Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/21/2006 R September 21, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida September 21, 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 at the Community Development Center Boardroom, Horseshoe Drive, 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 ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Kay Deselem, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21,2006, AT THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION (CDES), CONFERENCE ROOM 609/610, LOCATED AT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 3, 2006, REGULAR MEETING; AUGUST 17,2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - Not Available at this time 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8l47, Vornado Development, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A.., are requesting a rezone from the Golf Course (GC) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district, to allow a residential development with a maximum of 3 dwelling units per acre, or 24 total dwelling units in a project known as the Vornado RPUD. The 8f: acre subject property is located off Palm Drive in the Glades Subdivision, behind the Towne Center Shopping Center, in Sections 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 1 Please Note The meeting location has been changed for two upcoming CCPC meetings: September 21, 2006 & October 19, 2006 Both meetings will be held at The Collier County Community Development & Environmental Services Division CCDES), Conference Room 609/610, Located At 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Co~r County ---- ~ - STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 SUBJECT: PUDZ-2005-AR-8147; VORNADO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOP- MENT (RPUD) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: OWNER/APPLICANT: AGENTS: Samuel Hubschman, President V ornado Development, Inc. 2223 Trade Center Way Naples, FL 34103 Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Assoc. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Richard Y ovanovich Goodlette, Coleman, & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of the subject site from the Golf Course (GC) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 8::1:: acre subject property is located off Palm Drive in the Glades Subdivision, behind the Towne Center Shopping Center, in Sections 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed PUD, if approved, will allow for a maximum of 24 residential dwelling units at a density of 3 units per acre. The PUD allows for a mix of dwelling types and includes: single-, two- or multi- family residential. The project is bordered by Glades Country Club golf course areas on the north and eastern property lines and by condominium property to the east, and a shopping center tract (Towne Centre Shopping Center) to the south. The subject property surrounds an area that is used by Collier County Utilities which is not part of the rezoning action. The PUD document and the Master Plan indicate the project will have one access point via an existing access easement across Glades Country Club property to serve the project from Palm A venue. Currently the site is cleared of any native vegetation. It was used as the Glades Sewer Plant for many years, but that use was abandoned. There is Varnado PUD, PUDZ-2005-AR-8147 Staff Report September 21,2006 CCPC Page 1 of 8 ~ ~ 15 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J: ~ ~ :E ~:: Ii m ~ Ii ]"":)5 OJ.J.ON / - ~ ClWM"nDII YW8WII V.UrMI i " I!. ~ I I~K I~- '" :; h- ~.~ ;; ~ g ~~ o ~- Ii .! ~ ;; Ii ~ ~ i :l\ b...-ro.......-l ~ a.. <C ~ C!) Z - Z 0 N !;1 ii1 ~ ~ ii ,.. u.. v :E co a: , 0:: c( "!" , It) Ul 0 a: 0 N I N 0 :J 0.. =II: Z 0 l- I- W 0.. ~ 5 a.. <C ~ '" ~ z o - I- <C U o -I -z- I - - I- - - I- I ~.- A- ~ . . . ~ i~ - . Ii :.r. ~. f~ . ~/// ~ :1 P - " :~~. I .. ~ ~g ~e ~~ ~ ~g ~. ~~ ~ lll:lll= I" .1: ui ~8~ ~~~ ~ ~ ! _---~L~~F;..- L ,..::..", ili I ....~.:'<... ~i : '~8N "-.: ......, ~ ......, .... ~'\'l. ~ .". i .. ~ ~ ,\ a '" ". I I / I I / " , \ I I / ~ I , / .-/ / 1 / I I 0::: I I / I I / / I I I I I / I I / ~ L ;~~ L r IIJlIl (/) (/) tI) WL..,II.....W W a::: a::: 0::: a::: 0:: UUUU U <<C[oCt<Ct .0::( ...+t+l+l -H oootN""lt co """':ON "II II 1\ .... z'" ",u 2< ",11. lIIlII < "';'5 "'11. U 0 ..J ~';) ~ ..J Z (/) 0 .0::( wa::: I- ~ ~5 '" <u o 2.... Vl~.. ..J wooD O::O::Nt.:) '" .... v; I~ ~~ :I: "' ;: .... 0 0 .... 0 et: 0 .... 0 0 .... ., 2 :> 2 X < 2 2 0 et: .... Z 0 ;::: <.... ~~ ~ III .... i< :> ,. '" et: o z 'i o .... . 111 ........ UZ ",,,, ~2 lD", :>et: lII3 ~8 et: o Z"' <Z ~~ :>2 ....'" <'" zl1. ~t; ~~ i=~ ~~ z'" 8~ !!!z o j~ a..~ ~Q :1:0 ~ "":2 ... ~ ....: Vi " z :J ..J W ;l: o ..J < ;::: z w o v; w ct: 2 :> 2 X < 2 0 I Z <z z:S r3 <eL ! ..J eL.... Q" 4:a::~ ~ "'''' Q t:~~ d i:::\ !;Q<(c( ~ ~~~ ZiI ~ <'" e~ 132 ~"" eL'" w.... u< ~ z;l: 0 0 0 ~~ u ..!< "" ~ -; ~! hi =:s. ! il. 25!2 ~ ~E~~ ;11 =~!!~ ~~~,; ~ii ~. ~~ ;: i ~ il ~I:.lll i I c.:>~ <::r ~ ~ < ~ -:;: Ii ~ ~ . ~ Ii ~ ~ ~ S! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " 0 '" :I: .... .... < Z o ;::: < u G: o o ::> o .... .... u ~ lD :> III o Z < ",.J ....< <> 20 g~ g:< 11..... <:5 "'''- et: <ct: lIIO wl1. "'0 <:IlII et:.... ~o :j~ <;::: ~~ ... ~~ ~~ ab ~q U n 8 6" i N _} i ~~! liii! ~ -~ ~ ~!~ IB- L I N a canal meandering along the southwestern boundary. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: South: West: Glades Country Club Golf Course, with a zoning designation of Golf Course (CG) Glades Country Club Golf Course, with a zoning designation of Residential Multi-family-6 (RMF -6) Towne Centre Shopping Center, with a zoning designation ofC-3 A roadway easement within the Naples Sunrise Condominium area, zoned RMF-16 North: East: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. Varnado PUD, PUDZ-2005-AR-8147 Staff Report September 21,2006 CCPC Page 2 of8 Review of the Density Rating System deems this project is eligible for a base density of 4 DU/A and a density reduction of 1 DU/ A because it is located within the Traffic Congestion Area. Since the project density is 3 units per acre, the project is consistent with the density rating system as noted below. Base Density Density Reduction TOTAL ELIGIBLE DENSITY 4du/a 1 du/a 3 du/a In general, the LDC requires a minimum size of 10 acres for rezoning in the form of a PUD. One exception is for infill projects (as defined in the GMP), where the minimum size requirement is 2 acres. This project qualifies for the Residential Infill Bonus, as defined in the FLUE. Further, staff has previously interpreted that a property less than ten acres in size could qualify as "infill" development if sharing at least two common boundaries with parcels that are developed (LDC Section 4.07.02.A.2 adopted in Ordinance No. 06-07). Accordingly, it meets the minimum size requirements for a PUD. Objective 7, Policies 7.1 through 7.7, of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) were adopted by the BCC on October 26, 2004 and became effective on or about January 14, 2005. The Objective and Policies adopt certain "Smart Growth" provisions into the FLUE. The policies are intended to encourage the use of smart growth principles in local development planning. The petitioner has addressed these principals in paragraph 9 of the Statement of Compliance in the RPUD document. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed density and uses for the subject site can be deemed consistent with Future Land Use Element ofthe GMP. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed this petition's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) included in the application back-up material and the PUD document to ensure the PUD document contains the appropriate language to address this project's potential traffic impacts, and to offer a recommendation regarding GMP Transportation Element, Policy 5.1 and Policies 5.5 and 5.6. Those policies require the review of all rezone requests with consideration of its impact on the overall transportation system, and specifically notes that the County should not approve any request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating and/or projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) within the five-year planning period unless specific mitigating stipulations are approved. The project was reviewed based on the current TIS guidelines and with respect to Policy 5.1 of the Collier County Growth Management Plan transportation element. The project traffic was distributed on the adjacent roadway network and analyzed through project build out with consideration given to the five-year planning period. The development of twenty-four single-family dwelling units is considered a de minimus impact and infill within the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area [TCEA]. The project will be subject to the TCEA requirements at the development order stage. The project will be consistent with Policies 5.5 and 5.6 of the GMP as long as the applicant utilizes the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies as outlined in Policy 5.6. Therefore, this petition is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element and Transportation Planning staff recommends approval. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Because of the site's current cleared state, Goals, Objectives or Policies of the GMP Conservation and Coastal Management Element are not applicable to this petition. Vornado PUD, PUDZ-2005-AR-8147 Staff Report September 21, 2006 CCPC Page 3 of 8 GMP Conclusion: The Growth Management Plan is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning to PUD. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is also consistent with GMP Transportation Element Policy 5.1 as previously discussed. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses and density may be deemed consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. 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 1O.02.13.B.5 of the LDC 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"). Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address any environmental concerns. This petition did not require a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Commission because the site is cleared. Transportation Review: Transportation Department staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues. The applicant has incorporated Transportation staffs revisions within the PUD document, and Transportation Planning staff recommends approval subject to the Transportation commitments contained in the PUD document. This includes a provision that the development provide payment in lieu of the installation of sidewalks on one side of the road as exempted in Section 2.5.C of the PUD document. Utility Review: Engineering Review: Staff has reviewed the petition, noting that this PUD is located within the Collier County Sewer District, and is subject to application for and conditions associated with a Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Utilities Division. Potable Water will also be provided by Collier County. Wastewater Review: Because the subject property surrounds a county wastewater facility and the access to the utility site and the access for the project's units appear to be one and the same, county wastewater staff has concerns about this project and its effect on the continued operation and potential expansion of the facility on site. Therefore, wastewater review staff has requested that the developer provide increased buffers and separation distances to help ensure the county's ability to operate the wastewater facility without generating ire and complaints from future residents within the project. Below is a list of stipulations to address wastewater concerns. Vornado PUD, PUDZ-2005-AR-8147 Staff Report September 21, 2006 CCPC Page 4 of 8 1. All current utility easements to be protected; and 2. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the developer shall construct a six-foot high wall (designed for 3600/150 MPH wind) surrounding the utility facilities and the easements; and 3. The developer shall provide a 30-foot-wide vegetative buffer to screen the current utility proposed facilities. The buffer will consist of a combination of trees, shrubs, and ground covers, along with selectively placed earthen landscape, with the design of the buffer placing plant materials to break the sight lines between existing structures and the proposed development; and 4. The developer shall provide an irrigation system in compliance with County code for the entire buffer; and 5. The developer shall be responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the vegetative buffer, the irrigation system and the wall. The petitioner is currently evaluating these stipulations and will be arranging a meeting with wastewater review staff to discuss them; therefore the petitioner has only stated that he cannot agree to provide the additional width buffer. Zoning Review: As illustrated in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, the surrounding zoning discussion of this staff report, and the Master Plan, the site is adjacent to golf course fairways to the north and east and a shopping center to the southwest. The residential uses around this subject parcel are developed with multi-family uses, thus this project should be compatible with the neighborhood. The development standards contained in Section In of the PUD document reflect a design approach that will provide single-, two-, or multi-family housing opportunities. The PUD provides a minimum front-yard setback of 20 feet and side setbacks of six feet for single-, two-family or townhouse units and 10 feet for multi-family will be provided for all principal structures. The minimum rear setback is proposed to be fifteen feet for all structures. Maximum building height is proposed to be 35 feet. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Zoning and Land Development Review staff reviews for compliance with this requirement as part of the review of the petition in its entirety. 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. The adjacent tracts are developed with multi-story structures, and the RMF-6 zoning district limits building heights to a maximum of 35 feet which is what this project proposed. The RMF-16 property to the northwest has a maximum building height of 75 feet. The development envelope shown on the Master Plan indicates that buildings will be constructed along the property's northern perimeter, then the project's access will virtually bisect the property west to east, with other residential uses on the Varnado PUD, PUDZ-2005-AR-8147 Staff Report September 21,2006 CCPC Page 5 of 8 in the southeastern portion of the proj ect. Therefore, staff believes the proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood and thus consistent with GMP Policy 5.4. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking approval of three deviations from design standards of the Land Development Code. The petitioner has provided justification in support of the deviations. (See the application package for a copy of the petitioner' list of deviations that includes the justification.) Staff has analyzed the deviations and provides the analyses and recommendations below. Deviation 1 seeks relief from street right-of-way width requirements of Section 6.06.01 and Appendix B ofthe LDC to permit a minimum 40 foot right-of-way width to be utilized for local streets and cul-de-sacs. Staff has reviewed the deviation and recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community." Deviation 2 seeks relief from the six-foot (6") maximum fence/wall height identified Section 5.03.02 of the LDC, to permit fences/walls within the Vornado RPUD. The petitioner proposes a maximum height of eight (8') feet along the boundary shared by Glades Golf Course and along the southeastern residential area between the residential area and the area shown on the Master Plan as Golf Course/Open Space, and ten feet (10') around the existing effiuent tank that is not part of this rezoning action. Fences could be a maximum of eight or ten feet high, as measured from the [mished floor elevation of the nearest habitable structure within the development as noted above. However, if the fence or wall is constructed on a landscaped berm, the fence/wall would not exceed eight feet (8') in height from the top of berm elevation for berm elevations with an average side slope of 4:1 or less, and would not exceed six feet (6') in height from the top of berm elevation for berms with an average side slope of greater than 4:1 (i.e. 3:1), as noted in the PUD document in Section 2.9.B. The applicant has explained that this deviation is being sought to provide better buffering for the wastewater treatment effluent tank, and could provide additional protection for residences from errant golf balls, given the proximity to the golf fairways. Staff has reviewed the deviation and recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community." Deviation 3 seeks relief from Appendix B and Section 6.06.02 of the LDC that requires 5-foot wide sidewalks to be placed along both sides of a local street to instead provide a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on one side of the street. Staff has reviewed the deviation and recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 .A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community." Also, Section 5.7.M of the PUD requires the developer to provide a payment in lieu of the installation of the sidewalk on one side of the road. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator: The agent for the applicant held the required NIM July 18, 2006 at 5 :30 p.m. in the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting chambers, Harmon-Turner Building, Government Complex, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL. Approximately 35 people attended, including the Varnado PUD, PUDZ-2005-AR-8147 Staff Report September 21,2006 CCPC Page 6 of 8 Complex, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL. Approximately 35 people attended, including the applicant's team and county staff. Of those who spoke, most were residents of the Glades County Club Association who stated they had concerns about the property ownership of the site, which is currently pending litigation. Statements and commitments made by the applicant's agents, Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Rich Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson are summarized below: . There will be a 35-foot building height maximum; and . There are no "affordable" housing units proposed; and . A deviation is being sought to allow a 10 foot wall next to the county facility pump station and adjacent to Beall's shopping center (west and south) . We hope to settle (lawsuit) prior to Public Hearing . Palm Drive ingress, egress access easement (across "Sunrise" property) . Dry detention water management area · Should the property ownership change hands, and we aren't the underlying property owner, we may have to adjust the number of residential units proposed . We'll work around the pumping station RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ-2005-AR-8147 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval of the rezoning request from the Golf Course (GC) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUP) zoning district subject to the staff stipulations that have been incorporated into the RPUD document. PREPARED BY: ~~S~~CIPALPLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ~- /7-0b DATE REVIEWED BY: "- o 8 /:tJV /0& DATE MARJ E M. STUDENT -STIRLING ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY ND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER 8~Z.7-06 DATE Vornado PUD, PUDZ-2005-AR-8147 Staff Report September 21,2006 CCPC Page 7 of 8 DEP ARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ~~~ SUSAN MURRAY, AICP, DIRECT . DEP ARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 9-0-0,6 DATE APPROVED BY: Tentatively scheduled for the November 14, 2006 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Exhibits: A. Rezone Findings B. PUD Findings Varnado PUD, PUDZ-2005-AR-8147 Staff Report September 21,2006 CCPC Page 8 of 8 Exhibit A REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ-2005-AR-8147 Chapter 10.03.05.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 staffs 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 V omado site is a logical use in this area given the surrounding golf course and multi-family uses, and GMP Transportation Element Policy 9.3 encourages interconnection of neighborhoods. Con: There is an existing sewer treatment facility that will be bordering the subject property. County Wastewater facility staff has concern that future residents of the may later complain about the proximity of the county's facility. To counter that possibility, Wastewater Facility staff has requested that additional buffering and separations distances be provided from the developer. The developer does not agree with the proposed conditions. Finding: Staff believes this project will be compatible with the existing land use patterns as explained in the staff report if the conditions recommended by Wastewater Facility staff are included. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Findings: The proposed rezoning will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The surrounding area is developed with residential uses; thus, the uses and the zoning districts share a use relationship. Page 1 of 5 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. 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. This site was previously utilized for an accessory use to the overall golf course community as the utility site for the Glades Country Club housing the wastewater treatment facility. That use was abandoned when the project connected to county facilities. Con: The subject tract could be developed by itself without rezoning however the current GC zoning is extremely limited. Due to the property's small size (eight acres) it is highly unlikely that a stand alone golf course could be created on this tract. Therefore to have a "reasonable use" on this site that is allowable under the current zoning, the applicant would almost be forced to become a part of the Glades Country Club. 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 in the neighborhood. Pro: The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood because the recommended development standards and other conditions for approval should ensure the least amount of adverse impact on adjacent and nearby developments Con: The adjacent and surrounding property owners may perceive that the addition of 24 dwelling units could adversely impact traffic flow on the local streets. Findings: The proposed Vornado RPUD is compatible with adjacent land uses due to the similarities that should be realized between the surrounding residential uses and the proposed residential uses. The amount and types of noise and odors, and building massing related to the proposed uses should not be offensive. EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-A-200S-AR-8147 Page 2 of 5 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. Both the surrounding area this project are residential projects. This project only proposes development of 24 units which should not generate significant traffic impacts 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. Con: The adjacent and surrounding property owners may perceive that the addition of 24 dwelling units could adversely impact traffic flow on the local streets. 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. 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. EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-A-200S-AR-8147 Page 3 of 5 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 the sound application of the standards, when combined with the site development 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/Con: This issue is discussed in Item 5 above. 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 gamer that Board ruling. EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-A-200S-AR-8147 Page 4 of 5 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; Pro: The project's Property Development Regulations provided in the PUD document are similar to what is allowable in the neighboring RMF-6 and RMF-16 zoning districts. The proposed 35 foot maximum building height is the same as RMF-6, while the RMF-16 allows structures up to 75 feet tall. Con: None. 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. 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: Each zoning petition is reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. However, suffice to say, there are most likely areas of the County with conventional or PUD zoning that would allow development of the housing types proposed by the petitioner. The determinants of zoning are consistency with all elements of the GMP, compatibility, adequacy of infrastructure and general compliance with the Land Development Code. 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: As noted in Item 5 above, this site's size limits the ability to development the property as a golf course. 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-8147 Page 5 of 5 Exhibit B PUD FINDINGS PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8147 Section 10.02.13 .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 project will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities. Con: None. Finding: The land is already cleared, so there are no development constraints imposed by the physical characteristics of the land. As noted the surrounding area is developed with a golf course residential development. The traffic generated from 24 units should not have an adverse impact on the area, and water, sewer and other services will be provided to this project as they have been made available to the existing Glades Country Club development. The project will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities; 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 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 not have quantative means to measure compliance. The GMP Transportation Element Policies 5.1 and 5.2 and Policy 6.1.1 and Policy 7.1.2 contain measurable components; however, FLUE Page 1 of 3 Policy 5.4 does not. Compatibility with the adjacent and surrounding land uses is a subjective determination. Finding: Staffhas 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: 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. Con: The conversion of GC zoned land to residential may be perceived as an intensification of development in the neighborhood causing concern from the surrounding property owners. Findings: Staff believes that the proposed conditions would aid in creating ameliorating elements which would offset the adverse impacts from the proposed land uses. (see Staff Report). 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Pro: The amount of open space set aside by this project is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. No deviations to reduce the required open space have been sought as part of the development proposal. Con: Evaluation not applicable. Finding: Staff believes that the property development regulations should aid in creating ameliorating elements which would offset the adverse impacts from the proposed land uses. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Pro: 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. Con: None. Finding: The proposed project will not adversely impact the timing or sequence of development that is currently allowed in the area. Furthermore, the adopted concurrency PUD FINDINGS PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8147 EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 3 requirements ensure that further LOS degradation is not allowed or the LOS deficiency is corrected. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. 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 in the PUD document 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 the standards for the RMF zoning districts as noted in the staff report. The petitioner is seeking three deviations as part of the rezoning approval, and has provided justification to support the deviations. The staff report provides an analysis of, and recommendation for the deviations. PUD FINDINGS PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8147 EXHIBIT B Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 06 -_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORA TED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY FROM THE GOLF COURSE (GC) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT, TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH A MAXIMUM OF 3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, OR 24 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE VORNADO RPUD LOCATED IN THE GLADES SUBDIVISION, OFF PALM DRIVE APPROXIMA TEL Y 700 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF US 41, IN SECTIONS 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8:l: ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, DWayne Amold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., representing Vomado Development, Inc., in petition number PUDZ-2005-AR-8147, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the subject real property located in Sections 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, , is changed from the Golf Course (GC) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District, to allow a residential development with a maximum of 3 dwelling units per acre, for a total of24 residential dwelling units in a project known as Vornado RPUD in accordance with the Vornado RPUD PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. Page 1 on September 21, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are our mics on? It sounds like they are. If you'd all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK If the secretary would please take the roll. 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? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Page 2 September 21, 2006 Is there any addenda to the agenda? This is, by the way, the regular meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, not the Land Development Code meeting. That will continue after this meeting is over with. The -- any planning commission absences -- Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand that Petition 8-A, there's been a request to continue that. And I think that in the addenda to the agenda this would be the place where we would look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There has been a request, I know it came through staff. Is the applicant here? I don't believe so. Kay, would you, just for the record, state that the applicant had requested this? MS. DESELEM: Yes. Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. The applicant did submit and pay the fee or a continuance request, asking to be heard, rather than today, to be heard on October 5th, asking for time to work with the neighboring property owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay . We will take this matter up. And Ms. Student, I'd rather take the motion for approval of the continuance when we get to 8-A, if that's okay, now that we've had the MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's fine. I just didn't want it to be lost when we were talking about addenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There may be members from the public here. If there are, we do want them to be able to speak on this issue when we get to 8-A. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Page 3 September 21, 2006 Planning commission absences? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next meeting I believe is October 5th. Anybody knowing they're not going to be here on October 5th? Good, looks like we'll have a quorum. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 3, 2006, REGULAR MEETING~ AUGUST 17~ 2006~ REGULAR MEETING We have two sets of minutes in our packet. One is for August 3rd, one is for August 17th. On the August 3rd, is there any changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to approve by Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 4 September 21, 2006 COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody object? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Minutes for August 17th. Recommendation to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made my Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-0. So we all are aware, as we have in the past, we have a court reporter here today. We need to speak as slowly as possible, including myself. Please do not talk over any other people that are speaking, and ask to be recognized before you speak. Item #6 BCC REPORT-RECAPS BCC recaps. I don't see Ray here to provide that. Page 5 September 21, 2006 We can defer it till next meeting, since the BCC just met, what, once since we've been together anyway? MR. SCHMITT: I'll give a recap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services. We had three petitions go before the board the last meeting. One item was continued, and that was to Windstar PUD. That was continued by the petitioner. The second one was a denial. There were two petitions, Creekside PUD and Naples Daily News PUD. Creekside was approved 4-1. Naples Daily News, 3-2 vote. So two voted in opposition, so that was denied. Stay tuned. All of that comes back as a recall to be reconsidered. The third item -- I just lost the third one. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Arboretum. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, Arboretum. Thank you. The mixed use development was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. And that was not a rezone, by the way, that was only the mixed use review process for the Bayshore/Gateway overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, chairman's report. I did see a small portion of last night's LDC meeting. And it was the beginning of the meeting about canopies. I saw the staff introduction on the canopy issue, trying to relay the position of both staff and this planning commission. And I want to compliment Ms. Murray on the job she did. I think she did a very fair representation on our position on this and was very clear. I don't know the results of the discussion with the BCC, but I do appreciate staff going to the effort they did to clarify everyone's position fairly at that meeting. MR. SCHMITT: I can give the update on that as well. It was approved as the planning commission proposed, with one addition -- Page 6 September 21, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Not approved, it needs to come back for a vote. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it was approved at least in concept. It wasn't voted on. It comes back for a second hearing, thank you. The one noticeable stipulation, at least, I think it was implied when you all passed it, but they wanted it specific, there would be one per -- one canopy allowed per site, per dock, as a boathouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think that-- MR. SCHMITT: That may be problematic, because some docks do have two slips, and may want to get one for each slip, or one for each side of the dock. In fact, the -- I know the docks at Little Hickory Shores, those boat dock lots are exactly that. They have -- some have a canopy on each side of the dock. So that may come up as a point of discussion. But the board's guidance last night was one per dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. SCHMITT: And they were very appreciative of the planning commission's efforts in -- MS. FABACHER: Very complimentary. MR. SCHMITT: -- very complimentary, at least in working through the issue. And I believe even from the comments made by the citizens who came and understanding the threshold where it goes from a -- basically an administrative permissible use to something beyond that. And I think with your efforts we have a process that is equitable and can be applied pretty much standard across the board. There are still folks concerned about it, though. And I suspect at the next meeting some citizens will come back and discuss their concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, looks like we moved a long ways from where it was, so that's good. Thank you very much, I appreciate that. And especially the BCC support of what we sent forward. And the other item on my report is simply to Commissioner Adelstein, Page 7 September 21, 2006 and I hope I say this right -- L'Shannah Tovah. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome, sir. That's Happy New Year. Item #8A PUDZ-2005-AR-8147~ VORNADO DEVELOPMENT~ INC. Next item on the agenda will be the advertised public hearings, Item 8-A, which has been requested for a continuance. It is Petition PUDZ-2005-AR-8147, the Vornado Development, Inc., represented by Wayne Arnold and Richard Yovanovich. I understand they're not here today. This is a request for a continuance. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They asked for a continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we haven't voted on it yet. We have to vote on that. Prior to the continuance vote, there are -- I want to see if there's any members from the public here who wish to speak on this issue. It's a little awkward today because we may not have the slips up front like we usually do. Are there any members from the public here today wishing to speak on the V ornado Development? You could raise your hands. One gentleman. Margie, is it okay to hear testimony prior to the request for continuance? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's at the discretion of the Chair. The only issue would be that the applicant is not here to rebut anything that might be said. And I think what we might do, if you wish to hear him today, that's fine. But to alleviate any concern in that respect, either allow them to have a summary of what was said today, or ask the gentleman to come back at the next meeting also Page 8 September 21, 2006 and repeat what he said today, so there's no due process argument that there was testimony here today that they didn't have an opportunity to rebut. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't it also customary for an applicant to show up for a meeting in which they're requesting a continuance? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Well, I can't -- I know there's times when they haven't, because this issue's come up before. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Basically the problem here is that there's a great many documents that have to be read and approved by all of the parties. It wasn't possible to get it done, and therefore last week they applied to have it continued. We're still in the process of getting it done. I expect it to be finished by the time of the next meeting, but there was absolutely no way it could possibly have gotten done by today. (Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I wasn't debating the fact whether or not it is a justifiable request. I just want to make sure that the public who is here who may not be able to be here at the next meeting has an opportunity to be heard. Because it was not advertised as being continued, it was advertised as being heard today. And then at the same time we have to vote on the continuance in order for it to be continued. So with that, I'd like to ask the gentleman from the public to come forward and state his name for the record. And sir, you have five minutes to address us on the issue. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If you're going to begin to conduct this meeting, then I would ask for ex parte. And the gentleman would need to be sworn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we swear you in, sir -- that is a good point. I thought it being continued, I forgot to ask everybody, Page 9 September 21, 2006 there any communications that you had, disclosures that you want to make to the board? Mr. Adelstein, do you have any? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You haven't talked to Richard Y ovanovich or anybody about this? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I have not. It was done through the president of the Glades, not through me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had a meeting set up with Richard Yovanovich to discuss this project when he continued it -- or when he requested the continuance. The meeting was canceled, so we never got into any discussions on it. And with that on record, if you could, court reporter, please swear in the gentleman that's about to speak, we'll go forward. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, would you please state your name. MR. PEER: Robert Peer, P-E-E-R. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PEER: On the 27th of August, I wrote a letter to the principal planner pertaining to this subject. I tried to point out that my research through the county records indicated that there was a second parcel within the land description that they're using, the developer is using, that appears to be owned by the county. And I asked for a clarification on that. I did not receive anything until yesterday afternoon when I called the planner to discuss this about where the meeting would be and so forth and so on, and whether there would be a continuance. The only response I've received so far is a one-line answer from the attorney, apparently, that said basically the county has an easement interest only. Now, that may be. But when I went through the research, it indicates that the title to this property was transferred to the county. Page 10 September 21, 2006 And all I'm asking for is clarification, not just saying that this is an easement. I would like some documentation that would say that this is an easement and not county property. And I can't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. I was speaking with Ms. Deselem about this issue yesterday, and I forwarded the concerns raised by the gentleman to Toni Mott, who is in the county's Real Property Department. She is not a county attorney, but she is the head of the real property department. And it was the e-mail received back from Ms. Mott that Mr. Peer is reading from. Certainly between now and the next meeting we can work with Ms. Mott, and I'll have Mr. Peer get in touch with her, and he can get the documentation that he needs. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can make this a whole lot easier. This afternoon at our afternoon meeting, I will give you the document that shows that the county owns that property. And the only -- MR. PEER: That's my point. The county owns it and the developer is putting it in as the county only has an easement. Thus they're counting more land in that than they're entitled to. That's my point. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The point is, there is ownership by the county, and it has been there for the last, I think nine or seven years. But I will give you the document that states that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I think what you're trying to tell us is that they're using a calculation of that additional land that's not theirs in their calculation to create their density for the property. MR. PEER: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that on the record, I would hope that the county staff will look at that before this comes back on Page 11 September 21, 2006 October 5th. And the better time for the debate on that issue will be when the applicant is here as well, on October 5th. N ow that you've pointed this on the record, it certainly will be an issue that will be discussed on October 5th, and we'd hope that you could come back and again either verify your question's been resolved or bring it back up again at that meeting. Will that work for you? MR. PEER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. Thank you very much, sir. MR. PEER: Will I have contact through the people that respond? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. As a matter of fact, after they vote on the continuance and the rest of this, if you could wait a moment, I'll give you my card and chat with you, and also I'll let you how to get in touch with Ms. Mott in the real property department. MR. PEER: That will be fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for bringing that to our attention, especially a little bit ahead of time when we have a couple of weeks at least to try to resolve the issue. There are no other public speakers? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to accept the request for continuance ofPUDZ-2005-AR-8147? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Murray. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Will the applicant receive a transcript of this testimony? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the transcript will be done in that short a period of time. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, but I'll be happy to let the applicant know, or the principal planner will, that this issue came up. Page 12 September 21, 2006 They'll need to know anyway how this is going to be resolved. Thank you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. I just didn't want a notification problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I had a notification on this meeting today. Is there any other discussion? MS. DESELEM: If I may? THE COURT REPORTER: Have you been sworn? MS. DESELEM: No, I have not been sworn. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a discussion on the motion for continuance. MS. DESELEM: What I was going to clarify was that the gentleman's letter was included in your packet. And it has been forwarded to the petitioner's agent, so they are aware of the issue and have been since the end of August, so -- and we have had ongoing discussions; that is, staff and the county attorney's office, so we are aware of the issue and we're working on it-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the gentleman did a good job of synopsizing what he's concerned about. And if it's a matter of showing whether it's ownership or easement and whether or not it's included or not included in the calculation of the density is a simple matter. So maybe before now and October 5th that could be straightened out between you and the applicant to show him how that was done. MS. DESELEM: We will work towards that end, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any discussion further on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, all in those favor, signify by saying aye. Page 13 September 21, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) Motion carries 9-0. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Midney has arrived. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Midney has arrived. How was the traffic out there, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I was in the wrong place, I'm sorry . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, that wraps up our advertised public hearings. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS Is there any old business? (No response.) Item #10 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any new business? Page 14 September 21, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM Public comment on the regular agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seeing none, this -- then we'll look for a motion to adjourn the meeting. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Tuff. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our regular meeting is adjourned.. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:45 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman Page 15