidewalks and a street widening specifically only. He's said that -- he has said that every time we've asked him the question. So it doesn't go beyond that. Trees are not street widening, neither is a sidewalk. Page 111 July 6, 2006 MR. JACKSON: Okay. May I clarify for you very clearly, the trees, the irrigation, the plantings and the light poles, that monetary portion we will be borne by the Collier County /Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA, and the Bayshore Avalon MSTU. This is a three-way monetary partnership to improve the street, along with the people that own property along that street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the developer -- you're not expecting then the developer to assist in the residential streetscape, as noted in number one on your letter? MR. JACKSON: The design work will be paid by the CRA for the streetscape portion of it. The trees, the lights, irrigation and the plantings. They're going to help with the engineering and the design of the sidewalk and installation and the widening of the road, as approved. Three-way partnership, which includes monitary, engineering, landscape architect, design and installation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Theirs will not be for landscaping, though, it will be for sidewalk and the street widening. Is that what you understood? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. I thought I was pretty clear on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your letter wasn't. You may have been, but your letter wasn't. So any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have a question. David, the concern I have is that this street's going to be pretty intense. I mean, your letter says it's going to be 2,000 trucks just involved in the spoil removal, the construction of this thing. And then you're not going to start building the sidewalks essentially two years from now. What do you think we can do in the meantime to keep it safe for the kids and stuff? MR. JACKSON: When this letter was drafted and submitted to Ms. Deselem in May, it was based on the information that was at hand. There's a lot more information that's come forward since that Page 112 July 6, 2006 time and here at this meeting. The impacts we do know is from the Haldeman Creek dredging, that there's going to be a lot of trucks going in and out of there on impact. And plus whatever construction material that comes in on -- I was just trying to set the background that there's going to be a lot of wear and tear on the road and a lot of impact from the development if approved on that street. And we wanted to improve it afterwards. Now, if there is a requirement and a need for the sidewalk to go in after the Haldeman Creek dredge material is finished and before they start construction, well, then we can try to accommodate that as soon as the design is completed and approved. Does that help? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And your design would be -- you have a January, February, 2007. MR. JACKSON: Those were all conceptual based on May 24 information that I had then. I mean, there's a certain amount -- you're an architect, you understand -- there's a certain amount of time to one, get your permit, to get the concept, to get the neighborhood information meeting, to get that to the designer and actually design it and then go to construction documents, then bid it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But my concern is I don't want to throw a sidewalk in that we tear up with a better design. MR. JACKSON: I am 100 percent behind that. And that is why I was suggesting and recommending strongly that there be one agency in control of the entire project instead of a developer coming in and then our landscape architect and then there's a transportation highway guy coming and none of it is coordinated. And can you imagine the uproar from the people who live on the street? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is, is there anything short-term you can imagine we could do to protect -- in other words, this street has no sidewalk, has a narrow lane. You're totally Page 113 July 6, 2006 right, though, let's not fix it up until all that wears off of it. But in the meantime, she testified right, kids are getting killed on that street. Is there something we can do to make that street safer in the meantime? Because it's going to have more intensity than it's had before, and it's proven dangerous before. MR. JACKSON: There isn't anything that I can physically do, and I don't think any amount of money that you would throw at that street right now will make it any safer until it is designed and improved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the thought is can we just put a crushed stone sidewalk, something that wouldn't be in the way of any improvement? Just something to take the kids off the edge of the payment. MR. JACKSON: Well, I mean, which side do you put it on? And which side do the kids cross to get onto that sidewalk? I mean, I don't think there is a solution to it right now. It's just going to be that the people that live there are going to have to be diligent in watching their children. We're just going to -- you know, we can maybe put in some kind of transportation, we can talk about some signage in there to try to slow the traffic down, children playing. I mean, there's some other kind of things that may be able to be implemented at the county side as a temporary fix. I don't want to get into that. I would leave that to the transportation department. As far as improving the street, that's where the CRA and the MSTU and the developer should come together to design something that when it's finished, it's functional, it's safe, it's calmed and it's what the community would like to have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the neighbors are close with you. If you start having problems, you'll work them out. MR. JACKSON: I've had one neighborhood meeting with them, and they've got street captains that have met with them individually. Page 114 "-'_. -,.._,-~"',",.--"'- July 6, 2006 And we have several more to go. I mean, it's a public information process. Everybody has their own design and concept, and that needs to be worked out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity, do you have something to contribute to this portion of the question? MS. SCOTT: Yes, I do. As far as the sidewalk's concerned, there is already an existing sidewalk to nowhere, sidewalk segment on the south side of the road that falls within the existing right-of-way. It's on the back side of the swale. As I stated earlier on the record, there is -- it looks as if from the aerial that the sidewalk could stay on the back side of the swale, which would then not encroach upon any of the drainage, as well as future street tree possibility. So it does look like that sidewalk could go in the backside of the swale, right on the edge of the property. And on the south side there are very few conflicts with existing homes. I think I counted maybe five or six driveways. So if you went on the north side of the road, it's much more single-family oriented. South side there is an existing sidewalk that they could connect to. However, the one pump station would be an issue where they may have to pipe in a very short section of the drainage of the swale and come around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: David, yes, I've got a question for you. Just make an assumption for the moment that this didn't go forward. A concern for that street, Lakeview Drive, would you not still have those same plans to upgrade it, to make it safe, to put lighting in, to put trees and so forth and so on? Does that go away if this whole thing goes away? MR. JACKSON: No, sir. The widening of the street would go Page 115 July 6, 2006 away because we wouldn't deal with that. We would be dealing with sidewalk, street trees and lighting, and whatever it is that the people would like to have put in there. And the process. This is a demonstration project for the rest of the CRA, which we have many streets. And all of them basically are cookie-cutter, look exactly like this. We saw an opportunity to meet with the developer that was going to impact the street and take the opportunity to make this demonstration proj ect to make it work and come up with a good community design. To answer your question succinctly, is no, not all the components would go away. We probably would not deal with stormwater and we would not deal with the street. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it becomes a demonstration project because of the opportunities for the partnership. MR. JACKSON: That's correct. And we are looking at other opportunities as redevelopment of the area occurs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you have an expectation then that all of the costs associated with -- all the finances involved with all of those other projects that you'd follow would somehow be found from developer money as partnerships? Or do you have an expectation that the CRA will be paying for all of those like improvements? MR. JACKSON: We would be asking everybody that is going to improve the area and build new items or redevelop existing sites to come on board and be part of a two or three-way partnership. There is currently, as I mentioned before, a taxing district for beautification in the entire area. That money should be applied for street trees, irrigation and whatever it has in the ordinance for that. The CRA, basically a non-taxing district, but we recoup the taxes. We'd also do the same thing and come into partnership. And when there's an opportunity to improve and partner with a developer or a redeveloper, we should make every effort to reach out and Page 116 July 6, 2006 embrace that and make it a three-way partnership and stretch the money as far as you can. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as the pot remains one single pot. I could see that having an issue if you start getting into multiple -- I won't go any further with it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do you have a -- what do you have in your hand? MR. BELLOWS: We did have one additional speaker sign up during this discussion. Ali Vaughn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you want to call the name so that -- MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Ali Vaughn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ali Vaughn. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in when-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask you to limit your statements to no more than five minutes. MS. VAUGHN: Yes, sir. F or the record, my name is Ali Vaughn. I'm a member of the Board of the Master Association of Windstar. And first I'd like to say that the legal issues that have been brought up today that -- have been totally covered and the agreement that we signed was perfectly legal, so I think you can put all that to rest. And if you need documentation, we can provide that. I'd also like to say that I have been a resident of Windstar for six years, and that I speak for many of the residents of Windstar, that we strongly, strongly approve of this development. We feel it's a natural Page 11 7 July 6, 2006 extension to what's going on with Bayshore and with what's going on in our community. It's a natural extension of what we want to do in Windstar. We want to provide some additional residents there. We think that this property needs to be developed and that this is the perfect solution. So I would just like to reiterate that the letter that Jack Fink sent and attached to the documentation that you have there, that you are aware of the fact that we really are strongly in favor of this community development. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, before you leave, do you hold an official title or position with the homeowner's association? MS. VAUGHN: I'm on the Board of Directors for the Master Association. I'm a board member. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you in a position where you can make any commitment on their behalf here today? MS. VAUGHN: It would depend on what kind of a commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It seems that the developer failed to get protection for the residents, future buyers of this Fisherman's Cove in regards to traffic for the balance of Winds tar. For example, if you were to want to rebuild a parcel on Windstar or rebuild buildings or put new roofs on or hurricane damage, there's nothing to prevent the homeowner's association from directing all construction traffic to continually use the secondary entrance of Lakeview Drive, meaning no construction traffic in your main entrance. Would you be willing to provide the developer with an agreement on record, recorded, that they will -- that you will not be subj ecting this Lakeview Drive to the construction entrance to the proj ect? MS. VAUGHN: What I can tell you about the agreement that was made is that this agreement was specifically for this development, and the traffic for construction into Windstar for this particular Page 118 July 6, 2006 development, not for anything in the future and not for deliveries and not for the main entrance. It was never intended that. It was only intended for this particular project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree, it reads that way. My concern is that there's nothing to prevent you from modifying that at any time in the future once you control these roads and these internal common areas to this proj ect, to make that your construction entrance for your overall project. It's common throughout the county that large developments do that. Especially gated developments, they always look for a secondary entrance to their facility. So I wouldn't see that as an unreasonable thing. That's why I was asking you if you -- you're not in a position to make any other agreement? MS. VAUGHN: No, I'm not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that, I wanted to get it on record. Okay, thank you, ma'am. Are there any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, that is the last speaker. MR. BELLOWS: That is the last. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR8438 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Discussion? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I would just comment that while it may very well be a nice addition to Windstar, I don't think it provides the equity to the neighbors and the community, and I think it's an unnecessary burden to those folks. Page 119 July 6, 2006 And large buildings fairly close to single-story, there are a whole bunch of reasons why -- that I would be disinclined to support this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other -- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think a compelling point is that we learned that 70 percent of the traffic coming on Bayshore Drive from the north comes from the north and not from the south. Also interesting, it was pointed out that most gated communities, if not all of them in Collier County, access the community directly from a collateral or arterial road. Therefore, the criteria that required approval on this, I question in that the change would adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood of Lakeview Drive. And the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land usage because of peak volumes that project the types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phase of the development or otherwise affect public safety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, I have some suggestions. Should this motion carry, I have some suggestions for the motion maker and the second they may want to consider as stipulations. One: Is that the land plan that's being presented to us today is the one that is locked in regards to anything but a minor change that would qualify under the Land Development Code as a minor change. But the way the buildings are shown today, the way the road is shown today, and the way the landscaping is shown today, or at least on this artistic rendering, is the plan that becomes the plan for the project. Number two: That Section 2.4.E in the PUD be modified to replace the word developer with the owner of the 20 plus acre addition. Number three: Density be limited to 137 units. Number four: There was a lot of discussion about traffic issues. And the sidewalks, the street improvement, the traffic calming and the Page 120 July 6, 2006 drainage issues all need to be designed and they need to be implemented. And until those are designed and implemented, I would suggest that we -- SDPs not be issued. The landscape buffers were discussed and the applicant has agreed that the landscape buffers in the easterly direction would be doubled in quantity than what the minimum codes are. They will address the implementation of best management practices in the SDP application. And that their bulkhead setback along the east side of the property will be required of 25 feet. Those are the issues that I have in regards to that. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: In terms of the buffering, I think it's not just the east side, it's also on the northern portion here. It would be on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's mangroves across -- oh, the south side. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's actually the south side of the northern -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Piece. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- portion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where the number two is on the site plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And the height of any building can be no more than 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, I forgot that. And that's the actual height? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Actual height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actual height would be limited to 50 feet. Mr. Schiffer, did you have any comment? Page 121 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was -- you know, we could reword that bulkhead thing, but I think that's fine. The eastern bulkhead that describes, that's what I'm worried about. The unit, dropping the unit count. I mean, Collier needs some units. Would it be okay if he adds those nine units back on if they're gap housing? That's something that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not going to happen. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not going to happen meaning he's not going to do it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the motion maker is going to accept your recommendation. Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Motion maker, do you accept-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I accept -- I accept -- the motion maker accepts the statements made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did the second accept the statements made? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Explain the SDP thing again, that line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's obviously a need for clarification, which I tried to indicate to the applicant they might want to clarify before they go too far today. That need is there's no design on the sidewalks or the street improvements or the traffic calming devices or the drainage that would be needed from the development. And until the design is completed and until the installation of the improvements is completed, that no SDPs will be issued. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem with that I think is that the CRA wants to control the design work of that. That's not the developer's control. So what you're really doing is you're saying he can have approval, but he can't do anything until the CRA follows Page 122 July 6, 2006 through completely on the design and construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amazing how need makes people work faster. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but here -- one point David made which I think is a really good point is why be running construction and, you know, putting traffic on this thing and then -- you know, after the improvement let that happen and then do the improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because one child's life is worth more than any amount of sidewalk you can rip up on that road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I agree, and I wanted to do something temporary to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my comments. You're the second and this is the motion maker. You guys can decide what you do. I'm just making my comments to you as far as the stipulations go. You can either accept them or rej ect them. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I accept it. MS. DESELEM: Can I ask for two clarifications? One, the item, the bulkhead setbacks to 25 feet, is that for accessory and principal structures, or one or the other? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would make it -- it's not going to -- you know, Mark actually -- once he said it has to be this site plan, it's a moot point anyway, because this site plan has no buildings near that boundary. MS. DESELEM: It doesn't necessarily show accessory structures, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, make them both. MS. DESELEM: Is it your intention not to have them? I mean, we have to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For the sake of the people living across the canal, let's make it for both. MS. DESELEM: For both? Page 123 July 6, 2006 And the other question was the park issue. I need you to make a CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have an issue with the park, but if you want to make one out of it, I guess we could. MS. DESELEM: The issue of the playground. Did you want to include the request for that requirement from parks and rec? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wouldn't have included it. If somebody else wants to include it, they can suggest it. I certainly won't. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I won't either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, Mark, on the SDP thing, what you're essentially saying is that he can't get an SDP approved until the completion of construction, which could start in August and March (sic). And again, David's kind of right, when you make predictions in construction, they float. 2008. So that means two years from now is when he could get approval. So since I'm not comfortable with that, I guess I withdraw my second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion maker-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is there anyone else who will make a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me ask a question. What if I didn't approve it, does that mean -- what legally does happen there? I mean, the person who first said yes, I'll take that condition, if the second person doesn't take that condition -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your motion isn't valid until you have a second. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You need a second. Somebody-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's essentially withdrawing my second? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- else needs to second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The stipulations that I just said are what Page 124 July 6, 2006 I wrote down. You guys can come up with anything you want. I'm just giving you my suggestion. So, I mean, if you've got a better one that the motion maker accepts, or if the motion maker has one, then put it on the table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in lieu of that, for the child safety thing, which obviously you know I agree with, the conversations with David is what I would propose then is on the edge of the right-of-way a five-foot crushed stone temporary sidewalk be put in. Would you accept that instead? Would he? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It was my understanding that the path would be there, the concrete path would be there, the first thing they were going to do. That was my understanding when we started. And they're shaking their head yes. First thing they're going to do is put that sidewalk in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the problem is that the CRA wants to design a sidewalk, light, benches and, you know, really jazz it up. And they're going to put that in much later. So I think the developer would gladly -- well, the sidewalk the CRA is going to do could be winding, could be all different pavers. The developer would gladly run a strip of concrete to the road which could be chopped up later. I'm saying that's a waste of money and I'd rather just see crushed stone or something as a temporary. I mean, I think -- I don't think the problem is with the developer wanting to put a strip, the problem is that the CRA wanted to be able to control the design of their neighborhood. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, first of all, they're not my problem. Second, my problem right now is simple. I'm not going to see a child die either. This is a situation where yes, I think the developer who has a good common sense to put in a sidewalk that would do what they need to be done. And I expect to have it done first, period. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the condition Mark put on, Page 125 July 6, 2006 what you're saying is that if he puts the sidewalk in all the way down I guess the south side of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, for clarification, my recommendation was sidewalks, street improvements, traffic calming and drainage. So you're focusing on the sidewalk. If you have an issue with that, you may have an issue with the others. You may want to address the whole thing. We don't need to go forward with something that isn't what everybody thought it was. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you're saying is that whole street is totally built out in final design prior to his approval of the SDP. So you're holding the guy off for two, two and a half years before he could even start construction, assuming he had a simultaneous -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious, I didn't see widening the street, putting in the sidewalks and traffic calming devices or providing the needed drainage that transportation comes up with after they have a design that's functionable. All of this would have been simpler had this been done first. I don't see that as a two or three-year effort. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm getting it off of David's CRA letter. I know David said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's not a traffic engineer. I'd rather rely on county -- I'm experienced in county traffic. I've done these roads, I've done these sidewalks, I've done this drainage. It doesn't take that long. But -- if it's -- the longest part of anything is dealing with architects. If you get past the architects, then you're off runnIng. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the county's been giving us a good run. But you're probably right. Okay, so what they're going to say, the logic of your thing is that because we put this demand on it, things are going to happen faster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the intent. Page 126 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did anybody else second the thing? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I will second that, yes, as you stated it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, then you can have the second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, what is the -- the second is seconding the stipulation that the improvements need to be done for those elements of the street design that we've spoke of and constructed in place before the SDP is issued. Is that what you're seconding? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Constructed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER TUFF: No, I wouldn't second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's all I'm trying to clarify. And if you guys won't, that's okay, too. But we've all got to get it on the table and we've got to make it clear. So someone make a counter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's work at it one more time, Mark. What is the problem with putting in a temporary crushed stone sidewalk? Remember, they're going to be running trucks up and down their right-of-way, independent of this decision. So what if we got that in right away, got the kids off of the pavement, walking the edge of the pavement. I mean, what else could we do? Then we give the CRA the chance to design what the neighborhood really wants. The CRA is the neighborhood. These are the neighbors that are living on the street. They want the input to put what they want. They don't want something expedited just to meet some developer's, you know, intentions at the end of the street. So what if we require a five, six-foot whatever it is, crushed stone sidewalk. I mean, you can go to Washington D.C. and walk around on crushed stone. It's not a, you know, negative thing. It gets the kids off Page 127 July 6, 2006 of the street. And then they can come back at a later date and build the property. I don't think the road drainage is the -- they're going to beat the road up with 1,000 trucks, they're going to beat the road up with their construction crews and their cranes. Let them fix it after they're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any problem with your suggestion, Brad, but I made mine, you're making yours. Someone's got to get this out of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Lindy, I'll re-second it if you'd go with that. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. If I may, I'd like to make just a point. The cost of the crushed stone isn't that much different than putting in the sidewalk. The petitioner is willing to put in the sidewalk. I think there's a safety issue. I don't even think we can permit crushed gravel anyways. So I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's an allowable driveway. MR. BELLOWS: But not for a -- handicapped exit for sidewalks, it just doesn't work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we know it's a temporary thing. Right now nothing's there, so -- MR. BELLOWS: But they're willing to do it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we'll build a sidewalk down the end of the street. If the design doesn't like it, they'll chop out the sections that don't make sense. That settles the sidewalk. How about -- Mark's motion had other things in it. Lindy, do you -- if we replace it with a sidewalk that's put down for Bayshore -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm satisfied. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then I'm back in the Page 128 July 6, 2006 second business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if you can be. Mr. Tuff made the second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, he dropped out once he realized that -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He dropped out. Okay, we're set. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, we're set. The condition that had to be -- the SDP would not be allowed until those conditions are met is gone. The replacement of that is that the petitioner will not get approval of SDP until the sidewalk is put in. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's all I wanted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the motion maker accepts Mr. Schiffer's clarification. Mr. Schiffer's the second, so I'm assuming he's going to accept his clarification. Now, before the vote we have to state any reasons that we're not voting. I will be voting no on this motion, because I do not find it consistent to rezone findings one, two, five, six, seven, 12, 13 and 14. And the reason for that are a variety of issues, extending from compatibility to, most importantly, traffic. I'm very disappointed that there's been no provision that would prevent all the traffic from Windemere (sic) from being rerouted through this gate at any time in the future. And for that reason, I think that would be huge mistake for the people living on that Lakeview. I also find it inconsistent -- or not in compliance with PUD findings one, two, four and seven for the same reasons. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I would just like to reiterate, one, two, five, six, seven, eight, 13 and 14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'd like just to add to the Page 129 July 6, 2006 comments I made a little earlier about the traffic there on Lakeview Drive. No matter what you say, when you're coming south, the large amount of traffic into any area, the tendency will be to make your first right to get into that (inaudible) to not go all the way down to the entrance where it should be for this community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I just comment? I mean, the design of this thing goes out of its way to make that a really horrible way to go in. I don't think too many people are going to do that more than once or twice. And the weaving. I mean, it looks like a Le Mans racecourse to get through there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with you from a planning perspective, the addition of this to the Windstar PUD is not a bad thing. I just have a problem with the lack of restrictions on the use of that entryway with the overall Windstar project. Unfortunately that was something that I think should have been caught, should have been fixed and should have been prevented. But it can't be. It's a private matter. And because it wasn't, I think it has a big impact on the planning perspectives for Lakeview residents. So that's where I stand. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I certainly agree that it looks very wavy as you come in at Lakeview. But I drove on the property through the main entrance yesterday and that's no straight shot either to get up there. There's a lot of waves getting up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll call for the vote. And I'll do this by raise of hand. All those in favor of the motion, signify by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) Page 130 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four in favor. This is going to be interesting. All those against? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four against. Motion is a tie, 4-4. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It fails. Doesn't carry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It fails, doesn't carry. Okay, with that we can either entertain another motion, which could take hours, or we could finish this particular finding. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion that there be a continuance to address the issues. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Can't do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can't do that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, well, then I'll make a motion of denial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doesn't it go to the commission with no recommendation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's just leave it with that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, he made a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Murray made a motion for denial. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can -- I'll withdraw the motion. If it goes without prejudice, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that will conclude the-- Page 131 July 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What are you going to do now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to go on with the rest of the agenda. MR. BROOKER: Mr. Chairman, if I may-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BROOKER: -- interrupt? With regard to the issue of future construction within Windstar, I have been just informed by the master association representative that she can sign an agreement to that effect that will limit -- that will prohibit construction traffic on Lakeview Drive for future construction projects in the existing Windstar property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope you bring that to the BCC hearing with you. Okay, any other-- MR. BROOKER: The point was to try to revive this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it was that easy, I'd be more concerned. So okay, with that, we'll close -- we're done with that particular hearing. We'll go on with today's agenda. MR. COCHRANE: Mr. Chairman, sir, is the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a second. Mr. Adelstein, what are you trying to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If that statement is made that there's what they're going to agree to and she will make sure that happens, why are we not saying go forward? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein -- and Ms. Student, for procedural, can this be further discussed for another motion based on MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think you can -- somebody can do a motion to reconsider and then you can open up the thing again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the motion to reconsider Page 132 July 6, 2006 have to be by someone in favor or someone in denial? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think it needs -- you know, usually the language talks about voted with the majority. There wasn't any majority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm asking the question. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It might be good if we had the motion maker be the one that voted against and the second be one that voted for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if there's a motion -- if the motion by someone who was in favor wants to reopen this for reconsideration? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll open. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll re-second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You weren't against it, though. Is one of the people -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would like somebody that was against it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to say -- because that would be iniquitous -- the people who voted against it, you're actually giving them a second dip by allowing the people who advocated it. You really need to go to the persons who had an objection to it in order to be equitous (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What Ms. Student has said is -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think that's what I said, that somebody that voted and not in favor of it would be the one to make the motion to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I could make the motion. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- reconsider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She said we need a motion maker who was in favor or against and a second who was in favor of -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't hear that. My apologies Page 133 July 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two opposing parties. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I didn't hear all of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Adelstein was in favor of the motion and he has made a motion for reconsideration. He needs a second from someone who was not in favor of the motion for reconsideration. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I would make the second for the purposes of discussion, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, make the second. We're opening it back up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I made that second for the purpose of discussion. And I'm not convinced that this is a good thing for the people on Lakeview Drive, although I do see it from the overall perspective certainly as advantageous to the people in Windstar. And if it's the single act of allowing or disallowing any future construction traffic, that benefits again the Windstar people, and I don't see that it provides anything much for the people on Lakeview Drive. There would be -- they wouldn't be using that to come in then. Where would they come in? Would they come in the main entrance? Future construction? Well, if that's the case, I wonder why we wouldn't do it now. I wonder why we'd have to create the problem for the Lakeview people, you know, the Lakeview Drive people now, and we ensure against it later on. I don't understand that. I appreciate it, I don't understand it. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I thought right now we're just on a reconsideration motion with a clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we are. Mr. Murray wanted to have a statement with it. So we're on -- motion was made to reconsider. It was made by Mr. Adelstein, seconded by Mr. Murray. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. Page 134 July 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I want to amend the motion to appoint that the statement in writing be delivered prior to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. This is just a motion to reconsider. We're not going into the merits of the whole thing, just to reconsider. You made a motion to reconsider, Mr. Murray seconded that motion to reconsider -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And I have a right to amend it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're amending your motion to reconsider? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I'm -- I see what you're saYing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No other discussion, all those in favor of reconsidering, please signify by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those against reconsideration, raise your hand. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four. Okay, we're back where we started from. This is over with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're not having any fun here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you all very much. MR. COCHRANE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask, is the staffreport available to the public? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to see Kay Deselem. Page 135 ,.~.,-----..;."~,._..,.-. .-......_--~.~'",.,....~-- July 6, 2006 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It will be made available. We'll get you a phone number to call. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item on today's agenda is an item of old business asked to be added by Mr. Kolflat. It was for the construction traffic issue. And we need to wrap this up as quickly as we can today. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Do you want me to continue that for the next meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think being the time and the court reporter's fingers, that would be a good move, if you could, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I will do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. There is no new business. So this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :00 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 136 AGENDA ITEM 8-A Co~T County ~~ - STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEP ARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: JULY 6,2006 SUBJECT: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438; LAKEVIEW DRIVE OF NAPLES, LLC FOR THE WINDST AR RPUD APPLICANT: Jack Antaramian, Managing Partner Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC 365 Fifth Ave., South, Suite 20 I Naples, FL 34105 AGENTS: Clay Brooker, Esquire Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP 821 5th Avenue, South Suite 201 Naples, FL 34102 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commissioner (CCPC) consider a rezone from the Residential Multiple Family-6 (RMF-6 & RMF-6(3)) zoning districts (a portion of which is subject to a Special Treatment Overlay (ST)) to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district so the land can be included in the existing Windstar PUD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The entire proposed PUD subject property, consisting of the existing 320.6-acre PUD and 20.52 acres that are proposed to be added is located in Sections 11, 14, and 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (see location map on the following page). PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is seeking to amend the 320.6-acre Windstar PUD to add a 20.52-acre tract that is commonly referred to as "the Fisherman's Village or Fisherman's Cove tract" to the maximum allowable 549 dwelling units of the existing PUD document for a total of 584 dwelling units in the newly configured 341.21 acre PUD project, for an overall addition of 35 units. As staff understands the petitioner's proposal, the applicant wishes to construct a maximum of 146 units on the Fisherman's Village tract by combining undeveloped units in the existing Windstar (438 units have been developed units (549 - 438 = III undeveloped units) with the proposed Windstar PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 July 6, 2006 CCPC Page 1 of 10 ~ \ ~ ,]Y 1t8 <~ '" i=+I ~! ~ -'RI' ~. l_~~ = u.UJJ 'l" r::.- " ~ , ~ ISb ~ / \ "HT UlW ; , .J...,." "1=1 '~>Y.' I.~~ /.lo.. 11 r he ~ .0 '''~l'> - . '. ---" ~ '3 . "'^ " '" ~. :t!-~ I 'r ' 'I'...,.; ,pmitl; i u ~ --::= g ~I I ~~ i ~~ _ R r::::I ~ ~.; .-: ~I gf ,:> ! i ~'*"" ~- nl::' · ~ ~:.;. /L hi,., J~T j -~ <-~~ 01:' Hi ~I .,>V. ~ :JIIJ z ~ E: '"l fTIij~~ ~ ~~1 ~ ~ - / 0 """ IJ ~, 'u , · ---.... ~" , " · "",", : I" " ~ :~;'~"-~" J"; . ~IV!'.\ i ~.i,.~irll.. ~: L....~ " . "'.... ",,;. 'm ';" . ~ = """! ~IJI : k ~ ; r ~ ~'" i'll' = ""h ~ M;rr 1''= · "" ~ Iil~ "'="=~~=,' 5' ~~~ E! ~ I · " "i~, " I 1M m · -" ""-.:c--~ , ~ 'J::It ~~&hJ ~ 1@j::Jt='j=_ ---:I' . ~ ~ ,',$, l : TT I ,. 1 ~ ." _ -J! I ~ ~ il I" 'jc-..rnl Tl r ~. "'3 "-I · ~'iII1%",,;--"~ l~~ \\~ =--> c/ ("\ '"\:\'\1\1 'Ii ~c= \~ ~ i ~~q,u ~ l)V ~ ~'It ~~~ ~ : r. ~.u ~ \ ( ~ ._..." ~~ o~l~ "< . ~z . "'u ~ ~ o' ~. c.~ i - -S3~1:) ]"N':lS OJ. LON / z- \ \ o ""-= ~ ie ~ ;; :ll ::1 ",II) o~ =:, i:)z - I a.. <( ~ C> Z Z o N IlO C') .., IlO - J ~ z o - I- <( t) o ....J g- ~ I< 3 ~ c:: au; '_"': -+-.. Z \J <..J a --J I.. sn ~ III ~ eo. ti <= ~ III ~ GULF OF MEXICO Cl t5 ~ --.J l:J :3 D.- - . - ~ mmm ji1j1i* !l!!IHii JH~'lj. ~ -~- I< i ~ J. '" .. ;, JhIIlO NO!iS't'I'lOHL ;, , !Ii ! ~ " Q II CI ~ I:! 1\1 ~:5~:ii Q ~ ~3i!~ ~ , ~ ~g~~l .. ~ 'E~~~8 ~!i~1 I ~:!lP:'; al~~~ ~ I I II I J. ~ -=ii~> ~~~I~ ~ ~.~gg~l~gg~8~~~~gl' III . . . . .~_.1I1 . . . . . '..1. '. . _ = ....t:~lQ.....~ -c,.,"'co ~.. WI " ... . ~. ~ . . . '.~ g _ i'l ~ u z ,'[5 ~ It t ~ 6 Lw --.J ca ~ ~ !:!! ~ ~ :!: " ~ " >=' ~ ~ !:!! ~ e; ~ ~~!;) ~ ~ ~o ~~ 10 F."~i>> u! 1Ili5~ > ~g~;mll~~~~I~~;~i&l~ ~~JJg~~J__J_JJ=_~~~J ~8~~_~_JJJJ_J~~~~O~~ ~ ~ I!! ~ <= ffi ~ ~ " 2> ~ bl ~ <mOQW~OX_,~~~zo~a~~~ ~ " --.J J.lO nd a:Ul[, ... tJMQ'l'.tIJII-llOlHO-ClOd iI4I ILOo-W) . 011.'. 1"~1l I}:I ~ "'na" :z ~"""u..,, % " VI ~ I i ::l ~ Ii II. H~ ~~ ~~.~. '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q' ~ ~~; @~~~Q ill "'''''' ~ n in i R . cj~ ;it;ll ....~ c:r~ ~~ ~~~ ii:i~~ '!lij"lfil :::::l!!o;- ~~li ~i'~", ....:s: OJ :it!li*i .......~iii: ""'!li" . Cl)ufil~ QlJJ~a ~~l:!.~ ,oill"'!l!:!t ,~~o~ Q;:;ll:8 ~ 0- Vl~ e~ ~i; a~ " '" ~ ~ ~ ~ 1\ ~ (J -01- -010 '" !Jl- llil:!~ ~iii", "'0 :;!;'" 10 ~ ~~ lQ i-=Ll.. is - l' ffiO",,:i;,:i; a~ \u ". ll::~liOi' Q~o;~ S: .. ~ '" ~~~ ~~ 3'" additional 35 units (111 undeveloped units + 35 new units = 146 units in Fisherman's Village). Under the current zoning, the Fisherman's Village current maximum eligible density is 72 dwelling units based upon the maximum that would be allowable in the RMF-6 (3.5 acres) and RMF-6(3) (17.0 acres) zoning districts. The originally approved density was 1.715 units per acre; the proposed density would remain the same for the overall PUD. Also proposed are accessory uses such as parking, clubhouse areas, and wet slips along Haldeman Creek. Access to serve the residents of this tract is proposed from Lakeview Drive, as well as internal access from Windstar Boulevard. This petition is incorporating a strikethrough and underline format to address only the specific changes proposed. It has been determined that this type of PUD amendment does not "open" the entire PUD to additional scrutiny. The Fisherman's Village tract is currently occupied with several multi-family dwellings. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Sandpiper Bay Club a developed multi-family project, with a zoning designation of RMF-6 (ST) and Naples Land Yacht Harbor, with a zoning designation of Mobile Home (MH), developed with mobile homes East: Various single-family, multi-family and mobile home uses with zoning designations of RMF-6(3), RMF-6 and MH South: Harrington Sound subdivision, a developed single-family subdivision zoned RMF-6 and Southpointe Yacht Club, a multi-family residential development with a PUD zoning designation (approved at 5.81 units per acre) West: City of Naples, undeveloped land along Naples Bay AERIAL MAP GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Windstar PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 July 6,2006 CCPC Page 2 of 10 Management Plan (GMP). The Urban Mixed-Use District permits a variety of residential and non-residential land uses including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The subject site is also within the Traffic Congestion Area, part of the Density Rating System, and the site is entirely within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) _ that area lying within the Category 1 evacuation zone as defined in the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Hurricane Evacuation Study Update. The Density Rating System provides for an eligible base density of 4 dwelling units/acre (DU/A) throughout the Urban Mixed-Use District (except for the Urban Residential Fringe capped at 1.5 DU/ A), whether in or out of the CHHA. But, because the site is located within the Traffic Congestion Boundary, it is subject to a 1 DU/A reduction, thereby making the site eligible for an adjusted base density of 3 DU/ A. The subject petition would result in no overall increase in density in the Windstar RPUD, and it is well within the allowable gross density of 3 DU/ A for the entire PUD. As with all residential rezones, density afforded by the Density Rating System is the density that a given project is eligible for - it is not an entitlement for the subject petition. The Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) recommends limiting the density to a maximum of 4 DU/A in the CHHA and replacing the Traffic Congestion Boundary (TCB) reduction with a CHHA reduction of 1 DU/A. The result would be the same in this case- 3 DU/A. Staff therefore believes this project is consistent with GMP FLUE and the GMP FLUM. Transportation Element: Transportation staff has reviewed this project based on the current TIS guidelines and with respect to Policy 5.1 of the Collier County Growth Management Plan transportation element. The existing development trips are considered background traffic on the County roadway network. The original amendment application TIS added 72 dwelling units (later revised downward) into the Windstar PUD which is consistent with the Transportation Element of the GMP Section 5.1. The additional units can be accommodated on the adjacent roadway network in the five-year planning period. The proposed 146 dwelling unit development resulting from the additional units will be taking primary access and egress off of Lakeview Drive as well as possibly providing additional access to the existing Windstar development. Transportation staff recommends improvements to Lakeview Drive consisting of widening and improving Lakeview Drive to a minimum of22 feet, adding a pedestrian sidewalk. ANAL YSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon which a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Sections 10.02.13 and 10.02.13.B.5 of the Land Development Code and required staff evaluation and comment. The staff evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the recommendations of staff. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn, use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report (See Exhibit A and Exhibit B). Windstar PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 July 6, 2006 CCPC Page 3 of 10 Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the RPUD document to address any environmental concerns. The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) reviewed this petition on May 3, 2006 and recommended approval by a unanimous vote with the stipulation that all mangroves along Haldeman Creek must be preserved, with the exception of the impacts caused by the boardwalks/walkovers necessary for access to docks along the shoreline of Haldeman Creek. The PUD document has incorporated this requirement. Additionally, the EAC reviewed an SDP petition for the Fisherman's Village tract on February 1, 2006 and they unanimously recommended approval subject to conditions of approval recommended in the EAC staff report. Both staff reports are attached as Exhibit C. Therefore, the Environmental Services staff is satisfied that environmental issues have been adequately addressed. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the RPUD document and Master Plan that accompanies the request, and has offered new language as noted bellow for the proposed amendment to address concerns about this project's impact upon Lakeview Drive. At the time of approval of this amendment to the PUD Document, the Bayshore Gateway CRA ("CRA") plans to improve or "streetscape" Lakeview Drive as part of the redevelopment of the area. The CRA, however, has yet to determine the final improvement plans for Lakeview Drive. Accordingly, the developer shall contribute to, and assist with, the improvements to Lakeview Drive as follows: 1. Within 90 days of approval of this amendment to the PUD Document (to wit: on or before , 2006), the developer shall pay $75,000 to a CRA Trust Fund designated exclusively for improvements to Lakeview Drive. This amount represents the current cost of (1) installing a sidewalk from Bayshore Drive, west along the length of Lakeview Drive, to the PUD boundary; and (2) engineering and installing asphalt for the widening of Lakeview Drive from 18 feet to 22 feet. 2. The developer shall engineer and design the stormwater management facility for the 20. 52-acre parcel, which is the subject of this latest PUD amendment, to accept some stormwater from Lakeview Drive. The amount of stormwater that can be accepted by the stormwater management facility on the 20.52-acre parcel will be determined at the time of site development plan approval. Zoning Review: Relationship to Existing and Future Land Uses: A discussion of this relationship, as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning, refers to the relationship of the uses that would be permitted if the proposed zoning action (PUD amendment) is approved, and to the requirements or limitations set forth in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The uses were determined to be consistent with the GMP (and therefore compatible with the land uses that have been developed or would be developed on adjacent tracts) when the original Windstar rezoning Windstar PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 July 6, 2006 CCPC Page 4 of 10 was approved, and it was already determined that the uses should be compatible with the land uses that have been developed or would be developed on adjacent tracts. As discerned from the aerial photograph, the surrounding zoning discussion and the Master Plan, the Windstar PUD is already developed with clusters of housing in a golf course setting. The surrounding area has co-existed with the existing Windstar development with seemingly little problems and no changes are proposed to the RPUD document that would allow different re-development. The property to the north of the site is separated by Halderman Creek; the land use to the north is also multi-family residential. To the west, this site is separated from any other uses by Naples Bay. To the south is Southpointe PUD, a multi-family project approved at 5.91 units per acre. To the east are numerous RMF-6 zoned developed subdivisions. Except for the proposed Fisherman's Village tract, the units within Windstar are separated from the development along its eastern boundary by meandering golf course greens. The Fisherman's Village tract will be separated from the multi- and single-family home sites located along Lakeview Drive in Blocks 6 and 7 of Gulf Shores subdivision by a canal. Further south, the Fisherman's Village tract will directly abut a lot within Naples Grove and Truck Company Number 2 subdivision. That lot is developed with multi-family uses. The surrounding area is similarly developed with multi-family housing except for the land along the eastern boundary of the proposed Fisherman's Village tract which is single-family homes. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the typical compatibility analysis would include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. In viewing surrounding properties, gross density and/or net density might be evaluated, and density averaging might be employed. The Master Plan submitted for the entire Windstar PUD does not show project design detail. No buildings have been shown on that plan. The Master Plan is not required to show design detail such as building footprints. The master plan usually only shows general project designs such as roadway layouts and general land use tract boundaries such as residential, commercial or conservation and preservation areas. Those areas have been shown as required by LDC Section 10.02.13.A.1. The petitioner has provided an additional sheet entitled "Fisherman's Village," which is an artistic rendering that shows a potential project layout of 137 units (stamped received 5/16/06). The petitioner has not offered to be bound in any way to this artistic rendering, nor would it be appropriate for such a limitation because the rendering is not drawn to scale and staff cannot review that "plan" for compliance with the LDC. Any development plan would be required to undergo scrutiny by county staff for such compliance. The artistic renderings shows the multi-family structures within the Fisherman's Village tract oriented more internally than externally, i.e., the structures are shown nearer the existing Windstar PUD rather than along the canal that abuts the single-family homesites along Lakeview Drive. That seems a logical choice; it allows the Fisherman's Village residents to enjoy the golf course vista. Additionally, the rendering seems to show a denser buffer along the canal that Windstar PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 July 6, 2006 CCPC Page 5 of 10 separates the project from Lakeview Drive residences. Staff believes it may be appropriate to require an enhanced buffer along the canal for the Fisherman's Village tract, and would suggest that more trees and taller trees could be provided to soften the difference between the mostly single-story, single-family Lakeview Drive homesites from the proposed 40-foot tall multi- family structures that could be three or four stories high. In other areas of the Windstar PUD, the golf course or open space separate units within Windstar from its neighbors. For the Fisherman's Village tract additional trees could provide a method to compensate for open space or golf course separations that are provided elsewhere along the project boundaries. More and large trees would help internalize the project's impacts in compliance with the LDC Section 4.07.02.A & B, for PUD design standards regarding external and internal relationships. The Windstar PUD amendment also proposes to add an access to Lakeview Drive for the project. Windstar PUD traffic could travel through the multi- and single-family homesites in Gulf Shores subdivision (north side of the road) and the multi-family uses in Naples Grove and Truck Company Number 2 subdivision (south side of the road). There is no plan to limit the use of Lakeview Drive to the residents and guests of the Fisherman's village tract. Any construction traffic for Fisherman's Village, as well as any other traffic from the entire Windstar PUD development could potentially use Lakeview Drive. The petitioner states that due to Windstar's existing internal roadway design, it is unlikely that many other residents of Windstar would want to use Lakeview Drive because the existing access points provide a more direct link to Bayshore Drive. Regardless, the proposed 146 units of Fisherman's Village that could be utilizing Lakeview Drive from Windstar would double the number of households (not trips) using this local roadway. There appears to be 52 units in the Gulf Shore subdivision that use Lakeview Drive and there are about 10 lots along the south side of Lakeview Drive located in the Naples Grove and Truck Company Number 2 subdivision. Some of the lots are developed and some are not; there is a mixture of single- and multi-family uses on the developed lots. If all 10 lots were developed to the maximum allowable 6 units per acre density, there would be 60 units. Coupled with the 52 units from Gulf Shore, the maximum potential build-out along Lakeview Drive would be approximately 112 units. Windstar PUD currently has three access points. There is one access point on Fern Street, one on Thomasson Drive and the main access point is on Bayshore Drive. Providing an interconnection from the existing Windstar PUD is consistent with GMP Transportation Element Policy 9.3 that states: The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. However, interconnection implies that traffic from the Lakeview Drive residents and the Windstar residents would be able to traverse both ways. In this case, access is only proposed to allow Windstar traffic to use Lakeview Drive. There is no plan to allow Lakeview residents to , utilize any roadways within Windstar, thus the term "interconnection," may not accurately depict what is proposed. Windstar PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 July 6, 2006 CCPC Page 6 of 10 Zoning and Transportation staff discussed the above noted policy to determine ways to address any negative impacts to the Lakeview Drive residents that might result with the connection, noting that Lakeview Drive is a public roadway with narrower travel lanes than what would now be required for development. If this was a new roadway within the Windstar PUD, it would have to be built to current roadway width standards. The petitioner has agreed to participate in funding of Lakeview Drive roadway improvements to widen the travel lanes and provide sidewalks, thus the project is compliant with LDC Section 4.07.02.D.3 because it will not: Create inconvenient or unsafe access to the P UD; or Create traffic congestion in the streets which adjoin or lead to the PUD; or Be in conflict with the intent or provisions of the GMP; or Create a threat to property or incur abnormal public expense in areas subject to natural hazards; or Be incompatible or inconsistent with surrounding neighborhoods or areas; or Otherwise be inappropriate. In the alternative, the Board may wish to consider limitations to the Lakeview Drive access, such as limiting the access to Fisherman's Village residents only; and/or prohibiting service vehicles such as delivery trucks from using that roadway, and/or prohibiting construction traffic from using Lakeview Drive. Community Redevelopment Agency Review: The Board of County Commissioners adopted the Bayshore Mixed-Use District Overlay that includes Map No.1 that depicted the areas that are affected by the BMUD Overlay. That map excluded existing PUDs from the requirements of the Overlay, and in the case of the Fisherman's Village, included a notation to exclude the Fisherman's Village tract from the Overlay. (The map however does not correctly depict the Fisherman's Village tract. The portion of the Fisherman's Village tract north of Haldeman Creek was not included and a portion to the south of Lakeview Drive was not included. Staff is proposing a scrivener's error to correct those two oversights.) Even though the Fisherman's Village is exempt from the requirements of the Overlay, the Lakeview Drive area is included, thus zoning staff and Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) staff believe it is important to ensure the Windstar PUD incorporate the plans of the CRA when addressing potential negative impact to the Lakeview Drive area. Please refer to the May 24,2006 letter from David Jackson, Executive Director of the CRA attached as Exhibit D. The Community Redevelopment Agency for the Bayshore area is working to improve this area. One project that is in the planning stage is the Lakeview Drive Beautification Project. The pending Beautification Project is in an early stage and the ultimate design that will be developed for Lakeview Drive has not yet been determined and the timing of the improvements is also unknown at this time. Thus staff recommends that the developer of Fisherman's Village/Windstar make monetary contributions to fund roadway improvements as noted by Transportation staff and the CRA recommendations to include widening and improving Lakeview Drive to a minimum of 22 feet Windstar PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 July 6, 2006 CCPC Page 7 of 10 of pavement width, adding a five-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk along one side of Lakeview Drive, and accommodate some or all of the future streetscape designed Lakeview Drive stormwater discharge, for quality treatment, at the Fisherman's Village on-site stormwater pond with the capability/capacity to be further defined as engineering information and streetscape design is developed by the CRA and the developer of this project. There is a balance issue between GMP Transportation Element Policy 9.3 and FLUE Policy 5.4. Staff understanding the need to "require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets" [Policy 9.3], and still maintain the integrity of an existing neighborhood, i.e., FLUE Policy 5.4 which requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. With the conditions proposed by staff to address Lakeview Drive, staff believes the project is compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood, and therefore recommends that the petition be deemed consistent with that FLUE policy. Emergency Management Review: The Windstar RPUD is located in a Tropical Storm Surge zone, which requires evacuation during most hurricane/tropical storm events. Adding to the residential units in this area further taxes an already tight evacuation and sheltering situation within Collier County. While there is currently no impact mitigation required for this, it should be noted the approval of this RPUD increases the evacuation and sheltering requirements for the county. Historical and Archeological Review: Approval is subject to the recommendations contained in the Survey and Assessment for the Fisherman's Village site prepared by John Beriault (See Exhibit E). Staff has advised the petitioner that this requirement will need to be added to the PUD document. Utilities Review: This project is located within the Collier County Sewer District boundary, and shall be subject to application for and conditions associated with a sewer availability letter from the Collier County Utilities Division. According to the GIS, there is an existing 12 inch force main east of the proposed development on Bayshore Drive. Potable water is served by the City of Naples. Parks and Recreation Review: Parks and Recreation Department staff wishes to see a stipulation adopted as part of any approval of this petition. The stipulation is quoted below: The developer must provide a Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) certified commercial grade playground designed for 2-12 year old children for use by residents and guests. The playground must be provided within common area. The playground area must be operational before the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for any residential units. Developer must provide documentation to the PUD file that the playground meets these requirements. The petitioner will not agree to the stipulation noting that he was ". . . .unable to located the GMP or LDC authority for this requirement," thus the petitioner" . . . accepts the comment as a request rather than a requirement since it is not part of any currently adopted ordinance" [quote Windstar PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 July 6, 2006 CCPC Page 8 of 10 from petitioner's agent's April 17, 2006 response to staffs review comments]; therefore, the petitioner has opted not to include a requirement for a playground in the PUD document. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent for the applicant held the required NIM at the East Naples Baptist Church. Approximately 180 people attended including the applicant's team and county staff. After a brief presentation of the rezone and project request, Mr. Clay Brooker of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson opened the meeting for discussion. Many of the audience members voiced opposition to the requested density (137-156 units), the building height (maximum 50 feet) and the multi-family design (6 buildings), stating that the proposed project is not compatible or consistent with the previous conceptual site plans they had seen or the existing Windstar PUD development. Also of concern are traffic impacts to Lakeview Drive. Further statements made by Mr. Brooker included: 1. Access will continue to be provided through the existing Windstar main entrance, although there will be a "Resident's Only" entrance access from Lakeview Drive. 2. The applicant envisions approximately 34-51 docks/wet slips will be provided along Haldeman Creek. Windstar residents will have first option to buy the lesser of (a) 20%, or (b) 40% of the number of docks constructed, within a 90 day sales period. 3. The 1,100 square feet unit sizes are still conceptual. 4. Construction traffic will utilize Lakeview Drive. It was also stated by property owners throughout the course of the discussion that the developer has entered into two separate agreements with the Windstar Master Association and the Windstar Club. Mr. Brooker, speaking as agent for the applicant, said he would meet with the Master Association again to clarify any confusion or misunderstanding of the issues. Mr. Charlie Thomas and Mr. Jack Fink (apparently representative of the applicant) told the audience there would be a tentative April 11 th meeting held with all residents and the developer. (Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator) RECOMMENDA TION: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUD-Z-A-2004-AR-8438 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP, and further that the PUD amendment be approved, with the limitations contained in the RPUD document. Windstar PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 July 6, 2006 CCPC Page 9 of 10 PREPARED BY: ~B-~ KAY SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEP ARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: ~ m. JJb.uU..t- tiv..' . MARJO M. STUDENT-STIRLING ~ ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY V. BELLOWS, MANAGER ENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ~ ~uY.L:tuu~ ./sUSAN MURRAY, Al , DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: iR -:(- 0& DATE &, -/2,-~ DATE G-I2--06 DATE (1,-1. /2 - Ob DATE ~113 /Cl~ JOS P K. SCH T, ADMINISTRATOR DATE UNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the September 12, 2006 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN Exhibits: A. Rezone Findings B. PUD Findings C. EAC Reports D. Letter from David Jackson E. Historical and Archeological Survey and Assessment Windstar PUD, PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 July 6, 2006 CCPC DATE Page 10 of 10 Exhibit A REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 Chapter 1O.03.05.G of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Pro: County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an in-depth analysis (see staff report) of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element, the Future Land Use Element and the Transportation Element of the GMP offering a recommendation that this petition be found consistent with the overall GMP. Con: None. findings: Based upon staff's review, the proposed development is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) for Collier County and all other relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. Pro: The location and zoning map that is attached to the staff report show the Fisherman's Village site is a logical extension of the existing Windstar PUD, and GMP Transportation Element Policy 9.3 encourages interconnection of neighborhoods. Con: The petitioner's proposal to interconnect to Lakeview Drive may be viewed by Lakeview Drive property owners as an intrusion into their neighborhood. Finding: Staff believes the petitioner's commitments to participate in Lakeview Drive roadway improvements will offset any negative impacts upon the Lakeview Drive property owners. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. findings: The 20:1: acre Fisherman's Village parcel is being added into the Windstar PUD for a combined total project size of 341:1: acres which will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Both the Windstar PUD and the surrounding area is developed with residential uses; thus, the uses and the zoning districts share a use relationship. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Page 1 of 6 Findings: The district boundaries are logically drawn as previously noted. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed land use change necessary. Pro: The proposed change is not necessary, per se; it is being requested in compliance with the LDC allowances to seek such changes. Con: The Fisherman's Village tract could be developed by itself without rezoning or being added into the Windstar PUD. It is the petitioner's choice to seek the proposed action. Findings: The proposed zoning change is appropriate based on the existing conditions of the property and because its relationship to the FLUE (Future Land Use Element of the GMP) is positive. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions III the neighborhood. Pro: The County's current land use policies in the FLUE supports the proposed action to allow low density urban residential development within the Coastal High Hazard Area. Adding Fisherman's Village into the Windstar PUD will not result in any increase in density of the overall Windstar PUD; it was approved at 1.7 units per acre and that will remain the same. That density is well within the eligible density for this area. Con: Fisherman's Village portion of the Windstar project is proposed for cluster development which is the same way the other portions of Windstar were developed. There are clusters of neighbors with large areas of open space and golf course. The clustering of Fisherman's Village could result in a perceived (clustered) density of 6.68 units per acre (137 units -7- 20.52 acres = 6.676 units per acre). That perceived higher density may not coincide with the nearby residents' desire to maintain a lower density development. Adding additional units within the Coastal High Hazard Area may put additional persons at risk in a weather related emergency such as a hurricane or tropical storm. Collier County Emergency Management staff offered the following comments for this project: The Windstar RP UD is located in a Tropical Storm Surge zone, which requires evacuation during most hurricane/tropical storm events. Adding to the residential units in this area further taxes an already tight evacuation and sheltering situation within Collier County. While there is currently no impact mitigation required for this, it should be noted the approval of this RPUD increases the evacuation and sheltering requirements for the county. Findings: The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood because the recommended development standards and other conditions for EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-A-200S-AR-8438 Page 2of6 approval should ensure the least amount of adverse impact on adjacent and nearby developments. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Pro: Development of the subject property is consistent with provisions of the Transportation Element of the GMP, requiring neighborhood connection. Both the surrounding area and Windstar are residential projects. The petitioner has agreed to participate in roadway improvements to offset adverse effects the increased traffic may cause; therefore, approval of this project should not create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses and it should not affect the public safety. Developers who share roadway improvement costs provide an alternative taxpayer cost effective way to expedite roadway improvements. The GMP Transportation Element Policy that encourages interconnection to neighborhoods provides a positive effect on public safety because interconnections conserve highway capacity on collector and arterial roadways. Con: As urban intensification increases and traffic traverses through more than one neighborhood, the affected property owners can experience increased discomfort about safety and privacy. As noted in the staff report, interconnection may be a misnomer in this particular instance because the term interconnection implies that traffic from the Lakeview Drive residents and the Windstar residents would be able to traverse both ways. In this case, access is only proposed to allow Windstar traffic to use Lakeview Drive. There is no plan to allow Lakeview residents to utilize any roadways within Windstar, thus the term "interconnection," may not accurately depict what is proposed. Contrary to staffs recommendation in the staff report, the Board may, therefore, find that the amendment may not be in compliance with LDC Section 4.07.02.D.3. because it could: Create traffic congestion in the streets which adjoin or lead to the PUD; or Create a threat to property or incur abnormal public expense in areas subject to natural hazards; or Be incompatible or inconsistent with surrounding neighborhoods or areas; or Otherwise be inappropriate. The Board may, therefore, add imitations to the Lakeview Drive access to limit the access to Fisherman's Village residents only; and/or prohibit service vehicles such as delivery trucks from using that roadway, and/or prohibit construction traffic from using Lakeview Drive. Findings: Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Traffic Element of the GMP and was found consistent. Additionally, certain Page 3of6 EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-A-200S-AR-8438 transportation improvements for Lakeview Drive are included in the PUD document. Furthermore, this project will be subject to the Concurrency Management System. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Pro: Road improvements precipitated by this development and water management improvements to accommodate site development are designed to accommodate the normal drainage requirement. Con: Urban intensification could potentially increase area-wide flooding in a severe rainfall event. Findings: Every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of land for some land use activity is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub-surface drainage generated by developmental activities. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable Findings: All projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards that are unique to the zoning district in which it is located. These development standards and others apply generally and equally to all zoning districts (i.e. open space requirement, corridor management provisions, etc.) were designed to ensure that light penetration and circulation of air does not adversely affect adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Pro: Urban intensification typically increases the value of adjacent or underutilized land. Con: None Findings: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external to the subject property, and which can affect property values. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. The mere fact that a property is given a new zoning designation mayor may not affect value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable Findings: The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings PUDZ -A- 200S-AR-8438 Page 4 of 6 plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Findings: The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Pro: The petitioner could seek development approval to develop the Fisherman's Village with the existing zoning. Based upon that zoning, 72 units would be permitted with a maximum height limit of 35 feet. Under the current zoning the Fisherman's Village current maximum eligible density is 72 dwelling units based upon the maximum that would be allowable in the RMF-6 (3.5 acres) and RMF-6(3) (I7.0 acres) zoning districts. Con: None. Findings: Any petition for a change in land use is reviewed for in compliance with the GMP and the LDC with the Board of County Commissioners ultimately ruling what uses and density or intensity is approved or, on the contrary, if the petition is denied. This petitioner is proceeding through the proper channels to garner that Board ruling. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; Pro: Staff believes clustering development to encourage preservation of significant areas is appropriate even though the perceived density of this tract will appear higher than the density of the overall PUD. Con: Nearby property owners may object to the clustering because of the perceived increased development concentration. Findings: The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban designated areas of Collier County. Page 5of6 EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-A-200S-AR-8438 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable Findings: Because the petitioner is seeking to amend a particular PUD to add adjacent property, this analysis is not germane in this petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable Findings: Any development of this site would require considerable site alteration with the existing or the proposed zoning. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable Findings: A multi-disciplined team responsible for reviewing jurisdictional elements of the GMP and the LDC public facilities requirements has reviewed this land use petition and found it consistent and in compliance for zoning approval. A final determination whether this project meets the full requirements of adequate public facilities specifications will be determined as part of the development approval process EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-A-200S-AR-8438 Page 6 of6 Exhibit B PUD FINDINGS PU DZ-A-2005-AR -8438 Section 1 0.02.13.B.5 of the LDC of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Pro: The nearby area is developed with residential uses and that is what is proposed. The petitioner is setting aside a preserve area and has agreed to EAC recommendations regarding mangrove protection. The project will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities and has agreed to assist in roadway improvements to Lakeview Drive. Con: The clustering concept that will most likely be utilized by the developer for the Fisherman's Village tract may result in a neighborhood perception that the site is being developed as a higher density project Finding: The overall density of Windstar will remain the same. The project will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities and has agreed to assist in roadway improvements to Lakeview Drive; therefore, the project is suitable for the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable Finding: Documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control. The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Pro: County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an in-depth analysis (see staff report) of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, the Future Land Use Element and the Transportation Element of the GMP offering a recommendation that this petition be found consistent with the overall GMP. Con: Staff's analysis is subjective. Many of the goals, objective and policies do no have quantative means to measure compliance. The GMP Transportation Element Policies 5.1 Page 1 of3 and 5.2, Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 2.2, and Policy 6.1.1 and Policy 7.1.2 contain measurable components; however, FLUE Policy 5.4 does not. Compatibility is more subjective. Finding: Staff has recommended that the subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP as provided for in the adopting ordinance. Please see the staff report for a more detailed discussion. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Finding: Staff analysis as contained in the staff report indicates that this petition is compatible, both internally and externally, with the proposed uses and with the existing surrounding uses. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable Finding: The amount of open space set aside by this project is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. The proposed amendment adds 20.52 acres to an existing 320 acre PUD that contains a golf course. The golf course is counted as open space; therefore, the project contains 119::l:: acres of golf course open space which is 35 percent of the overall project. Other open space has also been provided in the Windstar PUD. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable Finding: Timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements does not appear to be a significant problem as part of the PUD amendment process, but the project's development must be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Pro: The petitioner has agreed to assist in the funding of adjacent roadways improvements. Con: The property owners along Lakeview Drive may not perceive that adequate accommodations have been made to address roadway impacts. PUD FINDINGS PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 3 Finding: If "ability" implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, then the subject property has the ability to support expansion based upon the commitments made by the petitioner for Lakeview Drive and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable Finding: This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The development standards in this PUD are similar to those standards. The petitioner is not seeking any deviations as part of the rezoning approval. Page 3 of 3 PUD FINDINGS PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 EXHIBIT B Item V.B. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ST AFF REPORT MEETING OF MAY 3, 2006 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition Name: Applicantilleveloper: Engineering Consultant: Environmental Consultant: Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 Windstar PUD Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC Davidson Engineering, Inc. Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologists, Inc. Turrell & Associates, Inc. Petition No.: II. LOCATION: The subject property is located west of Bayshore Drive and south of US 41 abutting the City of Naples city limits in Sections II, 14 and 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are mostly developed, with the following zomng classifications. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- RMF -6 MH RMF-6-ST, MH, RMF-6 Partly Developed Developed Haldeman Creek S- PUD (Southpointe Yacht Club) Developed E- RSF-4 RMF -6 RMF-6-BMUD-RI RSF-6-BMUD-RI MH R.O.W. RMF -6 Developed Partly Developed Partly Developed Partly Developed Developed Bayshore Dr. Developed Exhibit C EAC Meeting Page 2 of9 R.O.W. Fern Street W- City of Naples Haldeman Creek & Naples Bay Residential- Developed City of Naples IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioner is seeking to amend the 320.6-acre Windstar PUD to add a 20.52- acre tract that is commonly referred to as "the Fisherman's Village tract" for which a maximum of 156 multi-family units were analyzed in the Traffic Impact Statement and the Environmental Statement). As staff understands the petitioner's proposal, the pending proposal adds the 72 dwelling units that would be allowable in the existing Fisherman's Village tract with its RMF -6 (3.5 acres) and RMF- 6(3) (17.0 acres) zoning to the allowable maximum 549 dwelling units of the existing PUD document for a total of 621 dwelling units in the newly configured 341.21 acre PUD project. The originally approved density was 1.715 units per acre; the proposed density would be 1.82 units per acre (621 units -7- 341.12 acres = 1.82 units per acre). Also proposed are accessory uses such as parking, clubhouse areas, and wet slips along Haldeman Creek. Access to serve the residents of this tract is proposed from Lakeview Drive, as well as internal access from Windstar Boulevard. No development changes to the existing Windstar PUD are proposed. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed - Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Urban Mixed - Use District permits a variety of residential and non-residential land uses including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The subject site is also within the Traffic Congestion Area, part of the Density Rating System, and the site is entirely within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) - that area lying within the Category 1 evacuation zone as defined in the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Hurricane Evacuation Study Update. The Density Rating System provides for an eligible base density of 4 dwelling units/acre (DU/A) throughout the Urban - Mixed Use District (except for the Urban Residential Fringe capped at 1.5 DU/ A), whether in or out of the CHHA. But, because the site is located within the Traffic Congestion Boundary it is - ----<_..~.-..- -""~'~"'-"-~.-'" .."...."~.-._>,.- EAC Meeting Page3of9 subject to a 1 DU/ A reduction, thereby making the site eligible for an adjusted base density of 3 DU/A. It should also be noted that the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) recommends limiting the density to a maximum of 4 DU/A in the CHHA and replacing the Traffic Congestion Boundary (TCB) reduction with a CHHA reduction of 1 DU/A. The result would be the same in this case- 3 DU/A. The existing Windstar PUD provides for 549 dwelling units on 320.6:t acres (1.7 DU/ A). The proposed Windstar RPUD seeks 621 dwelling units on 341.1:t acres (1.8 DU/A). The conceptual site plan for the additional 20.52 acres includes 138 dwelling units. The subject petition would result in an overall increase in density in the Windstar RPUD, but within the allowable gross density of 3 DU/A for the entire PUD. As with all residential rezones, density afforded by the Density Rating System is the density that a given project is eligible for - it is not an entitlement; for the subject petition. FLUE Objective 7 encourages the use of smart growth principles. The applicant has addressed several of these, including a diversity of housing types, connectivity to adjacent projects, open spaces and pedestrian and bicycle paths. Based on the above analysis, and subject to the changes required in the last paragraph, staff concludes that the proposed development may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation & Coastal Manaeement Element: In accordance with Objective 2.4 and Policy 2.4.1, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FOEP) shall be notified of development projects within Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve watershed. A copy of the Site Development Plan and Environmental Impact Statement will be forwarded to FDEP. The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element, for the [allowing reasons: Greater than twenty five percent (25 %) of the existing native vegetation will be retained in the lands to be added into the PUD and set aside as preserve areas with conservation easements prohibiting further development. Selection of preservation areas, are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. Habitat management and exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. A preliminary EAC Meeting Page 4 of9 preserve area management plan for the preserve within the Fishermans Village portion of the PUD is included in the EIS. Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal, and will be required to meet the minimum planting area requirement in Policy 6.1.7. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency permits prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site improvements (Site Development Plan). As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the PUD document. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. A wildlife survey for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 is included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. A preliminary manatee education and awareness plan for the site is included in the EIS. In accordance with Policy 7.2.1, the PUD is in compliance with the marina siting criteria contained in the Manatee Protection Plan. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Manag:ement: The purpose of this PUD amendment is to add the Fishermen's Village SDP that was already reviewed by the EAC to the Windstar PUD. The Engineering Review Department doesn't see any new issues that concern the management of the project's storm water that will be caused by this procedural matter. EAC Meeting Page5of9 Environmental: Site Description: The proposed amendment will incorporate the 20.52 acre Fishermans Village parcel into the existing Windstar PUD. The 320 acre existing Windstar PUD is a developed residential and golf course project with both single-family and multi- family residences, an 18 hole golf course, several stormwater lakes, and preserve areas. The Fishermans Village site has been significantly altered by previous land use with areas of mowed grass, scattered slash pine and cabbage palm, residual cabbage palm hammocks, an excavated lake, and mangroves. The Fishermans Village site is currently being permitted as a temporary spoil disposal site for the County's Haldeman Creek dredging project and the majority of the proposed development area will be significantly altered prior to development. Site plans depicting conditions on-site before and after the County's use of the property are included in the EIS. The Fishermans Village soils map identifies four soil types mapped on-site with two soils being dominant. The northern portion of the site is identified as Durbin and Wulfert Mucks, which are typically found in tidal mangrove swamps. The southern portion of the site is mapped as hydric soils and has been previously impacted. Wetlands: In association with the County's permitting of the Fishermans Village property as a temporary spoil recipient site for the Haldeman Creek dredging project, the County has had site wetlands delineated. According to the County's delineation there are currently 5.2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (4. 7 acres) and other surface waters (0.5 acres) south of Haldeman Creek. Additionally, Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologists have mapped, based on photo interpretation, an additional 4.9 acres of wetlands (1.8 acres) and other waters (3.1 acres) north of the southern property, including Haldeman Creek. All development work proposed is south of the Creek in the area delineated as part of the County's dredge project. Additionally, the project has expanded to the south to include a pre-existing apartment complex, which includes a 0.4 acre surface water management lake, which will be relocated. Based on the proposed spoil stockpiling permit for the County, approximately 0.4 acres of wetlands and 0.5 acres of Other Surface Waters will be impacted and mitigated for by the County. Mitigation for impacts by the County will be by purchasing credits from local mitigation banks. EAC Meeting Page 6 of9 The Fishermans Village project proposes to impact an additional 0.9 acres of wetlands (0.3 acres of created mangrove forest, 0.4 acre of mangrove forest, 0.1 acre of restored mixed forested wetlands, and 0.1 acre of shrub and brush land) and 0.4 acres of the existing water management system. To offset the impacts to these wetlands, the developer intends to conduct on-site wetland enhancement and preservation of 3.6 acres of coastal-forested wetland. Final wetland plans and wetland mitigation activities will be finalized during discussions with state and federal permitting agencies. If necessary, the balance of wetland impacts will be offset by purchasing forested saltwater wetland mitigation credits from Little Pine Island Mitigation Bank. Preliminary Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) data sheets for the project are included as Exhibit K in the EIS. Preservation Requirements: The Fishermans Village property has been significantly altered by previous land use and the majority of uplands are maintained (mowed) grassy areas with clusters of pine and cabbage palm. Prior to initiation of construction of the Fishermans Village project, the site will be further altered by the County's use of the property as a temporary spoil site for maintenance dredging of Haldeman Creek. Approximately 6.95 acres of native vegetation were present on the Fishermans Village site prior to the County utilizing the property. _IlLllc;coldanc;~with th~ uCo\.lnt)' Gcm,y th Maoags:ment Elan (GMP) and Land_ Development Code (LOC), a minimum of twenty-five percent of the native vegetation on-site will have to be retained (6.95 acres X .25 = 1. 74 acres). The 2.66 acre preserve on the east side of the Fishermans Village project exceeds this requirement. Conservation easements have been recorded for habitats on the Fishermans Village site as part of the original development permits issued for the site (OER Permit No.l12315935 (4/17/91); SFWMD Permit No.II-01157-S (11/10/93); USACOE Permit No.199003630 (8/6/93)). While the majority of the mitigation was conducted for the original permits, the impact and development associated with the original permits was not. The property owner intends to lift the existing conservation easements and record easements over the preserves associated with the current site plan. Listed Species: Surveys for listed plant and animal species were conducted on-site on October 19th and November 15t\ 2004. On October 19th the site was surveyed from 9:00 a.m. - 11 :30 a.m. with the majority of the focus on the open lands and mangrove EAC Meeting Page 7 of9 fringe. On November 15th the site was surveyed from 10:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. with the majority of the focus on the native mangrove/bay, cabbage palm and tropical hardwood areas. More recently, at the request of County staff, the entire PUD property was examined for the presence of gopher tortoise burrows. No gopher tortoises or gopher tortoise burrows were found on-site. Listed wildlife species observed on-site include one tri-color heron (on two occasions) and three white ibis foraging on the mud flat in the center of the mangrove forest. The only listed plant species identified was the common (stiff- leaved) wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) found in the mangrove forest. Additionally, an osprey is nesting on a platform erected adjacent to the canal on the eastern portion of the property. The listed species observed were in areas that are proposed to be preserved. The active osprey nest is located in an area that is to be retained as a preserve/landscape buffer and the pole and platform will not be removed. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 "Windstar PUD" with the following conditions: Stormwater Mana2:ement and Environmental: No additional stipulations. Item VII.B. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1,2006 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Site Development Plan No. SDP-2003-AR-4596 Fishermans Village Antaramian Development Corporation Davidson Engineering, Inc. Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologists, Inc. Petition Name: Applicant/Developer: Engineering Consultant: Environmental Consultant: II. LOCATION: The project site is located adjacent to Haldeman Creek, in Sections 11 & 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are mostly developed, with the following zonmg classifications. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- RMF -6 Partially Developed S- RMF-6 Developed E- RSF -4 RMF -6 Developed Partially Developed w- PUD (Windstar) MH (Naples Land Yacht Harbor) Developed Developed EAC Meeting Page 2 of9 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of 51 residential units (three duplex, three 8-unit buildings, one 21-unit building) two pools, one clubhouse, a preserve area and a communal dock with 51 slips. The project entrance is located at Lakewood Drive. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject properties are designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), and are within the Traffic Congestion Boundary and the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits a variety of residential and non-residential uses including residential multi-family development and associated accessory uses, such as recreational and private dock facilities. The Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict provides transitional densities between the Conservation designated area and the Urban designated area. This Subdistrict limits residential densities to a maximum of four dwelling units per acre, except as allowed by the Density Rating System. Because the subject project is located within the Traffic Congestion Boundary, part of the Density Rating System, it is subject to a 1 dwelling unit per acre reduction, thereby making the project eligible for an adjusted base density of 3 dwelling units per acre. Based upon the foregoing, Comprehensive Planning staff is of the opinion that the subject request to allow residential multi-family development with customary accessory uses at a density of 3 DU/A is consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Conservation & Coastal Mana2ement Element: Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards." To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system." EAC Meeting Page 3 of9 This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing detention areas, vaults, and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. In accordance with Objective 2.4 and Policy 2.4.1, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) shall be notified of development projects within Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve watershed. A copy of the Site Development Plan and Environmental Impact Statement will be forwarded to FDEP. The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: Greater than fifteen percent (15 %) of the existing native vegetation will be retained on-site and set aside as preserve areas with conservation easements prohibiting further development. Selection of preservation areas, are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. Habitat management and exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal and are included on the site plans. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the site plans. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. Restrictions for within preserve areas are included in the conservation easement and on the site plans. A wildlife survey for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 is included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species (manatees) are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal are included on the site plans. EAC Meeting Page 4 of9 VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Mana2ement: Fisherman's Village is divided into a south basin and a smaller north basin separated by a wetland preserve. Both basins use a combination of dry detention areas and swales to achieve water quality retention/detention and they use interconnected underground detention vaults below the parking areas to achieve attenuation of the peak flows. This system should remove almost all settleable solids and a portion of the suspended solids and should achieve some nutrient removal prior to discharge. The north basin discharges to the north directly into Haldeman Creek. The south basin discharges toward the east into a dead-end canal which discharges into Haldeman Creek. The south basin discharge may help circulation in the dead-end canal. The Site Development Plan CAR 4596) is on reject by Engineering Review for miscellaneous engineering items as of the writing of this staff report. The Water Management system design should not be affected by those comments. The project requires a permit from SFWMD due to the proximity of wetlands and a canal with direct access to the Gulf of Mexico. The District's staff report permit conditions are the final design. Environmental: Site Description: The Fishermans Village soils map identifies four soil types mapped on-site with two soils being dominant. The northern portion of the site is identified as Durbin and Wulfert Mucks, which are typically found in tidal mangrove swamps. The southern portion of the site is shown as being dominated by Basinger Fine Sand, which is typically found in transitional pine, cypress, and cabbage palm sloughs. The site has been significantly altered by previous land use and consists mainly of mowed grass with scattered slash pine and cabbage palm, residual cabbage palm hammocks, an excavated lake, and mangroves. Most of the non-estuarine portions of the project will be cleared by the County during maintenance dredging of Haldeman Creek, prior to development of the site. A site plan depicting anticipated conditions on-site after the County's use of the property is included as Figure 4 in the EIS. EAC Meeting Page 5 of9 Conservation easements have been recorded for habitats on-site as part of the original development permits issued for the site (DER Permit No.l12315935 (4/17/91); SFWMD Permit No.II-01157-S (11110/93); USACOE Permit No.199003630 (8/6/93)). While the majority of the mitigation was conducted for the original permits, the impact and development associated with the original permits was not. The property owner intends to lift the existing conservation easements and record easements over the preserves associated with the current site plan. Wetlands: In association with the County's permitting of the property as a temporary spoil recipient site for the Haldeman Creek dredging project, the County has had site wetlands delineated (EIS Exhibit D). According to the County's delineation there are 3.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 1.4 acres of Other Surface Waters south of Haldeman Creek. Additionally, Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologists have mapped, based on photo interpretation, an additional 1.8 acres of wetlands and 3.1 acres of Other Surface Waters north of the southern property (EIS Figure 2). All development work proposed is south of the Creek in the area delineated as part of the County's dredge project. Based on the proposed spoil stockpiling permit for the County, approximately 0.4 acres of wetlands and 0.5 acres of Other Surface Waters will be impacted and mitigated for by the County. Subsequent to the County utilizing the site as a dredge recipient site, there will be approximately 5.2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 4.0 acres of Other Surface Waters located within the property boundary. The Fishermans Village project proposes to impact 1.2 acres of wetlands including 0.6 acres of created mangrove forest, 0.4 acre of native mangrove forest, 0.1 acre of mixed forested mitigation wetlands, and 0.1 acre of shrub and brush land). Impacts will be mitigated by preserving and enhancing 3.6 acres of wetlands on-site and by purchasing coastal wetland Credits from Little Pine Island Mitigation Bank. Final wetland impacts and mitigation will be determined during the state and federal permitting process. Water quality, quantity, and hydroperiod should not be altered by this project. The on-site wetland that will not be impacted will be enhanced as a part of mitigation (exotic maintenance and spoil removal). The hydrology of the wetland systems is tidally dominated and it is anticipated that the project will provide increased hydrological connections to preserves wetlands. The project plans include a surface water management system, which includes a series of wet/dry detention to hold and treat on-site runoff to insure water quality is reached. EAC Meeting Page 6 of9 Preservation Requirements: The subject property has been significantly altered by previous land use and the majority of uplands are maintained (mowed) grassy areas. Prior to initiation of construction of the Fishermans Village project, the site will be further altered by the County's use of the property as a temporary spoil site for maintenance dredging of Haldeman Creek. Two vegetation maps have been prepared for the project: EIS Figure 2 identifies the current vegetation communities on-site and EIS Figure 4 identifies the vegetation communities anticipated upon completion of the County's utilization of the site for temporary spoil disposal. According to the EIS for the Haldeman Creek dredging project, 6.95 acres of native vegetation currently exist on-site. Fishermans Village is a residential project, greater than 2.5 acres in size and located seaward of the "Coastal High Hazard Area". In accordance with Policy 6.1.1 of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Section 3.05.07 of the Land Development Code (LDC), a minimum of twenty-five percent of the existing native vegetation shall be retained on-site (6.95 acres x .25 = 1.74 acres). The 2.66 acre County required preserve identified on the Site Development Plan satisfies this requirement. Listed Species: Surveys for listed plant and animal species were conducted on-site on October 19th and November 15th, 2004. On October 19th the site was surveyed from 9:00 a.m. - 11 :30 a.m. with the majority of the focus on the open lands and mangrove fringe. On November 15th the site was surveyed from 10:30 a.m. - 3 :30 p.m. with the majority of the focus on the native mangrove/bay, cabbage palm and tropical hardwood areas. Listed wildlife species observed include one tri-color heron (on two occasions) and three white ibis foraging on the mud flat in the center of the mangrove forest. The only listed plant species identified was the cardinal wild pine (Tillandsia fasiculata) found in the mangrove forest. Additionally, an osprey is nesting on a platform erected adjacent to the canal on the eastern portion of the property. The listed species observed were in areas that are proposed to be preserved. The osprey nesting platform is located in an area to be retained as a preserve/landscape buffer and the pole and platform will not be removed. Manatee awareness signage and language addressing protection measures for manatees during construction are included on the site plans. Calculations for determining the number of boat slips according to the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) are included in the EIS and on the site plans. The amount of shoreline used in determining the number of boat slips pursuant to the MPP is still under review EAC Meeting Page 7 of9 by staff. The current site plan identifies 5,461.85 feet of shoreline which allows for a maximum of 54 boat slips. Only the amount of shoreline for property owned by the applicant can be used in determining the number of boat slips pursuant to the MPP. An update of staffs findings will be presented at the EAC meeting. A total of 51 boat slips are shown on the site plan. VII. RECOMMENDA TIONS: Staff recommends approval of Site Development Plan No. SDP-2003-AR-4596 "Fishermans Village" with the following conditions: Stormwater Manae:ement: 1. A preconstruction conference must be held prior to commencing any work. Permits from all applicable state and federal agencies must be obtained prior to any preconstruction conference. Environmental: 1. Permits or letters of exemption from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) shall be submitted to Environmental Services Department review staff prior to the pre-construction meeting with the Engineering Services Department. 2. The approved conservation easement for the County required preserve shall be recorded within 90 days of Site Development Plan (SDP) approval. CRA Board Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Donna Fiala Chairman Commissioner Frank Halas Commissioner Tom Henning Advisory ~ Bill Neal Chairman Karen Beatty Ron Fowle Rod Gamer Chuck Gunther Phil McCabe Steve Main William Mears Lindsey Thomas CRA Staff )avid L. Jackson Executive Director THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2408 LINWOOD AVE SUITE 11 NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAX 239.775.4456 May 24, 2006 RE: Windstar PUD Amendment TO: Ms Kay Deselem, Concerning the Windstar PUD Amendment to include the Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC development, I submit the following on behalf of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency's Local Advisory Board. The topics below come from numerous meetings and discussions concerning the matters at hand as a result of the proposed development. BACKGROUND FACTORS: Collier County Impacts (all dates are determined): 1. Haldeman Creek Dredge - July 2006 to Jan 2007. 2. 1000+ dump truck movements to remove spoil- times 2 (truck arrival and departure). 3. Spoil vacated from Windstar development site NL T Ian 2007. CRA/Bavshore Avalon MSTU (all dates are estimates): I. Development ofBCC/CRAlMSTU approved residential streetscape workbook & master plan- September 2006. 2. Lakeview Drive neighborhood & owners streetscape design charrette - Sep to Oct 2006. 3. Lakeview Drive streetscape design approval Jan-Feb 2007. 4. Develop construction documents and bid Mar-JuI2007. 5. Construction Aug-Mar 2008; no later than issuance of Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC C.O. by County. Lakeview Drive of Naples. LLC (all dates are estimates - to be confIrmed by Lakeview LLC): I. Dredge impacts listed above. 2. Begin construction Feb-Mar 2007. 3. Estimated completion and issue ofC.O. Nov-Dec 2008. The Local eRA Advisory Board agrees to the following (with fInal approval by CRA): I. CRA/Bayshore MSTU work jointly to design and install Lakeview Drive residential streetscape, with a monetary assist from the developer impacting Lakeview Drive. 2. Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC makes a monetary (cash) payment of$75,000.00 to assist in the installation of a sidewalk the length of Lakeview Drive from Bayshore Drive to the PUD boundary; and engineering and installation of asphalt to widened the street from 18 feet to 22 feet. Payment to be made to the CRA Trust Fund no later than 90 days after PUD Amendment approval, to be deposited into the CRA Trust Fund under a specifIc Capital Improvement Project line item: Lakeview Drive Streetscape. 3. Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC will accept some stormwater from Lakeview Drive streetscape improvements at their PUD on-site stormwater facility, based on engineering studies and streetscape stormwater requirements. For the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local CRA Advisory Board, David Jackson Executive Director 239-643-1115 Exhibit D THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA 2408 LINWOOD AVE, SUITE 7-UNIT 11 NAPLES. FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FACSIMILE 239.775.4456 Excerpts from the Archaeological Assessment of the Fisherman's Cover Parcel Exhibit E Table of Contents List of Figures Consultant Summary Proj ect Setting Previous Research 11 Cultural Summary Methodology Site Summary Results and Conylusions References Cited Appendix 1: Shovel Test Log Appendix 2: Field Specimen Log Appendix 3: Survey Log Appendix 4: State Site File, Haldeman Creek Midden, 8CR926 I 3 8 12 21 24 28 27 35 37 38 41 Consultant Summary In August 2005, the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy Inc. (AHC) conducted a phase 1 archaeological assessment for Turrell & Associates, Inc. of the 20.82-acre Fisherman's Cove parcel located east of the City of Naples in west-central Collier County. The parcel was surveyed to locate sites of archaeological and/or historical significance. This assessment was conducted to fulfill historic resource requirements in response to Florida's Chapters 267 and 373. This assessment was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (public Law 89-665), as amended in 1992, and 36 C.F.R., Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. The work and the report conform to the specifications set forth in Chapter IA-46, Florida Administrative Code. The parcel encompasses parts of Sections 11 and 14 in Township 50S, Range 25E (Figure 1). The parcel is adjacent to Haldeman Creek and is a mix of developed, filled, and undeveloped land containing second-growth dense native and exotic vegetation. Most of the parcel was historic mesic slash pine/saw palmetto flatwoods. A marsh pond is located near the center of the parcel and a small tract of land north of Haldeman Creek is undeveloped mangrove swamp. The extreme northern portion of the parcel includes a segment of the northern and southern banks of Haldeman Creek, which drains into Naples Bay to the west. One modem structure, a multi-unit apartment complex, is located on the project parcel. No historic structures are known to have existed on the parcel. The entire parcel was investigated based on aerial photograph reconnaissance and a subsequent pedestrian survey. It was determined that the parcel area, particularly the northern and southern upland areas had a moderate probability of containing archaeological sites. 'Th.irteen shovel tests (45 cm2) were dug across the parcel and one archaeological site, 8CR926, was discovered in the mangrove swamp immediately north of Haldeman Creek. It is the consultant's opinion that archaeological site CR925,"a formative period shell midden, is of local significance. Based on available data, however, it is not known whether the site is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed site plan does not include development of the site or any part of the north side of the creek. lfthe area of the site is to be impacted, phase 2 testing is recommended in order to determine the site's full extent and significance. Any proposed "clean-up" or restoration of the site area will require an archaeological plan to be in place. 1 ~. :it~ " ~ f'I'" ,C:(,.~k ..~2 .. ~ . ~~.;.. -'":. ''" '<~":. ,~ ,. : ,. .9. I r:.:;j ~' .'~~i~'> ~ : to' Ji.< ~.:\ .. ",,'.' .......'" '~ '. .' 4' ;~<!!; '" ,~ ."" ;ti; ~;. '<0";:",, ~ - y-.,~~~;:.~.- . ' '. . ," -'!- . ...........c ~~.. .~ ';~ ,~'~e\X ,,< '-'::c",.~_,~:, '~-;::'"',;~~=.="';'~:~./r:..::~':'-;;;~;::'~:;~~==',;~"'_: '" 7 ::-,:.;': ,,,.' \\ ~" ~. t... J, ..:::..._::~. ~ " -- . .f t:.....ht if '::-;<~: ," - .... .. J~ . '<~>'_ .,....: ;..;: : ~'. -~~ -J J ;- ~~~;; :>~. .;-. :' :..i. r/ r.:::: ., I :, - ~.. . ~ II' J! ( " t; -~ ,,' ,. fm6. ~ .. 1';;.;;. !u f ' . ~ :,!d' '", '~ .I.~ . 1'-';0 ',; ,:1 \(' "" ~i " :",') --- ...\ '. .... -~ ' 1Ipt> \ \; :3 \\ ~ II i I I: II iV' :1 [I ' .: ~1.L~) -:;t\. '~ "\ \ ',' . \\ \\ "'.. ",". r-\ \;.light ,~ - ;.;.' "\ "- .~"",\\ , -, '-0 '0-. illlgl1l ~11 .:: I' d .... '\;1 .' " .' I - , .......,...,... ::'i; , , r SUBJECT PARCEL .' I, \ ; Ii r! ;r ~' ll<:: '" ~! ;::;. ii' , ~ .... .._f"..._ G 6 Figure 1. Map of the Fishemlan" s Cove parcel area I ] o 1/4 USGS MAPS: NAPLES NORTH. NI'.PLES SOUTH, 1991 l 1/2 ~ N ~ 1 Mile approx, 1 Project Setting The subject parcel is located in parts of Sections 11 and 14, Township 50S, Range 25E located east of the City of Naples in west-central Collier, County, Florida (Figure 1). The 20.82-acre parcel is a roughly ''T''-shaped polygon with the straight borders oriented to the cardinal points. Haldeman Creek crosses from east to west the northern portion of the parcel. The relevant USGS maps are Naples North and Naples South, Fla. The Fisherman's Cove parcel has been partially cleared and filled. The majority of the upland area is kept mowed. Large native trees indicate that the historic vegetation was likely slash pine/saw palmetto flatwoods with small clusters of cabbage palms. A mangrove pond with a feeder creek to Haldeman Creek and tidally-flooded mangrove swamp areas borders Haldeman Creek on both banks. There are two man-made lakes located within the parcel. The mangrove pond area has been kept in its natural state with a border of white mangroves and buttonwood. A canal parallels much of the eastern border of the property while the western border adjoins a golf course. Slash, pine flatwoods communities are usually situated on high ground west of Naples Bay/Gordon River. Historically, these communities, which contain a dense, often head-high understory of saw palmetto, were subject to and maintained by periodiC forest fires. Fires started either naturally by lightning strikes or by prehistoric Indians or by early settlers to aid hunting or cattle grazing. Among the plants typically found in the slash pine/saw palmetto flatland/prairie environments are: slash pine, saw palmetto, gallberry, shiny lyonia, rusty lyonia, staggerbush, dahoon holly, ground oak, wire grass, broom sedges, shiny blueberry, xyris, and a variety of annual and perennial herbs and wildflowers blooming seasonally. The pine flatwoods in the area south of Haldeman Creek integrates with brackish marsh/mangrove areas closest to the creek. The mangrove swamp areas, particularly those north of the creek, are high canopy and subject to a tidal flooding. The soil types for the area are fine white to gray sand mantles covering brown hardpan sands. Saint Lucie fine/Pomello fine and Immokalee fine types predominate. At lower depths, there is frequently present a zone of decayed peat. Limestone caprock is generally not found surfacially in the immediate area of the subject parcel. 3 T 5f? S R 2~ t. -;;-'--'----;:-"'"~-~.;:'-----:~;.. ,. "'-':~ 4c i 'i -'I ~ ,r"~ ;r, ~ 3 ";..,:,; .~ ;.. I ~,- ....~. ....- ~.,.' '-~': " 0..J..:-,_,,_ ~~. "l."~ ~; f/.=. ,_ ~ Il;:~-;--- I l j r. .. 3 r. .'.'.. ) f , . ;. I \. :,._~'1:r,. 'u.>, _'';;,~--=''' I ;. L___ , , . ..,.. .,.~ I i" '.. t!~ -. ~ ~'~~ ~ " l.i t"<-'.J_4' ID .; ,11 12 ~_. '__...!L..'l.Jf Hi ~ 13 PROJECT . ,PARCEL t., ",", ','J,', .~l\ ~~~~~~~>- If r-~-/>' ,'!(<'S"f' f,~ .. \'''J'~J ,) .._~ ~ '.f, ~} ..-,,,1, ~..q e ~ 1:::1 j ~e-' " .. ,-;..r :0 it ,. I, ,. ~: .:~ -[. ',' .' .:'~~.t:.LJ. :t.n.:':'._ ~;~A,~(:'~" "~,- .1; , ~ ' S ifr J-..2_.~ ---~... -'"':! "1 I ~L-$ , '~:~<1 ~. ! (,:,. --~..}' '(" '. ~::~~'i p:~~ .~I.: ~l.i , '" ,,~. ~~, I ~?- .' ~" l .:-~ ~\ ~i' ,~ ~ 'Of: ..~.-'" __I.,,~~~~ '''-L'-'< -;'-.;-;--" ~-~~. . :.:.t. _-r'..t.... ..~4/ ''':;'':_';1: \ ;-i ~ " ...~ ~; ~ f, '~i,-- tf.~" " ',,-.~~t." ...~Ll .or" ~ "" . .h.li"LtJ_~l':' ;: :..t ~. ," ~.l. -'-'---"-'-~, _.. l'r~'l:i :t",o"J' "},<,,<';. .'_ ,f." '. H.! ,f: j'll'l'-' 1_-' 'r,~ "'. ,)~,"~..:~~ , ,~----~ " .l{ / ., . :Tf~~f~i ~~~~::~~~} ~~:":~;~~ ~ ~~.~~;~:i -~~~~. ~~ ~~.~~~:':;; ...;. .~,.,u; r ';.), YJ1~ '!,!: .; J(' :r::.,..- ......r, H ).'"r'J o-.)''l. ~.j;r~'~r;:;~~: ~~~~"f.!;'i ~'j. t:. I.J "';~;':,..~ "X.... ~~'.r ~~.~/:~. i ;;; fc ~~;:';~~. .rN~<1'",cJ.: .:.v >;~ C'(;,", p \: J...J.'.~tl ~1:;u,'" ~:..., ..-"if' ,~.;;~;.~.~ .~;: ~;;<f,~ 1;.... 3-"" J; ....;:n -;;:.!" .l",!-ll" ~~t~.~~:.~~~':; ~~~ ~.~ <f.;~'(J:'Wl;'':'-J: R"~.:!~J: 1..!!.J:dW"b..u '5:':':4.51: ":',"".,S,ll r.. .",;'" ~ 01;:" J;~ ~ '(:2 ]l,.;.Q,' f';'.r-... .!toLo.~'\ .~ ~",. 4; 1(' :t! ~:' ~"...; :..~ it..,. 4'i;::~~_~ ~~~j ~V~, ,.:..",~ , !'i"';r~, W1'~:t' ~~=it~ ~~* ~ t:~~~::.~;t~;, ~\ ~:i~'.;;~ ",~~:';;~!;t:: ~! i~:r::~ 11!. fE~~ ~:-! .~~;: :tr '~;~~ r;~_f .oJ- ;l:i:7a, W" !:~1'~. ~i ~:._.:t~~ !~1'.~. .Hlt# t:!r. ='""..t :: ~~~'tl..: ;; ~ ..~~~ ! ~. ..~-,,- ~..,,: 1..5 J! ~ :>.1';' J.:~ ~:: ~ 16 ~;~~ ;.~~:~~~; )') X""t~, ~..~~" ;~ ~,;..,,~,-.,,:j,'f..'_:,',~.,; ~~..;,:.'~" ~.' ~ ~~ ~.~. ~.~ -~:- .-. . ~ t~: ~.;: ~.~~. ::~~~~, nf~~; " t~, ::!i ......" J," .l,~;:..IF- -', . tiS' ,- ~,'~~", ::,i'n2~W.; i:;~ :;"ii - ~1.~_~: ,it!~~;;;t - -~:<::L-kti~ ~!J~ -N ~ :,.<t.:-t ( !"!. I,t-f,.. ~!,'I -.\:""'j ~ [.. ;;~, e E-1: , _'E-.,::, ,-" :J.o....,l....;:..;... L--,. ">{..!!, ..;-.? l :'-:-'.JU T,-: , . ,.. F.~I'J ".:,' ,J (.' 1.> ~' ;_ it :l -::. M J . r $ ::> sa 4- i ~~~~~~J.~~r~':f:;J~?;~ ;;;;:';':::':f~~:~."~Y:'f':f,:~!~:t.::';~ ,7%:.67:.,,;.;( t j ~Iti\: , -/:~~c.?b/. ,",0" _~.',i,-..~ f. . ""'",:, f"~,,' 41''''' /~,.. J .s ..,'r. I' n;.,' .. f i ,;; .:..s .; d Figure 2. The 1876 plat map for Tovmship 50S~ Range 25E showing location of modem parcel boundades ~ N 4 f '< \. Orr. ..'''~;;''.:Ic''. ...." ~. ~. ~..,u,'i-::"~'" , -. .....' . t l to;! ~ U L, ~~ 5 ~z ..g tr.J C d) "t:l :-E :2 ~ G.) G.) U I:: c:\S E G.) "0 "@ ..,.. - t;..., o ..=z Q..O ctI r- . ctI 5"I.l "t:l 00 .......- ~te Q..;>, ca:=: ._ as ~'.p ctI a No.. \O"'t:j 0-.... - ::;:; ~~ .0 r""l"O o d) ;...00 ::l"O :::1)0 .- :- ~"'O Figure 4. Aerial photograph of the Fishennan's Cove parcel area AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS WEBSITE 6 150 ; 300 ~ N I 600 Feet approx. Figure 5. Vie\lV east in northerly area ofpal'ceI south of Haldeman Creek. This area has been cleared and filled. Figme 6. View nOlih ac.ross Haldeman Creek to mangrove area north of the Creek in the extreme northern portion of the parcel. The white sand visible on the far bank is recent spoil from the dredging of the creek. 7 Previous Research Southwest Florida has been a focus of archaeological investigations since the 1880s, although much of the early work was directed toward recovery of museum quality artifacts rather than understanding cultural processes. Griffin (1988:48-50) discusses some of the very early references to archaeological sites in south Florida. He notes that these early reports were mostly casual observations, and few appear to refer to Southwest Florida, but rather the southeast and Key West areas. Southwest Florida archaeological sites have been reported since at least the time of Kenworthy's informal report on shell mounds and ancient canals (Kenworthy 1883). At about the same time as Kenworthy's investigations, Simons (1884) gave a narrative account of some of the very large coastal shell middens, and Douglass (1885) provided further information about prehistoric canals (although he did not accept that they were prehistoric); one canal near Gordon's Pass is probably the Naples Canal (8CR59), and one further north the Pineland Canal. Griffin (1988 :50-51) indicates that Douglass' diaries record excavations on Horrs Island, apparently a post-contact era site (8CR41), as Douglass mentioned European artifacts. Douglass visited Lostman's River and other areas in the Ten Thousand Island area, and a visit to Horrs Island was briefly narrated in Douglass (1890). In 1895, Durnford reported cordage and other artifacts recovered from a mangrove muck pond on Marco Island (site 8CR49). The material was shown to Cushing, who mounted a major project to recover more material from the site. Cushing (1897) reported wood and other perishable artifacts recovered from the muck pond on Marco Island, adjacent to a large shell works and midden village site. This report generated a great deal of subsequent interest after publication of illustrations of the spectacular finds. Wells M. Sawyer, a young artist accompanying the expedition produced an excellent and presumably accurate contour map for the entire Key Marco Shell Midden. This map is valuable to present-day efforts to understand many of the now obliterated . features and interpreting (reconstructing) the "architecture" of the shell midden during current excavations at that site. Widmer (1983) notes that Cushing also focused attention on the nonagricultural chiefdom level of social organization supported by the rich estuary and marine resources, although his anthropological observations have remained overshadowed by the wealth of artifacts. C.B. Moore investigated a number of sites along the Collier/Lee County coast, apparently attempting to fmd material comparable to Cushing's finds (Moore 1900, 1905, 1907). Although Moore provided information about site locations and general contents, most of his work was extremely crude and uncontrolled, even by contemporary archaeological standards, and certainly by modem. The first attempt to systematically survey and investigate archaeological sites was initiated by Ales Hrdlicka, who in 1918 visited a number of sites along the coast and tidal mangrove estuaries, especially in the Ten Thousand Island region (Hrdlicka 1922). 8 Matthew Stirling excavated a burial mound on Horrs Island (1931, 1933). The site was named the Blue Hill Mound but is not recorded under that name in the FMSF (either as a primary or secondary name), so it is unclear exactly which site he excavated though it was probably 8CR41 (McMichaels 1982). The reports by Stirling are preliminary, and apparently neither a final report nor a skeletal analysis has been published. However, this represents one of the first controlled excavations in CollierlLee Counties (although he attempted stratigraphic control Cushing had little success in his wet site excavation) John M. Goggin (1936) defined a south Florida cultural area (Glades Area), and described south Florida ceramics (Glades ware), establishing a basis for later archaeological work. Goggin (1939) published an analysis of the ceramic sequence in south Florida. In later reports (1947, 1949a, 1949b) he formulated a basic framework of cultural areas and chronologies that is still current (though modified with additional data, see further discussion below). Goggin summarized much of this information in an unpublished manuscript (1949b, although modified later); the most thorough discussion of this manuscript is available in Griffin (1988). In 1935, John M. Goggin, pioneer south Florida archaeologist made a visit to the Gordon Pass Shell Mound on the north side of Gordon's Pass. This archaeological feature, now destroyed, became the type-site for an incised pottery decoration/motif called "Gordon Pass Incised," now recognized as a prominent Glades II time marker. Goggin's work at the Gordon Pass Shell Midden along with preliminary conclusions as to a Glades area chronology was published in the New Mexico Anthropologist in 1939 (Goggin 1939). In passing, one unfortunate aspect of Goggin's work was a dependence on informant information for location of sites (especially interior sites) and he had a real concern that existing sites would be looted. This concern resulted in either deliberately or incidentally vague 10cational data for many sites. Some of these sites have never been satisfactorily relocated, although a few have undoubtedly been unknowingly recorded by later investigators. Goggin's 1949 manuscript (Goggin 1949b), which was apparently a rough draft for the Yale Publications in Anthropology series, enumerates several sites occurring in and around Bonita Springs. Due to the above difficulties in determining precise location, it cannot be said with absolute certainty that some do not occur near the subject tracts. For several decades, much of the subsequent archaeological investigations in the region took place in Lee and Charlotte Counties, especially in the Cape Haze, Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island areas. It is rumored that John M. Goggin had a "gentleman's agreement" with many of the other leading practicing Florida archaeologists of the time that the South Florida area was his exclusive province to investigate. If this rumor is correct, it might explain the neglect shown the southwest Florida area from the end of World War II to Goggin's death in 1964. In 1956 Sears reported on a large village and mound complex at the mouth of Turner River on Chokoloskee Bay south of Marco Island, and in 1967 on the results of a survey of the Cape Coral area. Laxson (1966) reported on excavations at Turner River Jungle Garden site, upriver from the Turner River site, although these have been confused in recent accounts. 9 Van Beck and Van Beck (1965) excavated three small test pits on Marco Island (at the Marco midden, 8CR48) associated with the Cushing site (8CR49). Their description for the placement of the three test pits excavated would place them less than 900 feet east of the subject parcel. The subsequent article concerning the Van Becks' efforts in the Florida Anthropologist (March 1965) was some of the first reported scientific archaeological work to come from the southwest Florida area in nearly twenty years. In 1967, 1968, 1969 Marco Island was extensively surveyed and a few sites tested by excavation by Cockrell, Morrell and others (Morrell 1969). No complete site report was ever published although an unpublished and incomplete manuscript is available. Some of these sites were discussed in Cockrell's M.A. thesis (1970). Widmer performed a survey of Big Key, John Stevens Creek, Barfield Bay, Blue Hill Bay, and Collier Bay (all close to Marco Island) (Widmer 1974). Widmer eventually utilized his southwest coast experience to write a doctoral dissertation on the Calusa that not only remains the definitive work on that group, but also explores the relationship between subsistence adaptation and cultural evolution (Widmer 1983). In Lee County, Arlene Fradkin and other investigators from the University of Florida began an ongoing involvement with the Pine Island Sound/Sanibel Island area with her investigations at the Wightman site on northern Sanibe1 Island (Fradkin, 1976). McMichaels (1982) produced a M.A. thesis reviewing sites on Horrs Island. In 1983 Marquardt began a series of investigations at Josslyn Key~ Useppa Island, Pinel and, Buck Key, Galt Island in Lee County (Marquardt, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1992) and Big Mound Key in Charlotte County. Marquardt and Russo have investigated Horrs Island in Collier County. A number of the large shell midden village sites appear to be late Archaic, and they expect to document a more elaborate social organization and larger sedentary or semi-sedentary population sizes than previously known for that period (Russo 1990, and personal communications ). Most of these studies focused on the coastal sites, as have subsequent summaries and discussions. Recent work on the interior has made significant advances in documenting the extent and intensity of inland resources, especially in the Big Cypress and Everglades parks (Ehrenhard, Carr, and Taylor 1978, 1979, Ehrenhard and Taylor 1980, Ehrenhard, Taylor and Komara 1980, Taylor and Komara 1983, Taylor 1984, 1985). Synthesis of this data is available only for the Everglades Park (Griffin 1988) and this is definitely the most important single publication on south Florida archaeology to date. Athens (1983) summarized some of the results of the Big Cypress survey, but more analysis of this data resource is needed. Beriault et al. (1981) reported on salvage excavations at Bay West Nursery (8CR200), describing a well known but rare and little-documented Early and Middle Archaic use of ponds for cemeteries. In 1995, Drs. Randolph Widmer and Rebecca Story began an ongoing investigation at the Key Marco Midden. In this first season they excavated with the help of graduate students and 10 Cultural Summary Stirling was the first to distinguish the indigenous prehistoric cultures of southern Florida in 1936 by defining a Glades cultural area, including all of south Florida (Carr et at., 1994b:9; Milanich, 1994:5-6). Griffin (1988) pointed out that this was not formulated as a strict cultural area, but rather was a geographic region with some common cultural traits. Kroeber (1939), in a review of North American prehistory, utilized a slightly different term, the "South Florida Area," basing his definition on both environmental and cultural factors. Subsequently Goggin delineated more particular boundaries for' southern Florida and divided the region into three sub-areas: "Okeechobee" around Lake Okeechobee, "Tekesta" for southeast Florida and the Florida Keys, and "Calusa" for Southwest Florida (Carr et al., 1994b:10; Goggin, 1947:114-127). Following Goggin's study, subsequent researchers have refined or altered the cultural distinctions attributed to southern Florida's prehistoric populations. There has been criticism that Goggin's names and definitions were based on historic accounts of the main (proto) historic groups found in the respective regions and not on the archaeological evidence of spatial, temporal, and cultural differences (Sears, 1966; Griffin, 1974; Carr and Beriault, 1984; Griffin, 1988). Griffin, in particular, questioned the distinctions. He believed that South Florida cultures varied only by local environmental conditions and ceramic exchange rates. Griffm believed the inhabitants of prehistoric southern Florida were mainly dwelling on the coast and that the interior was nearly uninhabited and under-utilized. Griffin designated the entire southern Florida region as the "Circum-Glades" area (Eck, 1997:5; Griffin, 1974:342-346). This new designation for the area was furthered by a widely circulated book on Florida archaeology by Milanich and Fairbanks (1980). Griffin later (1988) retreated to some extent from his earlier position as further research (particularly by Ehrenhard, Carr, Komara, and Taylor in the Big Cypress and Carr in the eastern Everglades in the 1970s and 1980s) showed abundant sites (and concomitant use and habitation) in the interior and Everglades. Carr and Beriault, in particular, have taken issue with the concept of a Circum-Glades region. Carr's research in the Big Cypres~ and Everglades and his subsequent analysis demonstrating variation of key cultural markers (particularly in decorated ceramics) formed the basis for this contention. There is abundant evidence for cultural (and probably political or tribal) diversity in the various areas of south Florida. Carr and Beriault particularly noted and defined differences between the lower southwest Florida coast, which they termed the "Ten Thousand Island" region, and the area to the north, which they called the "Caloosahatchee" region. This latter area they believed tq be the seat of the historic Calusa chiefdomship, although previous (and some subsequent) researchers have called the entire southwest Florida from Cape Sable to the Cape Haze peninsula (and beyond) in Charlotte County "Calusa. " Griffin, in his definitive 1988 synthesis on Everglades archaeology, attempted to reconcile and refine some of the conflict in the definition of south Florida prehistoric and historic culture areas. As stated by Carr and colleagues (1994b), "the issue...appears inpart to be one of trying to determine the significance of regional and temporal variation, rather than whether these differences are real." There is evidence that changes through time in regional political 12 affiliations or realties makes any model not addressing this complex issue two-dimensional. The Calusa hegemony that was in place by the time of the arrival of Europeans may have begun as early as 800 AD in the Ten Thousand Island "district" or area (Griffm, 1988:321; Carr et al., 1994b: 12). There is currently ongoing research to further refine present thought as to cultural affiliations in south Florida. It would seem only a matter of time before new directions and emphases provide a more accurate summation of south Florida cultural affinities. Using the present models, the coastal zones of Collier County and southern Lee County contain three distinct culture areas. Indian Hill on Marco Island lies thirty miles from the projected interface by Carr and Beriault (1984) of the Ca100sahatchee area (called the "the 'heartland' of the Calusa", Carr et al., 1994b:12) to the north, and the Ten Thousand Islands area to the south. At a yet undefined point to the east lies the Okeechobee cultural area, but the boundary, if it is a definite, fixed one, is likely to occur in the vicinity of the Immokalee rise forty miles or more to the northeast of Indian Hill. Further work is in progress by Carr to address the issue of where the southwest boundaries of the Okeechobee culture area occur. Temporal Periods and Adaptations At the same time that south Florida archaeological cultural models have evolved over the past 60-plus years, so have the temporal markers or framework on which we base evolution of that culture. Much of this latter effort has resulted from comparisons made between the recovered artifacts from the lOa-year period of scientific and nonscientific excavation and collection by the various individuals and institutions (and others) enumerated in part above. This Floridian effort must be seen against the broader background of archaeological work in eastern North America and the New World as a whole. All of these efforts have been mutually complimentary and certainly not exclusive. In south Florida, the following periods and adaptations seem to be generally accepted. Part of this chronology involving the later or Formative period is called the Glades sequence in honor of Goggin, the greater part of whose work in defining the ceramic sequence or markers has withstood the test of time and subsequent criticism (Goggin, 1939, 1947, 1949c). From Goggin's day to present, pottery variability in form, substance, and decoration has proven useful for providing time markers, at least during the archaeologically-brief C.::t 3500 year) period spanning the late Archaic and Formative periods that it was produced. Other artifact types and their variations have, to present, proven somewhat less reliable as absolute indicants of prehistoric age. Radiocarbon dating, a phenomena of the last 30-plus years, provides, within the standard deviation expressed in plus-or-minus years BP (before present), a relatively absolute date for given sample and provides a yardstick to measure traits or distinctions in provenienced artifacts. Determining and adequately defining what traits we can discern against this absolute is part of the ongoing function of the regional archaeological effort. The following information is generalized and abbreviated. The dates are approximate; transitions between periods are in reality more gradual that the manner they are expressed for convemence. 13 Paleo Period (14.000 - 8.500 BP) During the Paleo Period, the first Native Americans began moving into the southeastern portion of North America and Florida. Most evidence of their presence in our state can be reliably dated to about 10,000 BP. There are no known Pa1eoindian sites in Collier County. Several are documented from elsewhere in south Florida, including Warm Mineral Springs and Little Salt Springs in Sarasota County (Cockrell and Murphy, 1978; Clausen and Gifford, 1975), Harney Flats in Hillsborough County (Daniel and Wisenbaker, 1987) and the Cutler Fossil Site in Dade County (Carr, 1986). During this period, the terminal Wisconsian ice age, the climate was probably less extreme, with cooler summers and warmer winters. The climate was also drier, and sea levels were lower (Carbone, 1983; Allerton and Carr 1988a; Griffin, 1988). One reason that possible Paleo period sites have not been discovered in Collier and Lee Counties is that the shoreline may have been as much as 100 miles further west due to lower sea levels. Drier conditions may have made the interior very inhospitable, and the shallow estuarine and littoral sites that existed were flooded by post-ice age Holocene sea rises. Any possible interior sites from the Paleo Period may be unrecognizable due to lack of diagnostic artifacts, subsequent reuse of site areas, low population density, and few permanent camps. These and other factors may help explain the absence to date of identifiable Paleo period sites in Collier and Lee Counties. On the other hand, the southwest Florida coast south of Charlotte Harbor may have been uninhabitable during this period due to an absence of key conditions for the successful hunting of large game, a trait of the Paleo period. Archaic Period (8.500 - 2.500 BP) The Archaic period. reflects a post-Pleistocene shift in adaptation marked by an increase in the seasonal exploitation of a broad spectrum of food resources, a more restricted use of territory due to regional specialization, and more semi-sedentary habitation sites. No ceramics are known until the Late Archaic. During the Archaic, regional specializations became more marked, not only with material culture but also with distinct local utilization of local plant and animal resources. . As mentioned above, there is, as yet, no firm evidence of human presence in southwest Florida during the Paleo period. This apparently is also true for the Early Archaic (8500- 7000BP), as there is evidence of an environment too arid to support scrub oak, and the presence of shifting wind formed dunes (Watts, 1975; Widmer, 1983). No early Archaic sites are known from southwest Florida (Allerton and Carr, 1988: 14). By about 6500 BP mesic conditions began to spread, although localized xeric conditions continued (and still exist in some areas) through south Florida. Middle Archaic sites dating from this time are rare, although the Bay West Nursery site (8CR200) in Collier County and the Ryder Pond site (8LL1850) in Lee County near Bonita Springs provide evidence of 14 occupation, as do several sites in southeast Florida. The Bay West site is a Middle Archaic cypress pond cemetery, associated with a lithic scatter. The Ryder Pond site is a similar mortuary pond site surrounded by pine flatwoods (Carr and Heinz, 1996). Beriault has also recorded several aceramic shell scatters in coastal sand hills (paleo dunes), some of which may date to the Middle Archaic. Griffin (1988) summarizes evidence indicating that despite the rise of available surface water, brackish estuaries and other major modem landscape features had not formed, and population (or repopulation) was still sparse. During the Archaic period sea levels began to rise at a fairly rapid rate, estimated at 8.3 em. per 100 years 6000-3000 BP, and 3.5 em per 100 years afterwards (Scholl et ai., 1969), although whether sea levels were steadily rising or oscillating is still unclear (see Griffin 1988; Allerton and Carr, 1990 for recent reviews of the literature). Data is somewhat difficult to sort out as sea level rise was accompanied by both shore regression and transgression in places. As conditions became wetter (and warmer) in the interior, cypress swamps and hardwood sub-tropical forests established themselves by about 5000 BP (Carbone 1983, De1court and Delcourt 1981). By late Middle or early Late Archaic times (4000 years BP) there were significant shell mounds and middens on Horrs Island, Marco Island, and elsewhere in the coastal regions, suggesting that the estuary system had been established and was being utilized to provide the subsistence basis for denser populations and semi-sedentary settlements (Morrell, 1969; Cockrell, 1970). At Useppa Island in Lee County, excavations have provided radiocarbon dates from pre-ceramic shell middens ranging between roughly 4900 BP and 5600 BP, suggesting that the Middle Archaic as well as Late Archaic periods saw a growing dependence on shellfish resources (Milanich et ai., 1984). There are aceramic coastal sand hill and interior wetland sites as well, but these have not been demonstrated to be Archaic despite some investigators equating aceramic with preceramic. Radiocarbon. dates for these sites would clarify this point. Allerton and Carr (1988) noted that a number of stratified sites in the wet mangrove and marsh areas of the Everglades, as well as on Horrs Island, contain Archaic preceramic horizons, although it is unclear if aceramic was equated with preceramic. Additional supporting evidence of interior use by Archaic peoples will provide a new dimension to the archaeological understanding of Archaic resource utilization. Allerton and Carr point out that if the wet tree islands were initially used by Archaic people, then at least some of the hardwood hammocks in swamp environments were raised in elevation (with subsequent changes in vegetation) due to human activities. Post-Archaic people extensively utilized these hammocks and continued to advance their development as distinct geomorphic features. This is obviously an area where additional archaeological investigations have a potential to contribute to understanding the interaction of geomorphic and cultural evolution in southwest Florida. Toward the end of the Archaic there was the introduction of fiber-tempered pottery into the archaeological record, often used as a marker of the Orange Phase, commencing at about 4000 BP, either coincident with or soon after the development of the extensive shell middens. The Late Archaic Orange Phase subsistence strategy is characterized by intensive use of 15 shellfish and marine resources, as well as being marked 'by an accelerated trend toward regional specializations. A number of the large shell middens on Marco Island (Cockrell, 1970), Horrs Island (Russo n.d.), Cape Haze (Bullen and Bullen, 1956), and elsewhere date from this period or earlier, as they contain fiber-tempered ceramics, although there are known aceramic (preceramic?) levels below the Orange Phase deposits that may date to the Middle Archaic. These shell middens are usually capped by deposits from later occupations as well. Formative Staee or Glades Periods (2500 BP - 500 BP) The Formative or Glades adaptation, based on hunting, fishing, and the harvesting of shellfish and plants, was similar to the Archaic, but was characterized by increasing specializations in gathering strategies and tool-making. Earlier writers have typed this hunter- gatherer society as primitive or "low-level" (Kroeber, 1939). However, there is certainly evidence from the specialization of tools, from the beautifully-executed wood carvings from Key Marco in Collier County and those from Fort Center near Lake Okeechobee (Cushing, 1897; Sears, 1982), and from the historic accounts of the Calusa hegemony, that the south Florida area had an advanced culture that Goggin (1964) has called a "stratified non-agrarian society." , The preceding Late Archaic late Orange phase (also known as the transitional phase) was marked by changes in pottery, and terminated with the relatively rapid replacement of fiber- tempered pottery with sand-tempered, limestone-tempered, and chalky "temperless" pottery. It was also characterized by changes in ceramic style and often by reduction in the size of stone projectile points. The Formative Stage (beginning about 2500 BP) is divided in south Florida into the Glades Periods sequence. Subsistence adaptation is marked by a narrowing spectrum of resource use, as well as continued trends toward regional diversity and ecological specializations, marked in part by the proliferation of inland resource extraction encampments. Formative Period cultural evolution eventually led to increased political sophistication, perhaps initially of modest dimensions, but culminating in broad regional political alliances and regulation of materials and goods (i.e. resources) between the coast and inland areas (Milanich and Fairbanks, 1980). By protohistoric and contact times the Calusa were the dominant tribal group, gaining broad political influence and at least partial control over much of south Florida as far north as central Brevard County. Historically, the main Calusa village has been regarded as "Calos" on Mound Key in Estero Bay in Lee County, although 50 to 70 large villages were under direct Calusa control by contact times (Griffm, 1988). During the Formative Periods, village sites grew to the proportions of large multi-use complexes, particularly along the coast and barrier islands of southwest Florida. Some of the projected intra-site functions of the elements of these complex shellworks were as temples, canals, causeways, temple and platform mounds, courtyards and watercourts. Current research involving the excavating of large contiguous areas of these shell mound complexes 16 is beginning to establish demonstrable uses for the features of these large sites, upon which heretofore were merely speculated (Widmer, 1996). . Tidal estuary rivers and inland hammocks along deep water sloughs, marshes, and permanent ponds were seasonally visited for extraction of natural resources, and are now marked by small to relatively large black dirt middens, some of which may have been semi-permanent hamlets. The pine and cypress flatwoods appear to have supported few sites, although areas around Lake Trafford and other rich interior areas developed substantial sites, including sand mounds, and may be more similar to the Okeechobee cultural area than to the coastal cultures. In 1992, Dickel and Carr excavated an apparent Deptford Period burial mound (the Oak Knoll Site) in the Bonita Bay Tract north of the Imperial River. Exotic trade items and seventy or more human burials were among the material findings. The resulting conclusions and subsequent surveying and testing of the Bonita Bay Shell works (8LL 717) suggest social stratification and complexity may extend further back into the past than the Formative period (Dickel and Carr, 1992). Coastal sites (shell middens) reflect a predominate dependence on fish and shellfish, wild plant foods and products, and larger inland game. The inland sites show a greater reliance on interior resources, including large, medium and small mammals, turtle, small freshwater fish, alligator, snake, frogs, and, sometimes, freshwater shellfish. Interior and coastal resource exchange can be documented by the consistent finds of moderate amounts of marine shell in many interior middens, as well as interior resources in coastal middens. The Formative Stage (with a nod to Goggin) has been often termed the Glades cultural tradition. Much of this "tradition" is focused on decorated ceramics, the minority in the archaeological record, although the majority of recovered (rim) sherds are plainware. However, despite this, pottery (and its decorations) is usually utilized as the major temporal marker( s) for fitting sites into a temporal framework. Changes in pottery do not represent mere changes in artistic motifs, but reflect inter/intra-regional trade contacts and outside cultural influences (possibly through exogamy, shifting of populations, and even the through evolution of a culture through time). Whatever the influences, the Glades tradition is continuous from post-Archaic times to contact times. Despite the fact that exogamy is likely to have been practiced, traders or other specialists probably moved between major cultural areas in small numbers, and genetic flow probably accompanied cultural exchange, although perhaps not on the same scale. This may have increased in later times due to use of traditional obligations of kinship and intermarriage to stabilize alliances that were not codified into a formal legal system. The following table has been modified from several sources, but it is predominantly based on Milanich and Fairbanks (1980), Griffin (1988), and Allerton and Carr (1990). Dates have been rounded somewhat and translated to Before Present (BP). There are some differences of opinion in the dates, particularly about the timing of the Glades Ia and Ib division. 17 TABLE 1: GLADES CULTURAL SEQUENCE Glades Ia (2500 BP - 1500 BP) First appearance of sand tempered plain pottery, but little else to mark a difference and the preceding Late Archaic. Sand tempered plain remains a predominate type throughout the Glades sequence. Glades Ib (1500 BP - 1250 BP) Glades ITa (1250 BP - 1100 BP) Glades lib (1100 - 1000 BP) Glades Irc (1000 BP - 800 BP) Glades ITIa (800 - 600 BP) Glades Illb (600 BP - 500 BP) Glades IIIc (500 BP - 300 BP) First appearance of decorated sand-tempered ceramic (Ft. Drum Incised, Ft. Drum Punctated, Cane Patch Incised, Turner River Punctate), plainware common. Pottery rim grooving and incision decorations become widespread. First appearance of Key Largo Incised, Sanibel Incised, Miami Incised, and plainware is common. Distinction between ceramics of southeast and southwest Florida be~omes apparent. Ten Thousand Island area distinct from Caloosahatchee area. First mound construction- increased social stratification? Population size may have approximated that at contact. First appearance of Matecumbe Incised; Key Largo Incised common on east coast, Gordon's Pass Incised common on the west, and plainware common throughout. First appearance of Plantation Pinched, but few decorated wares with a preponderance of plainware (there is some evidence of population reduction- perhaps due to a cataclysmic event). Non-local pottery (e.g. St. Johns Plain and Check Stamped, Belle Glade Plain) appears. First appearance of Surfside Incised, increasing quantities of St. Johns pottery (especially on East Coast), and Belle Glade pottery. Glades Tooled rims appear (rare on West Coast), zoned punctate designs, but general decline in incised decoration. Belle Glade ceramics common on west coast. St. Johns >ware present but rare on West Coast, common on East Coast. Continuation of IIIb ceramics, with pronounced flaring of rims and embossing on Glades Tooled ceramics. Mound burial construction less comm9n with intrusive burials into existing mounds,appearance of European goods, plainware common. 18 By European contact times (the first half of the 16th century), the southwest coast of Florida was maintaining a vigorous, possibly expanding political chiefdom with a broad network of alliances, as well as a rich and ancient cultural tradition without an agricultural base. However, direct conflict with Europeans and, more importantly, exposure to European diseases led to the rapid decline of the Calusa. By the mid 1700s their numbers had greatly diminished. The remnants of this once-powerful tribe may have left south Florida in the 1760s with the Spanish for relocation in Cuba. Others may have become indistinguishable from Spanish Cuban fishermen who worked the great fishing "ranchos" in the Pine Island Sound region catching and salting fish for export to Cuba. Other groups of Native Americans may have fused with the Creek-derived Seminoles. In the late 1700s, members of the Creek tribe were forced into Florida from Georgia and Alabama. They were later called Seminoles, from the Spanish term "cimmarones." Pressures from colonial (and later) white encroachment on their traditional territories forced them into the Big Cypress and Everglades area by the 1830s. By this time, most of the cultural identity of pre-contact times had been lost, although some of the Calusa subsistence strategies may have been partly adopted by Seminoles. A number of Seminole period sites have been documented on earlier Glades middens. This coincidence may in part reflect the paucity of high land in the interior (Ehrenhard et al., 1978, 1979, 1980; Ehrenhard and Taylor, 1980; Taylor and Komara, 1983; Taylor, 1984, 1985). Older midden sites (particularly those called ''black dirt" middens) can be rich agriculturally as well as archaeolo gic ally, making these foci for historic Seminole gardens and fruit groves. Seminole periods in south Florida are divided into I (1820-1860), II (1860-1900) and ill (1900-1940) (Ehrenhard et al., 1978). Post-1940 Seminole camps are designated "Late Seminole" in some reports. These designations reflect the different stages of Seminole migration into south Florida, Seminole displacement and active conflict with the expanding American culture, and the eventual refuge by Seminole remnants in Big Cypress and Everglades regions. Military records, and, in particular, several sketch maps by military personnel done in the 1830s and 1840s and the Ives military map of South Florida (1856) shows evidence of investigations at and near "MaIco Inlet," "Casimba," "Good Land" and "Cape Romans." Seminole Wars in the Southwest Florida Area The advent of the Second and Third Seminole Wars (1834-38, 1855-58) disrupted the peaceful settlement of the Southwest Florida region. There were a number of forts, "temporary" and permanent, established along the Caloosahatchee River during this time. Fort Dulaney was established at Punta Rassa near the mouth of the Caloosahatchee in 1837 and was occupied intermittently through 1841, and again in 1855. After a hurricane destroyed Ft. Dulaney in 1841, Fort Harvie was established upriver. The name of this fort was changed in 1850 by its commander General Twiggs to honor his new son-in-law, Col. Abraham Myers. Fort Myers was thus created, and became the chief fort ofthe region. From this central administrative point, a line of forts was established up the Caloosahatchee River. They were: Fort Denaud, Fort Adams, Fort Thompson, and Fort Center on Fisheating Creek leading into Lake Okeechobee. Other forts and "temporary depots" were established. 19 south into the Big Cypress Swamp such as Fort Simon DIum, Temporary Depot Number One, Fort Doane, Fort Simmons, Fort Keis. Fort Foster, Fort Shackleford, and others. A number of military expeditions were sent south along the coast during the Second and Third Seminole Wars with the objectives of interdicting trade in guns and ammunition between the Seminoles and the Spanish-Cuban fishing community, and hunting and capturing Indians. General Thomas Lawson, who had just been appointed Surgeon General of the United States, commanded one of the early notable expeditions. Lawson's expedition left Fort Harvie (Fort Myers) in February 1838. Elements of Lawson's command explored the area in and around the Caxambas Point area, discovering two abandoned Indian villages in the Blackwater River/Palm Bay area. Other expeditions bivouacked at Cape Romano and Caxambas Point. Colonel Rogers, of the ill-fated Parkhill expedition, wrote several dispatches from Cape Romano in the Caxambas area in 1858, describing the ambush of Captain Parkhill's party at the headwaters of Turner River. The Collier County Museum is the repository for a collection of military artifacts purportedly found by a local collector near Indian Hill in the early 1960s. This material may have originated with one of the various military expeditions stopping at Caxambas Point. Bayshore Road Area Recent History The history of the eastern shore of Naples Bay began with the settlement of an historic homestead known as the Hamilton Place 1 1/2 mile to the south of the subject parcel in the early 1900s. Naples had been created as a small winter resort community in the 1880s. Sportsmen and people hunting or fishing often frequented the eastern shore of Naples Bay. East Naples began developing as a suburb of the general Naples area by the late 1940s. Bayshore Road was platted in the very early 1950s when a insubstantial wooden bridge was placed across Haldeman Creek. Kelly Road (now named Bayshore Road) was extended to near its present three mile length within a few years. Many side streets were placed along its length by the 19608. A large shell mound bordering the east side of Naples Bay was removed for shell road underlayment material and a fishing camp established at the site called Jackson Gateway Harbor. Winds tar and several other large and fairly exclusive developments fronting Naples Bay were established by the 1970s. In the early 1940s a hunter named Kirkland discovered a large sand mound 400 yards south of the Naples Botanical Garden Parcel on the mid-portion of a crescent-shaped sand ridge. A local liquor store owner and amateur treasure hunter named Jack Prince extensively dug in the site in the 1940s and 1950s. Other local collections contain material removed from the site, which is believed to be the "Gordon Pass Sand Mound" reported by John M. Goggin in the 1950s, but is recorded in the Florida Master Site File as the Kirkland Mound, 8CR227. Collected material seen by the investigator (Beriault) includes proto-Contact Safety Harbor and Englewood Incised ceramics, and post-Contact glass beads and metal objects. 20 Methodology Prior to conducting fieldwork in the project parcel, relevant archives and literature were reviewed. This included, but was not limited to, studying previous archaeological reports for sites in Collier County, reviewing information from the Master Site File in Tallahassee concerning nearby sites, and examining USGS maps of the project area. Also, black and white and color aerial photographs from the proj ect area, which could aid in revealing anthropogenic changes to the topography and floral communities, were interpreted. Research Desie:n This phase I archaeological survey of the Fisherman's Cove parcel incorporated the use of certain predictive archaeological site models. These models are based on topographic and vegetative attributes that are associated with prehistoric and historic sites in coastal Collier County. These models postulate that high ground areas in close proximity to creeks, sloughs and wetlands are high probability areas for prehistoric archaeological sites. The e1evational information on the USGS Naples North and Naples South Quadrangle maps for the area also was used. It was predicted that overall, the project parcel had a moderate probability of containing archaeological sites because of its location adjacent to Haldeman Creek. Fieldwork All areas of the parcel were assessed by pedestrian survey. Initial visual inspection of the subject parcel identified three areas of moderate to high archaeological probability. These were a remnant mangrove marsh pond near the center of the parcel and the north and south banks of Haldeman Creek crossing the northern portion of the parcel. . Thirteen IS-inch (45 cm square) shovel tests were dug judgmentally across the parcel at various intervals (Figure 7). The south bank of Haldeman Creek was tested at rougWy 125-foot intervals as were the upland areas surrounding the mangrove marsh pond in the center of the parcel. Several other judgmental shovel tests were dug in the southerly portion of the parcel. The northerly portions of the subject parcel which are largely tidally-flooded mangrove swamp areas were assessed by pedestrian survey and a disturbed shell midden was noted. This archaeological site was not shovel tested because the mangrove area in which it occurs is to be maintained as a preserve and also because the site was presently occupied by a "hobo" camp. All shovel tests were dug averaging 24-inch (60 em.) depth or until sterile sediments were encountered across the parcel. All excavated material was sifted through a 1;4" diameter mesh screening and any material of archaeological significance collected and sent to ARC in Davie for cleaning, analysis, and conservation. Collections One field specimen bag (FS-l) of archaeological material was recovered and sent to the ARC laboratory at Davie for cleaning, conservation, and analysis. 21 Informants No informants were interviewed for this project. 22 ~ I j Figure 7_ Map of the Fishennan's Cove parcel area sumving location of shovd l~sts and location of archaeological I site. Haldeman Creek Midden, 8CR926- I I C;1 ""f'cfi,~ :.A!"'v "i" &~ 'N ~. ;~r- 0:,. . ST10"-' ST9. . ST11 .,--"" ~' '" <\~, It'; o - I 200 400 ~\..ERt(.,L~F-'_-G~.4iJEG s.r ,':'!~~ERfl..";~.N CONSUL "71N(; EN;3~Nc8S~LC ~. " f,. '... !Ii If HALDEMAN CREEK MIDDEN, 8CR926 .'U ", ~ ., ;Ill ~\ ;:1, M , '~ ~ ~. ~~. ~ iJ!~ ,~ ~, >to ~ ~\r ~ ll, ~ '* ~ Ii !!(.;: ;;-~ ;1l "!f 4ii r; k' ,~i\l ~ ~ ~ !iI ~~ *~ '$" . {II'. ie. .. ,~~ 'tl7, ~ ~ N I 800 Feet approx, '-, ~ ..:.J Site Name: State Site Number: . Environmental Setting: Location: Site Type: Site Function: Description: Chronology: Collections: Previous Research: Preservation Quality: Ownership: Significance: Site Summary Haldeman Creek Midden 8CR926 Mangrove swamp north of Haldeman Creek Township 50S, Range 25E, Section 11 Shell midden Habitation, resource extraction . The site is a small disturbed midden exposed by a "V" -shaped cut made in the north bank of Haldeman Creek. The midden does not exceed two feet elevation above the surrounding mangrove swamp. Most of the exposed material appears to be compacted oyster shell with other shell species intermixed. The area has been partially filled with spoil presumably from Haldeman Creek, and that material leveled. To the north of the site is a small bayou that might have been part of the original channel' of Haldeman Creek. A partial wall fragment of a. hafted Busycon hammer was collected from the site surface. No other artifacts were observed. This site appears to be the remnants of a small midden ridge paralleling Haldeman Creek. The visible portion of the site is about 30 feet north-south by 50 feet east-west; or approximately 1500 square feet in total. Prehi&oric:Formativeperiod Fragment of a hafted Busycon hammer (FS-l) None Poor to good: The site area has been dredged, borrowed, and filled to an unknown extent. Some well preserved components may occur. Private Site is oflocal significance and additional testing is necessary in order to determine whether the site is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 24 )- ~) Figure 7. View' west. John Berjault examines shell midden 8CR926 found near a V-shaped cut into the north bank of Haldeman Creek in the extreme northern portion of the parcel. Figure 8. View west at shell mrdden material comprising the site. The majority of shell is compacted oyster shell. Results and Conclusions A phase 1 assessment of the Fisherman's Cove parcel resulted in the investigation of all parts of the parcel. Based on regional archaeological site models, it was determined that the upland area adjacent to a creek/mangrove swamp area had a moderate potential for archaeological sites being associated with it. Thirteen shovel tests were dug across the parcel which resulted in the discovery of one archaeological site, the Haldeman Creek Midden, 8CR926. The Haldeman Creek Midden, 8CR926 is disturbed prehistoric midden partially exposed by a "V" -shaped cut in the north bank of Haldeman Creek. The midden does not exceed two feet elevation above the surrounding mangrove swamp. Most of the exposed material appears to be compacted oyster shell with other shell species intermixed. The area has been partially filled with spoil presumably from Haldeman Creek, and that materialleveled. To the north of the site is a small bayou that might have been part of the original channel of Haldeman Creek. A partial wall fragment of a hafted Busycon hammer was surface collected from the site. No other artifacts or ceramics were observed. This site may be the remnants of a small round to oval-shaped midden ridge paralleling Haldeman Creek a distance east of its juncture with Naples Bay. The visible portion of this site is about 30 feet north-south by 50 feet east- west or approximately 1500 square feet in total. It is the consultant's opinion that site 8CR926 is a disturbed, formative period shell midden, and is of local significance. There is insufficient data to determine whether the site is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The northern part of the parcel that encompasses the site is not proposed for development and will be part of a preserve area. However, if the area of the site is to be impacted, then phase two testing is recommended to determine the full site extent and significance. Any improvements to the preserve will require an archaeological management plan. Although a thorough and systematic effort was made to locate sites on the subj ect parcel, there is still the potential of small archaeological sites, features or artifacts existing, and should subsequent development reveal this, then relevant agencies and. the consultant archaeologist should be contacted. In the event that human remains are discovered then the provisions of Florida State Statue 872.05, the Unmarked Human Remains Act, will apply. 26 :\,. ~~ ..... .;.. ~?~~':r-;--;-:-::;:~.~~ . .r.-~ ."::Tr._": :...T'.~~. '..;'~ \0:. 011'086' . COLLIER eoUNTY II! SEP IS PI! 1123 RECDRDEO IRSS wi 80Ot\" 001223 PAGE. GRANT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT IEC~ . ~~ Tins CONSERVATION EASEMENT is given this 2- day of NT _ Sitr"."" z,..r . 1993, by Fisherman's Cove Joint VenllR all989 Sacramento, ~~ Ft. derdale. Florida 33326 ("Grantor'") to Fisherman's Cove Property Owners Assodation, Inc. ("Grantee"). '.I!~ . .~ .: ; f Iii . t.. . .' ~ ." . . "':9-\ ":::-~ < t .' .. . .: ~ '.- WITN ESSETH: WHEREAS, the Citmtor is the owner Df CC11IIin landJ situated in CoDier Couuty. Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "Property", mort specifically described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, by this refcre~; IIId WHEREAS, the Grantor, is agreeable to and desirous of establishillg 81td securing the caCOfCCIIICI1t of I ~ conscrvarion easement as defined in Section 704.06, Florida Statutes (19911 owr thC Property. NOW, THEREFORE.. in consideration of the covcnams contlincd. herein below, Gmdor for illlelf'SDd its heirs, assigDS and succ;esson in title, does hereby pt and ~nvey to Ihe Grantee, its heirs, assigns and succcsson, a pcrpctua1 consemtion casemCDt upon the Property desmhed in Exhibit A, in accordance: with the following ttans: 1. It is the pwposc of thi$ Conservation Easement to assure that the Property \WI be retained perpetually predominately in its aatura1 condition and to pm'ellt any use of the Property that will significallt!y impair or interfere witb the natural ecological values of the Propl:lty. To cany out this purpcse the followins rights arc conveyed to Gr8lttee by this easement a. To identify. JIICSCIVC, and protect !he natural and ecological features of the Property, including without liniitatiOll topography, soil. hydrology, vegetation. and wildlife; b. To enter upon the Property at reasonable times to enCorce the rights herein eranted and to observe. S1lIdy, and make scieatific obscn'Mions of the PropeI1y, upon pri!)rDOlice to Orantor, in a mlmC:l'that will not lUIJ'easonably interfere with the use IIld quiet enjoyment of the Property by Grantor, at the time of such entry; and RtcelYfIl . .7Q Ooellllfftt~rl St.., rIA leeef," S rII JlltC11ss -C' lntutlble ~1'tf'5OlId PrOllel't, r" W~j, I~ m. Of J!3i.1T COtJRT a~ C? 2f D.Cr , . . . - , ~ i Ef1ff(~t C () /v'f /JJ1. II A'1t (74/ 15/if1iA1!i# . fo(l . P fNfiIAA4JJ V/tL4{6-- SDP-2003-AR-4596 REV: 4 P " 'ct. .2001040078 , ~rol,e. , .. . , .,. , 'DUE: 8/11/05 Date: 7/,12/05 - .. . . EPT DU E' 7/26/05 ENGINEERING ~ , . .~~~.....t"~~~ . -.--:.-..-.=....,", ..- ~ .. .",,7' .;\ ~.);~ II[ ." '. . ., ,,:... ...... ..;""........ ,- - . ,)<.' _ Ill........' '~ -. ~.~.. . ~.. '. ,_ ~". ..... . _ 1ft"" '. _ .... ....t",~ :rll'!.~',:._.._ . _J.........':l:::::C.:;;;:;: ... ~ . ~ 1865 ur\ ~OO'" OOI2Z~ PAGE; e. To enjoilllllY ac:tivity on or use of the Prapcrty tbat is U1caDSistcr1t with the pmpose of'tbis CoDscMtion Easement and to enforce the restOration of such areas or f'eatum of the Property lhat may be damaged by any incouistellt letionl)' or use.. 2. This Conservation Easement prohibits or limits the followiag activity upon the Property. a. Construction or placiD. ofbuilciinp, roads, sips. billboards or other acIvedisins. utilities, or other structUrCs on or ebove the ground. b. Dumpblg or placiag of soil or other substan" or meSeriaJ 8J landfill. or dumping or placing of1rUb. waste. Of iutsishtly or offensive II1IIICria1s. c. Removal or c1estru.cti0ll of~iYe tree.. shnabs. or 0Iher wget&tion. except for the remowl of noxious or exotic invasive p~l species. d. ExcawiiOD. dRd&iDs. or removal of loam, peat, gravel. soil, rock. Of other material substance ill suoh manner _ to affect the Mace. e. Surface use except for purposes that permit the lind or water area to rcmaiD predonUn8lldy in its natural cOlldiIioD. r. Attivities cleldmcDlalto drainage. Oood CODUOl, water conservation. erosion control, soil consemliou, or fish and wildlife habitat preseMtioJl. The mtrictiollS described in (a) throush (t) abcm shall DOt apply to acti\ities or const:nJCfion dcsipd to provide reasonable access from upland areas adjlCCDt to the Property. to permitted docb coastruetcd within and along1he shoreline oflhe Property. 3. Grantor reserves the ricbt to caDStrUCt a walkway or walkwaya throush the Property to a dock or docks. iJa accord.ancc with Florida Departmellt of ~ Regulation IIld Depas1m.ent ofd1c Army pmls issued or to be issued reprcIinJ CCDSttUOtion of such docla ind dmlopDlCllt of areas withiD and adj&e:eDt to the Propetty. In addition; Grantor also reserves the right for the owners of each single family lot developed em upl8l1dareu llljaceDt. to the Property, to coDStn1;t a . 1 -,".,1 .:~,./'f.I,A":';':'\"'"':';._.' ~ ..~.o(. ~5):X;); ,', '.' ii..~...,. .~..- ~..:.:. '.' -" ' :t{~~'.:>\:+ " ' , ~~~~\~;,.~,i ~",:,-, :,: ~...: ~, . ':', .~ t. '.. :~o.;t.". :,:','. . (: . ,~~~.~~;?::t~: '. . '":: ~. . ... . '. ~:.~~~~~:~:~:' (.... . ~~.: . f ~..J,., ::. . ...;,... .' ';t..r.,.. ~: a~~ .: 'I.~. "...... -. ,~ . _f"~ . fABS 001225 uN BOOK PAGE. four foot wide ICCeU through the Property for the purpose of proWling ICCCII to. "1'- typt docJc where the terminal platfonn is outside the Property. 4. GraJllM ttsm'ft all rishlS as owner of the: Property. inc!udi1'lg the riJht to engage 1ft all uscs of the Property that arc lot cxpressly prohibired hercUt 8IId are not inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement S. Grllltor hereby rcs:MS the right to perform lUl)' work olllhe Property specifically authorized by Ihe Grantee. 6. The Property is 10 mnain in a natural stare in perpetuity except as othenvise pennilled by this Conservation ~t or until such time u the Grantee. ill agreement with the United Stites AnDy Corps ofEnJiaemIl1d 1Ip01IlloUCC to 1Ile Uaitcd States Fish and Wildlife Senrice, detmniacs that . the reasons for which the easement was created no longer exist, in which event. GrIDtee may release !his easement 7. No right of access by the pneral public to any portion of the Property is couYCfild by tfaiJ ComcnItion Easement. a. GrImtor, agrees 10 pay any and all real property taxes and assessments Im= by co.. authority on the Property. 9. GraIItor asrees to bear all costs related to the operation, upkeep and m.m~alll!P. afthe Propeny and docs hereby indemnify and hold Oraorce IwmIess therefrom. 10. GraIItor iDt:nds that any costs incurred by GraIltee m enforcJD,.judic.ially or otherwise. the tams lIIld restrictions oflbis Couserwtion Easement agaiDst Grantor, incIudina without limitation costs of suit. attorneys' fees, eelill)' COlts oCrestoratioa necessitated by die violation otlhe temlS ofthil ccmsemtioa. ClSemcut by Grantor., shall be bome by Oamtor. 11. Grantor iDteDds that c:uforcement of the terms and provisions of the ComervaJion Easement sIII1I be at the discretion of the Gnntce and abat lIlY ~ 0Jl behalf of Grantee to exercise its rightl hereunder ill the event or III)' bMch hereof' by Gmttor. shall not be deemed or COItJInZed to be . waiver of GrmIee's rights MCWlder in the CMDt of any subsequellt breaeh. 3 ";.i, -:' .. ;t~(i ....~..... ... .. ~'~~'~..~,: . ~"S~,. ,....J:.- ot- ~.:,,!".~~..; : :1 :-.. ..,...... . . " ~ . ~.;, ". ~.- - .0 ". ~ ..-. - . ~. ~ o. :~.., '. '. ~.?:~. .:: .~.. ". J ~. ~.r~..jf~~W-""~~' .:.~:.-:~.-.:'_:'~ ""',l... - "'~'''''...:'''1.,----.......... .J7'"~,,,:. IRBS ull aOOK 001226 PAGE. 12. Ciru~.greet that it will hotd.lhis Comervaticm Eaemcnl exoluamly Cor . CODSCMticm pmpolU wl dill k will DOt aaiaa its rishtlaH obIiptiO!ll 1Iftder tldl CcmscMtiaa I!aIemaDt exc:cpt to another cqmization qualified 10 hold such iatemtI UDder the applicable state lIlld fcdmllaws and committed to holdiDa thil Ccmservmon Easement exclusively tor ccmaemtiOll pIIl'pOSCI. 13. . It my provision oftbiJ CoaseMtioa Easement or daupplicatioa thereof'to my penon or Gircumstance is fo1IIllI to be bmUd, the remaildcrof'the pmrWous of this CO!ISeMtioIl Basement. and tho appDcatioD of auch pmiaion to penou or ~ other than Iboso 81 to which it is folIIId to 1M- iJrvalid, wn JIOt te dected thereby. 14. All BOticcs, CODSeIdI. apprcmIs. or communications herelmder sbaJ] be in writiDs ad sbaU be deemed properly siven if seat by Uai~ States certified mail. return receipt requested, addressed to the appropriate party. IS. GtaDIor apes 10 lops as this easement is in efrevt, Ill)' subseqllClltdeed or otIter lcpl iDstrumeI1t by which Gramor diYCSII itself of Ill)' iDtemtiD the Property will contain a ref'creII&lC to 1hls casemCDL 16. This C~ Easement. shill COIIititlltc . -CGnSCMtiOn easemeut" as clcfiDed inSdon 104.06, FloridaStatuea (1991). cx;epttbat n:served rights shall be permiucd.as descn'bcd herein. This ComemtiOll Easement may be amended, altered, rdeued, or revoked only by a written d.oc:ument executed by Grantee. Rcf'c::tcacc to GnDtor aI1d Grant= shall include the heirs. assigns and successon of GraDtor IUd GnIdec. TO HAW AND TO HOLD UDtO Gru1tee. in papehIity. ThiI Cmucrv8tion F..scmcnt sbaI1 become eft'ectiw upon the date it is recorded in die pab1ic m:om or Collier County, Florida. 4 " "'" .) ',' ", . . .. I .:: .', .-: I.. :".... :. '.t.J ~';"~':.:.: :~:)<~. '" . . .'::~ . ....: 'f~,.~' '.... ,..;: .--.-....... -~.. 1865 U1< BOOK 001221 PAGE. JNWlTNESS 'WHBREOP, dIe Otutor has caused this insInunent to be cxecuted aII.u of tho date and ycar first abow written. Sipd, sea1edand~ iD the presence of: Pishemlllll's Cove Joint Venture By: Haldcmaa Development Corp., ~ UWfeJW.TomJl~~- .~ Its: President ~- aK4d/ M. STAlE OF FLORIDA couNTy OF ~A:"'se. The f'oregoiDs instrumeut was aclmowJedJe(l before me this ~ dayof G'5"'lDJA.n~ .19ll by ('pM.l..!U No AWUAM' III . who it pencmaIlylarmm to me or who has produced h9t9A1Au.j KNIlh.lAl as idc:ldi&atioa; dAW!~-, t'1.NA4/ N* Py"blic, State of Florida at Larke. (~nMf &~ My CommiaiOll Expires: .1.-1'1- 9'7' l'~-~ OFFICIAl. SEAl! ; m \ ClVlsllu S~.Ilft. C.noU i : Ill' '-.lIs"'" !spIr.. \ 4. ~ 4cl f.... U.l"7 ..,~.:!!:.... Coram. NO. CC Z6DaW s .... . '" >." . ..... ). , .- . . J ,..........--... .'. .:~~.. ... I' ..., '. '.l<~ .. .' . ~?~i-i~~::. ::. <. '. :~~~ ~.".:?::~:::".' ~." .:;,.-:,;.::.:,...: . ~ ....... :. -". ..,.... , '_h ~ ..,,~ ;. ..', .' ". .. .'.' .: ,. . -" 0 . '.. ;,., ,'" ... ., " . . .... .' ..... - J. .. . " .: . ., -- -. . .....: . '.-.- ---::-"':;-'~.~~~~~"''''"7'''' -'. IA6S [JR aOOK 00/228 PAGEl Pl'desslalalland June,", Flshetl'lllln'. Cove Conserv8tlan EI*sment No.1 A psrceJ 0' land lying in and !)flng . part of tha Southwest f/4 of Section 11 and ma Nortnwut 1/4 of Sletfon 14, Township 1i0 South, ASn;. 25 East, Collifr County, Florida, being more partlcularlv dSlicrlbeclas follows: BEGINNiNG .t the North tl4 corl11tr of aalcf Section 14; thence S.OO'13'02"E. 95' .S1 feet along the Welt boundary of Gulf Shore. as record$d In Plat Book 4: at page 60 of the Public Records of CoOle, County, Florida, the lIme baIng the North.Sauth quarter section line of .ald Section 14: thence Ie living saId North.South quarter section line, S.44028'31"W. 14.22 feet; thence N.OO'13'02"W. 627.19 feet; thence S.8so46'53"W. 50.00 feet: thence N.14'04'25"W. 77.25 faet: thence S.8904$'53"W. 44.00 feet; thence S.69010'OS"W. 69.31 feet: thence N.54018'15"W. 85.73 feeti mence N.OO'13'01"W. 351.41 feet: thence 87.19 feet .Iong the arc of a circular curve to the ,Igllt, through 8 centralangl. of 70'00'00", ~vlng a radius at 47.40 teet and being Bubtended bV a chord which bea,.. N.3404S'53"E. 54.38 feer; thence 85.38. feet along the arc ot a clreular curve to tlte left, through 8 central angle of 23024'19", havIng a ,adlus of 210.43 feet 8116 being lublended bV a chord which bear. N.58004'44"E. 85.98 feet; thence 22.89 flet aiong the arc of 8 circular curve to the left. through 8 central angle af 11'08'02", having a radius of 117.78 feet and being 'ubt,nded by il chord which bearl N.40048'33''E. 22.85 feet; thence S.53022'43"E. S1.11 feet: .thence S.12047'35"E. 34.79 feet; thence . N.B9027'S1"E. 15.00 feet; thence N. 61038'48"E. 30.00 feet; thence N.Sgo27'6t"E. 23.00 fest; thence N. OO'"18'1S"W. 164.00 feet; thence N.8So27'1S"E. 10,00 feet to the Norrhwe.t corner of _aid Gulf Shores and the Southwest comer of Lot 42, Napl.. Grove. and Trust Co.'sLlme FarmlNo. 2 8S recorded In Plat Book 1 at pSlJe 27 Of said PubRc Records, the seme being the North-Soutb quarter section line of said S.ctlon 1,; thence S.Ooo1S'1S"E. 334.79 feet along the Welt boundary of said Gulf Shoril and the North.South quaner section line of said SectIon '1 to the Point of Beginning of the herein described percel of land. w. IlhcJaeI (1131 ~ .mu->>GqdeqM&8~ JlItUIef. nilrtda Dm ra.i WI3J 3U4'If)1 ,., ...! ~ ..~.. ... ....~~.. ....... q ~".' . '.:.. '. ': .:.-.. . ...........~-. 'f.~ _ . , . i;:~ .:.:. ~ "~~.' ',: - ...... ..~" ....:,...:...:;~}-.. i.i~i';..:;.,: ~~;,., . "'".' -. . ...:;.... . f! ~ ~~;'~.. .: . :..:.......~ '. ,~ ~.. ; , , . , . " ." . ,:.'.<';:i:<'. "., '.' "-.' .. { . , : .." ~-~ . -,_. .~ ...,-~~';.." .- ~ -- .;..~ -----=~ - 1885 uR BOOK It'.-~. I'rdesslcnalland SUn'8ms 001229 PAGE. Fl.he~n'8 Cove COll.ervacion Easeaent 110. 2 A parcd of und lyin& in and bdn! a part of the Sollchwen tit, of Section 11. TDlo/1Ulhlp 50 South, I14l1,e 25 Eeil" and a part ot Lot 42. Naplea Grov". .1Id Tnlck CQ.'. Little Plna. 110. 2 a. rer.ord"d In Plat Book 1 It p..e ;:1 of thl Public: Record. of Collier COllllty, Plot'lda, be11ls IICIre part:1cuUlry deacribed .. follows: COHKEIfCrtm at the I/orth J(4 corner of Section Ie., Tovnahip SO South, lagse 25 Int, ColUer Councy, Florida, tbelle. N.00"18' 1S''ll. 334.79 feee dOllS the W.at bOUlldal'y of Gulf ShoJ:'ea .. recorded :1a Plat Book 4 ae paS' SO of adel Public Ilacora. .Dd th. Nortll-South quncer &acclon Hnl of ..1.eI SecUoa 11 to the lforthveat corll4lr of said Culf Shor.. and the SOuth....t COrDer of .aid Lot 42; theDCe ..89"27'SlnE 310,00 feet alODI thl North bounctary of laid Gulf Shorn aad tbe South bOUlldary of .ald Lot 42 to tbe PoINt OF J8CImNG ot the bird. de.cribed parcel of land; tllelle. laft'.l.n& tha lforth bOlnldary of uld Gulf Shor.. and the South bound8t'y of lei. tot 41, K,OO"lS'15"W. L05.oo feet; thence N.5Z"U'43"l1. 97.20 feet; thel1Ce 8.89-34'18"11. 532.55 feet to the Waa~ boundary of Wia'atar aa recorded in flat Book 14 &t pas" U tbrouall IS of aaid 'ubl1c Records; thaMI 11.00"13'07- Ii. 20.00 feat clong tbe lIelt boundary of add 111ndrrtar to tile South bounduy of that drain...e .a.ement u de.cr1bed in Deed Book 28 at page llit o! Blid Public heordl; thence 1f.89'34'lS"E. 299.24 feet doua the South bouadary of said draiaage ea.ement to till Wast boundary of lald Lot 42; thenca ..00"18'15" W. 2.11 feet along the W..t boundar)' or add Lot 42 to the South boundary of chat c1niuge auelltnt aa described in Deed look 28 at pase U6 of .dd Public: Record.; thence >>.89"30'34"1:. 330.00 f.et alonl the South boundary of aaid dra1Daae e.__at co a point on a 11111 17111I 330.00 feat Eut of lI1ld pl'rallel with the Ilaac boundal'Y of Idd Lot 42; thence 5.00"18'15.t. 187.30 f.at alema a Une lying 330.00 feet tall of and parallal vith the Weat bouadary of nid Lot 42 to che Bouch bouoder" of said Lot 42 and tbe !fortbbOllDdaq of add Gdf Sbor..; Cbel1Cll S.89.Z7'31''w. 20.00 felt alolll tba SOlltla boundar)" of ,dd . Lot 42 _4 the Ncn'th liD' oi add Culf Shorea to the Poiat of lI,iDDiIll of tbl hereiu described p..rcel of unci. -. . a.mea 1813) 3.'I:J.4J(lC 4724. DkldeD ~r.tnnw llI8DI85, 1'Iclrt... 3D>> . 1'_ 1I131301W101 ;a-:_-:~' .. '.".' ~...... ..#_.. . ~.~~~:.~:~'.~ ~:: . ~....~ ..,.'1......-:. ....:J{;C ," '.. :'. ...... C".~ " ~~~~~~~;gi;:<~X": · -,. ,......~:... ....... ~:ij~.1.~~~.;~~.::~::.J.~~ :;i.. . 'f ..... .'.: : - ~c _...~,.,~..__... '".' . , '.. . ...... c~~~~{j:':;:i:\:;C>. -",0 -. "". ,,",_. ..... ..- '.... ..- ~. .' . . ~. . ( ... :';lIr :"~ ' 'J. ;. . .' '. ..' .... '.' '~': -.~ -'.- ';--. '1" ...... ':~.' i-' . '. <~ ..";f :~,~ ." 'J' -.j ....;... . " '. . ., ...:' :. .,..... ".. ":'~-. r . . . .~.. . . ~ ...... '':''~'\ 1865 un BOOK W.~~. I'rdeJIIClllllllJInd Jlln'8t'UI 0.0 1 230 PAS!. Pilhe_'1 Cove Co~aervattoa Ea"meat Mo. ~ A parcel of land lylllB in and bein. I part of the Southwelt 1/4 of SecUon U. tOlll1lllli, SO SOUth, lanaI 15 Eaat, Coll1er County, Plorlda. bdftlllOr. parU.tlllatly c1ucrtbed a. fonow: COlHEIlCIIlG at the Horth 1(4 Cln:ner of Section 14, Tovnlhip 50 South. llallS' 25 bit. CoIUer Caunt,. Ploriul chllllce 1.00.18'lS"lI. 334.79 !en alons the w..t boundar)' of Glllf Shorn a. recorded in Plac look 4 at Pll' SO of tbll Public Recorda of Callier Count". Florida end tlM lIonh-Souch quartet a.ctiOll lilM of laid S,ction 11 co the Ifortbvil.t camer of lalel Gulf Share. IlIII tile SDuthw.t corner of Lot 42. lIaplea Grov.a alld truck Co. 'a Little Paru 110. Z ... recorde4 111 ,lat look 1 at pas. 17 of said 'ubUc Recorda; thence. 1I.89"27'51"E. 330.00 l..t &1on& the tIorth boundary of ad.t Gulf Sbona alld ehe Soueh boundar)' of.dd Lot 42 to I Uoe 1)'1118 330.00 feet bae of md pUI11.1 .dth the wue boundary of ..iel Lot 42; thence 11.00"18'15"\1. 187.3Of88t alons aald line 1)'1ftl 330.00 teet Eut of a"d paralld \11th tile lIeat boundary of ..lei Lot 4Z to the South boundary of the dra:l.a... ..le.Dt as recordatl in need 800lc Zaat page 116 of said Public tecorcle; thllleR 8".'0' 34"11 330.00 feet to the Weat boundary of ..14 Lot 42: thence N.00.18'15"II, 148.15 fe.t alons the Vest bouac1ary of sall1 Loe 41 to tile South boundary of tbat drainage .......nt a. recorded 111 Deed locI: Z84t 1'." 114 of llIdll Public Becorda; thenca S.8'"34'18"W. 641.71-- f.et &1001 the l\o.oalh bowlner)' of aaid dra1nag. .a....nt; thence S.6S.04'16"1I. 19.79 f..t dOni elie South bounUry of. ea1d drainag. .......at eo ebe V..t boundary of ella SolIeh..st quarter of tbe Southeast quartet of tile $olltllwe.t quarter gf .eU SectlOD 11; thepc. If.oooI7'a6''\(. 35 feet, INre or 14... to th. South bank of Baldeean Creek: thence eaandn alona aaid SOIIth bank to ita interaecelom with the Korth-South quarter a.ctioD line of .aid Section 11; tlleDce 5.oo"l8'15"1. 165 faet, .ore or 1.... along the lortb-South qu&rtet aSJ:\tiD" 11na ofaaid Section n to the Pout of Besinn1.n8 of the berell! deBcrib". parcel of 181l4. .'. . . '. .. "'. IlItmeI 1S1J1 U34IClO 47.U .& edden Cate IlWIafin' NlIDIeIo 1'IaIdlI3JI'JN Jim 1a13J ~01 . _ f . 'f . ."~' .: ... " , '1) , - . ..""'; . .i.: ce..~. .~ ~ I .., .~.. ~ I.'; :. ..:..' I . . . - ."~' i. ...........,.1~., ..' !..(. . ':.'~ .Zt' ['"',...,,- ';Ii r'...~.,:~,. '. .... .' . , i .. "'~ ,. . : ~ . .. , , ""., .. ":". -.' '. .. ::. .....;.. t. ":' .' .. ". :... ~ ..,. .. .; :.;: I.,...).' "-...'. ~ . '. .... '~ \';:-: '.. ....1 . ,.~.~.. .'. -'~ . '. .::~.. : . ..... ..::"--...~'. .~.: ., lite 5 UR BOOK 001231 PAGEj zc ~ i , ". ~ .1 ... )f t ~ I .. ~ I . . I I i - I _,; IiH( I " f ~I ~I!~ll IIcer4t4 ... 11,lt'" II ""t6... &.:""o.f CCtllU CQI;Hlf, flOlllOA nwlf,'ll l. I~-X. 'trill ,__~",,~__"~.~!I"...:.:.s...t.~ -_.~.. " g .. . If U .55 , , ~",~;~~~~I]~liLe~e~~c__.....__ : ~~-~ ~ -~-~ ~ ~~. ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ : ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~,~ HifH;~nl~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ g~~~ ~ ~ g ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ .. ...,. ... Jurisdictionel W.uii'i\,,' '''--\ \ ' ~ \1\ 'l' "' to, r ~ :::::~ ~ \~ 'r<- ~ ) N_ 1. Mapping blHd'Ol'l photo InlerpratatlOl1 af~lillIf'Cou"'Ydlglbll'..nal pt\DIogrIIjJhy and groundlNthlog In October and Nowmber2004i"'14:3 anl.. d~ fmm 11....rr. PBS&.lrnap tttIMt eoreoge Spoil ~I AnN. Onlgn Hald.1118fl CrgekNllplee. FIond8~ and dated '"""",,, Z. Stale Juriidlctlon.lw~d hMllll pr"tWtdctd by PBSA,J fgf.con:ler County's Spoil ~I ...... 3. Veo-tatlo;rl "..ping nnrth of Haldemlln Cree){ ~photointall)f1ttiltion. 'WeUll'Id tin.. not hlVfI no! been IWl8WeCl by the a~, 04. ~ boundll/Y*ld... plan pn:wICodby-OIlYl!:bon EllgIneor1nll. IS. VeglltaUon ~ lI__lOtlekl miew~..ppt'OVlIlbyallappl'Qpi'iate'agOflcJo' and Is Intended tor ~IlIINlp\IlMlng PJJ'lKlM8 any. .)312 . .-t-. ~ . II! ...' i COUNTY ,OTHER NATIVE: ; PRESERVE i VEGETATION ......m...~.........,___.__--! i t;LH 1':':-:-:-1 eJ] N/A u~M~ ~m IMPACT i ~I ~, ~l L__j i Other Waters Up1snd within Jursidictlonsl WeUand N/A N/A N/A Upland Lend_pe Buffer f~!~:~~~~~LEGEN~___-c-_,C~~~rY!'~~~l~~:S~_~M;:~OTAl' 133 Multiple Dwelling Units, Low Rise, - i ~; - 2.21 2,2 190 Open Land " 2_5; 2_6 1906 Open Lend, Depressional 0.3 i 0.3 .320 Shrub end Brush Land 0.11 0,1 I ':4~~~ Tropical Hardwoods, Disturbed, <0,1. <0,1 ! :4~~, Cebbage Palm, Disturbed 0.1 0.2. 0.3 -510 Canals 3.1 3.1 "534 RBservolr(<10 ac) 0.4 [ 0,4 "540I!ays end Estuaries 0_9 - i 0_9 '612 M.~g~~ 1.3 1,1 0.4; 2.9 '!l1n M!l!'g~v_"'MI!lll.\lqQ W.!lM.m~], 0,2 0,1 0_3 i 0,6 '6194 Australian Pine, Hydric 0.4 0,4 '630 Mixed Wetland Forest 0_2 0-2 '6301 MlxedWetiandFoml 0,2 0;2 0,1 0:5 ' "" - Mltigeiionw';iiiinCi.= '~jJ Vegetated Non-forested <0;1 <0-1 WeUands '651 fldlii Flats 0.1 0.1 '652 Shoreline . - ; 0.2;, 0.2, 743 Spoil Areas : - : -. :: <~'; I <~; i 814 ",~I~L~ H~~~~~-------~I:,::L_5~__'~ , Jurisdictional Watiand - Other Surfece Waters IJJJ!tl!rllna_PI.~IQgu.,I,.,~,l!.,N"!t!~a,~~ [EATI\lELA_NI~~!,UMMARY j ...=,~, "~Nr~~T'~.,a~~ UPLANDS !0,1 [ - O'21i-3 \ WETLANDS 1,6 i 1.8 j 0,3; 0_9 4;8 1 OTHER WATERS 0,9 '--'-c:_r----,--:c\----,,__ 0.9 "-1 '--TOTALS 2_7 ___l.:~..,.L,_~~L1..:!_ __f5-Q_j Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc. 2077 Be.yslde Parifway Fort Myers Florida 33901 Prc"ct ADCrC102 R"':~," Dele: 9tI7J'200S CClIlII1 County "T0WMtl1p 50S Rqe 25E RelMiDn Oem ComrnentI (239) 337-1505 Drawn By: WGrN $edIOnl') 11, 104 VlllrtJ.d Figure 5. Fishermans Village Site Plan, Impact, and Preserve Map